Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2009-37 opposing the State’s plan to utilize the Council/Agency Meeting Held: Lw Deferred/Continued to: A rovedConditio e _ enied C C e Sig a re Council Meeting Date: 7/6/2009 Department ID Number: AD 09-015 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councii Members, Honorable Chairman and Members of the Agency SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Administra ecutive Director PREPARED BY: Patricia Dapkus, Administrative nalyst, Sr. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE STATE'S PROPOSAL TO TAKE HIGHWAY USER TAX ACCOUNT AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS TO BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET Statement of Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Approval of a Resolution opposing the State's proposal to take Highway User Tax Account and Redevelopment Agency Funds to balance the State budget. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve Resolution 2009-37 A Joint Resolution of the City and Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach Authorizing the City Attorney/Redevelopment Agency General Counsel to Cooperate with the League of California Cities, the California Redevelopment Association, other Cities and Counties in Litigation Challenging the Constitutionality of Any Seizure by the State Government of the City's Street Maintenance and Redevelopment Funds " Alternative Action(s): Do not make the approve the above Resolution and provide other direction to staff. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/6/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 09-015 Analysis: Recent budget discussions by the state Legislature and by the Governor have included proposals to balance the state budget by taking Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds from cities and counties in order to balance the State's budget. Specifically, the Governor's FY 2009-10 budget proposed transferring $1 billion of the local gas taxes and weight fees to the state general fund, and over $700 million in local gas taxes permanently in future years. Such a loss of local revenue would immediately jeopardize the ability of the city to maintain the city's streets, bridges, traffic signals, streetlights, sidewalks and related traffic safety facilities for the use of the public. Since the early 1990s?the state government of California has seized over $10 billion of city property tax revenues statewide, now amounting to over $900 million each year, to fund the state budget even after deducting public safety program payments to cities by the state. The loss of almost all of the city's gas tax funds will seriously compromise the city's ability to perform critical traffic safety related street maintenance, including, but not limited to, drastically curtailing patching, resurfacing, street lighting/traffic signal maintenance, payment of electricity costs for street lights and signals, bridge maintenance and repair, sidewalk and curb ramp maintenance and repair, and more. Cities and counties are responsible for maintaining 81% of the state road network while the. state directly maintains just 8%. Ongoing street maintenance is a significant public safety concern, and a city's failure to maintain its street pavement (potholes filling, sealing, overlays, etc.), traffic signals, signs, and street lights has a direct correlation to traffic accidents, injuries and deaths. Additionally, since the early 1990s)the state government of California has seized $1.04 billion of redevelopment tax increment statewide, and the Governor and legislature are now considering seizing $350 million each year for three years beginning in the current fiscal year. On April 30, 20091in the case of CRA v. Genest, the Sacramento Superior Court found similar efforts by the State to seize redevelopment tax increment for the state general fund to be in direct violation of Article XVI, Section 16 of the State Constitution, added by the voters in 1952 as Proposition 18, which requires that tax increment be used exclusively for the benefit of redevelopment project areas. The current economic crisis has placed cities under incredible financial pressure and caused us to make painful budget cuts, decreasing maintenance and operations of public facilities, and reductions in direct services in order to keep spending in line with declining revenues. -2- 6/30/2009 9:59 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/6/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 09-015 If the state takes HUTA funds from cities and counties, the direct impact on the City of Huntington Beach would be a loss of$3,266,297. Added to that is the amount the state is considering taking from the City's Redevelopment Agency, $1,111,775. The combined lost revenue to the City and Redevelopment Agency would be $4,378,072. In both Proposition 5 in 1974 and Proposition 2 in 1998tthe voters of our state overwhelmingly imposed restriction on the state's ability to do what the Governor has proposed, and we believe that any effort to divert the local share of the gas tax or redevelopment agency funds would violate the state constitution and the will of the voters. Environmental Status: N/A Strategic Goal: Approval of this action applies to all of the following strategic goals: • Maintain and enhance our financial reserves • Maintain, improve and obtain funding for public improvements • Maintain and enhance public safety • Enhance economic development Attachment(s): tY 'Nuiliber No. 13 ptj6h 1 Resolution 2009-37 " A Joint Resolution of the City and Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach Authorizing the City Attorney/Redevelopment Agency General Counsel to Cooperate with the League of California Cities, the California Redevelopment " Association, other Cities and Counties in Litigation Challenging the Constitutionality of Any Seizure by the State Government of the City Street Maintenance and Redevelopment Funds"' -3- 6/29/2009 5:57 PM A TTACHMENT # 1,:�-, RESOLUTION NO. 2009-37 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL TO COOPERATE WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY SEIZURE BY STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY'S STREET MAINTENANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS WHEREAS,the current economic crisis has placed cities under incredible financial pressure and caused them to make painful budget cuts, including layoffs and furloughs of city workers, decreasing maintenance and operations of public facilities, and reductions in direct services to keep spending in line with declining revenues; and Since the early 1990s the state government of California has seized over$10 billion of city property tax revenues statewide, now amounting to over$900 million each year to fund the state budget even after deducting public safety program payments to cities by the state; and Since the early 1990s the state government also has seized $1.04 billion of redevelopment tax increment statewide, and the Governor and Legislature are now considering seizing$350 million each year for three years, beginning in the current fiscal year; and On April 30, 2009, in the case of CRA v. Genest,the Sacramento Superior Court found similar efforts by the State to seize redevelopment tax increment for the state general fund to be in direct violation of Article XVI, Section 16 of the State Constitution, added by the voters in 1952 as Proposition 18,which requires that tax increment be used exclusively for the benefit of redevelopment project areas; and In his proposed FY 2009-10 budget the Governor has proposed transferring $1 billion of local gas taxes and weight fees to the state general fund to balance the state budget, and over $700 million in local gas taxes permanently in future years, immediately jeopardizing the ability of the City to maintain the City's streets, bridges, traffic signals, streetlights, sidewalks and related traffic safety facilities for the use of the motoring public; and The loss of almost all of cities' gas tax funds will seriously compromise cities' ability to perform critical traffic safety related street maintenance, possibly including, but not limited to, drastically curtailing patching, resurfacing, street lighting/traffic signal maintenance, payment of electricity costs for street lights and signals, bridge maintenance and repair, sidewalk and curb ramp maintenance and repair, and more; and 09-2144/35623 1 Cities and counties maintain 81% of the state road network while the state directly maintains just 8%and according to a recent statewide needs assessments on a scale of zero (failed)to 100(excellent),the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 68, or"at risk;" and In both Proposition 5 in 1974 and Proposition 2 in 1998 the voters of our state overwhelmingly imposed restrictions on the state's ability to do what the Governor has proposed and the Legislature is considering, and any effort to permanently diver the local share of the gas tax would violate the state constitution and the will of the voters. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors of the City of Huntington Beach do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Attomey/Redevelopment Agency General Counsel is directed to take all necessary steps to cooperate with the League of California Cities, California Redevelopment Association, other cities, counties and redevelopment agencies in supporting litigation against the state of California if the legislature enacts and the governor signs into law legislation that unconstitutionally diverts the redevelopment tax increment and the City's share of funding from the Highway Users Tax Account(HUTA), also known as the "gas tax,"to fund the state general fund; and 2. The City Administrator/Agency Executive Director shall send this resolution with an accompanying letter from the mayor/agency chair to the Governor and each of the city's state legislators, informing them in the clearest of terms of the City's adamant resolve to oppose any effort to frustrate the will of the electorate as expressed in Proposition 18 (1952), Proposition 5 (1974) and Proposition 2 (1998) concerning the proper use and allocation of the redevelopment tax increment and the gas tax; and ' California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment,Nichols Consulting Engineers,Chtd.(2008), sponsored by the League of California Cities,California State Association of Counties and County Engineers Association of California. 09-2144/35623 2 3. A copy of this Resolution shall be sent by the City Administrator/Agency Executive Director to the League of California Cities, the California Redevelopment Association, the local chamber of commerce, and other community groups whose members are affected by this proposal to divert funds from vital local services and projects. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 t h day of July , 20 o9 0 ay /Chairman REVIEWS APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A i s ator/ C' Atto ey gency Gen a ounsel v ram, Execu ve Director INITIATED A D APPROVED: Dp rector of-cono D "Y-N mehnt� _ epu y xecu ive i c o 09-2144/35623 3 Res. No. 2009-37 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: None ABSENT: Green, Hardy ABSTAIN: None ity Clerk and ex-offi io Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution Opposing the State Taking HUTA and/or RDA Funds COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 6, 2009 STAI"US µ RCA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not A plicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorne ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable Ex-PLANATIONF I I TT T _... , REVIEINE RETURNED F RVUARQE® Administrative Staff ) ( ) Deputy City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator Initial ( ( ) City Clerk EXPL.ANATIOIV FOR RETURN'OF ITEM: ® • RCA Author: