My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SA_FULL PACKET_2012-10-01
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Successor Agency (Formerly the Community Redevelopment Agency) (1974-Present)
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY (2012 - PRESENT)
>
2012
>
10/01/2012
>
SA_FULL PACKET_2012-10-01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/4/2013 9:02:48 AM
Creation date
10/1/2012 8:56:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Community Development
Date
10/1/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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).
View images
View plain text
Thus, project costs from our prior two ROPS need to backed out of the "Administrative Cost <br />Allowance," and our ROPS allocations and Administrative Budgets recalculated accordingly. <br />Santa Ana Successor Agency Dispute on <br />ROPS #'s 14 - <br />Agreements): <br />18 (Settlement <br />The Settlement Agreements consist of legal settlement agreements between the Former <br />Agency and third parties ("Contractual Settlement Agreements"), and judgments entered against <br />the Former Agency by the California Superior Court for the County of Orange ("Judgment <br />Settlement Agreements"). These are not pass through agreements with affected taxing entities, <br />but are similarly structured, in that the terms of these agreements required the Former Agency to <br />apply a specified percentage of tax 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 />enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency that were properly included on the ROPS. In <br />the May 24 Letter, the DOF rejected the Settlement Agreements, stating (without statutory <br />reference or legal support) that "Settlements awarding a percentage of tax increment are not <br />considered EOs." The DOF went on to explain, again without specific 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) defines "enforceable obligation" for purposes of Part 1.85 of the <br />Dissolution Act; Section 34171(d)(1)(E) provides that "enforceable obligations" include "[a]ny <br />legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that is not otherwise void as violating the <br />debt limit or public policy."2 The Contractual Settlement Agreements are legally binding and <br />enforceable agreements which were executed long before June 28, 2012, when the Dissolution <br />Act became effective. <br />Section 34171(d)(1)(D) provides that "enforceable obligations" include "[j]udgments or <br />settlements entered by a competent court of law or binding arbitration decisions against the <br />former redevelopment agency, other than passthrough payments that are made by the county <br />2 Identical language is found in subparagraph (5) of Section 34167(d), which defines "enforceable <br />obligation" for purposes of Part 1.8 of the Dissolution Act. <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />3-20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.