The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR01-Redevelopment Agency - n n n Q REbl!VELOPMENT AGENCY .R.:QUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION From: () Dept: GLENDA SAUL, Executive Director Subject: Proposal from San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Regarding Pending Litigation Redevelopment Agency Date: June 18, 1985 Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council action: ;/17/85- Item continued to 6/19/85 Recommended motion: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACTION a. Move that Commission adjourn to closed session to discuss pending litigation in the cases of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Tri-City Redevelopment Project, San Bernardino Vallev Municipal Water District vs. the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the South Valle Redevelopment Project. o OR, b. Refer proposal of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to Agency staff and Agency Counsel for a report to Commission in a closed session to be scheduled at the July 1, 1985 meeting of the Commission. 0379T %d~~' Signature Contact person: GLENDA SAUL Phone: 383,5081 Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ Project: No adverse Impact on City: Oneil Notes: Date: June 19.1985 Agenda Item No, f(1 'RED~JELOPMENT AGENCY -Rl:UEST FOR CCAMISSION/COUNCIL ACl~ STAFF REPORT c The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has submitted a proposal for settlement of litigation presently pending between the Municipal Water District and the . Redevelopment Agency. Three cases have been filed involving redevelopment projects, being specifically, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Tri-City Redevelopment Project, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 219711, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino. et al., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 223718, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the South Valle Redevelopment Project, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 224322. All these matters are still pending. The proposal for settlement was submitted by the Municipal Water District with their request that the matter be placed on the Agenda of the June 17 meeting of the Community Development Commission. c Because this matter is in litigation, it is my recommendation as Agency Counsel, that this proposal not be discussed in open session. If the Community Development Commission desires to hear any presentation by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, I would recommend that the Community Development Commission adjourn to closed session to hear and consider the proposal. Preferably, however, it would seem appropriate to refer this matter to Agency staff and Agency Counsel for a report to the Commission in closed session at the next regular meeting of the Community Development Commission, July I, 1985. This would enable staff and Agency Counsel to fully evaluate the proposal, and perhaps prepare a meaningful response. c '--""'::;...!!I"""..~~~-.I'I"_-~~~III!II'~.~.~.- ~_ . . "':---;- !~~!~~~~~~~J~::g,: I t.....--.. ,....... I.' '. d I .,'.. ~"-I' I~OITt' lIfe" :to'~:-c(jtI~ci:i :'i,r";~B;~R~ IUNb.wi7i\ pri rr;-~ater~~~;;;';;~~~icials:~~l ' i x.:~':'c" ";-'5on SI~H Wrllor ): 1'; \1; 4 " 'Wednesday said they would drop'. , SAN BERNARDINO -=--Wlth the lawsuits If the city would)" photographs of the city's ground. agree to, giye the district a fair; . -water problems and horror stories __: share of the taxes raised from th"'l' ,of potential, earthquake destruc., ',Tri-City and South Valle projects.. r ,: tion; municipal wat e, r district offi- _, both in south San Bernardino.. \,q 'JI,':,' 'cials Wednesday made a' pitch to 'l-f ,The water ..officials sald"the I'-the Clty,CounclJ'for redevel. 'taxes would be put'in a s~iliI I' '-..opment tax money to help finance .! account to cover construction fOr(, --an ambitious water.pumplng plan. ,; the groundwater pumping pro~^ ~_".;:tWhat we have to do Is put In a 'ject, Including the digging ofl'~f' <;magniflcenLpumping system,- :(wells in key locations andlnstal-j,;, ; not, a piddling, system," said G., ling pumps to divert the ground. . - Louis Fletcher, manager: of the water through a pipe to the Cali- . . San Bernardino Valley Municipal fornia Aqueduct. _; , ',r, _I '':fll ,) Water District. Fletcher estimated, Katona'sald the taxes prObably I that $5,mllllon 'to $10 million Is ,', would not cover the entire cost of :: needed to Install a series of large the proposed project. : :".' "~," I rid S B d. f '.-. 'f" P '\-'" I pumps to an ernar InO 0" J:~We would:use It as a 'financ- -Itsexcessgroundw~ter"-'-_."'l Ing vehicle. We're lookng for oth-,I " The CIty CouncIl made no com- ernnances, too," Kiltona said. 'f'i.' I mltments to the district, but dl. .. .'c~ Katona and other board mem- reeted the mayor and city staff to, bers warned the City Councll that ,evaluate a number of Ideas that a pumping plan is needed soon be- have been proposed a;; solutions~, 'cause the high groundwater the same problem. .' , 1 makes San Bernardino particular- ! .,..There are other points of Iy susceptible to earthquake dani- _Yle,~ as to ~ow to solve the " age. Scientists have said that,even ,groundwater' problem. Some of 'a moderate earthquake' could ,'-,the proposals are cheaper and cause the moist, sandy soU to flow : some provide ~, quicker tlm~table like liquid -:, a' condition' called . for a solution!, said C~uncUman. liquefaction ~ leaving buildings Steve Marks. ---- " ' \ " :':'.' i 'with nothing to support them:<, "" '. Water district officials believe, ," ;"We've got to do something be- they, ought to have a share of the ~ fore It hits and we all lose," Kata- city s redevelopment.tax funds ~nasald. ~.:~;~j.>ll(' l d"\.:;le'!:~jl~ anyway and have sued the city -1-> ,,-f'..,'.', ". ,>, ,,.,,_ and tbose Involved.in Trl-City and :': ,'.~'The oyerrldlng, concern her,e South Valle redevelopment Pro: IS not,over,~ate: TIghts ~r water 'jects In an attempt to wrestlo: ~~~IY~~U~,f<Ubh~ saf~ty, ,,,ry;J;~. away a portion of the money. J-/.~....- g -" '-:';:$: I-"~'~"r.. ....../ .t: ,{Of' : I '"Whenacltydeslgnatesanarea - Once the pumping ,pr~ject,1S as a redevelopment project, any ,completed, the water dlSIr~Ct also additional property taxes col~ proposes that the city continue to j lected because of Increased prop- pass along some tax money from erty values go directly to the city the South Valle project to offset to pay for Improvements that ben. extra costs to the district because elit the redevelopment areas. of redevelopment projects. , The water district has asked The City Council discussed the other cities to "pass through" that water, district's proposal for near. portion of the additional tax reve-, Iy 90 minutes - behind closed nue that normaIly would come Its ,doors because of the litigation in- way: " ,f ,volvedlnthematter. ..;, The water district receives 17.5 After emerging from the exec. cents In taxes for every $100 In ulive session, council members assessed property valuation, a:\d ,did not directly address the water district officials estimate they are district's proposaJ, but assured the losing $1.5 million a year In poten- representatives that City officials tiaI revenue from San Bernardi." will start taking a serious look at . ~ no's redevelopment prQjtcts.~. .!r, .. lthe situation"'~lu,,,,.,~'..... ..... .-~; ., Water district Director WII ,/, .,~'We want you to know that we Iiam Katona said Colton, Fontana are, concerned with the public's and Grand Terrace' have agr~ to ,safety In this matter. It Is truely " pass along the ext;'a tax incre- time for action," Mayor Evlyn Wil- I ments while San BeTliardlno has cox told the water district oi'~- refused to dothesame. : "ci~I;;.,"~ ,_ '. ". -..... ~- - .~. -.\ --... "'''-'-0. _ j , "