GCC

R2a

That all successor agencies provide on their websites their _plans for defining and eliminating blight in the absence of RDAs. Response to Recommendation 2a: The City of Goleta disagrees with this recommendation. In the absence of suitable or available funding to replace revenues formerly available from now dissolved RDAs, Cities across the state—including Goleta—will seek to secure funding opportunities to eliminate blight in their communities. It should be pointed out that competition for these kinds of funds will be intense given that 400 plus communities are dealing with this same challenge. In sum, the dissolution of RDAs did remove the funding but not the needs of communities to improve blighted areas and as such those challenges remain. On January 17, 2012 the City of Goleta took formal action to assume the role of Successor Agency both for housing and non-housing functions needed to wind down the affairs of the former Goleta RDA. Successor agencies are charged with these ending the activities of former RDAs, not creating or taking on new ones. With the elimination of redevelopment in California, significant tax revenues previously used to improve blighted areas were lost. Goleta’s RDA was no different and as such those previous dedicated tax revenues slated for improvements in the Old Town Project Area for the elimination of blight have now gone away. This combined with the general downturn in the economy and the resultant drop in overall tax revenues realized by the City will make it challenging for the City to continue to find and utilize monies specifically aimed at improving blighted conditions in Old Town. Up until the dissolution of redevelopment, RDAs—including the Goleta RDA—were required by Redevelopment Law to specifically define existing blighted conditions within their project areas and articulate the mechanisms and projects they intended to carry out in order to eliminate such blight. It is important to note, that while this was required by law of former RDAs, there are no such legal requirements of Cities to do so in the absence of RDAs. The City has taken steps in the past and will continue to do so in the future to support economic vitality city-wide. This included the adoption of the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) in 2009 which enumerates seven goals with several objectives to help guide the City in future decisions regarding the City’s relationship with Goleta’s business community, planning process, tourism, and more. CITY OF ( re) LETA 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B, Goleta, CA 93117 p 805.961.7500 F 805.685.2635 www.cityofgoleta.org 7 of 8 While the Goleta RDA did play a major role in helping to implement the EDSP, these efforts will now by undertaken by the City. The EDSP can be found online at http://www.cityofgoleta.org/index.aspx?page=467. The City plans to also call on all available resources for funding including the Federal Community Development Block Grant program. Unfortunately, CDBG has continued to decrease compared to previous years and the City’s allocation for FY 11-12 was $242,235. This trend has continued for FY 12-13 where the City anticipates receiving $192,626. The City will continue to monitor current and future proposed legislation as it seeks to continue the efforts of the now dissolved Goleta RDA. The challenges of eliminating blight remain even though the Goleta RDA and its revenues have been dissolved.

R2b

That all successor agencies provide on their websites their plans for providing low-income and moderate-income housing in the absence of RDAs. Response _ to Recommendation 2b: The City of Goleta agrees with this recommendation. The City, serving as Successor Agency, currently holds $1.6 million in former LMIHF monies from the Goleta RDA. While there is legislation (principally AB 1585) aimed at allowing cities to preserve their former RDA’s unencumbered affordable housing monies for future use in the creation of new affordable housing, AB 26 requires successor agencies to remit these funds back to the county auditor/controller for distribution to affected taxing entities. Should the City, as Successor Agency, be allowed to keep these affordable housing funds, they would be spent as articulated in the clean-up legislation. The City does have limited funds for affordable housing collected through Development Agreements via in-lieu payments. Currently, the City’s housing in-lieu fund contains $916,795. This is further complemented by funding through HUD’s HOME Consortium and CDBG programs. The City’s Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department seeks outside funds from several sources on an annual basis including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City typically received an allocation between $120,000 and $140,000 per Program Year; however for Program Year 2012 that amount was significantly reduced to $73,500. The City currently has $244,000 on reserve with the County for HOME projects in Goleta. The City leverages these funds with local affordable housing in-lieu funds to partner with local affordable housing providers such as the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara to develop, operate and maintain affordable housing developments throughout the City. CITY OF ( }O LETA 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B, Goleta,CA 93117 p 805.961.7500 F 805.685.2635 www.cityofgoleta.org 8 of 8