My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2021.02.22 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
AgdaPkt 2021.02.22 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2021 4:51:32 PM
Creation date
2/18/2021 5:12:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
2/22/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
657
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.C. - Page 24 of 196 <br />Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Refunds <br />In FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94, the State shifted property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to <br />school districts to supplant funding that the State had been providing to school districts. The County Controller <br />places the funds that shifted from local government agencies into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund <br />(ERAF). The Controller then disburses these funds to school districts based on a formula prescribed by state law. <br />Any funds remaining in ERAF (after the distribution to the school districts) are returned to the cities, county, and <br />special districts in proportion to the amount they contributed to ERAF. This return of property tax revenue is <br />difficult to anticipate due to complicated state school funding formulas, and is continually at risk of reduction or <br />elimination by state action. <br />In FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, Redwood City received $11.0 million and $6.8 million in returned funds, <br />respectively. FY 2018-19 revenue was much higher than estimated due to a one-time acceleration in the timing <br />of payments. This level of funding is higher than can be expected in the future, particularly given recent and <br />potential changes in school financing, which the County Controller has indicated could significantly reduce this <br />revenue source for cities and the County in future fiscal years. The City's policy is to budget what can reasonably <br />be estimated, which was $4.2 million, or about 62 percent of the actual amount received in FY 2019-20. The City <br />has also budgeted to receive $4.2 million in FY 2020-21. Staff will analyze this revenue source in the Spring of FY <br />2020-21 to determine if a year-end budget amendment is needed. <br />Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency <br />As of July 1, 2018, the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of Redwood City <br />was reorganized and combined with other oversight boards in San Mateo County, thus creating one Countywide <br />Oversight Board. Going forward, action on behalf of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of <br />Redwood City will be taken by the San Mateo County Countywide Oversight Board. <br />The City continues to focus on the disposition of the $10.3 million in funds that had been in the former <br />Redevelopment Agency's possession, which were encumbered for below-market rate housing through an <br />agreement with the Legal Aid Society. The control of these funds has been in dispute with the State of California <br />Department of Finance (DOF) since the Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in FY 2011-12. The City filed suit <br />against the State of California, challenging the DOF's position that these funds are unencumbered and must be <br />remitted to the County Controller. Although the State prevailed in the Superior Court trial, the City filed an <br />appeal. The appeal was heard on December 14, 2020 and the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision <br />and DOF determination, accepting all of the City's Dissolution Act arguments. A petition by DOF for review by the <br />Supreme Court is due by February 8, 2021. <br />State legislation (SB107) was passed in September 2015 requiring that all obligations determined by the DOF be <br />paid in order for successor agencies to receive the benefits of a finding of completion. The City remitted the funds <br />prior to the end of calendar year 2015 for distribution to the taxing entities while it continues to pursue its appeal. <br />The City advised the taxing entities to hold the funds in case the City prevailed in this appeal. If there are no more <br />petitions by the DOF, the City will proceed with recovering the $10.3 million. This recovery is likely to occur over <br />several years. <br />The City also continues to work with the State of California regarding the disposition of several former <br />Redevelopment Agency land parcels. <br />Relevant Financial Policies <br />In FY 2016-17, the City Council updated the General Fund reserve policy, where the unreserved portion of the <br />General Fund's fund balance shall be 15 percent of anticipated General Fund revenues. With the FY 2019-20 <br />Adopted Budget, the City Council approved a strategy to utilize 80 percent of the excess balance, above the 15 <br />percent reserve threshold, to pay down the City's unfunded liabilities, including pension and retiree health <br />111 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.