As part of the Governor’s budget plan/process/etc., he is suggesting that Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) pay schools directly rather than their original intent to support redevelopment projects. This sounds like a “good deal” for schools and the children of this state; however, upon closer inspection the reality is that is probably better for the State than anyone else.
Under the current laws, the State owes schools a particular amount of money by formula. With this RDA shift that amount of money is the same as it has always been (i.e., schools do not get one more dollar under this shift). However, who is paying the bill/obligation is shifting from the State to the local RDA – which makes one think that the State is the winner in this situation.
Meanwhile the capital improvement projects that are supported by RDA funds in the City are lost along with the construction-based jobs that were involved in building those projects.
In RUSD (as well as many other districts in Riverside County), we already get a substantial amount of money on an annual basis from the RDA to support the building of schools and other facilities. If this RDA change should occur, we will not get any more operational funds as defined by state law, BUT we would lose our current RDA funds. The net effect would be that we lose money on this deal!! Lost jobs, less money? I am not so sure that this is a “good deal,” though I appreciate the Governor’s effort to hold public education in “harmless.”
RDA/State funding – What does it really mean?
ReplyDeleteI’ve just started paying more attention to it because it has been all over the PE and now Dr. Miller’s Blog and have got some questions.
What dollars are in the RDA money pot? Looks like bond money and money from the state…right?
RUSD is getting a big RDA boon with construction to start at several school sites shortly with bond money voted on by us the tax payers and most likely hiring out of area not local contractors to do the job as usual. I’d like to know how much RDA funding has actually paid for RUSD construction improvements over the last decade breaking down the amount by bond/state money along with the number of jobs it has created.
Sounds like a “good deal” for RUSD but “probably better for the state than anyone else”…the last time I looked Riversiders are part of the state. “Lost jobs, less money” is that in reference to those contracted to do the construction or RUSD employees? The RDA is required to submit a report to the State of California stating how many jobs the redevelopment projects created and they have failed to do so and are being reviewed by the state on that issue. I’m not feeling really confident about that RDA right now.
It would be great for a change to get all the facts without the smoke and mirrors so the people of Riverside and this state can make an informed decision.