RPVCCA_RDA_SR_2011_09_20_C_Challenging_ABX126_ABX127CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM:CAROL LYNCH,AGENCY ATTORNEY
DATE:SEPTEMBER 20,2011
SUBJECT:AUTHORIZATION FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD FOR
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO BE NAMED AS AN AMICUS CURIAE IN A BRIEF
TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE STATE LAWS
THAT WOULD ABOLISH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR c!l---
RECOMMENDATION
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AUTHORIZE
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PARTICIPATION AS AN AMICUS CURIAE IN THE
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING AB X1 26 AND AB X1 27.
BACKGROUND
AB X1 26,which was signed by the Governor of California on June,29,2011,added Parts
1.8 and 1.85 to the Community Redevelopment Law.Part 1.8 immediately suspends most
redevelopment agency activities and,among other things,prohibits redevelopment
agencies from incurring indebtedness or entering into or modifying contracts.Part 1.85
provides that on October 1,2011,all existing redevelopment agencies and redevelopment
agency components of community development agencies are dissolved,and successor
agencies are designated as successor entities to the former redevelopment agencies.Part
1.85 imposes numerous requirements on the successor agencies and subjects successor
agency actions to the review of oversight boards established under Part 1.85.
AB X1 27 was signed by the Governor concurrently with AB X1 26 and added Part 1.9 to
the Community Redevelopment Law.Part 1.9 establishes a Voluntary Alternative
Redevelopment Program (VARP)whereby a redevelopment agency will,notwithstanding
Parts 1.8 and 1.85,be authorized to continue to exist and carry out the provisions of the
Community Redevelopment Law.
RDA C-1
ADOPTION OF TAX INCREMENT TRANSFER AGREEMENT
September 20,2011
Page 2 of 2
LAWSUIT FILED
On July 18,2011,the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California
Cities filed a lawsuitin the California Supreme Court challenging these statutes in a case
entitled California Redevelopment Association,League of California Cities,City of Union
City,City of San Jose,and John F.Shirey v.Ana Matosantos,in her official capacity as
Director of Finance,John Chiang,in his official capacity as the Controller of the State of
California,Patrick O'Connell,in his official capacity as the Auditor-Controller of the County
of Alameda and as a representative of the class of county auditor-controllers (Case No.
S194861)("the Lawsuit).
The Supreme Court has established an expedited briefing schedule,so that a hearing can
occur early next year.Richards,Watson &Gershon (RWG),the law firm that represents
the City and the Agency,has decided to file an amicus brief in support of the Lawsuit and
the claims that AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 are invalid.RWG is asking each of its municipal
clients with redevelopment agencies whether each agency would like to participate as an
amicus curiae and be listed as such on the amicus brief.RWG is preparing the brief at no
cost to its clients,so th'e Agency will not have to spend any funds in connection with the
Lawsuit.
The Members of the City Council and the Agency Board previously stated that they wished
to support the League's efforts to have these statutes invalidated.Accordingly,Agency
Counsel is requesting authorization to have the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment
Agency participate as an amicus curiae in the lawsuit.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because RWG is not charging its clients for the preparation of the 'brief,there will be no
cost to the Agency as a result of this action.
RDA C-2