Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2010-2011 • Agency Response
Response to: PC 933.05

City of Fort Bragg Incorporated August 5, 1889*

Published: September 14, 2011 4 pages
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F9, F11, F12, F15, F16, F18

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F8
states that initial RDA funding was derived from bond sales. The Fort Bragg RDA has had two bond issuances over its 24 year existence. Much of the activity performed by the agency is financed by tax increment revenues, not bonds.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
states that local RDAs have not formed citizens' advisory committees. The Fort Bragg RDA has had a citizens' advisory committee since its inception. The committee has actively engaged in the review and update of the RDA's Five-Year Implementation Plans. The original citizens' advisory committee was called the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB). In 2000, the EDAB was combined with the Housing Advisory Board and renamed the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB). One of the functions of the CDAB was to serve as the citizens' advisory committee for the RDA. In 2008, the CDAB was dissolved and the Economic Development Action Committee (EDAC) was created. The EDAC functioned, in part, as the citizens' advisory committee for the RDA. In 2010, the EDAC was dissolved and its function as the citizens' advisory committee for the Redevelopment Agency was delegated to the Planning Commission.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
states that administrative salaries and benefits are funded by bonds unless the RDA has excess monies. In no instances have Fort Bragg RDA employee salaries been paid for by bond proceeds. The bonds have been used solely for capital improvement projects. Administrative salaries and benefits are funded by tax increment revenues.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
states that employee salaries are paid with RDA funds disproportionate to the time spent on RDA business. While this general findings may be accurate for some agencies, it is not accurate for the Fort Bragg RDA. Each year during the budget process, careful consideration is given to the personnel cost allocation for employees engaged in RDA activities. The percentage of individual employee salaries charged to the RDA is adjusted year-to-year based on anticipated workload.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
states, in part that the ability to repay existing RDA bonds is threatened by decreases in property tax revenues. That does not accurately reflect the Fort Bragg RDAs financial condition. While decreased tax revenues may diminish the Agency's ability to engage in future redevelopment activities, Fort Bragg RDA revenue projections indicate that there will be sufficient revenues to fulfill our obligations to the bondholders.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
states that eminent domain can be used as a tool by government to acquire private property for the public good. While this general statement is correct, we would like to clarify that the Fort Bragg RDA does not have the power of eminent domain. Summary of Implementing Actions re: Recommendations 2 and 4:
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.