Laserfiche WebLink
City of San Leandro <br />Notes to Basic Financial Statements <br />For the year ended June 30, 2012 <br /> <br /> <br />92 <br /> <br />NOTE 18 – REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DISSOLUTION AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY <br />ACTIVITIES, Continued <br /> <br />C. Cash and Investments <br /> <br />Cash and Investments at June 30, 2012, consisted of the following: <br /> <br /> <br />Statement of net assets: <br />Cash and Investments 8,960,964$ <br />Cash and Investments held by trustee 10,738,134 <br />Total cash and investments 19,699,098$ <br /> The Successor Agency pools its cash and investment with the City in order to achieve a higher return on <br />investment. Certain restricted funds, which are held and invested by independent custodians through contractual <br />agreements, are not pooled. These restricted funds include cash with fiscal agents. <br /> <br /> <br />D. Advances from the City <br /> <br /> <br />Receivable Fund Payable Fund Amount <br />General <br />Successor Agency of the <br />Redevelopment Agency of the City of <br />San Leandro 2,040,768$ <br />2,040,768$ <br /> <br />Plaza Project Area General Fund Loan: <br />On March 7, 2011 the Executive Board of the San Leandro Redevelopment Agency authorized a payment of <br />$2,137,273 to the City of San Leandro to retire the full remaining balance of a loan due to the City of San Leandro <br />General Fund from the Plaza Project Area. The l oan had an initial balance of $2,887,617 and was secured by a <br />Promissory Note executed on December 5, 2002. Although the loan was made for legitimate redevelopment purposes <br />and the repayment was entirely consistent with the requirements of the Promissory Note, AB x1 26 require the State <br />Controller’s Office to review any transfers of funds from redevelopment agencies to their sponsoring cities that <br />occurred after January 1, 2011. The possibility exists that the City could be required to remit the amount of the <br />repayment, $2,137,273, to the Alameda County Auditor-Controller for redistribution to the taxing entities although the <br />City does not believe that this would reflect an accurate interpretation of applicable laws. If the City needed to remit <br />these funds, it would, as a taxing entity itself, receive roughly 12% of the funds, or approximately $250,000.