Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 CON Redevelopment Agencies San Diego Cities - Redevelopment LegislationMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING LEGISLATION ON ELIMINATION OR REFORM OF REDEVELOPMENT This Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Legislation on Elimination and/or Reform of Redevelopment ("MOU") is entered into as of this day of 2011 by and between the following cities located in San Diego County, California: Carlsbad; Chula Vista; Coronado; El Cajon; Escondido; Imperial Beach; La Mesa; Lemon Grove; National City; Oceanside; Poway; San Diego, San Marcos; Santee; Solana Beach, and Vista, and the redevelopment agencies formed by each of the listed Cities (individually, "RDA" and collectively, "RDAs") with regard to the following: RECITALS A. Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, located at California Health & Safety Code section 33000, et seq. ("CRL"), sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) cities located in San Diego County ("individually, "City" and collectively, "Cities") have formed redevelopment agencies, duly operating under the rights and obligations set forth in the CRL. B. The RDAs have provided significant funding for affordable housing and economic development projects, and have revitalized communities and eliminated blight within the Cities by investing in local infrastructure and schools throughout the San Diego County region for decades. C. When the State of California ("State") has been unable to balance its budget, it has raided the coffers of redevelopment agencies throughout California through such legislation as ABX4-26 (2009), which the RDAs and their counterpart agencies believe is a violation of the property tax allocation and tax increment protections set forth in Article XVI § 16 of the California Constitution ("Article XVI § 16"), and also constitutes a violation of Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7) of the California Constitution ("Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7)"), which was adopted pursuant to a vote of the people in November of 2010, of Article XIIIA § 1(a) of the California Constitution ("Article XIIIA § 1(a)"), and of Article XVI § 16(b) of the California Constitution ("Article XVI §16(b)") . D. Governor Brown's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-12 included a recommendation to disband redevelopment agencies and to use tax increment to fund state obligations and to redistribute tax increment revenues to other taxing entities, which was followed by a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst's Office that urgency legislation be adopted that prohibits redevelopment agencies from entering into new contractual agreements until the proposed budget legislation is acted upon, all of which the Cities and the RDAs believe violate Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b); the State MOU re RDA Legislation Page 1 of 20 legislative session also includes SB 286 and SB 450, which propose reform or restructuring of certain redevelopment functions or activities. E. The RDAs and Cities will be significantly and adversely affected both individually and collectively in the event 2011 California state budget legislation known as AB101 and SB 77, or similar successor legislation, are approved and signed into law by the Governor, as such legislation purports to dissolve redevelopment agencies statewide, redistribute tax increment and devolve the obligations of such redevelopment agencies upon so-called successor agencies, which would operate under an as yet -unformed and untested regulatory framework that promises to add a costly layer of oversight and administration to the process, and to distribute critical local funds as the State deems appropriate and in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the RDAs and Cities and, even if the current legislative efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, redevelopment remains at risk. F. RDAs, the Cities and the State will also be imperiled with respect to their existing bonded indebtedness, as the full scope of the impact and effect of the Governor's rash proposal on the bond market, and potential litigation arising therefrom, is as yet unknown. G. The Cities and the RDAs desire to cooperate in advocacy efforts for the protection of redevelopment and to act collectively against State legislative actions that attack redevelopment, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front and to achieve cost savings where possible. H. The Cities and the RDAs also wish to cooperate in efforts that will keep local money in the local economies and prevent the state from redirecting redevelopment agency property taxes in contravention of voter -approved Proposition 22, which modified Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7). I. In the event State legislative actions are approved that purport to dissolve or disband RDAs and take tax increment funds protected by Article XVI § 16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b), the Cities and the RDAs desire to act proactively to protect their collective interests by collaborating on issues such as those relating to so-called successor agencies and any proceedings that may be brought to challenge such state actions. J. In the event State legislative actions are approved that reform or restructure redevelopment functions or activities as proposed by SB 286 or SB 450 or other reform -based legislation, the Cities and the RDAs wish to cooperate to address and/or implement such reforms in an organized and efficient manner that will best assist the Cities and the RDAs. MOU re RDA Legislation Page 2 of 20 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and of the Recitals, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Collaboration. The Cities and the RDAs agree that they have a collective interest in the protection of redevelopment and their rights under Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b), and hereby appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of one (1) staff representative from each of the Cities or their RDA ("Regional Committee"), or their designees, for the purpose of making recommendations to the whole for consideration with respect to the protection of redevelopment, on strategic measures in the event of the passage of legislation as described above, and on other possible actions by the Cities and/or the RDAs. Counsel from each City or their RDA may also attend the Regional Committee meetings as desired, but each City and its RDA will collectively have only one vote on any recommendation made by the Regional Committee, for a total of sixteen (16) possible votes. The Regional Committee will act by way of majority vote of a quorum present at meetings during which such recommendations are discussed. 2. Advocacy Authorization on Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment, Collaboration Authorization on Reform or Restructuring of Redevelopment. By due authorization and approval of this MOU, each City and RDA representative is hereby authorized by their respective agency to participate in collective advocacy on behalf of their City and RDA individually, as well as the Cities and the RDAs collectively on proposed legislative elimination of redevelopment, to protect redevelopment and defend against the violation of Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7) and/or Article XIIIA § 1(a), and to collaborate on issues arising from the implementation of reform or restructuring of redevelopment functions and activities to the benefit of all Cities and RDAs. 3. Costs and Expenses. The Cities, the RDAs, and each of them, agree that they shall each bear their own costs and expenses, including administrative and personnel expenses, which may arise as a result of their participation in this MOU, and agree that they shall not seek to pass such costs to, among, or through other Cities or RDAs, either individually or collectively. Those Cities and RDAs whose employee or counsel may be named to the Regional Committee agree that they will bear the costs and expenses associated with the participation of such employee or counsel in such efforts. 4. Conflict of Interest. The Cities and the RDAs acknowledge and agree that the individual Regional Committee members are in turn members of or represent individual Cities and/or RDAs. Regional Committee members may also have unrelated matters pending before other Cities and/or RDAs, either individually or as a group. Participation as a member of the Regional Committee under this MOU shall not constitute an additional separate representation of any individual City or RDA, nor shall such participation be grounds to disqualify members of the Regional Committee MOU re RDA Legislation Page 3 of 20 who may be attorneys who represent individual Cities or RDAs, nor shall it constitute a conflict of interest as between the Cities and/or the RDAs. 5. Withdrawal from Agreement. Any City or RDA may withdraw from participation in this Agreement upon fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to the other Cities and RDAs. A withdrawing City or RDA will remain obligated under Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this MOU and will not assert participation in this Agreement as grounds for disqualification of counsel and agrees to waive any related conflict that may be created between Cities, RDAs and/or their counsel and experts as a result of this Agreement. A withdrawing City or RDA will have no other obligation under this Agreement. 6. Notices. Unless otherwise specifically permitted by this MOU, all notices required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or sent by telecopy, provided that the telecopy cover sheet contain a notation of the date and time of transmission, and shall be deemed received: (i) if personally delivered, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, (ii) if mailed in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, two (2) business days after the date placed in the United States mail, (iii) if mailed other than in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph or mailed from outside the United States, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, or (iv) if given by telecopier during business hours when delivered can be confirmed, when delivered. Notices shall be given at the official business address of each respective City and RDA, to the City Manager and to the Executive Director or other titular head of the RDA, respectively. 7. No Employment, Partnership. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be deemed or construed to create an employment, partnership, joint venture or any other similar relationship between the parties hereto or cause the Cities, the RDAs, or any of them, to be responsible in any way for the debts or obligations of other individual Cities, RDAs, or any other person. 8. Authority to Sign. Each City and RDA warrants and represents that the persons executing this MOU on its behalf has full authority to do so and to perform pursuant to the terms and conditions of this MOU. 9. Counterparts. This MOU may be signed in multiple counterparts with the same force and effect as if all original signatures appeared on one copy; and in the event this MOU is signed in counterparts, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all of the counterparts shall be deemed to be one agreement. 10. Severability. if any portion of this MOU shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law if enforcement would not frustrate the overall intent of the parties (as such intent is manifested by all MOU re RDA Legislation Page 4 of 20 provisions of the MOU, including such invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable portion). 11. Applicable Law. This MOU shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. 12. Headings. The headings in this MOU are inserted only as a matter of convenience, and in no way define, limit, extend or interpret the scope of this MOU or of any particular provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF CARLSBAD AND CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager and Lorraine M. Wood, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 5 of 20 CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Attest: By: Jim Sandoval, City Manager and Donna Norris, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Glen Googins, City Attorney and Agency Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 6 of 20 CITY OF CORONADO AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Blair King, City Manager and Linda K. Hascup, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 7 of 20 CITY OF EL CAJON AND EL CAJON REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Kathie Rutledge, City and Agency Clerk Kathi Henry, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 8 of 20 CITY OF ESCONDIDO AND ESCONDIDO REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Marsha Whalen, City and Agency Clerk Clay Phillips, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jeffrey R. Epp, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 9 of 20 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH AND IMPERIAL BEACH REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Jacqueline M. Hald, City and Agency Clerk Gary R. Brown, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jennifer M. Lyon, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 10 of 20 CITY OF LA MESA AND LA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: David E. Witt, City Manager and Mary J. Kennedy, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Glenn Sabine, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 11 of 20 CITY OF LEMON GROVE AND LEMON GROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Graham Mitchell, City Manager and Executive Director Attest: Susan Garcia, City and Agency Clerk Approved as to Form: James P. Lough, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 12 of 20 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY By: Chris pata,9y Manager and Executive Director Attest: j2 Mich eji A l Dalla, City nd Agency Clerk A.`broved as to Form: City Attorney and General ou sel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 13 of 20 CITY OF OCEANSIDE AND OCEANSIDE REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Barbara Riegal Wayne, City and Peter A. Weiss, City Manager and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: John Mullen, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 14 of 20 CITY OF POWAY AND Attest: POWAY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Diane Shea, Agency Clerk Penny Riley, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 15 of 20 CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND SAN DIEGO REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Elizabeth Maland, City and Agency Clerk Gerald R. Sanders, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jan Goldsmith, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 16 of 20 CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND SAN MARCOS REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Susie Vasquez, City and Agency Clerk Paul Malone, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Helen Holmes Peak, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 17 of 20 CITY OF SANTEE AND SANTEE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Patsy Bell, City and Agency Clerk Keith Till, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 18 of 20 CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AND SOLANA BEACH REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Angela Ivey, City and Agency Clerk David Ott, Interim City Manager and Interim Executive Director Approved as to Form: Johanna Canlas, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 19 of 20 CITY OF VISTA AND Attest: VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Marci Kilian, City and Agency Clerk Rita Geldert, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Darold Pieper, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 20 of 20 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 — 163 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING LEGISLATION ON ELIMINATION OR REFORM OF REDEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code section 33000, et seq. ("CRL"), 16 of the 18 cities located in San Diego County have formed redevelopment agencies ("RDAs"), duly operating under the rights and obligations set forth in the CRL; and WHEREAS, the RDAs have provided significant funding for affordable housing and economic development projects, and have revitalized communities and eliminated blight within the Cities by investing in local infrastructure and schools throughout the San Diego County region for decades; and WHEREAS, Governor Brown's budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 included a dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the use of tax increment to fund State obligations, and the redistribution of tax increment revenues to other taxing entities, which the Cities and the RDAs believe violate Article XVI Section 16, Article XIII Section 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA Section 1(a) and/or Article XVI Section 16 (b); the State legislative session also includes SB 286 and SB 450, which propose reform or restructuring of certain redevelopment functions or activities; and WHEREAS, The RDAs and the Cities will be significantly and adversely affected, both individually and collectively, by the 2011 California State budget legislation known as ABx 126, as such legislation purports to dissolve redevelopment agencies statewide, redistribute tax 1 and devolve obligations of such J� 1 a ll increment, ucvuroe the vuuyaiivua redevelopment agencies upon so-called successor agencies, which would operate under an as yet -unformed and untested regulatory framework that promises to add a costly layer of oversight and administration to the process, and to distribute critical local funds as the State deems appropriate and in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the RDAs and Cities; and WHEREAS, the Cities and the RDAs desire to cooperate in advocacy efforts for the protection of redevelopment, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front, and to achieve cost savings where possible; and WHEREAS, in the event State legislative actions are approved that reform or restructure redevelopment functions or activities as proposed by SB 286 or SB 450 or other reform -based legislation, the Cities and the RDAs wish to cooperate to address and/or implement such reforms in an organized and efficient manner that will best assist the Cities and the RDAs. Resolution No. 2011 — 163 July 19, 2011 Page Two NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding legislation on elimination or reform of redevelopment. Said Memorandum is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 2011. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: N a Mi , ty Clerk c eI R. Dalla ROVED AS TO FORM: CQA:ia G. City Attor Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on July 19, 2011 by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Councilmembers Morrison, Natividad, Rios, Sotelo-Solis, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON Mayor of the City of National City, California k r City CI of the City o National City, California By: Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2011-163 of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on July 19, 2011. City Clerk of the City of National City, California By: Deputy CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ETING DATE: July 19, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO. 21 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding Legislation on Elimination or Reform of Redevelopment PREPARED BY: PHONE: EXPLANATION: Claudia G. Silva Ext. 4222 DEPARTMENT: 'ty Attorney APPROVED BY: As legislative changes occur regarding redevelopment, it would benefit the City to collaborate with other cities that have redevelopment agencies ("RDAs"). The proposed resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth the collaboration efforts amongst the cities. This collaboration would consist of those cities with redevelopment agencies. An ad - hoc Regional Committee would be formed pursuant to the MOU, consisting of one (1) staff representative from each of the cities or their RDA ("Regional Committee"), for the purpose of making recommendations to the whole for consideration with respect to the protection of redevelopment. • FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. N/A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: APPROVED: APPROVED: Finance MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: roposed resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2011 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING LEGISLATION ON ELIMINATION OR REFORM OF REDEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code section 33000, et seq. ("CRL"), 16 of the 18 cities located in San Diego County have formed redevelopment agencies ("RDAs"), duly operating under the rights and obligations set forth in the CRL; and WHEREAS, the RDAs have provided significant funding for affordable housing and economic development projects, and have revitalized communities and eliminated blight within the Cities by investing in local infrastructure and schools throughout the San Diego County region for decades; and WHEREAS, Governor Brown's budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 included a dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the use of tax increment to fund State obligations, and the redistribution of tax increment revenues to other taxing entities, which the Cities and the RDAs believe violate Article XVI Section 16, Article XIII Section 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA Section 1(a) and/or Article XVI Section 16 (b); the State legislative session also includes SB 286 and SB 450, which propose reform or restructuring of certain redevelopment functions or activities; and WHEREAS, The RDAs and the Cities will be significantly and adversely affected, both individually and collectively, by the 2011 California State budget legislation known as ABx 126, as such legislation purports to dissolve redevelopment agencies statewide, redistribute tax increment, and devolve the obligations of such redevelopment agencies upon so-called successor agencies, which would operate under an as yet -unformed and untested regulatory framework that promises to add a costly layer of oversight and administration to the process, and to distribute critical local funds as the State deems appropriate and in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the RDAs and Cities; and WHEREAS, the Cities and the RDAs desire to cooperate in advocacy efforts for the protection of redevelopment, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front, and to achieve cost savings where possible; and WHEREAS, in the event State legislative actions are approved that reform or restructure redevelopment functions or activities as proposed by SB 286 or SB 450 or other reform -based legislation, the Cities and the RDAs wish to cooperate to address and/or implement such reforms in an organized and efficient manner that will best assist the Cities and the RDAs. Resolution No. 2011 — July 19, 2011 Page Two NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding legislation on elimination or reform of redevelopment. Said Memorandum is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 2011. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia G. Silva City Attorney MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING LEGISLATION ON ELIMINATION OR REFORM OF REDEVELOPMENT This Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Legislation on Elimination and/or Reform of Redevelopment ("MOU") is entered into as of this day of 2011 by and between the following cities located in San Diego County, California: Carlsbad; Chula Vista; Coronado; El Cajon; Escondido; Imperial Beach; La Mesa; Lemon Grove; National City; Oceanside; Poway; San Diego, San Marcos; Santee; Solana Beach, and Vista, and the redevelopment agencies formed by each of the listed Cities (individually, "RDA" and collectively, "RDAs") with regard to the following: RECITALS A. Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, located at California Health & Safety Code section 33000, et seq. ("CRL"), sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) cities located in San Diego County ("individually, "City" and collectively, "Cities") have formed redevelopment agencies, duly operating under the rights and obligations set forth in the CRL. B. The RDAs have provided significant funding for affordable housing and economic development projects, and have revitalized communities and eliminated blight within the Cities by investing in local infrastructure and schools throughout the San Diego County region for decades. C. When the State of California ("State") has been unable to balance its budget, it has raided the coffers of redevelopment agencies throughout California through such legislation as ABX4-26 (2009), which the RDAs and their counterpart agencies believe is a violation of the property tax allocation and tax increment protections set forth in Article XVI § 16 of the California Constitution ("Article XVI § 16"), and also constitutes a violation of Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7) of the California Constitution ("Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7)"), which was adopted pursuant to a vote of the people in November of 2010, of Article XIIIA § 1(a) of the California Constitution ("Article XIIIA § 1(a)"), and of Article XVI § 16(b) of the California Constitution ("Article XVI §16(b)") . D. Governor Brown's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-12 included a recommendation to disband redevelopment agencies and to use tax increment to fund state obligations and to redistribute tax increment revenues to other taxing entities, which was followed by a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst's Office that urgency legislation be adopted that prohibits redevelopment agencies from entering into new contractual agreements until the proposed budget legislation is acted upon, all of which the Cities and the RDAs believe violate Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b); the State MOU re RDA Legislation Page 1 of 20 legislative session also includes SB 286 and SB 450, which propose reform or restructuring of certain redevelopment functions or activities. E. The RDAs and Cities will be significantly and adversely affected both individually and collectively in the event 2011 California state budget legislation known as AB101 and SB 77, or similar successor legislation, are approved and signed into law by the Governor, as such legislation purports to dissolve redevelopment agencies statewide, redistribute tax increment and devolve the obligations of such redevelopment agencies upon so-called successor agencies, which would operate under an as yet -unformed and untested regulatory framework that promises to add a costly layer of oversight and administration to the process, and to distribute critical local funds as the State deems appropriate and in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the RDAs and Cities and, even if the current legislative efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, redevelopment remains at risk. F. RDAs, the Cities and the State will also be imperiled with respect to their existing bonded indebtedness, as the full scope of the impact and effect of the Governor's rash proposal on the bond market, and potential litigation arising therefrom, is as yet unknown. G. The Cities and the RDAs desire to cooperate in advocacy efforts for the protection of redevelopment and to act collectively against State legislative actions that attack redevelopment, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front and to achieve cost savings where possible. H. The Cities and the RDAs also wish to cooperate in efforts that will keep local money in the local economies and prevent the state from redirecting redevelopment agency property taxes in contravention of voter -approved Proposition 22, which modified Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7). I. In the event State legislative actions are approved that purport to dissolve or disband RDAs and take tax increment funds protected by Article XVI § 16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XI IIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b), the Cities and the RDAs desire to act proactively to protect their collective interests by collaborating on issues such as those relating to so-called successor agencies and any proceedings that may be brought to challenge such state actions. J. In the event State legislative actions are approved that reform or restructure redevelopment functions or activities as proposed by SB 286 or SB 450 or other reform -based legislation, the Cities and the RDAs wish to cooperate to address and/or implement such reforms in an organized and efficient manner that will best assist the Cities and the RDAs. MOU re RDA Legislation Page 2 of 20 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and of the Recitals, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Collaboration. The Cities and the RDAs agree that they have a collective interest in the protection of redevelopment and their rights under Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7), Article XIIIA § 1(a) and/or Article XVI § 16 (b), and hereby appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of one (1) staff representative from each of the Cities or their RDA ("Regional Committee"), or their designees, for the purpose of making recommendations to the whole for consideration with respect, to the protection of redevelopment, on strategic measures in the event of the passage of legislation as described above, and on other possible actions by the Cities and/or the RDAs. Counsel from each City or their RDA may also attend the Regional Committee meetings as desired, but each City and its RDA will collectively have only one vote on any recommendation made by the Regional Committee, for a total of sixteen (16) possible votes. The Regional Committee will act by way of majority vote of a quorum present at meetings during which such recommendations are discussed. 2. Advocacy Authorization on Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment, Collaboration Authorization on Reform or Restructuring of Redevelopment. By due authorization and approval of this MOU, each City and RDA representative is hereby authorized by their respective agency to participate in collective advocacy on behalf of their City and RDA individually, as well as the Cities and the RDAs collectively on proposed legislative elimination of redevelopment, to protect redevelopment and defend against the violation of Article XVI §16, Article XIII § 25.5(a)(7) and/or Article XIIIA § 1(a), and to collaborate on issues arising from the implementation of reform or restructuring of redevelopment functions and activities to the benefit of all Cities and RDAs. 3. Costs and Expenses. The Cities, the RDAs, and each of them, agree that they shall each bear their own costs and expenses, including administrative and personnel expenses, which may arise as a result of their participation in this MOU, and agree that they shall not seek to pass such costs to, among, or through other Cities or RDAs, either individually or collectively. Those Cities and RDAs whose employee or counsel may be named to the Regional Committee agree that they will bear the costs and expenses associated with the participation of such employee or counsel in such efforts. 4. Conflict of Interest. The Cities and the RDAs acknowledge and agree that the individual Regional Committee members are in turn members of or represent individual Cities and/or RDAs. Regional Committee members may also have unrelated matters pending before other Cities and/or RDAs, either individually or as a group. Participation as a member of the Regional Committee under this MOU shall not constitute an additional separate representation of any individual City or RDA, nor shall such participation be grounds to disqualify members of the Regional Committee MOU re RDA Legislation Page 3 of 20 who may be attorneys who represent individual Cities or RDAs, nor shall it constitute a conflict of interest as between the Cities and/or the RDAs. 5. Withdrawal from Agreement. Any City or RDA may withdraw from participation in this Agreement upon fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to the other Cities and RDAs. A withdrawing City or RDA will remain obligated under Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this MOU and will not assert participation in this Agreement as grounds for disqualification of counsel and agrees to waive any related conflict that may be created between Cities, RDAs and/or their counsel and experts as a result of this Agreement. A withdrawing City or RDA will have no other obligation under this Agreement. 6. Notices. Unless otherwise specifically permitted by this MOU, all notices required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or sent by telecopy, provided that the telecopy cover sheet contain a notation of the date and time of transmission, and shall be deemed received: (i) if personally delivered, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, (ii) if mailed in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, two (2) business days after the date placed in the United States mail, (iii) if mailed other than in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph or mailed from outside the United States, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, or (iv) if given by telecopier during business hours when delivered can be confirmed, when delivered. Notices shall be given at the official business address of each respective City and RDA, to the City Manager and to the Executive Director or other titular head of the RDA, respectively. 7. No Employment, Partnership. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be deemed or construed to create an employment, partnership, joint venture or any other similar relationship between the parties hereto or cause the Cities, the RDAs, or any of them, to be responsible in any way for the debts or obligations of other individual Cities, RDAs, or any other person. 8. Authority to Sign. Each City and RDA warrants and represents that the persons executing this MOU on its behalf has full authority to do so and to perform pursuant to the terms and conditions of this MOU. 9. Counterparts. This MOU may be signed in multiple counterparts with the same force and effect as if all original signatures appeared on one copy; and in the event this MOU is signed in counterparts, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all of the counterparts shall be deemed to be one agreement. 10. Severability. If any portion of this MOU shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law if enforcement would not frustrate the overall intent of the parties (as such intent is manifested by all MOU re RDA Legislation Page 4 of 20 provisions of the MOU, including such invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable portion). 11. Applicable Law. This MOU shall be construed in accordance with, and govemed by, the laws of the State of California. 12. Headings. The headings in this MOU are inserted only as a matter of convenience, and in no way define, limit, extend or interpret the scope of this MOU or of any particular provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF CARLSBAD AND CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Lisa Hildebrand, City Manager and Lorraine M. Wood, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 5 of 20 CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Attest: By: Jim Sandoval, City Manager and Donna Norris, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Glen Googins, City Attorney and Agency Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 6 of 20 CITY OF CORONADO AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Blair King, City Manager and Linda K. Hascup, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 7of20 CITY OF EL CAJON AND EL CAJON REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Kathie Rutledge, City and Agency Clerk Kathi Henry, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 8 of 20 CITY OF ESCONDIDO AND ESCONDIDO REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Marsha Whalen, City and Agency Clerk Clay Phillips, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jeffrey R. Epp, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 9 of 20 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH AND IMPERIAL BEACH REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Jacqueline M. Hald, City and Agency Clerk Gary R. Brown, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jennifer M. Lyon, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 10 of 20 CITY OF LA MESA AND LA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: David E. Witt, City Manager and Mary J. Kennedy, City and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: Glenn Sabine, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 11 of 20 CITY OF LEMON GROVE AND LEMON GROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Graham Mitchell, City Manager and Executive Director Attest: Susan Garcia, City and Agency Clerk Approved as to Form: James P. Lough, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 12 of 20 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY By: Chris Zapata, City Manager and Executive Director Attest: Michael Dalla, City and Agency Clerk Approved as to Form: Claudia Silva, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 13 of 20 CITY OF OCEANSIDE AND OCEANSIDE REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Barbara Riegal Wayne, City and Peter A. Weiss, City Manager and Agency Clerk Executive Director Approved as to Form: John Mullen, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 14 of 20 CITY OF POWAY AND Attest: POWAY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Diane Shea, Agency Clerk Penny Riley, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Morgan Foley, General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 15 of 20 CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND SAN DIEGO REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Elizabeth Maland, City and Agency Clerk Gerald R. Sanders, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Jan Goldsmith, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 16 of 20 CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND SAN MARCOS REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Susie Vasquez, City and Agency Clerk Paul Malone, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Helen Holmes Peak, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 17 of 20 CITY OF SANTEE AND SANTEE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Attest: By: Patsy Bell, City and Agency Clerk Keith Till, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 18 of 20 CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AND SOLANA BEACH REDEVELOPMENT Attest: AGENCY By: Angela Ivey, City and Agency Clerk David Ott, Interim City Manager and Interim Executive Director Approved as to Form: Johanna Canlas, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 19 of 20 CITY OF VISTA AND Attest: VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Marci Kilian, City and Agency Clerk Rita Geldert, City Manager and Executive Director Approved as to Form: Darold Pieper, City Attorney and General Counsel [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] MOU re RDA Legislation Page 20 of 20