HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdopt Successor Agency Resolution Nos 2023-04 and 2023-05 - (2) ��NTi!vGTp'. 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,CA
:.:-414111.4111V1
. 92648
City of Huntington Beach APPROVED 7-0
File #: 23-1044 MEETING DATE: 12/19/2023
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sunny Han, Chief Financial Officer
Subject:
Adopt Successor Agency Resolution Nos. 2023-04 and 2023-05 approving the Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Huntington Beach
Successor Agency for the period of July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 34177 and related actions
Statement of Issue:
The Successor Agency is requested to approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. An approved
ROPS must be submitted to the County of Orange Oversight Board by January 23, 2024, and then to
the Department of Finance (DOF) by February 1, 2024. This is the sixth year that the Successor
Agency is submitting the annual ROPS to the Countywide Oversight Board.
Financial Impact:
The ROPS provides the County Auditor-Controller with the amount of the former Redevelopment
Agency's enforceable obligations for which the Successor Agency anticipates incurring expenditures.
Once approved by DOF, the Successor Agency will be entitled to receive property tax revenue up to
the amount of the DOF-approved enforceable obligations included in the Payment Schedule. The
ROPS requests $15,276,097 in funds to support existing legally required enforceable obligations for
FY 2024/25.
Recommended Action:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-04, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Successor Agency Administrative Budget for
the Period July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025;" and,
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-05, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the Period July 1, 2024 - June 30, 2025 (`ROPS 24-25')."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended action(s) and direct staff accordingly. Per Health and Safety Code
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 3 Printed on 12/14/2023
powered by LegistarTM
File#: 23-1044 MEETING DATE: 12/19/2023
Section 34179(j), the Successor Agency is required to submit the ROPS to the Countywide Oversight
Board and the Department of Finance by February 1st of each year. Per Health and Safety Code
Section 34177 (m)(2), the Successor Agency would be assessed a $10,000 per-day penalty for
failure to submit the ROPS on a timely basis. Additionally, failure to submit the ROPS within ten (10)
days of the deadline may result in a 25% reduction of the Successor Agency's maximum
administrative cost allowance for the period covered by the delinquent ROPS. Should the Agency fail
to submit the ROPS, expenditures totaling $5,447,556 would need to be covered through alternate
sources of funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25. The Agency would also postpone the receipt of
$9,828,541 in loan funds to be repaid to the City's General Fund and Low and Moderate Income
Housing Asset Fund to the Fiscal Year 2025-26 ROPS or later.
Analysis:
As part of the 2011 Budget Act, as recommended by then Governor Jerry Brown, Legislature
approved the dissolution of the State's Redevelopment Agencies. After litigation, the California
Supreme Court's ruled on the Dissolution Act that all redevelopment agencies in California were
dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The Dissolution Act, AB 1484, and related legislation describe the procedures to wind-down the
affairs of the former redevelopment agencies. These provisions include the continued payment of
recognized enforceable obligations as defined in the law. The ROPS for July 1, 2024 through June
30, 2025, requests payment for enforceable obligations associated with the former Redevelopment
Agency's Tax Allocation bonds, development agreements, legal services, administrative budget, and
other miscellaneous costs.
Of note, the ROPS also includes a request for funds in the amount of$9,828,54.1 to repay a portion
of monies owed to the City from the former Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of real property
(the "Waterfront Loan") in Fiscal Year 1988-89 in the amount of$22.4M, which was loaned to the
agency at a 10-percent interest rate. Between 1989 and 2011, the former Redevelopment Agency
made payments on various City-Agency loans, with $14.8M of these payments being applied to the
Waterfront loan. This loan had been listed on previous ROPs and denied by the DOF until it was
ultimately approved as an enforceable obligation by the California Superior Court on February 17,
2023. The Department of Finance concurred with the Court's ruling in their letter dated May 19, 2023
stating the following:
"Waterfront Commercial Master Site Plan. Finance no longer denies this item. In compliance
with the Judgement, the Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Property(Waterfront Loan)
dated September 19, 1988 between the City and the former Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach is considered an enforceable'obligation, and future requests for
funding of supported outstanding amounts will be allowable."
The total amount of the loan as of June 30, 2024 will be $31,136,000, comprised of$22,400,000 in
principal and $8,736,000 in accrued interest calculated in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 34191.4(b)(3)
"If the oversight board finds that the loan is an enforceable obligation, any interest on the
remaining principal amount of the loan that was previously unpaid after the original effective
date of the loan shall be recalculated from the date of origination of the loan as approved by
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 3 Printed on 12/14/2023
powered by Legistar'"
File#: 23-1044 MEETING DATE: 12/19/2023
the redevelopment agency on a quarterly basis, at a simple interest rate of 3 percent. The
recalculated loan shall be repaid to the city, county, or city and county in accordance with a
defined schedule over a reasonable term of years. Moneys repaid shall be applied first to the
principal, and second to the interest."
The $9,828,541 repayment amount requested in the FY 2024/25 ROPS was calculated using the
Department of Finance's Sponsoring Entity Loan Repayment Calculator based on the provisions
outlined in Health and Safety Code Section 34191.3(b)(3)(A), which calculated the maximum
repayment amount authorized per fiscal year. This amount will be recalculated each fiscal year
based on the estimated tax revenue available for repayment of the loan as required by Health and
Safety Code Section 34191.3(b)(3)(A).
The County Oversight Board will review and approve the City's current ROPS during its January 16,
2024 meeting. The City must submit to the State DOF by February 1, 2024. The State DOF will
make its determination by April 15th. The City's ROPS will not be effective until approved by the State
DOF.
Environmental Status:
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the.
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Goal 2 -.Fiscal Stability, Strategy A- Consider new revenue sources and opportunities to support.the
City's priority initiatives and projects.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2023-04, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Successor Agency Administrative
Budget for the Period July 1, 2024 Through June 30, 2025"
2. Resolution No. 2023-05, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule for the Period July 1, 2024-June 30,2025 (`ROPS 24-25')"
3. Superior Court of California Ruling dated February 17, 2023
4. Department of Finance Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule Letter dated May 19, 2023
5. Department of Finance Section 34191.3(b)(3)(A) Sponsoring Entity Loan Repayment
Calculator
6. Recalculated Waterfront Loan per Health and Safety Code Section 34191.4(b)(3)
7. PowerPoint Presentation
City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Printed on 12/14/2023
powered by Legistar"
ATTACHMENT # 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 34177(j) requires that the
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Successor
Agency")prepare an administrative budget for each annual fiscal period; and
A draft administrative budget for the fiscal period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025
("Administrative Budget") is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
California Health and Safety Code section 34177(k) requires the Successor Agency to
provide to the County Auditor-Controller administrative cost estimates for expenses from the
administrative budget that are to be paid from property tax revenues deposited in the
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund for each annual fiscal period; and
All of the prerequisites with respect to the approval of this Resolution have been met.
NOW, THEREFORE,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The Successor Agency hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are
true and correct.
2. . The Administrative Budget attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved.
3. The Successor Agency staff is directed to: (i) provide the required cost estimates
for expenses to the County Auditor-Controller; and (ii) to do any and all things and to execute
and deliver any and all documents which may be necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the
purposes of this Resolution.
4. The Successor Agency does not intend, by adoption of this Resolution, to waive
any constitutional, legal and/or equitable rights of the Successor Agency or the City of
Huntington Beach under law and/or in equity by virtue of the adoption of this Resolution and
actions approved and taken pursuant to this Resolution and, therefore, reserves all such rights of
the Successor Agency and the City of Huntington Beach under law and/or in equity.
23-13864/325439 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19t' day of December,
2023.
.,. 1
Chairpe en
REVIE D AN PROV :
•
Executive Director
APPROVED AS FORM:
0‘(/
G eral Legal Counsel
23-13864/325439 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04
EXHIBIT A
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD
JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
[behind this page]
23-13864/325439 3
Resolution No. 2023-04
Exhibit A
Successor Agency
Administrative Budget
Department Budget Summary
Other Funds by Object Account
OTHER FUNDS
Expenditure Object Account ROPS 24-25 Budget
•
RORF Administration (350)
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Salaries/Benefits-Permanent 250,000
PERSONNEL SERVICES 250,000
Total 250,000
Revenue Summary ROPS 24-25 Budget
Administrative Allowance 250,000
Total 250,000
Significant Changes
Pursuant to AB x126 and AB 1484, the Successor Agency receives RPTTF funding from the County Auditor-
Controller to pay Enforceable Obligations. The Successor Agency also receives a 3% of actual distributed
RPTTF in the preceding fiscal year, or a minimum of$250,000 for administration of the winding down of the
former Redevelopment Agency per fiscal year. Administrative costs associated with the "wind down" and
dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency that exceed the administrative cost allowance will be funded by
Other Funds, pursuant to State rules. Administrative expenses include: personnel costs, legal, and other
professional services expenses associated with the dissolution and administration of the Successor Agency.
Successor Agency
Res. No. 2023-04
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU the Clerk of the Successor Agency to the
former City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, Huntington Beach,
California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach at a special meeting held on December 19, 2023 and that is was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Board Members: Moser, Bolton, Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland,
McKeon, Kalmick
NOES: Board Members: None
ABSENT: Board Members: None
ABSTAIN: Board Members: None
94vu4Jtu)
Clerk of The Successor Agency to
the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT #2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •
APPROVING THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2024—JUNE 30, 2025 ("ROPS 24-25")
WHEREAS,pursuant to AB xl 26 (as amended by AB 1484,the "Dissolution Act"),the
separate legal entity known as Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach("Successor Agency")must prepare"Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedules" ("ROPS")that enumerate the enforceable obligations and expenses of the Successor
Agency for each successive annual fiscal period until the wind down and disposition of assets of
the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of IIuntington Beach; and
The Successor Agency staff has prepared a ROPS for the annual fiscal period
commencing on July 1, 2024 and continuing through June 30, 2025 ("ROPS 24-25")which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
After reviewing ROPS 24-25,presented to and recommended for approval by Successor
Agency staff, and after reviewing any written and oral comments from the public relating
thereto,the Successor Agency Board desires to approve the ROPS 24-25; and
All of the prerequisites with respect to the approval of this Resolution have been met.
NOW,THEREFORE,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The Successor Agency hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are
true and correct.
2. The Successor Agency hereby approves ROPS 24-25 in the form presented to the
Successor Agency and attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby determines that such agreements
and obligations constitute"enforceable obligations" and"recognized obligations"for all
purposes under the Dissolution Act.
3. The Successor Agency authorizes and directs the Successor Agency staff to: (i)
take all actions necessary under the Dissolution Act to post ROPS 24-25 on the Successor
Agency website once approved by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency; (ii)transmit
ROPS 24-25 to the Auditor-Controller and the County Administrator of the County of Orange
and to the State Controller and the State Department of Finance ("DOF"); and(iii)to do any and
all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which may be necessary or advisable
in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. In addition,the Successor Agency
authorizes and directs the Successor Agency staff to make such non-substantive revisions to
ROPS 24-25 as may be necessary to submit ROPS 24-25 in any modified form required by DOF,
and ROPS 24-25 as so modified shall thereupon constitute ROPS 24-25 as approved by the
Successor Agency pursuant to this Resolution.
23-13864/325503 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-05
4. The Successor Agency authorizes the Executive Director, or designee,to make
such non-substantive changes and amendments to ROPS 24-25 as may be approved by the
Executive Director of the Successor Agency and its legal counsel,ROPS 24-25 as so modified
shall thereupon constitute ROPS 24-25 as approved by the Successor Agency pursuant to this
Resolution.
5. The Successor Agency does not intend,by adoption of this Resolution,to waive
any constitutional, legal and/or equitable rights of the Successor Agency or the City of
Huntington Beach under law and/or in equity by virtue of the adoption of this Resolution and
actions approved and taken pursuant to this Resolution and,therefore,reserves all such rights of
the Successor Agency and the City of Huntington Beach under law and/or in equity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December,
2023.
Chairper
REV D A ROVED:
Executive Director
APPROVED AS FORM:
eneral Legal Counsel V�
23-13864/325503 2
EXHIBIT A
RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
("ROPS 24-25")
[behind this page]
` jµ
Resolution No. 2023-05
Exhibit A
Huntington Beach
ROPS 2024-25 Annual
Summary Detail. Cash Balances Submission
Requested Funding for Obligations 24-25A Total 24-25B Total ROPS Total
A Obligations Funded as Follows(e+c+n) 0 76,969 76,969
B Bond Proceeds 0 0 0
C Reserve Balance 0 0 0
D Other Funds 0 76,969 76,969
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund 8,035,180 7,163,948 15,199,128
(RPTTF)(F+G)
F RPTTF 7,910,180 7,038,948 14,949,128
G Administrative RPTTF 125,000 125,000 250,000
H Current Period Obligations(A+E) 8,035,180 7,240,917 15,276,097
Huntington Beach
ROPS 2024-25 Annual
Summary. Detail. Cash Balances Submission
Filter Export to Excel
Agreement Agreement Total Total
Execution Termination Outstanding Requested
Item# Obligation Name Obligation Type Date Date Payee Description Obligation Funding Notes
: 3 2002 Tax Bonds Issued On or 06/19/2002 08/01/2024 Bank of New Tax Allocation 799,500 799,500
Allocation Before 12/31/10 York Trust Bonds Debt
Refunding Co. Service
Bonds Payments
4 4 1999 Tax Bonds Issued On or 01/12/1999 08/01/2024 Bank of New Tax Allocation 369,000 369,000
Allocation Before 12/31/10 York Trust Bonds Debt
Refunding Co. Service
Bonds Payments
1 5 2002 Tax Fees 11/17/2010 06/30/2024 Arbitrage Tax Allocation 500 500
Allocation Compliance Bonds arbitrage
Refunding Specialist rebate
Bonds calculation-
Federal IRS
Compliance
,1 6 1999 Tax Fees 11/17/2010 06/30/2024 Arbitrage Tax Allocation 500 500
Allocation Compliance Bonds arbitrage
Refunding Specialist rebate
Bonds calculation-
Federal IRS
Compliance
,1 8 2002 Tax Fees 06/19/2002 08/01/2024 Bank of New Tax Allocation 1,600 1,600
Allocation York Mellon Bonds-
Refunding Payment to
Bonds Fiscal Agent
9 1999 Tax Fees 01/12/1999 08/01/2024 Bank of New Tax Allocation 1,600 1,600
Allocation York Mellon Bonds-
Refunding Payment to
Bonds Fiscal Agent
.4. 12 Emerald Cove Bonds Issued On or 05/13/2010 09/01/2021 US Bank Emerald Cove -
2010 Series A Before 12/31/10 2010 Series A
Lease Revenue Lease Revenue
Refunding Refunding
Bonds Bonds Debt
Service
Payments
Agreement Agreement Total Total
Execution Termination Outstanding Requested
Item# Obligation Name Obligation Type Date Date Payee Description Obligation Funding Notes
14 Strand Hotel OPA/DDA/Construction 06/01/1999 09/30/2033 CIM Group, Property Tax 5,862,789 677,904
and Mixed-Use LLC and Sharing
Project,Parking Kane Agreement
&Infrastructure Ballmer and under the
Berkman Disposition and
Development
Agreement
(DDA)for
development of
hotel,retail,
restaurant,and
public parking
structure.The
Implementation
of the DDA and
the Sixth
Implementation
Agreement were
entered into
from June 1999
to November
2008.
4" 15 Strand Project OPA/DDA/Construction 01/20/2009 09/30/2033 CIM Group, Property Tax 543,529 49,576
Additional LLC Sharing
Parking Agreement
under the
Disposition and
Development
Agreement
(DDA)and Sixth
Implementation
Agreement for
the Strand
projects parking
structure
authorized on
January 20,
2009.
17 Pacific City- OPA/DDA/Construction 10/16/2006 11/26/2024 Makar 15%affordable
Very Low Properties housing
Income Units requirement
pursuant to
Attachment 5 of
the Owner
Participation
Agreement
approved on
October 16,
2006.Of the
15%required
housing
obligation,5%
very-low income
housing is to be
developed by
the Housing
Authority.The
Developer is
required to
provide the
remaining 10%
on site.
Agreement Agreement Total Total
Execution Termination Outstanding Requested
Item Obligation Name Obligation Type Date Date Payee Description Obligation Funding Notes
21 Abdelmudi OPA/DDA/Construction 05/28/1991 12/31/2017 Abdelmudi Owner
Owner Development Participation
Participation Company Agreement/Rent
Agreement/Rent Differential
Differential Agreement
Agreement approved on
May 28,1991
for the
development of
the three story
building at the
Oceanview
Promenade.The
Third
Implementation
Amendment
took effect on
November 21,
1994.
9 29 Bella Terra OPA/DDA/Construction 10/02/2000 09/30/2025 Bella Terra Property Tax 1,874,824 1,874,824
Parking Associates Sharing
Infrastructure LLC Agreement
Property Tax required under
Sharing the terms of the
Agreement Owner
Participation
Agreement
(dated
10/2/2000)and
Second
Implementation
Agreement
(dated
9/17/2007)for
the
development of
the Huntington
Center(Bella
Terra).Includes
legal
requirements to
enforce
obligation.
30 Bella Terra OPA/DDA/Construction 10/04/2010 07/01/2036 Bella Terra Agreement 11,329,189 1,412,552
Phase II Villas,LLC approved on
Property Tax and Kane October 4,2010
Sharing Ballmer for construction
Agreement Berkman of a 467 mixed-
use unit project.
Construction is
complete and
financed by
property tax
allocations.
Includes legal
requirements to
implement
obligation.
Agreement Agreement Total Total
Execution Termination Outstanding Requested
Item# Obligation Name Obligation Type Date Date Payee Description Obligation Funding Notes
:t 50 Enforcement of Admin Costs 02/01/2012 11/26/2040 Successor Successor 250,000 250,000
Successor Agency, Agency
Agency Kane administrative
dissolution Ballmer, obligations
compliance and Keyser relating to
monitoring per Marston,and maintaining
AB 1 X26 and Davis Farr P payments on
AB1484 et al enforceable
obligations and
other activities
as required by
AB 1X26
64 Successor Dissolution Audits 11/04/2013 08/01/2024 Davis Farr Statutorily 10,000 10,000
Agency LLP required annual
Financial financial
Statement Audit statement audit
of Successor
Agency.
79 Land Sale City/County Loan(Prior 05/18/2009 10/01/2030 City of Legally Binding
Emerald Cove 06/28/11),Property Huntington Operative
transaction Beach Agreement
Principal
Amount-
$1,740,834,
Interest Rates
3%,Debt
Incurred on May
18,2009
/i 119 Waterfront City/County Loan(Prior 09/19/1988 06/30/2040 City of Acquisition of 31,136,000 9,828,541
Commercial 06/28/11),Property Huntington the Waterfront
Master Site Plan transaction Beach property related
to the
Waterfront
Commercial
Master Site Plan
Huntington Beach
BOPS 2024-25 Annual
Sumnaiy Detail S',ysh Balances Submission
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177(I),Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund(RPTTF)may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS,but only
to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.For tips on how to complete
the Report of Cash Balances Form,see Cash Balance TIRE.
Export to Excel Note:Cash Balances data is auto-saved.
•
July 1,2021 through June 30,2022
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
A B C D E F G H
Fund Sources
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
ROPS 21-22
Cash Balances Prior ROPS RPTTF and Rent, Non-Admin
(07/01/21- Bonds issued on or before Bonds issued on or after Reserve Balances retained Grants, and
06/30/22) 12/31/10 01/01/11 for future period(s) Interest,etc. Admin Comments
1 Beginning 169,574
Available Cash
Balance(Actual
07/01/21)
RPTTF amount
should exclude
"A"period
distribution
amount
2 Revenue/Income 76,969 7,022,930
(Actual
06/30/22)
RPTTF amount
should tie to the
ROPS 21-22
total distribution
from the County
Auditor-
Controller
3 Expenditures for 169,574 6,062,956
ROPS 21-22
Enforceable
Obligations
(Actual
06/30/22)
4 Retention of
Available Cash
Balance(Actual
06/30/22)
RPTTF amount
retained should
only include the
amounts
distributed as
reserve for
future period(s)
5 ROPS 21-22 No entry required 959,974
RPTTF Prior
Period
Adjustment
RPTTF amount
should tie to the
Agency's ROPS
21-22 PPA form
submitted to the
CAC
6 Ending Actual $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 76,969 $ 0
Available Cash
Balance
(06/30/22)
CtoF=(1+2-3
-4),G=(1+2-3
-4-5)
Successor Agency
Res. No. 2023-05
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU the Clerk of the Successor Agency to the
former City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, Huntington Beach,
California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach at a special meeting held on December 19, 2023 and that is was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Board Members: Moser, Bolton, Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland,-
McKeon, Kalmick
NOES: Board Members: None
ABSENT: Board Members: None
ABSTAIN: Board Members: None
ed./a/WA')
Clerk of The Successor Agency to
the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT #3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
• COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
HRG DATE/TIME February 17, 2023/2:00 P.M. DEPT. NO. 32
JUDGE James P.Arguelles CLERK Ward
City of Huntington Beach, a California charter city, et Case No.: 34-2018-80002876
al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, •
V.
Edmund G. Brown,Jr., individually and in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of California, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.
Nature of Proceedings: Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus; Motion to Strike—
Combined Final Ruling
The petition after remand is GRANTED, and a writ of mandate shall issue directing Respondent
Department of Finance (DOF)to treat the Waterfront Loan on Petitioner City of Huntington
Beach as Successor Agency's (Successor Agency) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) for the period July 2017 through July 2018 as an enforceable obligation.
The motion to strike is GRANTED. .
Petitioners' request for judicial notice is unopposed and GRANTED.
The documentation attached by exhibit to Petitioners' reply brief is stricken as Respondent has
not had the opportunity to respond.
Introduction
On May 25, 2022,the Court entered a judgment in this case granting in part and denying in part
the First"Amended Petition and Complaint (Petition) of petitioners City of Huntington Beach
(City), the Successor Agency to the Dissolved Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
(Former RDA), and the City of Huntington Beach Housing Authority(collectively"Petitioners").
Pursuant to the judgment,the Court issued a writ of mandate commanding DOF, among other
Page 1 of 8
• 214
things,to reconsider whether the so-called Waterfront Loan Agreement ("Waterfront Loan"or
"Agreement") between the City and the Former RDA constituted an "enforceable obligation"
pursuant to the Dissolution Law in the Health and Safety Code.' DOF had determined that the
Waterfront Loan was not an enforceable obligation, but the Court rejected DOF's rationale.
The Court remanded for DOF to decide whether the Waterfront Loan contained a genuine
obligation "to pay,"which is required for it to qualify as an enforceable loan agreement.
On remand, Petitioners tendered new documentation in an attempt demonstrate that the
. Waterfront Loan was an enforceable loan agreement. DOF once again determined that the
Waterfront Loan was not enforceable. •
Petitioners now ask the Court to issue a further writ of mandate directing DOF to treat the •
Waterfront Loan as an enforceable obligation supporting the allocation of tax revenues. DOF
,,opposes. in addition, DOF moves for an order striking from the administrative record on
remand certain financial records that Petitioners have provided to the Court but failed to
provide to DOF below.
Factual and Procedural Background
•
As previously detailed in the Court's April 21,2022 final merits ruling, the Waterfront Loan is
memorialized in a written agreement between the City and the Former RDA. This document,
executed in 1988, describes the City's sale of real property to the Former RDA for a price of
$22.4 million. The property.is located within the "Main-Pier Project Area;' and the transfer was •
•
made to facilitate development within this area. The City deeded the property to the Former
RDA in 1989. Subject to the City granting an extension,the Former RDA was required to repay
the loan in 1988. The written agreement provides:
This Agreement constitutes an indebtedness of the [Former RDA] incurred in carrying
out the Project and a pledging of the tax allocations from the project to repay such
indebtedness ... provided, however,that such pledge of tax.allocations shall always be
subordinate and subject to the right of the [Former RDA] to pledge or commit tax
allocations from the Project to repay bonds or other indebtedness incurred by the
[Former RDA] in carrying out the Project.
In 1988,the City granted the Former RDA an extension of undefined duration, and the
extension triggered a 10-percent interest rate.
Under theDissolution Law,the Successor Agency received a finding of completion in May 2014.
In 2017,the Successor Agency's oversight board issued resolutions finding that the Waterfront •
1 In its final merits ruling dated April 21,2022,the Court examined the Dissolution Law in some detail.
For the sake of brevity, the Court does not reprint that examination here and instead incorporates its
April 21,2022 final merits ruling by reference.
Page 2 of 8
• - 215
Loan had been made for legitimate redevelopment purposes, and that the loan was an
enforceable obligation. The Successor Agency.then tendered its ROPS 17-18. The Successor
Agency provided DOF with financial records showing that between 1989 and 2011,the Former
RDA made payments on various City loans,and that$14.78 million of these payments were the
Waterfront Loan's pro rata share. DOF objected to the Waterfront Loan. After meeting and
conferring with the City, DOF formally disapproved the Waterfront Loan.
Petitioners then filed this action and sought, among other things,a writ of mandate directing
DOF to treat the Waterfront Loan as an enforceable obligation. As noted above,the Court
remanded for DOF to decide whether the Waterfront Loan contained a genuine obligation to
pay. (See Health &Safety Code §34191.4,subd. (b)(2)(B) [enforceable loan agreements include
transfers of real property interests from a sponsor entity to a redevelopment agency provided
that redevelopment agency was"obligated to pay... for the real property interest"].)2
On May 25, 2022,the City provided DOF with additional documentation in an attempt to
demonstrate that the Waterfront Loan had to be repaid by a date certain. On August 24, 2022,
DOF determined once again that the Waterfront Loan was not an enforceable obligation. DOF
proffered three grounds for the determination: 1)the Agreement is unenforceable because it
allows the Former RDA to make payments in perpetuity, if at all, and thus does not create an
actual obligation to pay; 2)the City's additional documentation does not contain the sort of
evidence that the Court indicated was relevant;and 3) although legislation post-dating the
• Waterfront Loan imposed deadlines for redevelopment agencies to pay on debt and make final
payments,the legislation does not affect the Former RDA's contractual right to limit or avoid
repayment. (See Exh.A to DOF's Return to Writ of Mandate, p. 2.)
This proceeding for a further writ of mandate followed. •
•
Standards of Review
The Court reviews DOF's treatment of items on a ROPS pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1085. "'A traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is a
method for compelling a public entity to perform a legal and usually ministerial duty.' (Vallejo
Police Officers Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601, 611.)
Ordinary mandate is used to review an adjudicatory decision when an agency is not
required to hold an evidentiary hearing. [Citation.] The scope of review is limited,out
of deference to the agency's authority and presumed expertise: "The court may not
reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the agency. [Citation.] . . .
'A court will uphold the agency action unless the action is arbitrary, capricious, or
lacking in evidentiary support.'
Z Undesignated statutory references shall be to the Health and Safety Code.
Page 3 of 8
216
(Stone v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1999) 77 Ca1.App.4th 736, 745.) While the court accords
"weak deference"to an agency's statutory interpretation of its governing statutes"where its
expertise gives it superior qualifications to do so,"the issue is ultimately subject to de novo
review. (City of Brentwod v. Campbell(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 488, 500.)
Discussion
The Motion to Strike
The supplemental administrative record that Petitioner lodged in this proceeding after remand
includes the Former RDA's financial statements for 1988 and 1989. (Supp.AR 62-84;89-116.)
Petitioners did not tender these documents for DOF's consideration before DOF it issued its
August 24, 2022 decision. (See Exh. B to Ferrari Decl., 11 4.) Accordingly, DOF moves the Court
to strike these statements from the supplemental administrative record. •
In their reply brief on the merits, Petitioners argue, not that they provided DOF with the
disputed documents, but that the documents simply convey information that Petitioners had
previously submitted to DOF, i.e., before the Court remanded for further proceedings on the.
Waterfront Loan. The administrative record before the Court when it issued its April 21, 2022
merits ruling,which presumably includes the documents that Petitioners submitted to DOF
originally, is no longer in the Court's possession.
The Court declines to consider extra-record evidence that was not presented to DOF. (See
Golden Drugs Co., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly(2009) 179 Cal.4th 1455, 1468-70.) DOF's motion to
strike Exhibits 3 and 5 from the supplemental administrative record is granted.
in any event, and consistent with the analysis below, even if the Court were to consider the
financial statements in question, it would not alter the outcome. Petitioners tender the •
financial statements to establish that the Former RDA lacked sufficient tax revenue to pay the
$22.4 million debt in 1988, and that the City effectively granted the Former RDA an extension
to repay the loan. The Court, however, determined in its April 21, 2022 ruling that the Former
RDA had received an extension. Therefore, neither the extension nor the need for it are
currently at issue.
The Enforceability of Waterfront Loan
•
The principal question before the Court is whether,'notwithstanding that the Agreement
contains no repayment deadline and subordinates the Former RDA's pledge of Main-Pier
Project tax revenues to repayment of other debts supporting the Main-Pier Project, the
Agreement nonetheless obligated the Former RDA"to pay" pursuant to Section 34191.4,
subdivision (b)(2)(B). In its April 21, 2022 merits ruling,the Court expressed the view that the
existence of a genuine obligation to pay turned in part on whether the Agreement allowed for
payments into perpetuity. In turn, the Court indicated that whether the Agreement allowed for
perpetual payments depended on the ratio between Main-Pier Project•tax allocations and other
• Page 4 of 8
217
Main-Pier Project indebtedness. The Court tendered this ratio on the theory that, even though
the Agreement does not express a repayment deadline, perhaps if the parties understood how
much tax increment revenue would remain available to the Former RDA periodically after it
paid its other project debts, they could have reached a tacit understanding about the likely
deadline on repayment. The Court agrees with DOF that the documents submitted for DOF's •
consideration on remand do not provide any insight into this ratio. Nor do the documents
establish that the Agreement requires the Former RDA to repay the loan in any amount at any
time.
Based on its further review of the express terms of the Dissolution Law, however, the Court
concludes that the Legislature intended for the Agreement to qualify as an enforceable loan for
the transfer of real property.
"'The fundamental objective of statutory interpretation is to determine the Legislature's
intent." (City of Oakland v. Department of Finance (2022) Cal.App.5th 79 431,443-444.) The
Court begins with the statutory text,which is the best indicator of legislative intent. (See San
Diegans for Open Gov't v. Public Facilities Financing Auth. of City of San Diego (2019)8 Ca1.5th
733,740.) The Court considers a provision of a statute within the context of the statute and the
statutory scheme of which it is a part. (See City of Petaluma v. Cohen (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th
1430, 1440.) If the text is clear, then there is nothing to construe, and the Court's inquiry ends.
(See Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2018) 5 Ca1.5th 627, 634.) If the text is ambiguous,then the
Court consults a variety of extrinsic aids, including"the ostensible objects to be achieved,the
evils to be remedied,the legislative history, [and] public policy[.]" (Bitner v. Department of
Corrections& Rehab. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1058.)
Section 34191.4,subdivision (b)(2)(B) predicates an enforceable loan for real property upon the
redevelopment agency's obligation to pay. Because the Dissolution Law does not define the
terms"obligate" or"to pay,"the Court applies commonly understood meanings. The word
"obligate" means"[t]o bind by legal or moral duty." (See Black's Law.Dict. (7th ed. 1999) p.
1101, col. 2.) The verb "to pay" means to give in return for goods or services, or to discharge a
debt. (See Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (1986) p. 1659.)
The Agreement contains terms consistent with these definitions. It identifies $22.4 million as
the price for the real property, as well as a 10-percent annual interest rate if not paid in 1988.
In addition,the Agreement contains the Former RDA's pledge of project tax allocations to repay
the loan. The Redevelopment Law contemplated pledges of this kind. (See § 33671
[authorizing redevelopment agencies to pledge of tax.increment funds to repay loans]; see also
§ 33671.5 ["Whenever any redevelopment agency is authorized to, and does, expressly pledge
taxes allocated ...to secure, directly or indirectly,the obligations of the agency ...then that
pledge... shall have priority over any other claim to those taxes not secured by a prior express
pledge of those taxes"].)
Both DOF and the Court have expressed concern about the subordination provisions attached
to the Former RDA's pledge in the Agreement. The pledge was made "always ... subordinate
Page 5 of 8
218
•
and subject to the right of the [Former RDA]to pledge or commit tax allocations from the
Project to repay bonds or other indebtedness incurred by the [Former RDA] in carrying out the
Project." Coupled with the lack of any schedule requiring payment of specific sums at specific
points in time,this qualifying language raises the prospect that the Former RDA could simply
pay de miminis amounts, or pay nothing at all, into perpetuity. Several things temper concerns
that the Agreement contains an insufficient payment obligation.
• First, as the Court pointed out in its April 21, 2022 merits ruling, the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing prevented the Former RDA from incurring additional debt on the Main-
Pier Project solely to avoid paying down the Waterfront Loan. Hence, the Former RDA did not
have unbridled discretion to ignore its payment obligation and associated pledge of tax
increment under the Agreement.
Second, section 34191.4, subdivision (b) accounts for loans with large amounts of accumulated
interest as well as loans lacking reasonable repayment deadlines. Subdivision (b)(3) reads, in
relevant part:
If the oversight board finds that the loan is an enforceable obligation, any interest on the
remaining principal amount of the loan that was previously unpaid after the original
effective date of the loan shall be recalculated from the date of origination of the loan as
approved by the redevelopment agency on a quarterly basis,at a simple interest rate of 3
percent. The recalculated loan shall be repaid to the city... in accordance with a defined
schedule over a reasonable term of years. Moneys repaid shall be applied first to the
principal, and second to the interest.
If the Legislature had meant to exclude as unenforceable loans lopsided by unpaid interest,or
loans without reasonable payment deadlines,then it would not have provided for the
recalculation of interest or the imposition of a reasonable deadline.
Third,the obligation to pay in section 34191.4,subdivision (b)(2)B) stands in contrast with
requirements for other enforceable obligations under the Dissolution Law. Subdivision (b)(2)(A)
of the same section defines loan agreements not involving transfers of interests in real
property, These loans must include an obligation to pay"pursuant to a required repayment
schedule." Although the statute does not define the term "repayment schedule" as used in this
subdivision,is clearly denotes specified sums owed at specified points in time. (Cf. § 34171,
subd. (h) ["Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule" means a documents setting forth
minimum payments and corresponding due dates].) The omission of the term "repayment
schedule" in subdivision (b)(2)(B) reflects a legislative decision to treat loans for interests in real
property differently than other loans. And it specifically reflects an intent not to require
payments of particular amounts at particular times as necessary to establish an enforceable
loan for real property.
The definition of enforceable "loans for money" under section 34171,subdivision.(d)(1)(B)also
sheds some light. This subdivision is part of the definition of"enforceable obligation"whether
Page 6 of 8
219
•
or not the successor agency has obtained a finding of completion. Subdivision (d)(1)(B)extends
enforceable obligations to "Moans for money borrowed by the redevelopment agency for a
lawful purpose, to the extent they are legally required to be repaid pursuant to a required
repayment schedule or other mandatory loan terms." (Emphasis added.)3 The Legislature was
aware of this language when it subsequently enacted section 34191.4. (See Fermino v. Fedco,
Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, 720.) Mandatory loan terms include the terms of repayment. (See.
City of Grass Valley v. Cohen (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 567, 583.) Yet,when the Legislature .
enacted section 34191.4, subdivision (b)(2)(B), it did not require a repayment deadline.
"Ordinarily,where the Legislature uses a different word or phrase in one part of a statute than
it does in other sections or in a similar statute concerning a related subject, it must be
presumed that the Legislature intended a different meaning." (Campbell v. Zolin (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 489,497.)
Instead,section 34191.4,subdivision (b)(2)(B) requires the former redevelopment agency to
possess an obligation "to pay." The Agreement contains the Former RDA's pledge of project tax
increment to pay the$22.4 million purchase price. Although this pledge was made subject to
other project indebtedness, it secured the Former RDA's obligation "to pay." The Court does
not believe that more was required to establish an obligation within the purview of section
34191.4, subdivision (b)(2)(8). As a result,the Agreement contains an obligation to pay, and
DOF should have treated it as an enforceable obligation when the Successor Agency submitted
its ROPS 17-18.
Disposition
The petition after remand is granted, and a writ of mandate shall issue directing DOF to treat
the Waterfront Loan on the Successor Agency's ROPS 17-18 as an,enforceable obligation: DOF
shall file a return no later than 60 days after the writ issues.
The motion to strike is granted. •
Pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312, counsel for Petitioners shall serve and then lodge (1) for the Court's
signature an amended judgment to which this ruling is attached as Exhibit A and the April 21,
•
///
3 These provisions do not apply to loans that a sponsor entity made to its redevelopment agency. (See§
34171,subd.(d)(2).)
Page 7 of 8
220 •
2022 ruling is attached as Exhibit B, and (2)for the clerk's signature a writ of mandate.
Unless otherwise ordered, any administrative record,exhibit, deposition, or other original .
document offered in evidence or otherwise presented at trial,will be returned at the
conclusion of the matter to the custody of the offering party. The custodial party must
maintain the administrative record and all exhibits and other materials in the same condition
as received from the clerk until 60 days after a final judgment or dismissal of the entire case
is entered.
SO ORDERED. .
j5 c.a.:iF
1 � F ......
•
��k .
Dated: February 27, 2023 s ��mj�;� �1.� �'111,t
,� �-mes P. Arguelles
• !MIN. : Superior Court Judge
rm - • County of Sacramento
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page8of8
•
221
ATTACHMENT #4
04 T e�` O .
:,
tii a.
m IIII n
0 P
* DEPARTMENT OF Gavin Newsom • Governor
C'4CF°R$' FINANCE 915 L Street •Sacramento CA • 95814-3706 •www.dof.ca.gov
Transmitted via e-mail
REVISED
May 19, 2023
Sunny Rief, Assistant Chief Financial Officer
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: 2017-18 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
This letter supersedes the California Department of Finance's (Finance) April 10, 2017,
May 17, 2017, November 14, 2017, and August 24, 2022 Recognized Obligation
Payment Schedule (ROPS) determination letters for the period of July 1, 2017 through
June 30, 2018 (ROPS 17-18), with respect to Item Number 88 only.
A revision to the City of Huntington Beach Successor Agency's (Agency) ROPS 17-18
determination letters is necessary to comply with the judgment in the matter of City of
Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California et al. (Case No. 34-2018-80002876)
(Judgment). Pursuant to the February 17, 2023 Judgment, Finance makes the following
determination:
• Item No. 88-Waterfront Commercial Master Site Plan. Finance no longer denies
this item. In compliance with the Judgement, the Agreement for the Purchase
and Sale of Property (Waterfront Loan) dated September 19, 1988 between the
City and the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is
considered an enforceable obligation, and future requests for funding of
supported outstanding amounts will be allowable.
All other previous determinations made in Finance's April 10, 2017, May 17, 2017,
November 14, 2017, and August 24, 2022 ROPS 17-18 determination letters stand.
222
Sunny Rief
May 19, 2023
Page 2
Please direct inquiries to Chikako Takagi-Galamba, Manager at (916) 322-2985.
Sincerely,
NAlq, PAPSAMYV:
JENNIFER WHITAKER
Program Budget Manager
cc: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development, City of Huntington
Beach
Christopher Ranftl, Administrative Manager I, Property Tax Unit, Orange County
Kathy Tavoularis, Countywide Oversight Board Representative
223
. . . . . . . . . .. . . _ . . ..
ATTACHMENT #5
Sponsoring Entity Loan Repayment Calculator
ROPS II ROPS Ill
-Q .__ . July thru January thru _ 3
' December June
;Base Year: 2012 2013 Total For Base Year ,
740,249 853,341 .' 1,593,590
Total Residual Balance I
ROPS 23-24A RODS 23-24B
Jul Y thru January thru e
December June
;Comparison Year: 2023 2024 Total For Comparison Year
4,154,498 17,096,173 21,250,671
Total Residual Balance
A Total Residual Balance for Comparison Yeari 21,250,671
B Total Residual Balance for Base Year 1 ,593,590
A-B Difference of Residual Balance
19,657,081
Divide Difference by two
Maximum Repayment Amount Authorized
9,828,541
Per Fiscal Year
224
Orange County
Auditor-Controller
July 2012 to December 2012-ROPS II Successor Agency Successor Agency Successor Agency Successor Agency Successor Agency Successor Agency Successor Agency
for for for for for for for
Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Lake Forest Mission Viejo
RPTTF Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - $ • $ - $ - $ -
Deposits:
Secured Property Tax Increment 9,999,853 6,164,806 3,194,193 1,210,869 1,216,384 2,914,554
Public Utility Property Tax Increment - - - - - -
Supplemental Property Tax Increment - - - - - -
Unsecured Property Tax Increment - - - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenues(Bond Debt Increment&Interest) - - - - - -
Deposit totals 9,999,853 6,164,806 ' 3,194,193 1,210,869 1,216,384 .. - 2,914,554
RPTTF Available Balance 9,999,853 6,164,806 3,194,193 1,210,869 1,216,384 2,914,554
H&S Code 34183 Distributions
Total CountyAdmin Fees 256,920 179,239 66,600 33,917 33,547 - 77,110
Total Pass-Through 3,396,468 1,816,732 638,839 210,506 217,654 - 1,666,258
RPTTF Available for ROPS 6,346,465 4,168,835 2,488,754 966,446 965,183 - 1,171,186
ROPS Enforceable Obligations Payable from Property Taxes 11,567,900 5,580,531 898,596 1,153,265 337,193 701,234 2,126,338
Successor Agency Administrative Cost Allowance(ACA) 347,037 167,416 258,036 175,133 233,735 155,000
Less:Carryover Property Tax Revenue From 7/1/11-1/31/12 after 4/15/12 ROPS 11,911,555 1,369,715 835,055 533,120 1,454,805
Total ROPS and ACA(If negative,then 0) 3,382 4,378,232 321,577 1,328,398 37,808 701,234 826,533
Total Maximum ROPS Distribution 3,382 3,428,586 321,577 966,446 37,808 - 826,533
SCO Invoices for Audit and Oversight
H&S Code 34183 Dist Totals I a 3,656,770 5 A24 557, 1,027,016' ==1,210,869_ 289,009 - .t,, - 2,569,901
Residual Balance 6,343,083 740,249 2,167,177 - 927,375 ' - 344,653
Residual Residual Residual Residual
AB1484 True Up of ROPS I
Calculation:
RPTTF Available for 7/1/12 to 12/31/12 ROPS 6,346,465 4,168,835 2,488,754 965,183 1,171,186
Less:7/1/12 to 12/31/12 ROPS Enforceable Obligations Payable from Property Taxes (11,567,900) (5,580,531) (898,596) (337,193) (2,126,338)
Less:Successor Agency Administrative Cost Allowance(ACA) (347,037) (167,416) (258,036) (233,735) (155,000)
Residual Balance from 7/1/12 to 12/31/12 Period (5,568,472) (1,579,112) 1,332,122 394,255 (1,110,152)
Tax Increment Allocated to RDAs from 7/1/11 to 1/31/12 16,272,451 8,889,565 3,312,374 1,683,817 1,632,358 - 4,104,769
Less: ROPS Approved for 1/1/12 to 6/30/12 4,360,896 7,519,850 2,356,439 1,896,840 940,363 1,026,377 1,113,221
Residual Balance from 1/1/12 to 6/30/12 Period 11,911,555 1,369,715 955,935 (213,023) 691,995 (1,026,377) 2,991,548
Residual Balance from 7/1/12 to 12/31/12 Period (5,568,472) (1,579,112) 1,332,122 394,255 (1,110,152)
Residual Balance from 1/1/12 to 6/30/12 Period 11,911,555 1,369,715 955,935 691,995 2,991,548
Less:Residual Distributed to Affected Taxing Entities in June 2012 (6,343,083) (740,249) (2,167,177) (927,375) (344,653)
225
Residual Balance Remaining to be Paid to Affected Taxing Entities 5,568,472 629,466 120,880 - 158,875 - 2,646,895
Vann)1.371,4
Recognized Oh
(Re
Allocation Period:January 2013-June 2013
yea
County:30-Orange County -
Title of Former Redevelopment Agency(RDA): Countywide Totals ANAHEIM RDA BREA RDA BUENA PARK RDA COSTA MESA RDA CYPRESS RDA FOUNTAIN VALLEY RDA FULLERTON RDA GARDEN GROVE RDA HUNTINGTON BEACH RDA IRVINE RDA
RPTTF Deposits(Note that enterblg the deposits by source Is optional):
Secured 8 Unsecured Property Tax Increment(11) 242.159.564 29,157,700 18,724,456 14,999,664 2.354615 3,671,432 5,425,008 10,221,992 14.561949 9,079,553 3,332,039
Supplemental Unitary Property 71 -
InterestEarnings/Other -
Pena4y Assessments -
Total Deposits 242,159,564 29,157,700 18,724,456 14,999,664 2,354,615 3,671,432 5,425,008 10,221,992 14,561,949 9,079,553 3,332039
RPTTF Distributions(Include all payments made pursuant to Health and Safety Code(H&S)Section 34183.Note that the following distributions are not necessary listed In the priority order required by H&5 34183):
Adminlstrothre Dlstrbutlons-
Administrative Fees to County Auditor-Controller 390.739 38,291 24,447 27,752 12461 9,439 12.390 15.939 18,068 13,609 0596
SB 2557 Administration Fees -
SCO Invoices for Audi and Oversight
Total Administrative Distributions 398,739_ 36.291 -24,417 , 27,752 12,967
Paesthrough Distributions-
City PassthrolghPayments 2,195,007 173.133 23360 222,084 10,552 62731 100335 126,428 165,956 10,343
County Passthrough Payments 5,040,420 312676 345435 238521 161,472 40230 41,252 118,861 139,512 51,471
Special District Passlhrough Payments 7,975,502 517,829 155,454 376,758 380.461 43,221 53,852 229,152 113,117 135.673
K-12 School Passihrough Payments-Tax Portion 3,298,962 414,406 - 472,234 4.993 141013 173,911 18,968 207,584 155.839
K-12 School Passlhrough Payments-Facilities Portion 18,322074 1,561,336 1,358,527 956,167 434,247 192509 227,732 1,027,821 418275 204,067
Community College Passlhrough Payments-Tax Potion 707,954 72,146 5,671 78,680 1.553 30,117 28,481 27,008 46212 31.674
Community College Passlhrough Payments-Facilities Portion 3,494.112 238,860 6,268 134.920 28,089 33,288 31,456 40,291 88.414 35,008
County Once of Education-Tax Podion 80,442 8,777 1,330 15,799 330 2,093 2,380 2,235 2066 8,043
County Office of Education-Facilities Portion 723.052 77,156 5,671 108,636 15.404 8,922 10,147 29,148 18275 34,290
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF) - - _
Total Passlhrough Distributions 41837,526 _ 3,374,319 1,991716 _ 2.603.999 - . 1,037,1D1 560,124 " ---675,526 ' - 1,619.912 ,1.200,211 . 1 666,408,
Total Administrative and Pa9sthrough Dlatributlons 42236,285. ' '"3,410,610 1,926,183 -- 2,831,751 12,461 1,848,540 572514 ' 691,465 1,6337,980 "1,213,820 ' 678,004
Total RPTTF Balance Available to Fund Enforceable Obligations(Eos) f ":199,823,299' "-": :25,747,090 Lu -18,788,293 ""12,OB7,818 _`2,042,154 2,824,'692 - `-` -`' 4,852494'- r '`8,530,527 , 12928,nen �: = 7,865,723 "3�656,03&I
EO Distributions(Includes approved Ells,Successor Agency's(SAs)administrative cost allowance(ACA),and prior period adjustments,and excludes the above passthrough and non-SO administrative distributions}
080-ACAROPS RPTTF Fuming Requested by SA 249,939,547 29,368,046 18.130.944 11,843,728 458,338 2,512,997 1,049,489 14,387,035 14,814,862 11,915,468 18,701,464
ACA Funding Requested by SA 6,572,542 1,069.623 329,586 138,650 125,000 70,279 165,956 175,000 380,364 304,106 224,500
Less Items Denied/Reclassified by Department of Finance (109,003,736) (8.860.026) (60,000) (3,165,862) (67,000) (2,092,176) (196,981) (9,450,468) (475.119) (5.207.182) (18,431,464)
Less Prior Period Adjustments Per HIS Section 34186(a) (22,949,729) (7,084,581) - (3.519251) - - - (4,947,162) - - -
Maximum Authorized Distributions(Total BOPS Ill RPTTF amount approved by
the Department of Finance for Non-ACA and ACA E0s) 124,558,624 14,493060 18,400530 5,297.265 516,338 491,100 1,018,464 164,405 14,720.10T 1012.392 494,500
Actual Distributions(Lesser of the total ROPS III RPTTF amount - - - - - "- - .. .., ..
approved by the Department of Finance or the actual amount distributed` - _
forNoe-ACAandACAEOs) 119.092,597 14,493060 18,798,293 5.297,265 516.338 491,190 1,018,464 164,405 12.923,989 '7.012.392 - 494.500
Total Distributions 181,328,861 17,903,670 16,724,456 7,929,016 ' 520,799 1,637,640 '1,590,978 - 855,870 14,561,949 - 8,226,212 1,170,504
Residual Balance(Total Deposits-Total Distributions) j _80,&t0,70J .11,254,030 ":- 7,0'70,848 °.1,BT6,818 "•a 2,133,792= 3,834,030"" '9,36&122 x 8t3�391 " +' 1,1815]6:1
Residual Distrbulbns Pursuant to H&5 Section 34183(a)(4)(Figures should Include the effect of'halrcutttmg'pursuant to H85 Section 34188):
Cities 10,239,034 1,219456.60 818,721.34 276,590.40 196.77987 518,909.16 1,467,671.48 127,258.60 3354529
Counties 5,426,041 768618.69 418,022.57 156,494/37 121,48437 266,111.90 569,383.59 48,539.86 166,945.02
Special Districts 8,514,883 1004,029.43 780,877.49 131,201.43 467,45213 287,207.69 757,287.20 83,76226 440,138.07
6-12 Schools 35,202,078 5,404,646.46 3181.219/35 691,03532 873,738.08 1,776,460.30 4,353,057.84 373,19812 947,45655
Comrunity Colleges 6,494,480 871,128.80 473,46146 192,62926 108,89423 327,460.11 644,699.75 75293.43 216,278.47
County OR of Education 1,642,375 229,507.83 248701.70 27,81691 57,79951 55,95292 132305.58 10,842.55 39,64149
Total ERAF(Please break out the ERAF amounts into the fallowing categories
If this Information is readily available): 13,221,813 1,755,64219 1,149.64359 350,04721 307,64321 601927.93 1441716.56 133,846.17 317,52930
ERAF-K-12 -
ERAF-Community Colleges -
ERAF-County Offices of Education -
Total Resdual Dlstrbutbna(Total Reaklual DI Into 1bns Must Equal the Total -- _, - = - - - - - - t
Residual Balance) ' . 80,740,704 - 11,254,030 - - • 7,070,648 '- - '1,825,818 2,133,792 3,834,030.. 9,368,122 - 853,041 2,161,535
Total Residual Distributions to K-14 Schoob: 58,560,740- .8,260 925 .' 5.053,027 =1,281,528 "7;348,076 2,761;881. 8,571,780- - .593,760 ". 1,520,906 1
Percentage of Residual Dislnbutions to K-14 Schools
226
Recognised Obligation Payment Schedule(BOPS)
Redevelopment Propedy Tax Dud Fund(RPM)Distributions
Ito be completed by County Auditor-Controllers(CACs)
4 velum must he renrrted in whatp dollnn
Report Type:Actual
Allocation Pedod:Jul 1-Dec 31
SOPS Allocation Cycle:2023-24A-24
Count Orange
Successor Agency to Former Redevelopment Agency
line -
i ..> Desedplion...... CCun(golde Totals ,Anaheim-07 :: Brea•37>:_, Buena Park•41 I.`.Costa Mesa•76... Cypress•83 ,Fountain Wiley-.114 Fuiledon 119 Garden Crove:-.121 Hun6aglon Beach•.145 .. ,Wine•155 La Habra-162 la Palma-165
1 RPM Deposits-Entering the deposits by source lsopsonal. 387A59.713 38,560,031 29,919.585 28,327,384 2.847.170 0 6,940,456 16.926,302 21,200,201 18,121.805 35,333,215 2,731,571 1,936,675
2 Secured 8 Unsecured Properly Tao Increment(TI) 0
3 Supplemental 8 Unitary Properly Ti 0
4 Penally Assessment Revenue 0
5 Other-RPM Cumulative Interest Earnings 243,075 182,420
6 Met-Orange County Transfer to Luke Forest 8.295.646
7 Total RPIIF Deposits(sum of fines 1:6) 395,998.434 38,560,031 29.919.585 28,327.384 2.847.170 182,420 6.940A56 16,926.302 21.200,201 18.121,805 35.333,215 2,731,571 1,936,675
8 fotoI RPT1FAve)Iable to Fund CAC Adminlshaf)ve Cosh and Passthrughs 395,998.434 r;38,560,031 =29,919,585 ` `28,327,384, , >2,547,170 '182,420 " 6.940,456 16,926,302 's" ';21,200,201 „�18,121,805 "35,333,215 " 2,731,571 x.`1.936,675
9 RPGF Distributions Include all payments made pursuant to Health and - - - °� 'S..
SaItyCode(HSC)Section 34183.Note the following dhhbufpns are not r' " - '
necessary listed In the priority order required by HSC 34183. 1� .m "- 1
10 Administrative Distributions: _.-
II Administrative Fees to CAC 285,031 25.580 19,366 18,893 2,122 1.900 6.684 13,896 17,751 12,584 23,985 4,152 1,254
12 SB 2557 Administrative Fees 4,321.410 435,202 307,744 276.626 36,470 0 78,551 178,923 210,009 198,338 430,101 21,265 20.733
13 SCO invoices for Audit and Oversight-Funding should only be allocated 0
for this purpose when there h sufficient 12P1IF to fully fund the approved
enforceable obligations as shown on line 39. •
14 Other 0
15 Total Administrative Dlshlbullons)sum of lines 11:14). 4,606.441 -460,782 327,110 295,519 38592:. 1,900 85,235 192.819 - 227,740 210.922 454.086 25A17 21.987
16 Passlhrough DlshlbutIons: :. _ "
17 City 8,741.936 1.060.237 1,614,578 625,351 0 0 150.739 374,477 445,843 465,599 103,897 73,352 24,151
18 County 9.310,611 809,723 725,202 591,584 0 0 101,752 226,517 250.973 431,509 724,764 41,626 54,416
19 Cily8/ar County-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 Special Ohidch 17.698,610 1,247,474 1,037.815 1.045,732 0 0 154,440 279.972 565,448 409.727 2,508,872 79,439 163.023
21 K-12 School-Tax Portion 18,445,471 1.647,613 3.023,404 1,861,121 0 0 482,037 964,804 37.656 1,224.326 3,166.709 170,262 66,761
22 K-I2 School-Facilities Portion 42790.000 4,439.094 3,959,053 2,918,770 0 0 631.213 1,263,381 3.256,721 1.647,298 4,146.707 222953 87,422
23 K-12 School-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 CommunilyCallege-Tax Portion 3,701.419 291,711 550.279 319,130 0 0 97.109 157.102 147.011 275,180 599.959 27,062 11.458
25 CommuniNCdlege-Facilities Portion 7,575,189 630.034 608.203 419,750 0 0 107,331 173,639 178,321 326,991 663,112 29,911 12,664
26 Community College-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 County Office of Education-Tax Portion 341.977 26.273 90.906 46,153 0 0 5.139 10.060 8,978 9.574 43.967 3,927 1,756
28 County Office of Education-Facilities Portion 1,911,393 187.009 387.545 256.568 0 0 21.910 42,886 74,697 54,726 187.436 16.741 7.487
29 County ORiae of Education-Other 0
30 Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF) 0
31 Other 0
32 Total Pasdhtough DhMbullons(sum of 17:31) 110.516.606 10,339.168 -: 11,996.985 8,084.159 0 - 0 1,751,670 3.492.838 - 4.965648 4,844,930 12,145423 665,273 429.138
33 Total Administrative and Pass6Frough DISMbufiom Dine'15 plus 321 " '115,123,047 "10.799,950 'a: +12.324,095 - -' 6379,676 ''38,592 . 1,900 1,836,905 - ' 5.655,657 'n "5,193,408 6,055,852 -'-12599.509 '" 690,690 451,125
34 Total RPIIFAvellable to Fund Successor Agent y(SA)Enforceable ' 280,875,387 " 27,760,081=f;' 17,595,470 19,947.706 _24300,570 ' -180.520 "'5.103,551 '13.240,645 16,006,793 . 13.065,953 22,733,7116 2,040,8111 -1,455,550
Oblantiom fEOs)Tli0e8minus331 - - - - -
35 Finance Approved RPM for Distribution to SA: • ....
36 Non-Admin EOs 90,119.722 11,848,758 22,500 4.852100 1.710,056 0 100,000 4,484,698 6,263296 8,844.592 30.333.028 549.359 555,597
37 Admin Allowance 1,236.623 235,000 7.750 76.987 0 0 0 130,406 125,000 125.000 40.000 32.560 5.000
38 Less Nor Period Adjustments(PPA)(Enter as a negative number) (17,241.6931 (5.1618561 (4721 126.910) 16.369.296) (325,947) (4,702,114) 13095)
39 Total Finance Approved RING for Distribution(sum of lines 36:38). 82,111.652 6,921,902 30250. 4,923615 1,710,056 0 - 100,000 4,588,194 0 8,643,645 25,670,914 578,914 560.597
40 CAC Distributed SOPS RPIIF ' ..
41 Non-udmin EOs 74,466.520 6,921,902 22,500 4,852,100 1.710.056 0 100,000 4,484.698 0 8,643.645 18.353.706 549.359 555,597
42 Admin Allowance 425,961 0 7,750 76.515 0 0 0 103,496 0 0 0 29,555 5,000
43 lnsuRielent RPT1F(line 39 minus 44)" 7,219,171 0 0 ,0 0 =0 0 0 0 - 0 7.317.208 : 0 0
II there is insufficient RPTIF in"A•period,shortfall will be funded in•B"period. - - '
if possible. - -
44 total CAC DIsinbuted RPM for SA EOs hoe 41 plus 42) "74.892,481 6,921,902 30,250 .. 4.928,615 '.+ .1,710,056 0 " 100,000 s 4,588,194 s 0 _ 8,643,645 18,353,706 578,914 ' 560.597
45 Pension Ovemde/State Water Project Ovenide Revenues pursuant to HSC 267.810 267,810
34183(a)(1)(B)
46 Other 0
47 Other 0
48 Total.ROPS Only RPM Elegance Available for DIshlbullon to AIEs. -. - 205,715,096 5 20.838.179 '17,565240 "15.019 091- 1,098,522 . , ' 180.520r 5,003,551 ,;':8652,451' 416,006,793, 4,154.498 ,, 4,380,000 "1,461,967' .,924,953,
Bme 345r196644;471" , e. - .,
49 RPIIF Distributions to AlEs:
50 Cities 26,275,263 24265.037 2906,073 1,751,829 167,428 16.753 675,710 1,364.587 2920,187 690.342 64,397 249.171 115.791
51 Counties 12.049,294 1,429,299 987.051 894,872 74,315 8.082 272,757 529,397 834,263 239.900 259,741 78,126 49,361
52 Special DAMcts 22.025.040 1,698.499 1,413,763 1,580,889 95,548 41,268 416,993 657.135 1,544,589 293,014 899,097 111.933 162.284
53 0-02 Schools 91,118,954 10,137,657 7,437,349 6,785.231 416,942 73,952 2,354,292 4,036.193 6,705.912 1,840,685 1.961.153 664,358 361.440
54 Community Colleges 16,412.955 1,617.974 1,139,853 1,013.480 116,225 9,375 426,410 599.417 1.170,324 375.081 452685 88.448 55,894
55 County Office of Education 4.221,624 424,915 609,934 532,206 16.784 4,976 71,192 123.948 237,279 53.629 82,935 39,030 29.277
56 Total ERAF-Please break out the ERAF amounts Into the following 33,611.966 3,264,798 3,071,217 2,460,584 - 211,280 26.114 786,197 1,341,774 2,594,239 661,847 659,992 - 230,901 150,906
ee1eoo4es.If eossible(sure of lines 57:591 - - - - ,
57 ERAF-K-12 0
58 ERAF-Community Colleges 0
59 ERAF-County Offices of Education 0
60 Total 9P175 Dlshibufonf to ATE((Sum of lint 5056)•total residual 205,715,096 - '20,838.179 17,565,240 "15,019.091 1.090522 . . 180.520 5.003.551 - 0.652451 - 16,006,793 4.154.490 =4,300,000 1,461,967 924,953
distributions mu51egqual fetal dual balance es shown online 48. , `' '" -
61 Total Residual Distribution to R-14 School%(sum of Ines 53:56) .. 145,365,499 15.445,344 12258,353 10.791.501 761.231 114,417 3,638.091 6,101,332 _ 10,707.754 2,931,242 -' 3,156,765 .. 1.022,737 597,517
62 Percentage of K-145ahaols to Residual Disinbuhons(line 61/60) _ 71% 74% 70% s 72% 69% ' 63% 73% 71% 67% - 71% ]2% _. : 70%... 65%
63 Comments: Fomallydhsoived on Due to Settlement
01/24/2023 per Agmt,the 34.38M
Countywide Oversight residual should be
Board Resolution funded before the
No.23-009 Judgement amount in
the EOs.
227
Recognized Ob00eRon Payment Schedule(BOPS)
Redevelopment Property lax Trust Fund(RP11F)Dlsldbullons
Robe completed by CountyAudlor-Conhollers(COOS)
All values must be resorted in whole dollars
Report Type:Eslimale
Allocation Period:Jon)-Junes
ROPS Allocation Cycle:2023-24B-25
County:Orange
Successor Agency to Former Redevelopment Agency
line
• Descdptk '' ,... Countywide totals" Anaheim•07. Brea 37 Buena Park•41 Code Mesa•76 Cypress•83 Fountain Valley-114'. Fullerton-:119 " ._Garden Grove 121. Huntington Beach•105 Irvine-.155 la Habits•162. la Palma•165`
I RPM Deposits-Entering the deposits by source is optional 515.940,392 52,587.076 38.538,073 34.456,967 0,157.3713 0 8,986,075 22,297,383 25,712380 12,316,810 59.098.182 3,209.938 2.093,401 I
2 Secured 8 Unsecured Properly Taxlncernent(0) 0
3 Supplemenla18Unitary Property 0 0
4 Penally Assessment Revenue 0
5 Other 0
6 Other 0
7 Total 98109 Deposlb(sumo of tines IA) 525,900,392 52,587,076 38.538,073 34,456,967 4,157,378 0 8,986,075 22.297.383 25.712.380 22,316,814 59,098.182 3,249,938 2,093,401
8 Total RPM Available to Fund CAC Adn4Ulskallve Cosh and Passihrou0hs: . .. 525,940,392 52587,076_ , 38,538073 ,. 34.456.967: _+'»`74,157,378 ii ii. 0 8,986,075 i"mi ,.22,297,383 25,712.380 - ">22,316,814 ,.- :•59,098180 ,'2'• 3,249,938 '2,093,401€
9 RP11F DhMbu8ons-Include all payments made pursuant to Health and "
Safety Code IHSCI Secl on svlo3.Note the ldlawing dsi buliom era not `" " - _ j
necessary listed In the priority order required by HOC 34183. • ° (
< n -
10 Adn4nlstro8ve Dts1bu0om: . c - - -
11 Administrative Fees to CAC 489.860 48,701 35.536 34,869 4,641 0 8,188 20,952 26.485 21,686 46,722 10,465 2218�
12 SB 2557 Administrative Fees 0
13 SCO Invoices for Audit and Oversight-Fundng should only be allocated far 0
this pu0ose when there is sufficient RPM to fully fund the approved
enforceable obligations as shown on One 39. _
4 Other 0
5 total AdMnlshasve Dbtdbutiorrs(sum off s 11:141 - 489.860 08,701 35,536 , 34.869 , 4.641 0 8,188 20,952 26,455 21,686 46,722 10,085 2,218'
6 Pesstl0000h Dlshlbvllons .. _ - ..
7 City 7,954,974 599,526 821,797 679,405 0 0 161.336 425,006 485,233 485.005 174,077 86,796 25,470
8 County 11.827,149 944,274 841,499 661,974 0 0 108.905 258,086 296,332 464.751 1.038.981 41.944 58,160
9 Cily3/or County-Other 0 0
20 Special Dietcts 22.151.905 1.464.758 927.839 1,175.789 0 0 165,297 319,004 688,323 435.606 3,596,715 90,076 173,727
21 K-12 School-Tax Fallon 20.335.624 1.856.551 1,436,609 2.177.615 0 0 515,924 1,100,468 53.341 1.272.946 4.541,456 194,627 70.406
22 K-12 School-Facilities Portion 53,344.585 4.843574 4,020,194 3,396,544 0 0 675.587 1.441,029 2,642530 1,806,182 5.946.896 312,474 92,195
23 K-12 School-Other 0 0
24 Community College-Tar Portion 4,108.281 326,949 289,948 372174 0 0 103.936 179,091 159,027 2E16,128 059,984 30,784 12,084
25 Community College-Facilities Portion 9,714,794 746,286 320,468 493,576 0 ' 0 114.876 197,944 189,990 372.118 950.509 34,025 13,355
26 Community College-Other 0 0
27 County Office 01 Education-tau Potion 347,950 29,865 45,781 54.171 0 0 5.500 11,069 9,729 9,963 63,023 4,451 1,852
28 County Office of Education-Facilities Portion 2127.811 222676 195,173 277,370 0 0 23.450 47,191 111.218 66,256 268.680 18,977 7,896
29 County Office of Education.Olher 0
30 Education Revenue Augmentation Fund IERAFI 0
31 Other 0
32 total Posabrudgh Dbhtbullors(sum of lines 17:31) _ 131,913.073 - 11,034,459 8,899,308. 9,288.618 0 0 1.87d,81i 3.97B,88B /,635.723 5,198.955 - 17.440.321 - 814,154 455,145
33 total Adminlshs9ve and:PassHa0u0h Dlddbollono RNs 1Splus321 132A02.933 "11,083,(60" -." -8,934,044 "' 9,323A87 „.- *:;'. 4,64) "e 0.-.-: 1,002,999'gym ":3,999,040- = 4,662,208 a nr.,5,220.641 r ""(7A87,043 ,% '*"024.639 t-r452360
34
Rptu to fund .603,229 25,133A80 r-` , ` 4,152.737 - ' 0 7.103,076•i 18,292.543 S. 21,050172 "' 17096173 ;,"41611139 2425 ,z 1636,03�
Otala5Hona)EOslbllls emnus Successor Agency(SA)Eniorceable -J9�,537,459 41,SOJ,91A 39 V , ,m LL. . , , , , , ,299,, , 8
a "35 Finance Approved RPlm,for 0lshlbutIon to SA: -36 Non-Admin Ells 0
37 Admin Allowance 0
38 Less Prior Pelted Aduslmenis(PPA)(Enter as anegah.e number) 0
39 total Finance Approved RPM for D10MbuHen(sum of lines 36:38) - 0 0. 0 0 5 , 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 CAC Distributed BOPS RPI1F ".' .. . .. ....
41 Non-Admin Ells 0
42 Admin Allowance 0
43 Insa81clenl RPM(See line 43 in•A-BOPS) 0
lnsuifident RPTTF in"A'Period far finance Approved RPTIF to be Funded In - _
'8•Period .... ..
45 Pension Ovedde/Store Water Project Ovende Revenues pursuant to 115C 0
34183(al(II IS)
46 Other 0
41 Other 0
48 fota100P50nty RPllF,B ia0te Av0Babtelm06tbvtton te Alss ' ; ti:393,637A59• 41,503,9(6" ,_' ,29,603229 25,133480 = 4,152,237 - -.r =0 .7,103,076 10,291543 21,a50.473, 17,096,173 ,`416)1,139 2A25]99 1,636,038'
01na3dmnun dd:d71�„ � w -.. ._ •.,. 6 .< ; " § ,, ,� x s ,. p ". " -, "n ` a •kFQ
49 RPIIFDIstdbolons to ATEsi
_
50 Cities 0
51 Counties 0
52 Spedal Districts 0
53 K-12 Schools 0
54 Community Colleges 0
55 County Office of Education 0
56 Total ERA!,Please break out the BRAS amounts Into the following - 0 0 - 0 0 0 : 0 - 0 0 0 .0 0 0 -0
coteaales:if possible(sum of!Ines 5759/'- "57 ERAF-K-12 0
58 ERAF-Community Colleges 0
59 ERAF-County Offices of Education 0
60 tots)RPm Oishbofone b AIN{ tun 5056)-Told 17Si6Va1 0 - 0 = 0 - 0 :.0 - 0a ,.- 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 '= 0'
dsir3Wionsmodequalnotalrevdoolbalonce a55hpwnail tne48 '� " - '-
61 total Residual DHhlbullon5 to K-14 Schools(sum alines 53:56) ' 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
62 Percentage 01K-1455boololo Reudod DisInbelon9 Ripe 61/601:... 8011//01 ,. BDIV/01 'tDIV/01 : 001V/01 . . •D1V/0€ •D1V/01 401V/01 801V/01 812IV/01 BDIV/Of. . `8076/0I iDIV/01 : RDIV101--'
63 Comments: Annual Tl Irma removed Formally dissolved on
per HOC 34189(0 012412023 per
Countywide Oversight
Board Resoloton
No.23-009
228
ATTACHMENT #6
Waterfront Loan Recalculated per Health and Safety Code Section 34191.4(b)(3)
FYE Principal Principal Accrued Cumulative Interest Interest Outstanding
June 30, Principal Payments Balance Interest Interest Payments Balance Loan Balance
1989 22,400,000 22,400,000 22,400,000
1990 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (6,672) 665,328 23,065,328
1991 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,337,328 (11,407) 1,325,921 23,725,921
1992 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,997,921 (1,997,921) - 22,400,000
1993 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (181,678) 490,322 22,890,322
1994 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,162,322 (608,831) 553,491 22,953,491
1995 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,225,491 (257,412) 968,078 23,368,078
1996 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,640,078 (1,640,078) - 22,400,000
1997 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
1998 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
1999 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (73,282) 598,718 22,998,718
2000 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,270,718 (100,212) 1,170,505 23,570,505
2001 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,842,505 (93,562) 1,748,943 24,148,943
2002 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 2,420,943 (248,212) 2,172,731 24,572,731
2003 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 2,844,731 (2,844,731) - 22,400,000
2004 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2005 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2006 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2007 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2008 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2009 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2010 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2011 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 (672,000) - 22,400,000
2012 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 672,000 672,000 23,072,000
2013 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 1,344,000 1,344,000 23,744,000
2014 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 2,016,000 2,016,000 24,416,000
2015 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 2,688,000 2,688,000 25,088,000
2016 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 3,360,000 3,360,000 25,760,000
2017 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 4,032,000 4,032,000 26,432,000
2018 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 4,704,000 4,704,000 27,104,000
2019 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 5,376,000 5,376,000 27,776,000
2020 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 6,048,000 6,048,000 28,448,000
2021 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 6,720,000 6,720,000 29,120,000
2022 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 7,392,000 7,392,000 29,792,000
2023 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 8,064,000 8,064,000 30,464,000
2024 22,400,000 22,400,000 672,000 8,736,000 8,736,000 31,136,000
229
ATTACHMENT #7
O ...
\ Iwr I N a r 1) -ft-,
Pik
•.•'•GORP DRAT'••. 4ep Illi►
•
--- - - -- - •it
-f- „jir,atit://, C') t Recognized Obligation Payment
'` ` ,"' Schedule (ROPS) FY 2024-25
____,_ o k%
l _ ,
--- '( %%')(A "dr , `%•• ? City Council Meeting
'.e. =- - . • 0, December 19, 2023
J7UNTN
\ 0
.41W--....,.,.l
li 1
230
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS).
• The California Supreme Court ruled on the Dissolution Act (AB 1484) to
dissolve all Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in California effective February
1 , 2012.
• AB 1484 established procedures for payment of legally enforceable obligation
of the former RDAs by establishing Successor Agencies (SAs) through the
annual submission of the ROPS to the State Department of Finance (DOF).
• The ROPS lists all expenditures required to be paid by the Successor Agency
in the upcoming fiscal year. For Fiscal Year 2024-25, this amount is
$15,276,097.
• The Fiscal Year ROPS also includes a request for $9,828,541 for repayment
of a loan from the City to the former RDA. The payment is required through a
judgment issued by the California Supreme Court on February 17, 2023. The
DOF concurred with the Court's ruling in a letter dated May 19, 2023.
2
231
Recommended Action
• Adopt Resolution No. 2023-04, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the
Successor Agency Administrative Budget for the Period July 1 , 2024, through
June 30, 2025;" and,
• Adopt Resolution No. 2023-05, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the Period July 1 , 2024 - June
30, 2025 (`ROPS 24-25')."
• Health and Safety Code Section 34179(j) requires the ROPS to be approved
by both the Huntington Beach Successor Agency and the Countywide
Oversight Board and submitted to the Department of Finance no later than
February 1 , 2024 in order to receive funding for the Fiscal Year 2024-25.
3
232