Orange County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
• Agency Response
The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where Have We Been? What Lies Ahead?*
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Page 1
As of the date of dissolution of redevelopment (February 1, 2012) all city operated redevelopment agencies, except Mission Viejo and Seal Beach, were exceeding the administrative costs limits of 5% of the tax increment distributed related to the ROPS as authorized by ABX1 26. City Response: The City agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 1
All successor agencies should review administrative costs to ensure compliance with the limit of five percent of the tax-increment or less as required by AB X1 26 and develop a plan to reduce these costs to three percent of the tax increment received or less in 2012-13. If these percentages fall below $250,000, that agencies are allowed to claim the higher amount. City Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Successor Agency received a 100% approval rate on its Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to include Form C, its Administrative Budget.
F2
Page 1
Of the agencies surveyed, only Costa Mesa and Santa Ana reported having a citizen involvement committee along the line of a project area committee as authorized by Section 33385 of the Health and Safety Code. City Response: The City agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 1
Successor agencies and oversight boards should review the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule with a view toward limiting the range of projects and obligations thereby retiring the enforceable obligation debt as quickly as possible. City Response: The recommendation has been implemented. It is the Successor Agency's intent to wind down the former redevelopment agency in an expedited manner.
F3
Page 1
Historically, external oversight over redevelopment has been missing or ineffective in monitoring redevelopment agency compliance and performance. The new formed oversight boards offer a potential to improve on that record by providing critical evaluation of existing projects and management of the successor agency debt. City Response: The City disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. The finding is overly broad in its scope as external oversight over the former agencies was not uniform and, in some cases, adequate external monitoring for an agency was conducted locally. With regard to statewide agency or legislative monitoring of redevelopment agencies, the City can agree to the finding but the weakness was due to ineffective legislation or reporting Placentia Grand Jury Response July 18, 2012 requirements. The City agrees that the new formed oversight boards have the potential to improve upon external monitoring.
No recommendations for this finding
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.