My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
10A Action Items 2018 0402
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2018
>
Packet 2018 0402
>
10A Action Items 2018 0402
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2018 5:20:43 PM
Creation date
3/27/2018 5:20:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
4/2/2018
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
PA Reso 2018-001
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
PFA Reso 2018-001
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
Reso 2018-026
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
SA Reso 2018-002
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
<br />47 <br />RISK FACTORS <br /> <br />The following information should be considered by prospective investors in evaluating <br />the 2018 Bonds. However, the following does not purport to be an exhaustive listing of risks and <br />other considerations which may be relevant to investing in the 2018 Bonds. In addition, the <br />order in which the following information is presented is not intended to reflect the relative <br />importance of any such risks. <br /> <br />The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the issuance of the 2018 <br />Bonds will be qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by limitations <br />imposed by State and federal laws, rulings and decisions affecting remedies, and by <br />bankruptcy, reorganization or other laws of general application affecting the enforcement of <br />creditors’ rights, including equitable principles. <br /> <br />Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule <br /> <br />Tax Revenues will not be withdrawn from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund <br />by the County Auditor-Controller and remitted to the Successor Agency without a duly approved <br />and effective Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to pay debt service on the 2018 Bonds <br />and to pay other enforceable obligations for each applicable annual period. In the event the <br />Successor Agency failed to file a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule as required, the <br />availability of Tax Revenues to the Successor Agency could be adversely affected for such <br />period. See “SECURITY FOR THE 2018 BONDS – Recognized Obligation Payment <br />Schedules.” <br /> <br />AB 1484 also added provisions to the Dissolution Act implementing certain penalties in <br />the event a successor agency does not timely submit a Recognized Obligation Payment <br />Schedule as required. Specifically, an oversight board approved Recognized Obligation <br />Payment Schedule must be submitted by the successor agency to the county auditor-controller <br />and the DOF, no later than each February 1 for the subsequent annual period. If a successor <br />agency does not submit a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule by such deadlines, the city <br />or county that established the redevelopment agency will be subject to a civil penalty equal to <br />$10,000 per day for every day the schedule is not submitted to the DOF. Additionally, a <br />successor agency’s administrative cost allowance is reduced by 25% if the successor agency <br />does not submit an oversight board-approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule within <br />10 days of the February 1 deadline, with respect to the Recognized Obligation Payment <br />Schedule for the subsequent annual period. <br /> <br />Challenges to Dissolution Act <br /> <br />Several successor agencies, cities and other entities have filed judicial actions <br />challenging the legality of various provisions of the Dissolution Act. One such challenge is an <br />action filed on August 1, 2012, by Syncora Guarantee Inc. and Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. <br />(collectively, “Syncora”) against the State, the State Controller, the State Director of Finance, <br />and the Auditor-Controller of San Bernardino County on his own behalf and as the <br />representative of all other County Auditors in the State (Superior Court of the State of California, <br />County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2012-80001215). Syncora are monoline financial guaranty <br />insurers domiciled in the State of New York, and as such, provide credit enhancement on bonds <br />issued by state and local governments and do not sell other kinds of insurance such as life, <br />health, or property insurance. Syncora provided bond insurance and other related insurance <br />policies for bonds issued by former California redevelopment agencies. <br />152
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.