Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Here is transcript from Board discussion of lawsuit against state

Here is the transcript of the discussion by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors today regarding suing the state if it takes budget actions that have been described to us relating to gas taxes and redevelopment projects.  This is the preliminary transcript taken from closed captioning (real time), so it is still raw -- we won't get the certified transcript for several days. 

 

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky:

MOTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO INTRODUCE A 1 MOTION AND MAKE A

2 FINDING THAT THE INFORMATION CAME TO OUR ATTENTION AFTER THE

3 POSTING OF THE AGENDA. AND IT RELATES TO -- WELL, LAST NIGHT

4 THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS REACHED

5 AGREEMENT ON CLOSING A $26 BILLION STATE BUDGET DEFICIT. AMONG

6 OTHER THINGS, THIS BUDGET IS BALANCED ON THE BACKS OF LOCAL

7 GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY CALIFORNIA'S COUNTIES. THIS INCLUDES A

8 STATE PROPOSAL TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY $2 BILLION FROM LOCAL

9 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND POSSIBLY BILLIONS MORE IN ORDER TO

10 FILL ITS BUDGET GAP. MOREOVER, THE BUDGET DEAL PROPOSES TO

11 EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES BY AS MUCH AS 40

12 YEARS WITHOUT MAKING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDING OF BLIGHT.

13 EXTENDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHOUT A FINDING OF BLIGHT

14 IS A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF LAW AND OF THE PRINCIPLES OF

15 REDEVELOPMENT. UNDER THE LAW, COUNTIES AND CITIES ARE

16 PERMITTED TO USE THE TOOL OF REDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO

17 ELIMINATE BLIGHT BY CAPTURING THE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT THAT

18 IS GENERATED IN PROJECT AREAS AS A RESULT OF REDEVELOPMENT

19 EFFORTS AND REINVESTING THEM IN THOSE SAME AREAS. HOWEVER, THE

20 CONSTITUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW PROVIDE THAT ONCE THE

21 COST OF CURING BLIGHT IN A PARTICULAR AREA IS PAID OFF, ABSENT

22 THE NEW FINDING OF BLIGHT, THE TAX INCREMENT IS TO BE RETURNED

23 TO THE LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTIONS. IT IS THIS LEGAL COMPACT

24 THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ARE

25 PROPOSING TO ABROGATE. THE COST OF THIS SCHEME TO LOS ANGELES

July 21, 2009

26

COUNTY GOVERNMENT ALONE OVER THE NEXT 30 1 YEARS COULD BE AS

2 HIGH AS $24 BILLION, WITH THE NET PRESENT VALUE OF 8.2 BILLION

3 AND WE NOW HAVE FIGURES THAT SHOW THAT THE 40-YEAR COST OF

4 THIS WOULD BE $10 BILLION AT NET PRESENT COST. IT SHOULD BE

5 NOTED THAT THE EXTENSION SCHEME EVEN HURTS STATE REVENUES

6 BECAUSE IT BORROWS FROM FUTURE SCHOOL FUNDING SOURCES, AS

7 WELL. IN ADDITION, IT'S APPARENT THAT THE STATE MAY BE

8 PREPARING TO TAKE AS MUCH AS $1.7 BILLION IN HIGHWAY USER TAX

9 ACCOUNT FUNDS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. THESE ARE FUNDS AT

10 WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DEPEND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND

11 MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTIONS.

12 THE TRANSFER OF HUTA FUNDS, THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, WOULD

13 COST LOS ANGELES COUNTY APPROXIMATELY $109 MILLION THIS YEAR

14 AND 82 MILLION NEXT YEAR. IT IS THE COUNTY'S OWN TAXPAYERS WHO

15 HELPED GENERATE THESE FUNDS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION

16 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE

17 THE TARGET OF SUCH A HEIST. FOR THE STATE TO BALANCE ITS

18 BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE STATE RESIDENTS MOST IN NEED OF

19 HELP AND THE COUNTIES THAT SERVE THEM, IT'S FISCALLY RECKLESS

20 AND MORALLY BANKRUPT. STATE SPENDING AND SIGNIFICANT TAX GIVE21

AWAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, HAVE BROUGHT US TO THIS PRESSIE

22 PRESS PIECE. IT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF COUNTIES THAT HELP THE

23 DISABLED, THE ILL, THE IMPOVERISHED, AND IT IS ILLEGAL. LOCAL

24 GOVERNMENTS ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR HAVING DONE A FAR MORE

25 RESPONSIBLE JOB IN MANAGING ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS THAN THE STATE.

July 21, 2009

27

SUPERVISOR KNABE AND I ARE JOINING IN THIS MOTION, 1 AND WE MOVE

2 THAT THE COUNTY COUNSEL BE DIRECTED TO FILE A LEGAL CHALLENGE

3 TO ANY ACTION THAT EXTENDS THE STATE'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

4 WITHOUT MEETING ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL

5 REQUIREMENTS. WE FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COUNTY COUNSEL BE

6 DIRECTED TO FILE A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE WITHHOLDING OF THE

7 HIGHWAY USER TAX ACCOUNT FUNDS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT IF AND

8 WHEN THE FINAL BUDGET DEAL INCLUDES THE WITHHOLDING OF THESE

9 FUNDS AND IF IT DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT LEGAL

10 GROUNDS TO DO SO. AND WE FURTHER MOVE THAT THESE LEGAL FILINGS

11 BE MADE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THESE BY THE

12 LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR. THAT'S THE URGENCY OF THIS. WE

13 DON'T WANT TO BE LATE IN FILING THIS ACTION. SO THAT'S MY

14 MOTION AND THE FINDINGS.

15

16 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, MR. YAROSLAVSKY. I'LL SECOND

17 THAT. THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HAVE OBVIOUSLY IS THE MOTION

18 THAT WE PUT TOGETHER ADDRESSES MANY OF THE ISSUES, BUT ANOTHER

19 CONCERN INSIDE OF ALL THIS IS THE POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF THE

20 BUDGET WITH THESE PROVISIONS, BUT ALSO A POISON PILL OF SOME

21 SORT INSIDE THERE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE PROVISIONS OF PROP 1

22 A OR THE TAKING OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS THAT BASICALLY MAKES

23 US LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS FOR PURSUING. SO WE'RE WATCHING THIS

24 VERY CLOSELY. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS YET. AND

25 WHATEVER THE BIG 5 HAS COME UP WITH HAS TO GO THROUGH BOTH

July 21, 2009

28

HOUSES. SO WE WILL BE VERY VIGILANT IN THAT 1 BUT JUST WANT TO

2 BE PREPARED. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY. THE CHAIR WILL

3 SECOND. SUPERVISOR MOLINA?

4

5 SUP. MOLINA: THERE IS A PROBLEM TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OPENLY.

6 AND I GUESS I'D LIKE SOME INFORMATION BECAUSE I WANT TO

7 UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. NOTHING ANY OF US MAY

8 OR MAY NOT KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I GUESS THAT THEY ARE

9 WAITING FOR US TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT? IS THAT PART OF THE GAME

10 HERE?

11

12 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: NOT UNTIL ADOPTED, UNTIL THE GOVERNOR

13 SIGNS IT, BUT, YES, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE POISON PILL IS IN

14 THERE.

15

16 SPEAKER: WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE DETAILS YET IN BLACK AND

17 WHITE, BUT THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD ARE: YES, WE WOULD -- THEY

18 ANTICIPATE US FILING A LAWSUIT.

19

20 SUP. MOLINA: LET ME UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY

21 UNDERSTAND THE SCHEME THAT'S GOING ON TO THEIR BENEFIT.

22 BECAUSE WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS THAT THEY WOULD LEGALLY PERMIT

23 THE PRESENT CITIES THAT HAVE THESE KINDS OF REDEVELOPMENT

24 ARRANGEMENTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, MOUs OR

25 ARRANGEMENTS, TO EXTEND THEIR PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH THEY

July 21, 2009

29

CARRY OUT REDEVELOPMENT IN THE BLIGHTED 1 AREAS, IS THAT

2 CORRECT?

3

4 ATTY. MOUTRIE: THAT'S CORRECT.

5

6 SPEAKER:COUNSEL COUNSEL THAT'. THESE ARE CALLED PLANS AND THEY

7 ARE IN A LOCAL CITY.

8

9 SUP. MOLINA: AND WHAT THAT DOES IS CONTINUES TO WITHHOLD

10 REVENUE FOR US.

11

12 SPEAKER: VERY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE RETURN.

13

14 SUP. MOLINA: RIGHT. WITH THE NEXT SO MANY YEARS. DOES IT

15 EXPAND THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE OTHER PORTIONS OF THESE

16 PLANS, TO INCLUDE OTHER THAN NONBLIGHTED AREAS? AS MANY OF THE

17 CITIES ARE NOW TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO GO AROUND BLIGHT. I

18 MEAN, SOME OF THE CITIES HAVE INCLUDED THEIR ENTIRE CITY TO BE

19 PART OF THE PLAN SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A LONGER PERIOD OF

20 TIME.

21

22 SPEAKER: NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS FOCUSED ON EXISTING

23 PROJECTS.

24

July 21, 2009

30

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: BUT THE FINDING OF BLIGHT 1 DOES NOT NEED TO

2 BE MADE IN THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING AREA.

3

4 SPEAKER: EXISTING LAW.

5

6 SUP. MOLINA: SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE REDEVELOPED THE ENTIRE

7 AREA AND STILL CONSIDER IT "MORE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE"

8 EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE BLIGHTED.

9

10 SPEAKER: PRECISELY. THERE ARE MANY AREAS WHERE THE BLIGHT IS

11 CURED. AND THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT IN PRESENT LAW TO SHOW

12 THAT THAT IS AREA WAS STILL BLIGHTED IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE

13 TIME. SO THIS IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSES TO OVERRIDE.

14

15 SUP. MOLINA: SO IN THAT SCENARIO, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE

16 STATE GETS TO HELP THIS DEFICIT.

17

18 SPEAKER: WE DON'T, AGAIN, HAVE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE, BUT THE

19 ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE AGENCY WHICH CHOOSES TO EXTEND ITS

20 PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TYPICALLY BOND AGAINST THAT RIGHT

21 AND TURN OVER SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE STATE, WHETHER IN A

22 LUMP SUM OR THROUGH PROGRESS PAYMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.

23 SO, IN EFFECT, TO SHARE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES THAT THE

24 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO DIVERT FROM

25 CITIES, COUNTIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

July 21, 2009

31

1

2 SUP. MOLINA: SO, THEN, IS THIS A VOLUNTARY KIND OF THING THAT

3 CRAS COULD DO? AND THAT IS TO BOND ADDITIONAL FUTURE YEARS?

4 AND THEN WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS TAKE THAT MONEY AND GIVE IT TO

5 THE STATE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS EXTENSION? IS THAT

6 THE TRADE?

7

8 SPEAKER: THAT'S OUR ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WILL BE PART OF THE

9 DEAL. THAT IS WHAT WE EXPECT. WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THE

10 DETAILS.

11

12 SUP. MOLINA: AND SO WHEN WE FILE THIS POTENTIAL SUIT, WHICH I

13 AGREE WE SHOULD, IS IT BASED ON WHAT ASPECT? OF THE CURRENT

14 CRA LAW THAT YOU MUST HAVE A BLIGHTED AREA? THAT THESE PLANS

15 NEED TO BE APPROVED "BY THE COUNTY"? ARE THEY TOSSING OUT ALL

16 ASPECTS OF REDEVELOPMENT LAWS? IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING?

17

18 SPEAKER: THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS

19 INCONSISTENT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WHICH AUTHORIZES

20 REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH DECLARES THAT WHEN YOU

21 HAVE PAID OFF THE COST OF CURING BLIGHT, THE FUNDS THAT WERE

22 USED FOR THAT PURPOSE RETURN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THAT'S A

23 PRINCIPLE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN IN LITIGATION AND SUCCESSFULLY

24 LITIGATED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES LAST

25 YEAR. SECONDLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THESE EXTENSIONS ARE A CLEAR

July 21, 2009

32

VIOLATION OF PROPOSITION 1 A, THE PROTECTION 1 OF LOCAL

2 GOVERNMENT REVENUES ACT. SO WE THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO FAIRLY

3 STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT

4 OVERRIDE BY THIS SCHEME.

5

6 SUP. MOLINA: AND IN THE PRESENT PROPOSAL, AND I'M NOT SURE OF

7 ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSAL, DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE

8 RIGHT NOW A BORROWING AGAINST 1 A, WHICH IS PERMITTED? IT DOES

9 NOT?

10

11 SPEAKER: I DON'T HAVE THAT DETAIL. I'M SORRY. I TAKE THAT

12 BACK. AS WE UNDERSTAND THIS STRUCTURE --

13

14 SUP. MOLINA: BECAUSE THEY'RE PERMITTED TO BORROW, CORRECT?

15

16 SPEAKER: THE PROP 1 A CONTAINS A PERMITTED BORROWING. OUR

17 UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAPPEN TO

18 CHALLENGE THIS SCHEME SUCCESSFULLY, IT WOULD THEN TRIGGER A

19 PROPOSITION 1 A BORROWING.

20

21 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THAT'S THE POISON PILL I'M TALKING

22 ABOUT.

23

24 SUP. MOLINA: THIS IS JUST A TAKING.

25

July 21, 2009

33

SPEAKER: IT'S 1 A COVER FOR --

2

3 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: AND MAKE US LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS. BY

4 SUING, IT TRIGGERS THE TAKING OF PROP 1 A AND THE HUTA FUNDS,

5 AND WE'RE IN ESSENCE, BECAUSE WE SUED, THEY CAN SAY -- THE

6 COUNTY, IT WON'T JUST BE US, BUT THEY CAN SAY THE COUNT DIZ

7 THIS. IT'S THEIR COVER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH

8 THE ISSUE.

9

10 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THERE'S SOME LEGISLATORS, GLORIA, IF I CAN

11 JUST INTERJECT, THERE ARE SOME LEGISLATORS WHO DON'T WANT TO

12 BE RECORDED AS HAVING TO TAKE LOCAL FUNDS USING PROP A, AND

13 THIS IS THE SCHEME THEY HAVE DEVISED. THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING

14 TO GET CHALLENGED. THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE. AND SO

15 THEY TIED THIS POISON PILL, THAT IF THEY DO LOSE THE LAWSUIT

16 ON THE REDEVELOPMENT, IT TRIGGERS THE PROP 1 A BORROWING. AND

17 SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO DON'T WANT TO BE RECORDED AS

18 VOTING FOR IT CAN SAY WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

19 ABSOLUTELY.

20

21 SUP. MOLINA: IT TRIGGERS A BORROWING MECHANISM FROM 1 A, OR

22 TAKING?

23

24 SPEAKER: BORROWING. THEY MUST REPAY THOSE FUNDS EVENTUALLY TO

25 COUNTIES.

July 21, 2009

34

1

2 SUP. MOLINA: SO IS THAT CONDITIONED IN THIS PRO POOZ POSAL, DO

3 YOU THINK?

4

5 SPEAKER: YES, THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. YAROSLAVSKYIANS AND I

6 WAS ON THE PHONE UNTIL MIDNIGHT LAST NIGHT WITH FOLKS WHO WERE

7 KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT THIS PACKAGE IS. AND THE TRIGGER

8 LANGUAGE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE IN THERE.

9

10 SUP. MOLINA: AND IN THIS PROCESS, WE'VE -- RIGHT NOW, THERE

11 ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT GET MADE WHOLE, RIGHT? IS IT JUST THE

12 SCHOOLS? THERE WILL BE OTHER AREAS THAT WILL BE HURT BY IT

13 BESIDE THE COUNTY, RIGHT?

14

15 SPEAKER: CORRECT. CERTAIN SPECIAL DISTRICTS. IT'S PRINCIPALLY

16 COUNTIES, STRICTLY SPEAKING, LOCAL CITIES WILL SEE DIMINISHED

17 DOLLARS. BUT OF COURSE THOSE ARE TYPICALLY THE SPONSORS OF

18 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, SO THERE'S A BENEFIT THAT THEY MAY TIE

19 UP THEIR FUNDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE IN

20 CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO IT'S A COMPLICATED COST BENEFIT.

21

22 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BUT THE EXTENSION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT

23 AGENCY ALSO WOULD BE A TAKING FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

24

25 SPEAKER: IT WOULD.

July 21, 2009

35

1

2 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: IT WOULDN'T BE EXEMPTED.

3

4 SPEAKER: ON THE CONTRARY. IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS TO

5 STATE FUNDING OVER THE -- IN THE FUTURE YEARS, WHEN THIS

6 SCHOOL FUNDING WOULD OTHERWISE BE RESTORED. SO, YES, LOCAL

7 SCHOOL FUNDING WILL BE PREJUDICED.

8

9 SUP. MOLINA: WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BEING A POLITICIAN

10 MYSELF, IS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL VALUE TO ANYBODY

11 TO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY THAT MAKES NO SENSE, THAT HAS A LARGER

12 IMPACT IN THE LONG RUN THAN THE SIMPLE BORROWING MECHANISM

13 THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO THAT'S THE PART THAT I DON'T -- I

14 THOUGHT THIS WAS IN ADDITION TO A BORROWING MECHANISM. IN

15 OTHER WORDS, SO MUCH OF THE BUDGET WAS GOING TO BE CONTAINED

16 ON BORROWING SO MUCH FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE

17 SAYING -- AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. SO RIGHT

18 NOW, THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE A BORROWING? IT

19 DOES?

20

21 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: NO. JUST A TAKING. NOT A BORROWING.

22

23 SUP. MOLINA: SO THAT'S WHAT THEY SUBSTITUTED FOR THIS. THANK

24 YOU.

25

July 21, 2009

36

C.E.O. FUJIOKA: BUT ONCE WE FILED A 1 LAWSUIT AND WE'RE

2 SUCCESSFUL, THEN IT WILL SWITCH TO THE BORROWING.

3

4 SUP. MOLINA: I UNDERSTAND. AND WHY NOT JUST DO IT CLEANER? I

5 DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME GOING ON AND WHAT VALUE THAT HAS TO

6 ANY POLITICIAN. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS -- AND I HAVE ONE OF THE

7 CITIES THAT CREATED REDEVELOPMENT LAWS, CITY OF INDUSTRY. AND

8 AS WE ALL KNOW, THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UTILIZING THE WHOLE

9 CITY AS A REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. AND THEY HAVE NOT WANTED TO

10 FOLLOW THE RULES FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME,

11 UNFORTUNATELY. AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS -- IT'S BAD

12 ENOUGH THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THINGS DONE IN SACRAMENTO. BUT

13 WHEN YOU UNDERTAKE KIND OF CORRUPT MECHANISMS LIKE THIS, IT

14 REALLY UNDERMINES IT ALL. AND IT PUTS US -- INSTEAD OF

15 BORROWING WOULD HAVE BEEN A SENSIBLE SOLUTION. I MEAN WE WOULD

16 HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOUGH FOR US. AND

17 WE ARE PROBABLY IN THE END OF THE DAY GOING TO GO THERE. BUT

18 WHY GO THROUGH THIS KIND OF MECHANISM? IT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY

19 KIND OF POLITICAL COVER FOR ANYBODY THAT I COULD POSSIBLY

20 UNDERSTAND OTHER THAN FEEDING INTO A SYSTEM THAT CAN BE VERY,

21 VERY CORRUPTING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FOR CITIES. I MEAN, SOME

22 OF THESE CITIES UNDERTAKE UNBELIEVABLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

23 THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD IN THE FUTURE THAT DON'T MAKE THE MONEY

24 THAT THEY THINK ARE GOING TO MAKE, THAT DON'T EVEN REMOVE THE

25 BLIGHT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THEY CREATE MORE BLIGHT ALONG

July 21, 2009

37

THE WAY. THEN I THINK THAT THAT, 1 IF NOTHING ELSE,

2 REDEVELOPMENT LAWS SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED IN MANY AREAS

3 INSTEAD OF LOOSENED UP LIKE THIS. I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

4 A REAL DISADVANTAGE IN THE LONG RUN SHOULD THE COURTS PERMIT

5 THIS TO HAPPEN. WELL, I THINK IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION

6 THAT WE'RE IN. BUT YOU THINK THEY'D BE MAKING BETTER DECISIONS

7 THAN THAT.

8

9 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: I THINK THEY WERE HOPING THAT WE DIDN'T

10 DISCOVER THE POISON PILL UNTIL AFTERWARDS, UNTIL THE

11 LEGISLATION WAS SIGNED AND THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED AND SIGNED

12 BY THE GOVERNOR. AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DISCUSSION AHEAD OF TIME,

13 I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. YOU THOUGHT THAT THEY'D BE A LITTLE

14 MORE UP FRONT ON HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE WE

15 ALL KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN A STATE OF DISARRAY UP THERE. BUT

16 THEY'RE HURTING, AS WELL, TOO. AND WE'VE SAID FROM THE VERY

17 BEGINNING WE DON'T MIND BEING A PARTNER, BUT LOOK AT THINGS

18 LEGITIMATELY. MAYBE THERE'S THINGS THEY CAN PASS THROUGH THAT

19 WE CAN DO DIRECTLY AND CUT BACK ON THE SIZE AND SCOPE AND COST

20 OF STATE GOVERNMENT.

21

22 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND THE CITY OF INDUSTRY IS BEHIND PART OF

23 THIS EXTENSION OF THE CITY OF INDUSTRY PROPOSAL. I THINK WE

24 ALL KNOW.

25

July 21, 2009

38

SUP. MOLINA: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY 1 COULD COULD DOUGH.

2 THE CITY OF INDUSTRY IS ALREADY GOING TO BE PROVIDING ALL THE

3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, POTENTIALLY FOR THE STADIUM. OTHER THAN

4 OUT-AND-OUT FINANCING IT.

5

6 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS

7 HAS GONE BAY BEYOND WHAT THE CITY OF INDUSTRY WANTED. IT'S WAY

8 BEYOND WHAT THE CITY OF INDUSTRY. THEY WERE JUST LOOKING FOR

9 STRICTLY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME.

10

11 SUP. MOLINA: SOMETHING SIMPLE.

12

13 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

14

15 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THEY GOT MORE THAN THEY BARGAINED FOR.

16

17 SUP. ANTONOVICH: QUESTION, MR. FUJIOKA? HOW DOES THIS IMPACT

18 THE FIRE DISTRICTS' FUNDS? BECAUSE THEIR FUNDING IS FROM A

19 SPECIAL DISTRICT.

20

21 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: IT WILL HAVE A DEFINITE IMPACT ON OUR FIRE

22 DISTRICTS TO THE EXTENT WE DON'T HAVE THAT DETAIL RIGHT NOW.

23 ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE

24 GOVERNOR OF THE BIG FIVE IS THAT THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN

25 ESSENTIALLY EMBARGOED. AND SO UNTIL WE GET THE DETAIL FROM

July 21, 2009

39

SACRAMENTO -- BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE SOME 1 OF THE LEGISLATORS

2 EVEN HAVE --

3

4 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT UNTIL THIS MORNING.

5

6 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING EVERY POSSIBLE RESOURCE

7 WE HAVE TO GET THE INFORMATION. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT HAS BEEN

8 EMBARGOED. BUT GIVEN THAT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT LIVES ON

9 PROPERTY TAXES, IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT

10 IMPACT.

11

12 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BUT I HEARD YESTERDAY, WITH SOME FOLKS

13 THAT HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT UP THERE, THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING THE

14 HAULS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT MAY GET A LITTLE BIT

15 BETTER DEAL THAN THE REST OF US. WE'LL SEE.

16

17 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WE STILL NEED THAT DETAIL.

18

19 SUP. ANTONOVICH: WHAT IS THEIR TIMELINE TO ALLOW THOSE

20 IMPACTED BY THEIR DECISIONS THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE

21 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO THE VOTE?

22

23 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WE THINK INFORMATION WILL COME OUT IF NOT LATE

24 TODAY, EARLY TOMORROW. THE VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR AT LEAST, TO

25 THE EXTENT WE KNOW, SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY. AND SO OUR STAFF

July 21, 2009

40

IN SACRAMENTO AND STAFF HERE -- AND 1 I'M SURE FROM YOUR

2 RESPECTIVE OFFICES, WE'RE CALLING EVERY CONTACT WE HAVE TO GET

3 INFORMATION. AND WE'VE BEEN CALLING CONSTANTLY THROUGHOUT

4 TODAY. AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOMETHING BY TONIGHT. VERY

5 FRUSTRATING. THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BUDGET THAT HAVE

6 EQUALLY STRONG IMPACTS TO US. AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM,

7 I'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

8

9 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION,

10 BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD THROUGH THIS MORNING, THAT THE

11 REDEVELOPMENT PIECE AND THE EXTENSION TO 40 YEARS AND THE

12 TRIGGER LANGUAGE IS PART OF THE PACKAGE.

13

14 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: YES. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

15

16 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO I MOVE IT.

17

18 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BEEN MOVED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY.

19 THE CHAIR WILL SECOND. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

20

21 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: PICK UP ITEM NO. 4, MR. ANTONOVICH'S MOTION

22 WITH ME.

No comments: