Former Commander James Butzbach (center) receives a proclamation from Signal Hill Mayor Larry Forester (left) on behalf of the family of former police officer Anthony Giniewicz, who was shot in 1985 while helping another police officer during a confrontation with robbery suspects. Giniewicz died last month from complications sustained from those injuries. Also pictured is Police Chief Michael Langston (right).
CJ Dablo
Staff Writer
At Tuesday’s Signal Hill Council meeting, members of the Council and other City staffers took turns voicing despair and frustration over the pending loss of its redevelopment agency.
“It’s really the worst possible outcome,” City Attorney David Aleshire said, noting several partnerships the Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency (RDA) had forged with major retailers that created the auto center, Costco and two Home Depot projects. “Much of the development that’s occurred in town would not have occurred,” Aleshire added.
Signal Hill’s redevelopment agency and the other agencies throughout the state had been created to oversee development projects that eliminated blight and provided affordable housing.
Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that upheld the law called AB.1x 26 and validated the legislature’s power to dissolve redevelopment agencies. It also ruled that another law (ABx1 27) was invalid. ABx1 27 would have allowed redevelopment agencies to continue if they could make voluntary payments to the state.
There’s not much time left for redevelopment agencies. The original legislation had called to end redevelopment agencies by Oct. 1. The Court had extended the deadline by four months, and now the agencies are scheduled to shut down by Feb. 1, according to the City attorney.
Over the past year, Governor Jerry Brown had called for an end to redevelopment agencies, which relied on a portion of local property tax dollars. Under ABx1 26, when redevelopment ends, the redevelopment agencies’ share of the property-tax money would be redirected to other agencies and to school districts and community college districts.
Brown’s office released a statement last week. The governor said that the court’s ruling “validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.”
Councilmember Ellen Ward blasted the decision to end the RDAs.
“There’s a few cities that misuse it, but we’re one of the cities that uses it in the correct way,” Ward said, describing how Signal Hill had used the RDA to clean up the numerous abandoned oil wells. Councilmember Ed Wilson also decried the state’s move.
“We were getting over $13 million in tax increment to the city,” Wilson said. “With elimination of redevelopment, that means we’ll go from that $13.6 million to something less than $700,000. So it’s hard for me to understand how anyone would think that’s a good thing for this city because that money that we were getting was being reinvested in the city for the citizens and the businesses within the city.”
There are tough decisions that will be made soon. City Manager Ken Farfsing said in a Tuesday-evening interview that, with the pending February deadline, the staff will be looking at how the dissolution of the RDA will affect the City’s budget. The Housing Authority and the RDA will be meeting to consider resolutions about a successor agency, according to Farfsing. Decisions also have to be made concerning RDA-owned property which must now be sold. Farfsing said that the RDA purchased a few properties including dilapidated metal buildings and two other office buildings. Farfsing estimates the properties’ value totaled around seven to eight million dollars.
The City hasn’t entirely given up its fight over redevelopment. Farfsing and Aleshire said that the City filed another lawsuit in partnership with the City of Cerritos that challenges another aspect of ABx1 26 concerning loans. Farfsing confirmed that, in 2008, Signal Hill had loaned to the RDA $10 million to purchase property that was contaminated and required clean-up in preparation for development. According to Farfsing, the legislature had declared all loans between cities and agencies invalid unless they were made within the first few years of the agency’s formation. Farfsing said that Signal Hill would not get the $10 million back and the properties that had been purchased by the RDA would be sold. The proceeds from the sale would go back to the state of California.
“So it’s, in a way, like double jeopardy,” Farfsing said. “You’re being penalized twice!.The courts really need to take a very serious look at that loan issue.”
On Tuesday, the Council members were united in their overall criticism of the legislators who favored ending redevelopment. With the loss of the agency scheduled just weeks away, Wilson advocated a midnight plea to those who wanted to keep Signal Hill “prosperous.” Wilson said that some legislators did not intend to end redevelopment. He advocated for people to request that their legislators overturn their law.
Wilson shared a catchphrase to tell legislators: “If you did not intend,” Wilson said, “then you must rescind.”
Other City Council highlights:
Anthony Giniewicz
Transfer facility right-of-way
The Council adopted a resolution that approved vacating of a specific alley between California and Olive avenues as part of the development plans for EDCO Transfer Services. According to a staff report from the public works director, vacating the right-of-way will allow development, and the City will no longer be responsible for its maintenance.
No loan forgiveness
The Council and Redevelopment Agency adopted resolutions that declared that the City did not forgive any loans to the RDA.
Compensation disclosure
The City manager issued a report to clarify the stipulations of a state law that required disclosure for compensation of members of a legislative body when they attend serial or simultaneous meetings. Signal Hill Council members are also members of the RDA and Housing Authority. According to the City manager’s report, members of the Signal Hill RDA receive $24 per meeting and members of the Signal Hill Housing Authority receive $6 per meeting. The City manager reported that these amounts are below the state statutes and verbal announcements of their compensation would not be required at meetings
