Laserfiche WebLink
of the Administrative Budget. Legal Counsel Labadie <br /> provided the code reference and explained the nexus on <br /> certain items. <br /> Mr. Ekern, Community Development Director, provided some <br /> answers on specific projects listed. An unspent Bond was <br /> discussed and Ms. Ramirez said this would be addressed <br /> later. A list of projects was discussed. <br /> Regarding the PERS unfunded obligation to former RDA <br /> employees, the Board agreed to have the question posed to <br /> the State Department of Finance. Mr. Ponty said that these <br /> are legacy costs with the demise of the Redevelopment <br /> Agency and the suggestion is to have them paid by the <br /> Successor Agency. He said these represent $2.5 million of <br /> costs. Mr. Bell noted that the goal is to bring back an <br /> agreement between the City and the Successor Agency for it <br /> to reimburse the City for the PERS costs that the city is <br /> incurring. One Board Member would like to see the <br /> calculations leading up to $2.5 million in PERS pension <br /> obligations. Mr. Ponty concurred that would be doable. <br /> Regarding row 41 and 42 there was a discussion about how <br /> to address the Oversight Board charges and costs. Mr. <br /> Ponty offered to bring back a breakdown of the costs. There <br /> was a suggestion to zero out row 41 for now. The Board <br /> discussed the monthly costs of current employees associated <br /> with Redevelopment Agency. On row 47, the consensus was <br /> to wait and see what the justification is. Staff was to <br /> provide these figures, and then the Board was to make a <br /> determination on what the budget should be. Questions <br /> were asked of Mr. Ponty regarding the Successor Agency <br /> budget and the Administrative Budget of the Oversight <br /> Board. Mr. Labadie provided details on the matter. Mr. Bell <br /> provided details on the Administrative Budget. <br /> Time reporting systems were discussed. The Vice Chair <br /> posed questions about the time being charged or the figures <br /> being noted on the ROPS. Staff said it would be coming back <br /> with justification of expenditures. Regarding item 41, it was <br /> suggested it be zeroed now, and 47 wait until the <br /> justification is in. The Chair posed questions about the <br /> budget to support the Oversight Board. One Board Member <br /> wanted to compare the costs of the agency when it was an <br /> active Agency. Staff said it would provide these figures. <br /> Mr. Ponty covered details of the agreement with Legal Aid <br /> 4 <br />