Orange County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
• Agency Response
Response to:
Santa Ana Police Department 7/23/12, 1.42MB
Mayor City of Santa Ana Miguel A. Pulido*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ 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
As of the date of dissolution of redevelopment (Feb. 1, 2012), all city operated redevelopment agencies, except Mission Viejo and Seal Beach, were exceeding the administrative cost limit of 5% of the tax increment distributed related to the ROPS as authorized by ABX1 26. Response: Assembly Bill 1484 makes it clear that the 5% administrative cost allowance was applicable to the period of January 1 through June 30, 2012, and Santa Ana did not exceed such limit. TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA . P.O. BOX 1988 FAX (714) 647-6954 M Presiding Judge Thomas J. Borris 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Report Response September 20, 2012
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
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 ABX1 26 and develop a plan to reduce these costs to three percent of the tax increment received or less in 2012-2013. If these percentages fall below $250,000, the agencies are allowed to claim the higher amount. (See
F2
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. Response: We appreciate your acknowledgment of Santa Ana's conformity with law and citizen involvement.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Historically, external oversight over redevelopment has been missing or ineffective in monitoring redevelopment agency compliance and performance. The newly 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. Response: See response to F2. above, further, the City of Santa Ana had external oversight of the Agency with the bi-monthly meetings of the Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission and its review of redevelopment and housing projects and agreements prior to seeking Board review/approval. Also, the Agency Board held public meetings and public hearings bi-monthly seeking community input and involvement on redevelopment and housing projects and agreements. Numerous community outreach efforts were also conducted over the years.
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.