Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Redevelopment winds down, city must decide next step
by Melissa Corker, published on January 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
Mere days before the Feb. 1 deadline to end redevelopment, the City Council is faced with two important decisions: what role the city will take in the aftermath, and what will happen to agency staff when redevelopment ends.
Although the City Council did not take any action at the meeting Tuesday, City Manager John Shirey outlined the next steps for council members as the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency winds down.
Shirey is the former executive director
president
of the California Redevelopment Association.
SHRA is the agency responsible for redevelopment in Sacramento County and the city.
An important factor in the process is figuring out what responsibilities the city will take on, and which ones will be taken over by other agencies, Shirey said.
In August, the City Council agreed to take over the non-housing functions of SHRA.
The city is responsible for managing current construction projects and making required payments on bond debt and other financial obligations.
With redevelopment being disbanded altogether, though, the housing assets and activities of SHRA have to be disposed of as well.
The city could assume that responsibility – or it could allow the city’s Housing Authority to take it over, which is what Shirey encouraged the City Council to have the city do.
If the city Housing Authority assumes those responsibilities and they continue to be managed by the SHRA, Shirey said, Housing Authority staff would have the benefit of the expertise of SHRA staff to administer the ongoing housing activities and assets.
Another problem the city is faced with is how it will handle staffing.
Currently, SHRA provides staff for all redevelopment programs in the city and the county.
Once the redevelopment agency is disbanded Feb. 1, staffing duties will have to be transitioned from SHRA to whatever entity takes over.
There are nearly 100 employees working on various projects at this point, Shirey said, and not all of those people will be needed in the transition.
That means layoffs for a majority of those employees.
Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy said Tuesday that she is concerned about potential layoffs.
“I hope that if any layoffs occur, that management is included and it’s not just the workers who take the hit,” she said. “I’ve seen that happen too many times.”
Bernadette Austin, a housing finance analyst with SHRA, spoke to the council on behalf of staff members who have worked behind the scenes on redevelopment projects such as the La Valentina housing project.
“I couldn’t do my job without (those staff members),” Austin said. “They helped create projects that really mean something to the community.”
Austin urged the council to keep as many current staff members in place as possible throughout the transition.
Shirey said attempts are being made in the Capitol to extend the dissolution deadline from Feb. 1 to April 15, but it’s not certain that legislation will make it to the governor’s desk in time to make a difference.
Redevelopment dissolution will be on the agenda at the Jan. 31 meeting, and the City Council is expected to take action then.
Editorial Note: A correction was made to this article after it was published. The incorrect information has been struck out and the correct information added.
Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I am concerned about fairness to the taxpayers who have been funding this boondoggle for all these years and expect it to be shut down in the most cost-effective manner possible.
I cannot deny that redevelopment has, in many cases, been very helpful. The relatively new businesses on R Street are, I believe, a case in point. R Street was pretty bleak 20 years ago, but between Shoki, Burgers and Brew, and other very nice places, I like to go there now.
So you hold it out as an example of what redevelopment CAN do.
Follow the model of other cities. Put it up for a vote; a 1 cent sales tax increase, within the city, and very narrowly define the kind of redevelopment the revenues will fund. Have a commission that approves or rejects projects, and hold that commission accountable.
Put something like that towards the voters. If they reject it, then, fine, redevelopment will end. And if they accept it, then maybe we fund railyard projects (in general; not just the ESC).
Honestly, I think that answer is 100 times better than leasing out our parking in order to build an ESC. I'd like to hear the arguments against something like this, though.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/53377/Redevelopment_101_A_bucket_half_full
The nice thing about that is the tax is in fact quite narrowly targeted and only affects the government that gives up the incremental additional tax that comes when property values in the area rise.
It actually is not even clear that redevelopment has been "very helpful". I think it is more correct to say that many of the redevelopment projects have been very tangible and visible, such as the R Street project that you cite.
But we never really get to see what the positive impact on the community would have been if those incremental tax dollars had continued to flow into local police, education, parks and other city services.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120120/BUSINESS/301210044/kfc-yum-center-louisville-arena?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home