CC - Item III.D - Amending Part 6 Of the Redevelopment PlanORDINANCE NO. 822
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD AMENDING PART 6 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROJECT AREA NUMBER 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
33333.6(e)(2) OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The City Council finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is
enacted pursuant to the authority of Health and Safety Code section 33333.6(e)(2) for the
purpose of amending the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 1, as enacted by Ordinance
No. 340 on June 27, 1972, and subsequently amended, by eliminating therefrom the
Redevelopment Plan's January 1, 2004 time limit on the establishment of loans, advances,
and-indebtedness.
Section 2 . The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by deleting the provisions in
Part 6, entitled "FINANCING LIMITATIONS AND DURATION OF
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN'S EFFECTIVENESS" that were added by Ordinance No. 752
adopted December 20, 1994, and replacing said provisions with the following:
DURATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN'S EFFECTIVENESS
Notwithstanding any provisions of this Plan to the contrary, consistent with
section 33333.6 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the
following limitations are imposed on this Plan:
This Plan, including the land use and development control
provisions, shall be effective until June 27, 2012. After June
27, 2012, the Agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to
this Plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to
enforce existing covenants, contracts or other obligations,
provided, however, that this prohibition shall not limit actions
designed to eliminate housing program project deficits or to
implement a replacement housing program, as more
particularly authorized by section 33333.6(g) of the
Community Redevelopment Law.
The Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive p ro p ert y C>`JU IL t ;3}E � ' c, a
:A taxes pursuant to section 33670 after June 27, 2022, the dat
that is ten years from the termination of the effectiveness of
this Plan, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not JAN 2 2 2002
1TEM No.
limit allocation of taxes for the purpose of eliminating housing
program project deficits or implementing a replacement
housing program, as more particularly authorized by section
33333.6(8) of the Community Redevelopment Law, nor shall it
limit allocation of taxes to pay indebtedness incurred prior to
January 1, 1994, including the indebtedness incurred by
Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds,
Series 1993A and Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Taxable
Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 1993B."
Section 3 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
the same to be processed in accordance with state law.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this a llay o ,t7/ 2002."
Mayor, City of Rosemead
ATTEST:
gtyC ik
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
SETTING TERMS AND COMPENSATION OF COMMUNITY
'DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS AND REPEALING CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -41, ESTABLISHING A MONTHLY AUTO
EXPENSE ALLOWANCE FOR COUNCILMEMBERS .
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN
VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002 -05. Vote resulted:
Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez
No: ' Taylor
Absent: None
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Taylor requested that his comments opposing the need for a Community
Development Commission as he stated at the Council meeting of January 8, 2002, be included:
"So, the only difference that I can see on this particular thing is that we now go from $30
a meeting or $60 for two meetings per month that we have as a Redevelopment Agency and by
changing the name, we now go to $1200 a month, or $14,400 a year additional per
Councilmember. " In all fairness to the Council, I thought all these years we've participated as
a Redevelopment Agency and -we've done the best we can for the community whether they're for
something or against something. I think we've operated according to all the State laws and
differences in policies or votes is not the issue. But in all fairness to the residents of Rosemead,
we're telling them that now we're going from $700 a year for the Redevelopment Agency, and
now we're going to say to the residents that they're now going to pay us $14, 000 (per
Commissioner) a year or roughly an accumulation of $75, 000 additional salary for the five
Councilmembers. After all these years, every one of us have been here and I, in all fairness,
cannot and will not vote for that. I'm not ... I think the Council and Agencymembers have done `
their best and have done it for the community. But, I cannot vote for this. ° (1/08/02)
%ft,j,D. ORDINANCE NO. 822 — AMENDING PART 6 OF THE
' REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1 BY
ELIDHNATING THE RESTRICTION ON THE ABILITY OF THE
AGENCY TO INCUR DEBT - ADOPT
The following Ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption:
CCMIN:1 -22 -02
Pagc a6
d
ORDINANCE NO. 822
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
AMENDING PART 6 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT
AREA NUMBER 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 33333.6(e)(2) OF
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN
VASQUEZ that the Council waive reading and adopt Ordinance No. 822. Vote resulted:
Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez
No: Taylor
Absent: None
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Taylor stated that his comments from the Council meeting of January 8,
2002, remain the same. Mr. Taylor's comments are as follows:
"This law that they're referring to and the pre -1993 legislation that was enacted... one of
the things that we run into with the term limits, there were State Legislators, the Senate and
Assembly that were well aware of the problems that were created with the Redevelopment
Agencies and how the funding took place for a lot of the project areas. Almost all of those
Assemblymembers and Senate members have been replaced by people who have no knowledge of
that background that went into these laws or why they were put into place. The way it goes now
that... it's the best country in the world that we live in, but it's becoming such a bureaucratic
condition that those that were involved with the struggles that went on to get those laws, they're
no longer in the Legislature. I couldn't say if there is even one... with the six year terms that are
put on for the Assembly, and the eight or so years for two terms for the Senate. Because of all
the abuses that went on prior to 1993, I can't vote for this one because it's taking away the
purpose of the law which was to make the cities and agencies say put your plan out for five years
and whatever it takes to get your loans, the debt, whatever it takes, but now by wiping out the
time limit, it's just wide open again. I have to vote no on this one. " ( 1/08/02)
Mr. Tripepi confirmed for the record that Mr. Taylor does not want Items B, .0 and D
. in their entirety, and that his no vote is against the adoption of those items.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -06 — ADOPTING THE 2002 SUPPLEMENT TO
THE GREENBOOK STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS CONSTRUCTION
The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption:
CCMIN:1 -22 -02 _
Page #7