HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2k: Resolution 247: Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule Pursuat to AB 1X 26MFMORAI\DUM
Office of the City Attorney
Date: August 15, 2011
TO: Chair and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Board
FROM: Stephen P. Deitsch, Agency Counsel 5- z 6'1""
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF ARA RESOLUTION NO. 247
APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION
PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO AB 1X 26; AND AUTHORIZE
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO POST THE ENFORCEABLE
OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND
TRANSMIT TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AUDITOR -
CONTROLLER, THE STATE CONTROLLER AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE NOTIFICATION, BY MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MEANS,
PROVIDING THE WEBSITE LOCATION OF THE POSTED
ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND OTHER
INFORMATION AS REQUIRED.
Recommended Action: Adopt
BACKGROUND
In June, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 1X 26 and Assembly Bill 1X 27 as
part of the State budget package which have the combined effect of abolishing every
redevelopment agency unless the community that created the agency agrees to
participate in an Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program ( "Alternative
Redevelopment Program ") and pay a "community remittance" pursuant to AB 1X 27.
AB 1X 26 requires redevelopment agencies to adopt, by August 27, 2011, an
Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule ( "EOPS "), which will serve as the basis for
the payment of the Agency's outstanding financial obligations if the City does not adopt
an ordinance electing to participate in the Alternative Redevelopment Program and the
Agency is dissolved.
Staff is recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution No. ARA- 247
(Attachment "A "); and authorize the Executive Director to post the Enforceable
Obligation Payment Schedule on the City's website and transmit to the Los Angeles
County Auditor - Controller, the State Controller and the Department of Finance
notification, by mail or electronic means, providing the website location of the posted
Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule and other information as required.
1
DISCUSSION
The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency ") was created by the City Council for the
purposes of implementing redevelopment activities in the City. The City Council
adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Arcadia Central Redevelopment Project in
accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code § 33000
et seq.) ( "CRL "). The Arcadia Central Redevelopment Project Area was found to have a
significant number of physical and economic blighting conditions that necessitated
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency
to receive tax increment revenue to pay for programs and projects that address these
conditions consistent with the CRL.
In January, 2011, the Governor announced his intent to eliminate redevelopment
agencies as a way to help balance the State budget. The Legislature then enacted and
the Governor signed, Assembly Bill 1X 26 and Assembly Bill 1X 27; many believe these
bills violate a number of provisions in the California Constitution, including the recently
enacted Proposition 22. These bills took effect on June 29, 2011. The California
League of Cities and the California Redevelopment Association filed suit on July 18,
2011, in the Supreme Court of the State of California challenging the constitutionality of
these bills and requesting a stay of them. On August 11, the Supreme Court agreed to
take the case and issued an immediate stay of AB 1X 27 in its entirety and a partial stay
of AB 1X 26.
Prior to the stay, Assembly Bill 1X 26 immediately suspended all new redevelopment
activities and incurrence of indebtedness, and dissolved redevelopment agencies
effective October 1, 2011 (the "Dissolution Act "). It does this by terminating virtually all
otherwise legal functions of the redevelopment agency and mandating a liquidation of
any assets for the benefit of local taxing agencies. Some debts would be allowed to be
repaid, but any such remittances would be managed by a successor agency that would
function primarily as a debt repayment administrator. The successor agency would not
be able to continue or initiate any new redevelopment projects or programs. The
activities of the successor agency would be overseen by an oversight board, comprised
primarily of representatives of other taxing agencies, until such time as the remaining
debts of the former redevelopment agency were paid off, all agency assets were
liquidated and all property taxes were redirected to local taxing agencies.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's stay, the Court allowed Part 1.8 of Division 24 of the
Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code Sections 34161- 34167), enacted by
AB 1X 26, to remain in effect, which precludes existing redevelopment agencies from
incurring new indebtedness, transferring assets, acquiring real property, entering into
new contracts or modifying existing contracts, and adopting or amending redevelopment
plans. The Court stayed enforcement of AB 1X 26 in all other respects.
2
Assembly Bill 1X 27, which the Supreme Court stayed in its entirety, allows a city or
county that has a redevelopment agency to avoid the consequences of the Dissolution
Act by adopting an ordinance ( "Continuation Ordinance ") stating it will comply with the
Alternative Redevelopment Program and pay specified "community remittances."
The City adopted the Continuation Ordinance on August 2, 2011. Since the adoption of
the Continuation Ordinance the Agency has been operating under the provisions of AB
1X 27.
If the City chose not to adopt the Continuation Ordinance or was unable to enact the
Continuation Ordinance prior to August 27, 2011, Health and Safety Code Section
34169, enacted by AB 1X 26, required the Agency to adopt an EOPS. The EOPS must
list all of the "enforceable obligations" of the Agency, and is subject to approval by the
Department of Finance. Until October 1, 2011, "enforceable obligations" include: bonds;
loans legally required to be repaid pursuant to a payment schedule with mandatory
repayment terms; payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations
to the State or obligations imposed by State law; judgments, settlements or binding
arbitration decisions that bind the Agency; legally binding and enforceable agreements
or contracts; and contracts or agreements necessary for the continued administration or
operation of the Agency, including agreements to purchase or rent office space,
equipment and supplies. After an EOPS is adopted, the Agency cannot make any
payment unless it is listed in an adopted EOPS.
The EOPS must be adopted at a public meeting, and must be posted on the Agency or
City website.
Because AB 1X 27, the statutory scheme which the City and Agency had opted into
through the adoption of the Continuation Ordinance, has been stayed, the City's
adopted Continuation Ordinance is not effective for the duration of the stay. Thus, it
appears the Agency must adopt an EOPS at this time because although the Court order
stayed enforcement of Health and Safety Code Section 34169, the Court order did not
stay the enforcement of Health and Safety Code Section 34167, also enacted by AB 1X
26, which relies upon and makes reference to an adopted EOPS.
The EOPS is important because it appears the Agency may only make payments during
the time the stay is in place for debts and obligations listed on the EOPS. If the stay is
lifted and AB 1X 26 is found constitutional, the EOPS is the basis for future actions
following dissolution of the Agency. If a Continuation Ordinance is not adopted and the
redevelopment agency is dissolved, then starting October 1, 2011, a successor agency
takes over, and is required to prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
( "ROPS ") covering a 6 month period (the first to cover January 1, 2012 to June 30,
2012), based on the EOPS, to fulfill the enforceable obligations during that period. The
ROPS must be reviewed and approved by the oversight board, and then submitted to
the county auditor - controller, the State Controller and the Department of Finance and
posted on the successor agency's website. Prior to January 1, 2012, the successor
agency is authorized to make payments under the adopted EOPS. After January 1,
3
2012, only payments listed in the approved ROPS may be made by the successor
agency. Further, after January 1, 2012, all contracts entered into between an agency
and the city or county that created it are declared to be invalid by the legislation, and no
longer binding on the successor agency, except for written agreements to pay certain
debt obligations in connection with issuance of bonds, or written agreements that
provided loans or other startup funding for the agency that were entered into within two
years of the formation of the agency.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency adopt ARA Resolution No. 247 regarding the
approval and adoption of an Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule in accordance
with AB 1X 26; and authorize the Executive Director to post the Enforceable Obligation
Payment Schedule on the City's website and transmit to the Los Angeles County
Auditor - Controller, the State Controller and the Department of Finance Notification, by
mail or electronic means, providing the website location of the posted Enforceable
Obligation Payment Schedule and other information as required.
Approved:
Donald Penman
Executive Director
Attachment: ARA Resolution No. 247 and associated Enforceable Obligation Payment
Schedule
4