City Moves To Protect Redevelopment Money

The Suisun City Council moved swiftly Monday night to secure its redevelopment money from possible action Tuesday by the state legislature to take more than $31 million.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed $12.5 billion in cuts includes $1.7 billion in cuts to redevelopment, which would effectively end the program as it is today. The vast majority of Suisun City lies in a redevelopment area, where some property taxes are siphoned off to provide the city with money for removing blight and making capital improvements.

The City Council unanimously voted to clarify agreements on $31 million in redevelopment funds for existing redevelopment agency obligations, a term meant to separate money the legislature might take away from money the city thinks it can protect from the state.

“When we were working with our attorneys, they said look at your existing obligations because they are protected,” City Manager Suzanne Bragdon said.

The Council voted to clarify obligations that had been left vague, including redevelopment payment schedules for the Civic Center, the Harbor Center street extension project, payments for the 1989 redevelopment of the waterfront and future projects like the Gateway iconic sign, Railroad Avenue realignment and development of the old Crystal Middle School site.

“If our worst fears are realized we (will) look like financial geniuses,” Councilman Mike Hudson said.

One point of contention at the meeting was a letter drafted in part by the League of California Cities, which Mayor Pete Sanchez alone refused to sign.

Sanchez said one of the letter’s claims — that redevelopment was the only meaningful way to build affordable housing — was untrue.

Members of the public urged the council to take the opportunity to scale back redevelopment or use the money to fix outdated infrastructure like storm drains in the city’s neighborhoods.

Anthony Moscarelli said he was shocked at the magnitude of redevelopment and the city’s proposals they were voting on Tuesday night. He said it would be unwise to “mortgage” the general fund to pay the debts.

“Because we don’t know what the state is going to do,” he said. “It would be wise not to tie up our general fund , because that’s all we have.”