Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Thus, project costs front our prior two BOPS need to backed out of the "AdminisLative Cost <br /> Allowance," and our BOPS allocations and Administrative BUdgets recalculated accordingly- <br /> <br /> <br /> Santa Ana Successor Agency Dispute on <br /> ROPS #'s 14 - 18 (Settlement <br /> Agreements) : <br /> <br /> The Scttlcment Agreements consist of legal settlement agreements between the Former <br /> Agency and third parties ("Contractual Settlement Agreements"), and judgments entered against <br /> the Dormer Ag=ency by the California Superior Court for the County of Orange ("Judgment <br /> Settlement Agreements"). "These are not pass through agreements with atficctcd taxing entities, <br /> but are similarly structured, in that the terms ofthese agreemcnts required the Former Agency to <br /> apply a specified percentage oftax increment from specified component project areas to <br /> specified improvements and other purposes. <br /> We have provided all documentation requested by the DOF relating to the Settlement <br /> Agreements and we have explained more than once already why the Settlement Agreements are <br /> enl'orccable obligations ofthe Successor Agency that were properly included on the ROPS_ In <br /> the May 24 F_ctter. the DOF rejected the Settlement Agreenicnts, stating (without statutory <br /> reference or legal support) that "SettlCnlCntS awarding a percentage oftax increment are not <br /> considered F"Os." The DOF went on to explain, again without SpccifiC statutory Or other legal <br /> authority- that "pursuant to ABx 1 26, tax increment is no longer payable to redevelopment <br /> agencies and is therefore not an EO.'" <br /> The DOF"s position is contrary to the plain language of the Dissolution Act and applies <br /> the Dissolution Act in an unconstitutional manner. <br /> Section 34171 (d) clef ines "enforceable obligation"" for purpOSeS of Part 1-85 of the <br /> Dissolution Act; Section 341 71 (d)( I )(F_) provides that "enforceable obligations" include '-[a Illy <br /> legally binding and ent-orceable agreement or contract that is not otherwise void as violating the <br /> debt limit or public policy" The Contractual Settlement Agreements are legally bincling and <br /> enforceable a-rcements which were executed long before _fune 28. 2012, when the Dissolution <br /> Act became effective. <br /> Section 3417 1 (d)( 1 )(D) provides that "enforceable obligations" include "LiJudgments or <br /> settlements entered by a competent court of law or binding arbitration decisions against Lhe <br /> former redevelopment agency, other than passthrough payments that are made by the county <br /> Identical language is found in subparagraph (5) of Section 34167(d), which defines "enforceable <br /> obligation" IOr purposes of Part 1.8 of the Dissolution Act. <br /> 3-26 <br />