Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Redevelopment Agency, 2011-12 transfer to the Successor Agency, the City (look back)


Is the Redevelopment Agency transfer to the City part of the budget deficiency?  If you know, please explain how that works. Thanks.


Pacifica Redevelopment Agency asset transfer review report, 1/1/11 through 1/31/12, pdf 13 pages.


Letter from John Chiang, California State Controller, 7/31/14 to Lorie D. Tinfow, City Manager, City of Pacifica/Successor Agency.

Image result for redevelopment payback picture
What's the problem, we've got our loan
from Quarry redevelopment covered,
parking facility almost built, open space, trails.

.... "Our review applies to all assets including, but not limited to, real and personal property, cash funds, accounts receivable, deeds of trust and mortgages, contract rights, and rights to payment of any kind.  We also reviewed and determined whether any unallowable transfers of assets to the City of Pacifica or any other public agencies have been reversed.

Our review found that the RDA transferred $2,349,663 in assets after January 1, 2011, including unallowable transfers totaling $60,000 to the City of Pacifica (City), or 2.55% of transferred assets. However, in March 2013, the City turned over $60,000 in cash to the Sucessor Agency. Therefore, no further action is necessary." (Text repeated in the Asset transfer Summary (page 5) and Conclusion (page 6). Jeffrey V. Brownfield, CPA, Chief, Division of Audits.   


Reference, Asset transfer review report, background.  "In January of 2011, the Governor of the State of California proposed statewide elimination of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) beginning with the fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 State budget. The Governor's proposal was incorporated into Assembly Bill 26 (ABX1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session), which was passed by the Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor on June 28, 2011." (Report background computer page 5, document page 1.)  

See schedule 1, "Summary of asset transfer to the City of Pacifica and the Successor Agency after January 1, 2011. Note:  December 31, 2011, cash transfer to City for interest payments, February 1, 2012 Current assets transferred to Successor Agency $1,454,388, February 1, 2012 Property transferred to Successor Agency $835,275, Total $2,349,663, Allowable $2,289,663, Uallowable $60,000, Adjustments -$60.000. (Computer page 9, document page 5).

Letter from Burke, Williams and Sorensen, LLP (Attorneys) to Elizabeth Gonzalez, Chief, Local Governance Compliance Bureau, State Controller's Office, Division of Audits, 6/9/14. "The specific concern we have with the Draft Report arises from the statement on page 4 of the Draft Report that on June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2011, the RDA transferred cash to the City totaling $325,396 as loan interest payments on loans previously made by the City to the former RDA. As I discussed with Scott Freesmeier last week, and as City staff have further confirmed to SCO staff since then, neither the City's own financial records nor the enclosed RDA audited financial statements dated June 30, 2011 and January 31, 2012 support this conclusion.  ... The January 31, 2012 audit document does show a $60,000 interest payment to the City in the second half of 2011 (see page 18)... that payment was reversed per order of the State Department of Finance as of  March 31, 2013," (computer page 11). 


Note: photograph of a $20 M apartment redevelopment by Damian White 141015DW37 from  The Standard, Warrnambool, AU, 6/4/15.


Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

What? Is this about the over $300,000 accidentally sent to the state on Ritzma's watch when the RDA was being closed out? Kind of an official finder's, keeper's letter? They found a discrepancy? Lot of that going around.

Kahty Meeh said...

830, $300,000? I don't see that that in the text.

Here's how I understand the numbers. Because the State closed down the Cities Redevelopment Agencies, (in Pacifica that was the Rockaway Beach/Quarry Beach project improvement area, including development of business, housing, and a parking facility which was never built)-- the City owed the State (from prior tax revenue benefits received) $2,289,663.
However, in calculating the amount owed to the State, a $60,000 excess payment error was made by the City. The State credited/repaid the $60,000 from the City's amount owned/paid of $2,349,663. Hence, what the City owed and paid the State in total was $2,289,663.
If someone has a better explanation of finalizing and closing the Redevelopment obligation to the State from benefits received by this City, please advise.

An explanation of interest from the City, Redevelopment. "Redevelopment agencies finance their activities through a share of the increases in property tax realized over the life of a project area. This does not affect the amount of property tax paid by citizens and landowners; it merely affects how the taxes are allocated."
From that link, you may also view the various plans for the Rockaway Quarry through six (6) pdfs. Yet, NIMBIES on and off City Council and their regional friends chased away developers. At one time the citizen committee to welcome developers was overseen by Dina Verby, John Curtis, etc. The Redevelopment agency was first adopted July 14, 1986. Twenty-five (25) years of redevelopment benefit to the City that did not happen, including sales tax revenue loss of about 80%.

Anonymous said...

IDK Kathy if you're right or wrong. I only scanned through and what caught my eye was the mention of $325,396. It reminded me that we're still waiting for the state to repay us for over $300K that was sent to them in error as RDA monies on Ritzma's watch. Ms. Tinfow mentioned the error and her plan to ask for repayment in her early days of discovery. That was late 2013 or early 2014. She was not optimistic. I'm sure if the money was returned a city-wide holiday would have been declared.

Kathy Meeh said...

1122, the State Report and State Audit confirmation letter is quoted and linked on the posted article, with referenced pages. It is also linked here.
To my knowledge from the State Report and Audit Letter, that's it-- unless you provide an overriding reference and a context for that $325,396.

Anonymous said...

Righto, Kathy. That's not the finder's, keeper's report. Our missing $300,000+ (sigh, more missing money) would not be on this report.

Tom Clifford said...

Money we will never get back is the two million dollars that Council lent to the R.D.A. from the General Fund without setting up a payback plan.

Anonymous said...

Righto, Tom. Makes you wonder what the total losses really are. Deficit has grown to nearly 5 million, add to that the $300,000+ that this city dropped in the state's lap by mistake when RDA ended, and now there are more questions about the Frontierland Park Remediation Funds and how they may have been siphoned off into the GF to cover whatever. And how much has been spent on plans for Beach Blvd? First round at least half a mil for a city hall and at least that much on this latest vision of a library. Meanwhile, we get a grant to pave just half of Linda Mar Blvd, library hours are cut, and the Resource Center gets the wishbone again. There's no end to it. That's the problem...there's no end to it.

Anonymous said...

If you want it to end, stop enabling the Gang of No.
These phony enviros have destroyed Pacifica.
Digre, Keener, Loeb, Lancelle, deJarnutt, Hall and Bray are just a few of the local nuts who kill Pacifica in the name of Red-Legged frogs, SF Garter snakes and Snowy Plovers. Their real motive is "I Got Mine" everyone else, GO AWAY!!

Anonymous said...

You know what, 1157, they ain't my people, but, after 35 years here, I have a lot more trouble with the Gang of Guess What I Really Stand For. Current members Nihart, Ervin and I have my doubts about O'Neill. In his defense, he may be vulnerable to bad info in his role as spokes model.

Anonymous said...

Is there a Gang of Yes? Who are the members?

Anonymous said...

1157 Eh. Maybe so. But your real motive is "I got mine, and if everyone else goes away, I can't get more, and I gotta have more!" And we're talking personal gain, not more library hours. That's the real problem YOU have with the enviros. Hey, you guys aren't that far apart--you both got yours. Find the commonalities. Work it out.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I want more of is a safe city with adequate police and fire. Roads that don't tear the suspension out of my car. Public transit that is convenient, non-polluting and reduces traffic congestion. The ability to WALK a short distance from my home and buy groceries, read a book, look at art, listen to music, work full or part time, see a movie, enjoy a great meal.
I'd like a sewage system that doesn't stink and regularly infect the local streams and beaches. I have no problem sharing this with others as long as they show mutual respect and clean up after themselves.
The phoney-enviros with no willingness to understand how commerce actually works have strangled all of the money out of our town. Last time I looked it takes good will AND money to make a city livable.
You work it out.

Anonymous said...

205 Ha! First, you tell us who you are.

Anonymous said...

432 Try San Francisco.

Anonymous said...

All attainable here is Pacifica with common sense "infill development" and political will.
Fighting everything has given us what we got.

Anonymous said...

819 You want Pacifica to become like San Francisco. San Francisco is there, waiting for you, while you're here fighting windmills. Eh, it's your life.