Draft Agenda for Oversight Board 5-1-12

AGENDA Oversight Board Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redwood Shores Library

399 Marine Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065

Meeting Room A Members: David Holland, Chair Mike Roberts, Vice Chair Steve Abbors Alicia Aguirre Blake Lyon Barbara Christensen Enrique Navas City Staff as Successor Agency Attendees: Bob Bell, City Manager Bill Ekern, Community Development Director Alison Freeman, Finance Manager Brian Ponty, Finance Director/Assistant City Manager Veronica Ramirez, Assistant City Attorney Pamela Thompson, City Attorney Silvia Vonderlinden, City Clerk Craig Labadie, Special Counsel

I. Call to Order Chair

II. Roll Call Chair

III. Public Comments NOTE: Speakers are limited to three minutes, unless modified by the Chairperson. The Board cannot take action on any matter raised under this item.

Chair

IV. Approval of Minutes Chair

V. Review and Approval of Second Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (July 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012)

(Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 5) Brian Ponty

VI. Set Date and Agenda for Next Board Meeting (Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 3) Brian Ponty

VII. Oral Communications from the Successor Agency Contact a. Update from State Department of Finance b. Update on Audit c. Update on Legal Expenses

Brian Ponty Brian Ponty

Pamela Thompson

VIII. Adjourn Chair

1

Draft Summary Minutes

Oversight Board Thursday, April 12, 2012

1:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redwood City, City Hall 1017 Middlefield Road

Redwood City, CA 94063 Council Chambers

Members: David Holland, Chair Mike Roberts, Vice Chair Steve Abbors- Alternate present (Cecily Harris was sworn in as an Alternate) Alicia C. Aguirre Robert B. Bell Barbara Christensen Enrique Navas City Staff as Successor Agency Attendees: Bill Ekern, Community Development Director Alison Freeman, Finance Manager Brian Ponty, Finance Director/Assistant City Manager Veronica Ramirez, Assistant City Attorney Pamela Thompson, City Attorney Silvia Vonderlinden, City Clerk Kyi Khin, Senior Accountant Sylvia Peters, Administrative Assistant Blake Lyon, new Oversight Board Member was sworn in. Craig Labadie, Special Counsel Others present: Lynn Tottori, Sheryl Schaffner, Cecily Harris

I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chair Holland. Since Mr. Abbors was not present, Ms. Harris said she was the alternate and she would be representing the District. Member Roberts was absent.

Brian Ponty

II. Roll Call – Led by City Clerk Vonderlinden Brian Ponty

Agenda Item No. 4

2

III. Public Comments NOTE: Speakers are limited to three minutes, unless modified by the Chairperson. The Board cannot take action on any matter raised under this item. The Chair asked for public comment. No public comment.

Brian Ponty

IV. Approval of Minutes: M/S Christensen/Aguirre to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Brian Ponty

V. Oral Report on Oversight Board, including Composition and other Miscellaneous Items

(Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 2) Mr. Bell notified the Board, that in consultation with the Mayor, he will step down from the Board and Mr. Lyon will be the appointed person representing Redwood City. He is a member of the largest Union RCMEA (Redwood City Management Employees Association) paid by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Labadie said that based on this, he will not be providing the report on this matter.

City Clerk Vonderlinden swore in Mr. Lyon as the appointed person, and Ms. Harris as an Alternate for the MidPeninsula Open Space District .

Craig Labadie

VI. Consent to Professional Services Agreement with Craig Labadie

(Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 4) City Attorney Thompson noted that the agreement needed to be retroactive to March 26, 2012. The Oversight Board concurred.

M/S Aguirre/Navas to approve the agreement as presented and retroactive to March 26, 2012. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Holland signed the agreement at the meeting.

Pamela Thompson

VII. Review and Approval of Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS)

(Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 5) Chair Holland noted that not everybody got the packet on April 5, 2012. Mr. Ponty responded that there were no bounced back emails received, so unfortunately it is not clear why some members did not get the packets, particularly once there was nothing caught on the city’s spam filter. Mr. Navas said that he did get what was sent to him.

Bill Ekern

Agenda Item No. 4

3

Mr. Ponty led the discussion on the ROPS and Ms. Thompson noted that the job of the Board is to review the document. She noted this was not the only opportunity to comment on it. Vice Chair Roberts joined the meeting. Mr. Navas inquired about the findings and if staff of the Successor Agency looked at them. Ms. Thompson explained that the ROPS was organized in a different way to address this issue.

The auditors’ findings were discussed and it was asked if their report would go to the State. Legal Counsel Labadie confirmed that a copy is being sent to the Department of Finance. Chair Holland also confirmed that statement.

Mr. Ponty noted that this is the ROPS that was approved by the City Council on Monday night, April 9, 2012. He referred to the color coding used. Green items are new or changed; and, orange is for items that are to be dropped. The orange shows that the City is not wanting to pursue these items, because they are no longer obligations and will no longer be listed on the next ROPS. In addition to the green and orange colors, items in purple are to be discussed separately; and, items in coral have been reclassified and have been shifted as a line item in the second ROPS. The uncolored items have not changed since the February 27, 2012 ROPS.

Member Abbors joined the meeting.

Mr. Ponty offered to go through all of the items listed on the ROPS with the exception of items in orange, since these will be dropped. Mr. Ponty went through the ROPS line item by line item starting with line one. As Mr. Ponty went through the ROPS, different questions were posed on the specific line items. One Oversight Board Member noted that it is commendable that City staff is able to contact the Department of Finance and receive a response. Ms. Ramirez provided some information as was requested. There was a request to have information, for the next ROPS, about the legal bills and what has been billed to date (line 9 of the ROPS). Other questions were posed about different items on the ROPS.

It was requested that for future ROPS items that are not going to continue, be excluded. The Board requested that staff flag the items on the ROPS that were going to be part of the Administrative Budget. Legal Counsel Labadie

Agenda Item No. 4

4

provided the code reference and explained the nexus on certain items.

Mr. Ekern, Community Development Director, provided some answers on specific projects listed. An unspent Bond was discussed and Ms. Ramirez said this would be addressed later. A list of projects was discussed.

Regarding the PERS unfunded obligation to former RDA employees, the Board agreed to have the question posed to the State Department of Finance. Mr. Ponty said that these are legacy costs with the demise of the Redevelopment Agency and the suggestion is to have them paid by the Successor Agency. He said these represent $2.5 million of costs. Mr. Bell noted that the goal is to bring back an agreement between the City and the Successor Agency for it to reimburse the City for the PERS costs that the city is incurring. One Board Member would like to see the calculations leading up to $2.5 million in PERS pension obligations. Mr. Ponty concurred that would be doable.

Regarding row 41 and 42 there was a discussion about how to address the Oversight Board charges and costs. Mr. Ponty offered to bring back a breakdown of the costs. There was a suggestion to zero out row 41 for now. The Board discussed the monthly costs of current employees associated with Redevelopment Agency. On row 47, the consensus was to wait and see what the justification is. Staff was to provide these figures, and then the Board was to make a determination on what the budget should be. Questions were asked of Mr. Ponty regarding the Successor Agency budget and the Administrative Budget of the Oversight Board. Mr. Labadie provided details on the matter. Mr. Bell provided details on the Administrative Budget.

Time reporting systems were discussed. The Vice Chair posed questions about the time being charged or the figures being noted on the ROPS. Staff said it would be coming back with justification of expenditures. Regarding item 41, it was suggested it be zeroed now, and 47 wait until the justification is in. The Chair posed questions about the budget to support the Oversight Board. One Board Member wanted to compare the costs of the agency when it was an active Agency. Staff said it would provide these figures. Mr. Ponty covered details of the agreement with Legal Aid and the issues associated with it. He shared specific amounts

Agenda Item No. 4

5

that have been deposited and the figures relating to the ROPS. Ms. Ramirez explained that this will not show on the next ROPS. One Member suggested this be footnoted so that the history is captured. Questions were posed about the Housing Fund. Since the County Auditor did validate the payment, as “pass through”, the consensus was to shift this item to page four. The assumption discussed was that since the County accepted this obligation it will make the payments. One Board Member requested information about the total budget for Affordable Housing. The Legal Aid Society agreement and details were discussed. One Board Member noted that maybe this payment could be phased out. Mr. Ponty offered to call them and inquire if that was possible. City Attorney Thompson said she would review the agreement. Mr. Navas changed his request to not footnote the item on the Legal Aid Society; but, instead wait for the information and possibly shift it to the second ROPS. On the $862,000 amount paid it was suggested this be paid out in the next year and not the current one.

Various Oversight Board Members made comments about the situation they are in and the fact that this is an unfortunate situation to be in. Nonetheless, the role of this Board is to unwind the RDA. The State obligations to community colleges were discussed and a full break down was shared by Member Christensen. Mr. Navas explained that the charge of this board is to wind down the affairs of the RDA.

Mr. Ponty continued with his explanation of each of the items on the second page of the ROPS. Some questions were asked of staff regarding Bradford Street. The Heller Street affordable housing was also mentioned. The items that were going to come off in the next ROPS were covered. A copier machine was discussed and how expenses are allocated. Mr. Lyon provided details. Staff was asked if the assets and the obligations are tied together on the Affordable Housing end and Ms. Ramirez confirmed. One Member would like to see the pre-existing agreements related to this. This item to remain in the ROPS.

One Board Member wanted to have staff inquire with the State Department of Finance about the obligations related to employees that were not 100% allocated to the Agency. Staff confirmed that it will pose the question. Ms. Freeman provided clarifying information on the issue of General

Agenda Item No. 4

6

Administrative Services and Low and Moderate General Administrative Services. The final page of the ROPS was discussed and staff covered the Pass Through payments. Going back to the two items on page three of the ROPS, it was clarified that the Oversight Board will have the ability to consider these and determine if that is something to continue or not. Mr. Labadie asked if staff is proposing these agreements be re-entered and Ms. Ramirez confirmed. He clarified that the Board would have to approve such agreements if they were to be continued. Questions were asked about these funds. Mr. Ponty said that he will footnote this and will take them off the front page. One Board Member concurred with taking these agreements off the ROPS. Items on page 3, line one and two, are to come off the ROPS for further consideration by the Board. One suggestion was to lump together the administrative items listed on the ROPS. These items were tabled for further discussion.

The Chair suggested to move to the next item on the agenda, Administrative Budget, and then come back to this. Mr. Ponty offered to capture the Boards’ direction after reviewing the Administrative Budget.

VIII. Review and Approval of Administrative Budgets (Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 5)

Mr. Ponty referred to the staff report and noted the figure of $1,008,740.00. One Member asked questions of Legal Counsel Labadie on the issue of the amount proposed. Mr. Labadie said that these are plausible and justifiable expenses, but it will be up to the State Department of Finance to determine if that is accepted or not. Questions were asked about the staffing levels. Mr. Bell noted that vacancies were not filled and a restructure will be proposed as part of the budget process. In terms of staff time, Mr. Bell noted that the involvement has changed to the current group present. Mr. Navas wanted the City to work on a plan to fund these positions with the hope that it comes down to 3% or $250,000. Mr. Bell noted that was the goal. He believes that by the Board approving this amount it will allow Redwood City to wind down the personnel costs.

Redevelopment Agency staffing levels were discussed. Mr. Ponty said there are about 15 positions under the RDA. A few Oversight Board Members agreed with this approach of allocating this budget since the City is geared up to reduce these FTEs (full time equivalents).

Brian Ponty

Agenda Item No. 4

7

One Member noted he did not get the materials until 10:00 p.m. the night before. He said he cannot approve this due to receiving the packet so late. Mayor Aguirre noted this was discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Bell explained that nothing was bounced back. So it is unclear as to what happened with the items that were sent to Mr. Abbors but not received by him. Mr. Ponty asked if Mr. Abbors’ system intercepted any quarantined items. The Chair said that a decision is needed. Oversight Board Member Christensen agreed with having the Successor Agency Budget be $1,008,740.00. Ms. Ramirez suggested the two budgets be shown separately. Ms. Christensen would like to see them separate so the Department of Finance is clear. One suggestion was to strike line three and line one to include that amount and add a footnote. There was also a suggestion to keep line one and re-title it to Successor Agency Budget (this includes the $250,000 minimum) for a total of $1,000,874.00 for five-months.

The Oversight Board ensued in discussion about the Low and Moderate Administrative Services funds. It was agreed for this to stay on as an obligation, but it will be justified in future ROPS. This was revisited and the Board vacillated on what to do with Low and Moderate Administrative Services (row two).

M/S Roberts/ Christensen to approve to leave line one as it is (page 3 of ROPS), acknowledging that it includes the $250,000 and drop the payments. Motion carried with Mr. Abbors opposing.

Mayor Aguirre noted that with additional people commenting and interjecting, the meeting has been prolonged. The Chair commented that he will try to keep things more organized. The Chair requested for a formal vote on the ROPS. Mr. Ponty covered all the changes to the ROPS prior to the vote. The Board took a break for 5-minutes. Mr. Ponty noted the changes agreed to by the Oversight Board to the final version of the 1st ROPS:

• Update on page 1 row 9 – June Payment goes to 4K • Row 41 is zeroed out and justification to come back • Rows 43 and 44 leave the obligation and ask the

Department of Finance for input on pension obligations

• Line 18 to go away • Row 42 is to be zeroed out

Agenda Item No. 4

8

• Row 47 leave the obligation but zero out Feb. through June amounts

• Page 2 – row 1 -the total obligation will be $1.6 million and moves to page 4 and Mr. Ponty will call the League Aid Society

• Page 2 – row 17 zeroed out • Page 2- rows 23 and 24 treated as the same items on

page 1 • Page 4 (pass through payments) of the ROPS is the

County’s responsibility

M/S Christensen/Holland to approve the revised ROPS as summarized by Mr. Ponty. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote.

IX. Information Only Report on Real Property Asset Transfers (Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 6)

Brian Ponty

X. Agenda for May 1, 2012 Meeting (Oversight Board Binder Tab No. 3)

Mr. Ponty outlined items for the next agenda: -ROPS II -Update on opinions provided by the State Department of Finance. Topics for Future Agendas: -Reserve balances and assets should be also discussed and look at all assets such as rents, loans and balances. -Refinancing Bonds -Item IX will be addressed at a future meeting Chair Holland inquired when the Board might get the next ROPS and Mr. Ponty noted that one week in advance of the meeting it will go out (April 24, 2012) There was a suggestion to rearrange the room set-up so that it is easier to review the materials. Vice Chair Roberts inquired about the next fiscal year. Mr. Ponty said staff is already looking at it through the second ROPS.

Brian Ponty

XI. Adjourn – the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Brian Ponty

Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Silvia Vonderlinden, City Clerk Submitted for approval at the Oversight Board meeting of May 1, 2012.

Agenda Item No. 4

Successor Agency to the former Redwood City Redevelopment Agency

Agenda Report To: Oversight Board Members

From: Brian Ponty, Finance Director

Date: May 1, 2012

Re: Review and Approval of the Second ROPS

RECOMMENDATION That the Oversight Board approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, as adopted by the City Council acting as the Successor Agency to the Redwood City Redevelopment Agency on April 23, 2012. DISCUSSION At the April 12, 2012 Oversight Board meeting the Board approved the initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS). In approving the ROPS the Board made a number of changes to the version of the ROPS approved by the Council on April 9, 2012. To the extent that items on the initial ROPS carry forward to the second ROPS (the July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 disbursement period) those items are reflected accordingly on the ROPS which is submitted to you for your current consideration. The funding for the items on the second ROPS will come from the April property tax apportionment which the County Controller advises will be made to the Successor Agency on or about June 1, 2012. Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule For ease of reference, the line and page number will be cited to the ROPS attached to this report, referred to as the second ROPS, which was approved by the Successor Agency on April 23, 2012. Lines 1-2, Page 1: Tax Allocation Bonds are solely the debt of the former Redevelopment Agency and are now assumed by the Successor Agency. A principal payment in the amount of $2,480,000 is due to bondholders along with an interest payment of $280,337 on July 15, 2012. Since the trustee has $680,224 available, the net amount needed to make the principal payment is $2,080,113. Given the time it takes the trustee to process the payment and transmit the amounts to the bondholders the amounts needed to provide the principal and interest payments should be wired to the trustee several weeks in advance of the payment date. If the Successor Agency is not provided these funds by the County Controller it will likely result in a draw upon the debt service reserve fund. Since part of the debt service reserve fund is in the form of a surety bond any draws upon this bond will lead to higher costs to the Successor Agency.

Agenda Item No. 5

Page 2

Also included is the interest payment ($230,738) that is due on January 15, 2013. To ensure that this payment is made on a timely basis we are including it on the second ROPS so that we will be able to remit it to the trustee in December 2012. Line 3, Page 1: SERAF repayment to the Low and Moderate Housing fund is required under the legislation. Although there is no payment due between July 1 and December 31 we are nonetheless including the total amount of the obligation. Line 4, Page 1: 2107 Broadway is a repayment of a loan from the School District, an obligation covered by the legislation. Although there is no payment due between July 1 and December 31 we are nonetheless including the total amount of the obligation. Lines 5-6, Page 1: Repayment to the City for loan and interest is due for funds advanced by the City for Downtown projects. This is an existing agreement prior to January 1, 2011, and is an enforceable obligation under the legislation (H&S 34171(d)(2)) as it is supported by an agreement repaying the City in connection with bonds issued for the purpose of loaning funds to the Redevelopment Agency. Line 7, Page 1: Fiscal agent fees are ongoing debt connected to an agreement existing before January 1, 2011. Line 8, Page 1: Legal fees are ongoing debt connected to agreements existing before January 1, 2011. These services are needed to supplement the services provided by the City Attorney’s office to ensure that sound actions are taken in connection with the wind down of redevelopment. Line 9, Page 1: Actual cost of staff to manage and administer specific projects, including ongoing leases for Courthouse Square kiosks. Line 10, Page 1: Contractual obligation with San Mateo County for administration of property taxes is based on a legislative mandate predating January 1, 2011. Line 11, Page 1: Costs associated with requirements of the State to monitor the hazmat status and clean up plans for the Bradford Street property. Line 12, Page 1: Consulting costs to prepare plans and oversee site remediation for the Bradford Street property. Line 13, Page 1: Consulting costs to prepare plans and oversee site remediation for the Heller Street property. Line 14, Page 1: This is the final payment to HEART for affordable housing program administration. Line 15, Page 1: Actual staff costs to administer and monitor requirements associated with projects funded by the former Redevelopment Agency’s Affordable Housing program. Specific projects and programs with timelines are included as an attachment to this report. Line 16, Page 1: The anticipated cost of the agreement the Oversight Board approved on April 12th with Craig Labadie for the Board’s legal services. Lines 17 - 20, Page 1: The unfunded pension and retiree medical obligations attributable to employees who provided services to the former Redevelopment Agency. At the April 12th

Agenda Item No. 5

Page 3

meeting the Board agreed to leave these items on the ROPS pending confirmation from the State Department of Finance that these are valid obligations. No funds are requested for these obligations during the second ROPS period. Lines 1-9, Page 2: Each of these pass through agreements are consistent with the ongoing obligations as defined in the legislation. Line 10, Page 2: This item was moved from Line 1, Page 2 at the direction of the Oversight Board at the April 12th meeting so that it would be presented consistently the County’s determination. Line 1, Page 3: The statutory minimum administrative cost allowance provided by Health and Safety Code section 34171 (b). Attached to this agenda report is the recommended second ROPS, a reconciliation document showing the changes between the initial ROPS and the second ROPS, and a list of projects funded by the Redevelopment Agency’s Affordable Housing program.

_________________________ Brian Ponty Finance Director, Successor Agency ATTACHMENTS 1. Second ROPS (approved by Council on April 23, 2012) 2. Reconciliation between the initial ROPS and the second ROPS 3. Redevelopment Housing Program Projects

Agenda Item No. 5

Name of Redevelopment Agency: Redwood City Redevelopment Agency Page 1 of 3 Pages

Project Area(s) All

SECOND RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULEPer AB 26 - Section 34177

Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov-2012 Dec 2012 Total(2)

Category

1 Tax allocation Bond, Series 2003A for infrastracture projects (1) US Bank Debt service for bonds issued for RDA Project Area No. 2 29,967,448 2035 5,375,000 RPTTF 1,799,775 1,799,775 1

2 Tax allocation Bond, Series 2003A for infrastracture projects (1) US Bank Interest payments for bonds issued for RDA Project Area No. 2 41,068,477 2035 741,813 RPTTF 280,338 230,738 511,076 1

3 SERAF Repayment Housing Successor Agency Repayment of Borrowed LMIHF to make FY 09/10 SERAF payment 1,687,703 2015 562,568 RPTTF - 2

4 Developing 2107 Broadway Redwood City School District Finance a portion of 2107 Broadway in 1998 by providing a school district loan 42,321 2013 42,321 RPTTF - 2

5 Capital improvements in the downtown City of Redwood City Repay a City loan for capital projects from City / Agency Loan Agreement 1,384,934 2019 174,483 RPTTF 86,352 86,352 2

6 Capital improvements in the downtown City of Redwood City Repay interest on a City loan for capital improvements from City/Agency Loan Agmt. 223,413 2019 55,281 RPTTF 28,530 28,530 2

7 On-going debt service bank and fiscal agent fees US Bank and Willdan Financial Bank fees and annual disclosure fees for the 2003 Bond 5,100 2013 5,100 RPTTF 3,000 3,000 1

8 Legal services to the RDA and real property Best, Best & Krieger LLP Legal services related to RDA and Real Property Agreement 24,000 2013 24,000 RPTTF 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 5

9 General RDA project administration Successor Agency Project related payroll and benefits 30,000 2013 30,000 RPTTF 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 15,000 5

10 Property tax administration San Mateo County San Mateo County charges for property tax administration 85,935 2013 85,935 RPTTF - 5

11 Bradford Street Affordable Housing CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Co Provide oversight for the environmental clearance / PO 48524 4,115 2013 4,115 RPTTF 343 343 343 343 343 343 2,058 5

As of July1, 2012 Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation

Payments by monthTotal Due During Fiscal Year 2012-2013*

Funding Source

Payable from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF)

Obligation Expiration

Date

12 Project administration for Bradford Street Green Environment, Inc. Project environmental administration for Bradford Street / PO 48525 124,702 2013 124,702 RPTTF 10,392 10,392 10,392 10,392 10,392 10,392 62,352 5

13 611 Heller Street Affordable Housing Fugro West Soil and groundwater investigation for 611 Heller / PO 47709 7,899 2013 7,899 RPTTF 658 658 658 658 658 658 3,948 5

14 Housing Endowment and Regional Trust Program Housing Endowment and RegionaProvide administrative budget to the Program - Resolution RD 05-08 using RDA Housing 31,925 2013 31,925 RPTTF 31,925 31,925 5

15 Housing projects administration and monitoring Housing Successor Agency Project related payroll and benefits 30,000 2013 30,000 RPTTF 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 15,000 5

16 Oversight Board Legal Fees Craig Labadie, esq. Provide Legal Services to Oversight Board 48,000 2013 48,000 RPTTF 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 24,000 6

17 Accrued PERS Pension Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) CalPERS Costs incurred to date 1,586,854 2013 1,586,854 RPTTF - 3

18 Accrued Retiree Health Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) CalPERS CERBT Costs incurred to date 1,030,250 2013 1,030,250 RPTTF - 3

19 Accrued PERS Pension Obligations CalPERS Costs incurred to date for Housing employees 375,526 2013 375,526 RPTTF - 3

20 Accrued Retiree Health Obligations CalPERS CERBT Costs incurred to date for Housing employees 223,642 2013 223,642 RPTTF - 3

Totals - This Page (RPTTF Funding) 77,982,244 10,559,414 RPTTF 2,102,506 54,318 22,393 22,393 22,393 371,013 2,595,016

Totals - Page 2 (RPTTF Funding) 3,868,104 3,868,104 RPTTF - - - - - - -

Totals - Page 3 (Administrative Cost Allowance) 250,000 250,000 RPTTF 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,835 125,000

Grand total - All Pages 82,100,348 14,677,518 2,123,339 75,151 43,226 43,226 43,226 391,848 2,720,016

* All totals due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected.

RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds

LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowanceg g y

(1) Amount to be paid in July 2012 is the total due to trustee for debt service for bond year ending 7/12 less the amount available with trustee of $680,225 to be paid to bond holders on 7/15/12.

(2) See attached category key for cross referenced Section 34167 purposes.

Agenda Item No. 5Attachment 1

Name of Redevelopment Agency: Page 2 of 3 Pages

Project Area(s) RDA Project Area All

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULEPer AB 26 - Section 34177

Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov-2012 Dec 2012 Total(1)

Category

1) Pass Through Payments TRA RC SCHOOL DISTRICT Agreement per former CRL 33401 722,857 722,857 RPTTF 5

2) Pass Through Payments TRA SEQUOIA UNION H.S. DISTRICT Agreement per former CRL 33401 477,621 477,621 RPTTF 5

3) Pass Through Payments TRA SMC COLLEGE DISTRICT Agreement per former CRL 33401 207,406 207,406 RPTTF 5

4) Pass Through Payments TRA MID PEN. OPEN SPACE DIST. Agreement per former CRL 33401 56,160 56,160 RPTTF 5

5) Pass Through Payments TRA SMC HARBOR DISTRICT Agreement per former CRL 33401 10,783 10,783 RPTTF - 5

6) Pass Through Payments TRA SMC MOSQUITO ABATE. DIST. Agreement per former CRL 33401 5,870 5,870 RPTTF - 5

7) Pass Through Payments TRA SMC OFFICE OF EDUCATION Agreement per former CRL 33401 107,937 107,937 RPTTF - 5

8) Pass Through Payment County of San Mateo County Share of Tax Increment per Agreement to expand the RDA project area 1,406,073 1,406,073 RPTTF - 5

9) Pass Through Payment SMC Mosquito Abatement Distr. Agreement per RDA Resolution No. RD 89-23 11,383 11,383 RPTTF - 5

10) Affordable Housing Funds - Legal Aid Society Agreement 2 Housing Successor Agency County share of tax increment to be used for affordable housing 862,014 2013 862,014 RPTTF 5



Funding Source

Payable from Other Revenue Sources

Obligation Expiration

Date

Totals - RPTTF 3,868,104 3,868,104 RPTTF 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Totals - Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals - Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

0

Grand total - This Page 3,868,104 3,868,104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* All total due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected.

RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc.

LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance


(2) Moved to "pass through" payments, formerly page 4


Name of Redevelopment Agency: Redwood City Redevelopment Agency Page 3 of 3 Pages

Project Area(s) All

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULEPer AB 26 - Section 34177

Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description 2012 Total(2)

Category

Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov-2012 Dec 2012

1) Successor Agency Administrative Cost Allowance (1) Successor Agency Minimum amount of property tax to Successor Agency for general administrative costs 250,000 2013 250,000 RPTTF 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,835 125,000 6

Totals - This Page 250,000 250,000 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,833 20,835 125,000

* All total due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected.

RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc

LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance

(1) Minimum amount allowed for administration not reflected in line 1 subject to change.




Funding Source

Payable from the Administrative Allowance AllocationObligation Expiration

Date


City of Redwood City Successor Agency EOPS/ROPS

Key for Statutes Category

Enforceable Obligations

34167. This part is intended to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the revenues and assets of redevelopment agencies so that those assets and revenues that are not needed to pay for enforceable obligations may be used by local governments to fund core governmental services including police and fire protection services and schools.

(d) For purposes of this part, “enforceable obligation” means any of the following:

Category

(1) Bonds, as defined by Section 33602 and bonds issued pursuant to Section 5850 of the Government Code, including the required debt service, reserve set-asides and any other payments required under the indenture or similar documents governing the issuance of the outstanding bonds of the redevelopment agency.

(2) Loans of moneys borrowed by the redevelopment agency for a lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, moneys borrowed from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, to the extent they are legally required to be repaid pursuant to a required repayment schedule or other mandatory loan terms.

(3) Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law, other than pass through payments that are made by the county auditor-controller pursuant to Section 34183, or legally enforceable payments required in connection with the agencies’ employees, including, but not limited to, pension payments, pension obligation debt service, and unemployment payments.

(4) Judgments or settlements entered by a competent court of law or binding arbitration decisions against the former redevelopment agency, other than pass through payments that are made by the county auditor-controller pursuant to Section 34183. Along with the successor agency, the oversight board shall have the authority and standing to appeal any judgment or to set aside any settlement or arbitration decision.

(5) Any legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that is not otherwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy.

(6) Contracts or agreements necessary for the continued administration or operation of the redevelopment agency to the extent permitted by this part, including, but not limited to, agreements to purchase or rent office space, equipment and supplies, and pay-related expenses pursuant to Section 33127 and for carrying insurance pursuant to Section 33134.


Project Name/DescriptionAmount per 1st ROPS

Amount per 2nd ROPS

On 1st ROPS On 2nd ROPS1/1 1/1 Principal payment‐ July 2012 ‐ 1,799,775 1/2 1/2 Interest payment ‐July 2012 280,338 511,076 1/4 1/3 Repayment of Borrowed LMIHF to make FY 09/10 SERAF payment 562,568 ‐ 1/5 1/4 Finance a portion of 2107 Broadway in 1998 through loan from the school district 42,321 ‐ 1/6 1/5 Principal payment on Capital Improvement Loan 34171(d) 2 884,609 86,352 1/7 1/6 Interest payment on Capital Improvement Loan 34171 (d) 2 33,019 28,530 1/8 1/7 On‐going debt service bank and fiscal agent fees 2,100 3,000 1/9 1/8 Legal services to the RDA and real property 23,607 12,000 1/41 1/9 Project related payroll and benefits 28,088 15,000 1/45 1/10 Costs charged by San Mateo County for administration of property tax 85,935 ‐ 1/46 1/16 Provide Legal Services to Oversight Board 24,000 24,000

2/1 2/10 County share of tax increment to be used for affordable housing per LAS(Moved ) *2/3 1/11 Provide oversight for the environmental clearance / PO 48524 1,067 2,058 2/4 1/12 Project environmental administration for Bradford Street / PO 48525 990 62,352 2/5 1/13 Soil and groundwater investigation for 611 Heller / PO 47709 ‐ 3,948 2/8 1/14 Provide administrative budget to the Program ‐ Resolution RD 05‐08 using RDA Housing 28,075 31,925 2/17 1/15 Housing Project related payroll and benefits 15,598 15,000

3/3 3/1 Minimum amount of property tax due to successor Agency for general admin. costs ‐ 125,000

4/1 2/1 TRA RC SCHOOL DISTRICT 339,0024/2 2/2 TRA SEQUOIA UNION H.S. DISTRICT 223,9924/3 2/3 TRA SMC COLLEGE DISTRICT 97,2684/4 2/4 TRA MID PEN. OPEN SPACE DIST. 26,3384/5 2/5 TRA SMC HARBOR DISTRICT 5,0574/6 2/6 TRA SMC MOSQUITO ABATE. DIST. 2,7534/7 2/7 TRA SMC OFFICE OF EDUCATION 50,6204/8 2/8 County of San Mateo 497,064 4/9 2/9 SMC Mosquito Abatement Distr. 11,383 ‐ 4/10 2/10 County share of tax increment to be used for affordable housing per LAS 782,271

Total of Changes 4,048,063 2,720,016

On 1st ROPS On 2nd ROPS PayeeAmount per 1st ROPS

Amount per 2nd ROPS

1/43 1/17 Accrued PERS Pension Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) ‐ ‐ 1/44 1/18 Accrued Retiree Health Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) ‐ ‐

2/23 1/19 Accrued PERS Pension Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) for Housing Employees ‐ ‐ 2/24 1/20 Accrued Retiree Health Obligations 34171 (d) 1 ( c) for Housing Employees ‐ ‐

Total of No Changes ‐ ‐ Total of Page ‐1‐ 4,048,063 2,720,016

Changes in Obligations in 2nd ROPS

No Changes in Obligations in 2nd ROPS

Page & Line #

1


Project NameAmount per 1st ROPS

Amount per 2nd ROPS

On 1st ROPS On 2nd ROPS1/3 N/A Tax allocation Bond, Series 2003A for Debt Service Reserve ‐ ‐ 1/10 N/A Legal services to the RDA and real property 520 ‐ 1/11 N/A Downtown business improvement district ‐ ‐ 1/12 N/A Administrative use of a photocopy machine 3,256 ‐ 1/13 N/A El Camino Real and Post Office Paseo Streetscapes ‐ ‐ 1/14 N/A Downtown Precise Plan ‐ ‐ 1/15 N/A Downtown Precise Plan ‐ ‐ 1/16 N/A Downtown Precise Plan ‐ ‐ 1/17 N/A Mixed Use Corridor Zoning ‐ ‐ 1/18 N/A Capital improvement projects ‐ ‐ 1/19 N/A Legal services for RDA administration ‐ ‐ 1/20 N/A On‐call land use economics consultant ‐ ‐ 1/21 N/A Depot Circle Development Opportunity ‐ ‐ 1/22 N/A Hoover Mobility Study ‐ ‐ 1/23 N/A Underground parking garage dewatering ‐ ‐ 1/24 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/25 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/26 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/27 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/28 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/29 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/30 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/31 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/32 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/33 N/A Courthouse Square events ‐ ‐ 1/34 N/A Advertising to attract businesses to Redwood City ‐ ‐ 1/35 N/A Economic development reorganization and implementation 11,761 ‐ 1/36 N/A Downtown Public Events Programming ‐ ‐ 1/37 N/A Downtown Public Events Programming ‐ ‐ 1/38 N/A Arts in the downtown ‐ ‐ 1/39 N/A Depot Circle Development Opportunity ‐ ‐ 1/40 N/A Annual independent auditing of RDA 256 ‐ 1/42 N/A ABX1 26 Startup Costs 6,065 ‐ 1/47 N/A Oversight Board Administration ‐ ‐

‐ 2/2 N/A Cedar Street Affordable Apartments 5,460 ‐ 2/6 N/A On‐call land use economics consultant ‐ ‐ 2/7 N/A Labor compliance consulting services ‐ ‐ 2/9 N/A Housing Rehab Program ‐ Lead Based Paint for 1117 Fay St. ‐ ‐ 2/10 N/A Housing Rehab Program ‐ Free Exterior Paint Program ‐ 1117 Fay St. 4,700 ‐ 2/11 N/A Housing Rehab Program ‐ Free Exterior Paint Program ‐ 455 Iris St. ‐ ‐ 2/12 N/A Rolison Road Affordable Housing ‐ ‐ 2/13 N/A On‐call legal services ‐ ‐ 2/14 N/A Docktown Affordable Housing ‐ ‐ 2/15 N/A Jim Smith Housing Trust Fund and Kathleen Mahany Legacy Program ‐ ‐ 2/16 N/A Housing administrative use of a photocopy machine 3,256 ‐ 2/18 N/A Public improvements for downtown revitalization with bond funds ‐ ‐ 2/19 N/A Refundable security deposits ‐ ‐ 2/20 N/A Refundable security deposits ‐ ‐ 2/21 N/A Refundable security deposits ‐ ‐ 2/22 N/A Refundable security deposits ‐ ‐

‐ 3/1 N/A General Administrative Services 1,000,874 ‐ 3/2 N/A Low and Mod. General Administrative Services 21,475

Total of Page ‐2‐ 1,057,623 ‐ Grand Total (Total of Page ‐1‐ & ‐2_) 5,105,686 2,720,016

Obligations removed in 2nd ROPS

Page & Line #

2


Redevelopment Housing Projects

At its meeting April 12, 2012, the Oversight Board requested information on the housing projects that continue to require oversight from the former Redevelopment Agency. There are four large housing projects with Redevelopment Agency funding: City Center (950 Main Street), Hallmark Apartments (531 Woodside Road), Redwood Court (635 Spruce Street), and Villa Montgomery (1500 El Camino Real). These loans are payable to the Agency (now the Successor Housing Agency) between 2028 and 2058. Consequently, staff will continue to be involved in monitoring these projects for this duration. The Agency also provided first time homebuyer loans. There are currently eight loans still outstanding. Within this program there is currently $535,220 in outstanding principal and interest. As part of another first time homebuyers program a Disposition and Development Agreement was executed by and between the RDA and Butler Stellar Corporation on January 24, 1994 for the construction of 15 affordable ownership units (condominiums). The Agency provided silent second loans to income-qualified first time homebuyers. There are currently ten outstanding loans. The outstanding principal is $229,362.

Finally, Redevelopment Agency housing funds provided low interest housing rehabilitation loans to assist income qualified single-family and multi-family property owners to preserve existing affordable housing. The outstanding principal balance is $186,020.

Summary of Outstanding Loans to Housing Successor Agency

Housing Project Original RDA Housing Loan Amount

Balance as of 12/31/11

City Center – Promissory Note with Mezes Court Associates

$371,076 $462,329 ($371,076 principal + $91,253 interest)

City Center - Promissory Note with J.H.R. Trust

$65,484 $55,325

Hallmark Apartments $150,000 $150,000Redwood Court $500,000 $483,153

Villa Montgomery $1,927,000 $2,260,569 ($1,927,000 principal and

$333,569 deferred interest)First Time Homebuyer Program $535,220.73First Time Homebuyer Program-Wyndham Place

$229,361.59

RDA Housing Rehabilitation Program

$186,018.55

Total Outstanding Loans $4,358,374. 63

Tracking affordability restrictions will continue with the housing projects for periods ranging from 2028 to 2068.


Documents

Draft Agenda for Oversight Board 5-1-12