AgdaPkt 2016-01-11 Closed and Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

City of Redwood City 6.1.E. - Page 104 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements For the year ended June 30, 2015 NOTE 14—DISSOLUTION OF THE REDWOOD CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY(CONTINUED) The Voluntary Program Act allows the community that created the redevelopment agency to avoid dissolution by opting to pay a substantial community remittance beginning FY 2011-12 and each year thereafter. On July 18, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and others filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Supreme Court of the State of California (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., Case No. 5194861), challenging the constitutionality of the companion bills, the Dissolution Act, and the Voluntary Program Act, on behalf of cities, counties, and redevelopment agencies, and requesting a stay of their enforcement. On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld the Dissolution Act and found the Voluntary Program Act to be unconstitutional and extended the date of dissolution to February 1, 2012. The Dissolution Act provides that upon dissolution of a redevelopment agency, either the city or another unit of local government will agree to serve as the "Successor Agency" to hold the assets until they are distributed to other units of state and local government. The City Council elected to become Successor Agency on August 22, 2011 with resolution 15141, and reconfirmed this action on January 23, 2012 with resolution 15164. Under the Dissolution Act, redevelopment agencies in the State of California cannot enter into new projects, obligations, or commitments. Subject to the control of a newly established oversight board, remaining assets can only be used to pay enforceable obligations in existence at the date of dissolution (including the completion of any unfinished projects that were subject to legally enforceable contractual commitments). In FY 2010-11, prior to AB X1 26 becoming law, $3.3 million of real property assets (vacant land) were transferred from the RDA's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to the City in an attempt to protect these assets from being diverted for the benefit of the State. AB X1 26, however, specifically disallowed such transfers. Accordingly, the assets were transferred to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund in FY 2011-12. Prior to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency, under an agreement with San Mateo County to receive a cumulative $25 million of the County's share of tax increment and an agreement with the Legal Aid Society to deposit the first$11.9 million of the $25 million into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the agency had deposited $10.3 million into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as of June 30, 2011. Pursuant to the agreement with the Legal Aid Society to restrict these funds to housing, after the dissolution of the redevelopment agency these funds were deposited into a new fund, Housing Legal Aid Society Fund, to be used for housing purposes. The State Department of Finance has disputed that these funds are restricted for housing, and the City has filed a lawsuit against the State of California on this matter. On October 30, 2013 the Superior Court Judge hearing the lawsuit filed against the State of California Department of Finance concerning the $10.3 million the City is holding in the Housing Legal Aid Society Fund as part of the dissolution of the former Redevelopment Agency issued a tentative ruling in favor of the State of California. On November 6, 2013 the Judge then issued a "Request for Further Briefing" to be held on November 22, 2013. On January 4, 2014 the Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the State of California. In April 2014, the City filed an appeal, and as of the date of this report, a ruling on the appeal has not been issued. The accumulated funds in the 75