Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/09/25 Item 1 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item a5 Meeting Date 9/-E184 ITEM TITLE: a) Resolution //7,)pproving agreement with the County of San Diego for the leasing of Provence Park and associated County-owned parcels b) Resolution 52/ Approving Owner/Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the County of San Diego rel ing to the Otay Landfill c) Resolution //7r proving agreement between the City of Chula V sta and the County of San Diego for settlement of County lawsuit regarding the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area SUBMITTED BY: City Attorne (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) City and County staff have negotiated a proposed agreement whereby in return for the City taking over Provence Park and entering into an Owner Participation Agreement with regard to the County dump, the County will dismiss its lawsuit challenging the establishment of a redevelopment area in the Otay Valley. DISCUSSION: On February 24, 1984, the County of San Diego filed a lawsuit challenging Chula Vista's establishment of a redevelopment district in the Otay Valley. This challenge was pursuant to a policy adopted by counties throughout the state to prevent the leakage of tax revenues from counties to cities through the establishment of redevelopment districts. City staff has negotiated a settlement of this lawsuit after numerous meetings with County staff. Throughout the negotiations, the County asserted that it had two distinct concerns with Chula Vista's establishment of a redevelopment district. The first concern was the potential loss of tax revenues and the second concern involved operation of the County dump. The City has addressed the first concern by proposing to take over Provence Park. The takeover would be accomplished by means of a forty (40) year lease with an option to buy at the expiration of the forty years. The purchase price would be $1.00. This takeover would relieve the County of park maintenance costs and make up for any lost tax revenues. The City would be able to bring a park which serves City residents up to City standards. Page 2, Item 6 Meeting Date -97`61•$4 The second second concern was that the City would attempt to use its powers as a Redevelopment Agency in such a way as to interfere with the operation of the County dump. It has always been the opinion of this office that this concern was unwarranted. There is a tortuously worded article in the Government Code (Article 5, §53090, et seq. ) which makes the County exempt from City regulations (see also Akins v. Sonoma County (1967) 60 Cal .Rptr. 499) . The Attorney General has stated that this exemption applies regardless of whether the County is acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity. 40 Ops. Atty. Gen. 243. Redevelopment law does grant greater powers to cities to assemble properties and to retain property taxes. Redevelopment law does not grant cities authority to interfere with the sovereignty of counties or other cities. When we agree that the City will not assert any greater authority over the dump by establishment of a Redevelopment District, we are merely agreeing on what we believe the law to be. This matter is dealt with in the Owner Participation Agreement. The final document is the Settlement Agreement. This provides that, upon execution of the Lease and Owner Participation Agreement, the County will dismiss its lawsuit challenging the establishment of the Redevelopment District. afr by tti- ('1 It Lyle _