HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 15-7589-Opposing Assembly Bill 113-Amendment to State Redevelopment Dissolution Law• i, • i i 1
•' 1 f 14owdr • JJMW
WHEREAS, in 2011 the Legislature enacted AB 1X 26 which dissolved redevelopment
agencies formed under the Community Redevelopment Law; and,
WHEREAS, in 2012 the Legislature amended AB 1X 26 by enacting AB 1484 which
required redevelopment agencies to make three payments for the benefit of taxing entities; and,
WHEREAS, AB 1484 included certain statutory provisions that were intended to provide
incentives for the prompt and accurate submittal of these three payments by the successor
agencies to the former redevelopment agencies; and,
WHEREAS, one of these incentives allowed a successor agency's oversight board to
approve the reinstatement of loan agreements, including the payment of accrued interest,
between the city or county and the former redevelopment agency which had previously had
been made unlawful by the terms of AB 1X 26; and,
WHEREAS, subsequent to the enactment of AB 1484, approximately 85% of successor
agencies made the three payments required by AB 1484 and received Findings of Completion;
and,
WHEREAS, the oversight boards of many of these successor agencies approved the
reinstatement of loan agreements at the interest rate provided for in AB 1484 only to have those
actions disapproved by the Department of Finance; and,
WHEREAS, the courts of appeal have rejected the Department of Finance's
interpretation of the phrase "loan agreement" and method of calculating the interest rate
(Watsonville and Glendale); and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Finance, in AB 113, is attempting to reverse and revise
these key provisions of the dissolution laws offered to local agencies as incentives for making
the required payments and resolving other issues with the Department of Finance; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to undoing the promises made to local agencies in AB 1484, AB
113 contains several provisions that would tip the balance on matters of interpretation of
dissolution laws even further by exempting the Department of Finance from the Administrative
Procedures Act and eliminating language in the law that was previously agreed to by the
Department of Finance and the Legislature in 2012 that enabled successor agencies to fund
legal representation in the only due process forum where Department of Finance staff decisions
could be reviewed (Sacramento County Superior Court).
NOW, THEREFORE, • OF OF DOWNEY DOES
RESOLVE HEREBY • •
SECTION 1. As locally elected legislators, we are committed to abiding by the promises
we make. We urge the State Legislature to do the same by defeating AB 113 which breaks the
promises the Legislature made to local agencies in the enactment of AB 1484.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2 11
SECTION 2. One of the purposes of our court system is to adjudicate the meaning and
application of statutory enactments. We urge the State Legislature to accept the decisions of the
courts of appeal in the Watsonville (definition of "loan agreement ") and Glendale (methodology
for calculating interest rate) and defeat AB 113, which seeks to reverse both of these court
decisions.
SECTION 3. We further urge the State Legislature to defeat AB 113 because it unfairly
denies access to the court system for successor agencies by disallowing funding for legal
representation.
SECTION 4. AB 113, at minimum, jeopardizes the repayment of a $192,500
Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Downey and its Successor Agency, which is not
offset by the "streamlining" benefits suggested in the legislation.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a Regular Meeting held on the 25th day of August, 2015, by the following
vote, to wit: