Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Response to DOF May 3, 2012 Letter <br /> May 18, 2012 <br /> Page 6 <br /> The Successor Agency is required to perform the obligations of the former agency pursuant to the <br /> Settlement and Settlement Agreements, as described above, pursuant to HSC Section 34177(c) <br /> and the DOF's own guidance documents. Thus, contracts/services necessary to implement these <br /> enforceable obligations are allowable project cost expenditures, as intended by ABXI 26 and are <br /> recognized and permitted per DOF directive (set forth in "Exhibit 4" on the DOF webpage <br /> devoted to ABXI 26 issues) which treats such costs as "specific project implementation activities <br /> such as construction inspection, project management or actual construction [which) would not be <br /> viewed by Finance as `administrative."' Additionally, pursuant to HSC Section 34172(c), the <br /> Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) is a "special fund of the dissolved <br /> redevelopment agency to pay the principal of and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or <br /> indebtedness, whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise incurred by the redevelopment <br /> I <br /> agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopment projects of each <br /> redevelopment agency dissolved pursuant to this part." The RPTTF is therefore required to fund <br /> this obligation. <br /> • Page 7, items 88 &c 89, cash balances from settlement agreements totaling $26.8 million. The <br /> DOF Letter states that ABXI 26 does not allow successor agencies to enter into new contracts, <br /> and any unencumbered balances should be remitted to the County Auditor Controller. <br /> 1esponse: Please refer to our comments noted for items 99 and #85 above regarding these <br /> Settlement Agreements constituting enforceable obligations. Additionally, the existing cash <br /> balances are not based on "tax increment no longer payable," as DOF states for items H9 & 85, but <br /> instead are based on the enforceable obligation found in the third party settlement agreements. <br /> • Administrative costs claimed exceed allowance by $2,422,796. The OOF Letter cites 11SC: <br /> Section 34171(b) as limiting administrative costs for fiscal year 2011-12 to five percent of <br /> property tax allocated to the successor agency or $250,000, whichever is greater, and states the <br /> Agency's allocation is $846,644. DOF attached a schedule showing its calculation of <br /> administrative costs. <br /> Response: We find the allocation to be incorrectly calculated for several reasons. It is not based <br /> on the total of all obligations for the time period. Additionally, project costs were incorrectly <br /> moved into "administrative costs"- By DOF's own directive (set Forth in "Exhibit 4" on the DOF <br /> webpage devoted to ABX 1 26 issues), "specific project implementation activities such as <br /> construction inspection, project nianagetnent or actual construction would not be viewed by <br /> Finance as `administrative."' Additionally, many items listed on the schedule attached to the DOF <br /> Letter are enforceable obligations in their own right, not "administrative costs." We, therefore, <br /> request a re-calculation of Administrative Costs based on the following; and are attaching a <br /> schedule (Attachment 5) which we believe demonstrates is the corrected calculation of the <br /> administrative costs that the City of Santa Ana, acting as the Successor Agency, is eligible tor. <br /> 3-39 <br />