Pacifica reigns unchallenged as a county-wide leader in--drum roll---- mismanagement of redevelopment agency and money loser.
Any explanation from Council?
Submitted by Mark Stechbart

Money at work: Foster City’s
Miramar
Apartments, left, is a city-funded project that would not have been
built without redevelopment funding. (Mike Koozmin/The Examiner)
Cities
across San Mateo County are analyzing whether their redevelopment
agencies can afford the annual payments mandated by new state laws or
whether they will be forced to close.
Each city is handling things differently, but Foster City’s Redevelopment Agency looks sure to perish.
Click the picture for more.
Two
new state laws order these agencies to surrender $1.7 billion in 2012,
and $400 million each year after that. Cities are hoping these changes
will be derailed by a planned lawsuit against the state, but if
redevelopment agencies fail, they must surrender the funds starting in
January.
“It’s essentially holding a gun to the redevelopment
agencies’ head saying, ‘We’ll eliminate all of you, but if you want to
give money to us voluntarily, you can stay in business,’” said Kathy
Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the
California Redevelopment Association.
Established
in the 1970s, redevelopment agencies funnel property taxes into
development projects in areas where private investors are reluctant to
spend.
Foster City’s agency, which has financed major projects over three decades, including the 20-story
Metro Center
Tower, would owe $6.2 million next year and $1.5 million every year
thereafter. But because it recently closed its largest redevelopment
area, it only expects revenues of $825,000 next year, Finance Director
Steve Toler said.
Yet the new legislation is indifferent to
that, and bases payments on 2008 and 2009 property tax revenues —
before the development zone closed, and when property tax revenues were
much higher.
Although the agency expects to complete two
ongoing projects — Miramar Apartments and Marlin Cover Shopping Center —
it will have to give up on plans to develop a 15-acre site next to
city hall, a big affordable housing development for seniors and upgrades to two aging shopping centers.
Other cities are less certain of their futures, although the pictures are rosier than in
Foster City. In
San Mateo,
Community Development Director Lisa Grote said some downtown projects
in the shoreline area might be canceled, while partly funded projects
might not go through.
“We are assessing which projects we would
need to defund to make that payment,” Grote said. The state’s ruling
would leave San Mateo’s agency with just $300,000 a year for
nonhousing-related projects, she noted.
Redwood City Mayor Jeff Ira said the reforms could cut funding for downtown police patrols, which get redevelopment money.
“It puts everything in limbo,” Ira said.
If
the agency is to survive, it may need infusions from the city’s
reserves or budget amendments, the latter of which is “probably more
likely,” Ira said.
Belmont
Finance Director Thomas Fil noted that if redevelopment agencies
cannot afford payments to the state, they may seek life support from
their cities or other lenders.
In
Millbrae, a number of planned redevelopment projects look likely to get the boot.
“There
are long-term projects that we would appreciate the opportunity to use
RDA funding to support,” City Attorney Joan Cafsman said. That
particularly includes projects around Millbrae’s BART station, which
she said are now on hold.
South San Francisco city manager Barry Nagel said that his city is “still analyzing impacts and options at this time.”
nkyriakou@sfexmainer.com
Law changes may force Belmont to pull plug on job-creation plans
Belmont
officials say their efforts to develop a greater sense of community
and create thousands of new jobs could be lost to changes to state law
regarding city redevelopment agencies.
Shoreway Place Project — a
300,000-square-foot development along U.S. Highway 101 that was to
include two hotels, an office building and a 1,200-spot parking garage —
was supposed to create about 1,000 jobs, but that’s no longer certain.
The city has a negotiating agreement with Bohannon Development, a
company run by Scott Bohannon — the man who last week landed his Cessna
on Interstate 280.
“There’s some glimmer of hope that the
project will be able to proceed because we entered into it prior to
June 29,” City Manager Greg Scoles said.
According to John
Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Agency,
legislation permits redevelopment agencies to keep funding projects to
which they are legally obligated. But the complicated process typical
of developments such as Shoreway makes it unclear whether those
obligations have been met.
Officials also hope that SunEdison’s
pledge to open a 400- to 500-job solar plant in Belmont won’t be
threatened. The project is slotted to receive “marginal investment from
redevelopment,” Scoles said.
Finance Director Thomas Fil said the Belmont Redevelopment Agency faces annual payments to the state that it cannot afford.
Fil
said the agency, which earned $8.5 million last year, can afford its
2012 $2.3 million payment to the state, but not the subsequent annual
payments of $500,000. So the city is considering options such as
loaning money to the agency to keep it alive, he said.
Other threatened Belmont projects include:
- The Firehouse Square development, currently a vacant building on El Camino Real.
- Emmett’s Place, which occupies a block of El Camino Real.
- Belmont Station, near the railroad.
- A development at the corner of Hill Street and El Camino Real.
— Niko Kyriakou
Read more at the
San Francisco Examiner:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/peninsula/2011/07/state-reform-strips-redevelopment-funds-san-mateo-county-cities#ixzz1RiyfxOPx