Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 14-349 <br />·Bonds including debt service reserve set asides and any other required payments; <br />·Loans borrowed by the Agency; <br />·Payments required by the federal or state governments; <br />·Pension and unemployment payments for Agency employees; <br />·Judgments, settlements or binding arbitration decisions; and <br />·Any legally binding and enforceable contract that does not violate the debt limit or <br />public policy. <br />The ROPS for January through June 2015 (known as ROPS 14-15B) does not include any <br />new obligations that were not included on the previous ROPS. The following obligations are <br />the subject of ongoing dispute between the Successor Agency and the DOF: <br />City-Agency Agreements <br />After the approval of each previous version of the San Leandro ROPS, the DOF exercised its <br />right to conduct a review of the list of Enforceable Obligations. Upon completion of those <br />reviews, the DOF informed the Successor Agency that it does not consider some items to be <br />enforceable because AB x1 26 does not recognize agreements between a redevelopment <br />agency and the city that created it. This determination related to a loan from the City General <br />Fund to the Joint Redevelopment Project Area with a balance of $2.1million (ROPS Obligation <br />#9) and four Cooperative Agreements to fund $9.1 million in capital improvement projects <br />(ROPS Obligations #27-30). <br />In response to the DOF’s initial determination, the Successor Agency and Oversight Board <br />exercised the power granted in Health and Safety Code Section 34178 to re-authorize those <br />agreements in May 2012. Assembly Bill 1484, which went into effect on June 27, 2012, <br />revised that section of the code, limiting an Oversight Board’s ability to re-authorize <br />agreements. DOF’s continued objection suggests that it interprets AB 1484 to have a <br />retroactive effect on these actions. <br />After the denial of these agreements on the ROPS for January-June 2013, staff requested <br />and received a meet-and-confer appointment with DOF. After that meeting, however, DOF <br />continued to deny the validity of the obligations. No other administrative remedies were <br />available to the Successor Agency at that point. A lawsuit to challenge the DOF’s <br />interpretation was filed in December 2013 and a hearing was held on July 18, 2014.The <br />court’s decision is expected by November 25, 2014 although appeals, should any be filed, <br />could delay resolution of this issue. The obligations remain on the ROPS but DOF has <br />prohibited the Successor Agency from receiving any funding for them. <br />If it is unable to establish the validity of these City-Agency agreements through other means, <br />the Successor Agency may opt to take advantage of a clause in AB 1484 which would allow <br />repayment of loans made by cities to redevelopment agencies upon compliance with certain <br />requirements. That clause, however, would strictly limit the amount of the payments and <br />requires 20 percent of all payments be dedicated to affordable housing, among other <br />restrictions. That clause would not provide a mechanism to restore funding for the capital <br />projects funded through the Cooperative Agreements. <br />Regency Centers/Washington Plaza Security Agreement <br />The Washington Plaza Security Agreement, executed June 21, 2004, allowed the <br />Page 2 City of San Leandro Printed on 9/9/2014