Politics & Government
In Face of New Rules and Legal Challenge, City Council to Continue Support of Redevelopment
Cities across the county are faced with a difficult choice: stop redevelopment or pay a "ransom," said City Manager Gary Brown. A lawsuit challenging the new rules was filed Monday by the League of California Cities and other parties.
The Imperial Beach City Council and city staff broke down the redevelopment agency debate as it relates to IB in a financial workshop last week.
They didn’t seem to find any easy answers, but were resolute in their plan of action.
On the heels of the states most recently passed budget, redevelopment agencies were all but absolved. This leaves cities like Imperial Beach with a difficult choice: stop redevelopment or pay what City Manager Gary Brown referred to as “the ransom amount.”
Find out what's happening in Imperial Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Option one: Imperial Beach stops redevelopment and turns over its assets to a new agency that will follow guidelines set forth in a piece of legislation termed AB 26, Brown said.
Option two: Pay the state approximately $2.8 million dollars in two payments—one in January, the next in May—and continue development, Brown said. In May 2012, the council will need to decide whether to pay the state again to “stay in business” for another year.
Find out what's happening in Imperial Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Overwhelmingly, council members expressed support for redevelopment, or option two.
Council will take a look at a resolution favoring the support of redevelopment at Wednesday's City Council meeting, and Mayor Jim Janney expressed hopes to hear from the public.
“They’re going to have to beat me to the ground before I give up,” said Councilman Jim King.
On July 6, Community Development Department Director Greg Wade presented Imperial Beach’s strategic plan, “,” and the progress made on it.
“Much of what was done [over the last decade] was due to redevelopment,” Brown said.
Many council members cited projects like redevelopment near Ninth Street and Palm Avenue.
“I think it’s the only way we can go,” said Councilwoman Lorie Bragg, who estimated in a July 6 City Council meeting that 75 percent of redevelopment in IB in the past decade was as a result of the IB Redevelopment Agency.
But the situation is far from ideal. Imperial Beach’s budget is already tight and an extra $2.8 million payment wasn’t planned for. If the city officially decided to take redevelopment’s side, the budget will need to adjust.
“Whether we decide to opt in or opt out, we have a $500,000 nut to crack,” said Janney in response to what would be the first payment to the state.
“We have to anticipate we are not going to be able to be in this situation for very long,” he said. “So what does that mean, and to wait a year to have that discussion is inappropriate.”
Ultimately, it means looking for revenue enhancements and possible budget reductions as attorneys explore the legality of the recent move. The California League of Cities, California Redevelopment Association and two cities challenged the state’s actions in a lawsuit filed Monday.
It also means reprioritizing redevelopment projects in order to accomplish as much as possible before it’s time to consider a second payment to the state, Janney said. Or at the very least, get projects into contract.
“We need to prioritize our projects if we are going to make a run for it,” said Councilman Ed Spriggs.
Brown said the state’s recent move violates the “intent and spirit” of recently passed Proposition 22, which stops the state from utilizing local funds.
“It’s a shame that taxpayers have to sue their state government to comply with laws and the state constitution,” Brown said.
