My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Reso 2013-029
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
2013
>
Reso 2013-029
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2013 3:53:14 PM
Creation date
3/11/2013 4:33:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Resolution
Document Date (6)
3/4/2013
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
10A Action 2013 0304
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2013\Packet 2013 0304
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of San Leandro <br />Notes to Basic Financial Statements <br />For the year ended June 30, 2012 <br /> <br /> <br />89 <br /> <br />NOTE 16 –SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, Continued <br /> <br />C. Demand for True-up Payment <br /> <br />Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34183.5(b), Successor Agencies are required to remit a True -up Payment <br />representing a calculation of tax increment collected in December 2011 by the former Redevelopment Agency in <br />excess of enforceable obligations, as approved by the County Auditor/Controller. On March 2012, the Successor <br />Agency received a Demand from the County Auditor/Controller that had calculated a True-up Payment of $6,519,397. <br />Management reviewed the calculation and believes it is inaccurate. Management’s calculation of the True-up <br />Payment amounted to $521,589 and on April 2012 the Successor Agency remitted that amount to the County <br />Auditor/Controller. The remaining unpaid balance of the Demand has not been recorded in the accompanying <br />financial statements as management believes its calculation is accurate. This matter is governed by an area of unsettled <br />law and the amount of the unpaid demand, if any cannot be determined at this time. <br /> <br /> <br />NOTE 17–JOINTLY GOVERNED ORGANIZATIONS <br /> <br />The City of San Leandro participates in the East Bay Dischargers Authority established on February 15, 1974. The <br />Agency Members of the Joint Powers are the City of Hayward, City of San Leand ro, Oro Loma Sanitary District, <br />Castro Valley Sanitary District, and Union Sanitary District. The authority has the powers to plan for, acquire, <br />construct, manage, maintain, operate, and control facilities for the collection, transmission, treatment, reclamation, <br />sale and disposal of waste water. No debt, liability, or obligation of the Authority shall constitute a debt, liability or <br />obligation of any Agency. The Authority shall have the additional power and authority to issue Grant Anticipation <br />Notes and to issue revenue bonds in accordance with the following laws: <br /> <br />a) Article 2, Chapter 5m Title 1, Division 7 of the California Government Code, commencing with <br />Section 6540. <br />b) Chapter 6, Title 5, Division 2 of the California Government Code commencing with Section 54300. <br /> <br />The boundary of the Authority shall be the consolidated boundaries of the Agencies. In the event of withdrawal by an <br />Agency from the agreement, the boundary shall be revised to exclude the area under jurisdiction of said Agency. The <br />Authority shall be governed by the East Bay Dischargers Commission (Commission). The Commission shall consist <br />of five members, one from each Agency. The ownership of the Joint Facilities is as follows: 18.6 %, City of San <br />Leandro; 29.7% Oro Loma/Castro Valley; 33.0% City of Hayward; and 18.7% Union Sanitary District. The City’s <br />shares of the expenses are recorded as expenses of the Water Pollution Control Fund. <br /> <br />NOTE 18 – REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DISSOLUTION AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY <br />ACTIVITIES <br /> <br />A. Redevelopment Suspension <br /> <br />In an effort to balance its budget, the State of California adopted ABx1 26 on June 28, 2011, which suspended all <br />new redevelopment activities except for limited specified activities as of that date and dissolves redevelopment <br />agencies. <br /> <br />On July 18, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities and others challenged <br />the validity and constitutionality of ABx1 26 to the California Supreme Court on numerous grounds, including that <br />the ABx1 26 violated certain provisions of the California Constitution. On December 28, 2011, the Court validated <br />the provisions of ABx1 26 and extended the date of dissolution to January 31, 2012. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.