pages: SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard | 2012-08-27 | 4 | Successor Agency Oversight Board Minutes of Special Meeting, August 27, 2012 Page 3 them. City Attorney Kern responded that she would recommend that in order to save money, independent counsel should only be brought in to resolve specific areas of dispute between the taxing entities and the Successor Agency. Alameda's situation may not be as complicated as Oakland's. There will be independent audits and final review by DOF. Chair Russo agreed that this was a complex issue and recommended that this item be placed on the agenda for a full discussion at a future meeting. Members could bring their constituency counsel with them for this discussion. The Chair recommended that City Attorney Kern consult other oversight boards to see how they are handling this issue. Member Potter suggested that members could come back with specific examples of concerns and potential areas of conflict to help shape the discussion. The Chair stated that it would be better to have this be a scoping discussion rather than trying to identify potential conflicts. City Attorney Kern stated that she would discuss this with other agencies and bring back her findings to the Board. This item was submitted for information, only; no board action was requested. 4. REVIEW OF HOUSING ASSET LIST Mr. Doezema reported that the list, a requirement of AB1484, had been prepared by the housing successor, the Alameda Housing Authority. It documents assets transferred from the successor agency to the housing successor as of August 1, 2012, the date of the list. DOF was provided with this list. DOF has 30 days to review the list and object to any item. If DOF has no objections to any of the items, the housing items are then protected from clawback to the successor agency. Exhibit A lists real property. All the real property on this list consists of affordability covenants. These are deed restrictions that limit occupancy of affordable units to low- and moderate-income people. There are 95 of them. There was no other property transferred other than deed restrictions. A Board member noted that the date of the transfer is shown as February 12, 2012. The board did not have its first meeting until April - did the Board see this information at that meeting? Mr. Doezema responded that it did not - this was a transfer dictated by operation of law under ABX1 26. Housing assets went to the entity that agreed to accept them. A Board member asked if housing is treated differently. Mr. Doezema responded yes. Board Member Ortiz asked if DOF is inclined to be more sympathetic to housing. Mr. Doezema responded that the law provides for transfers of assets that utilize low- and moderate-income housing funds. Member Potter stated that once this list is approved by DOF, these assets are protected from clawback and it will be left to the housing successor agencies to administer the affordable housing covenants pursuant to redevelopment law. A Board member asked if the covenants were in perpetuity. Member Potter explained that the covenants are for 59 years. When the homes are sold, the covenants are reimposed for another 59 years, so in a way it's like perpetuity. The Community Improvement Commission had no proceeds in this; there was no cash, just a requirement to keep the covenant in place. In response to a Board member | SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-08-27.pdf |