Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Rops topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OCII six‑month budget shows modest savings; draft ROPS 14‑15A seeks $57.1M in property tax trust fund requests
Summary
Deputy Director of Finance reported the agency projects to come in under budget by about $1.5 million at the six‑month point and outlined the draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 14‑15A), which in preliminary form requests roughly $55.76 million in non‑admin RPTTF and $1.35 million in administrative cost allowance.
OCII staff told commissioners on Feb. 18 that the agency is projecting to end fiscal year 2013–14 under budget based on six months of activity, and presented an initial draft of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for July–December 2014 (ROPS 14‑15A). Staff described $1.5 million in net expenditure savings to date and outlined the ROPS draft funding mix, which is largely made up of existing balances and debt-service obligations.
Deputy Director for Finance Leo Levinson summarized the agency’s mid‑year finances: “The good news is that this year does indeed, look balanced at this point in the year,” Levinson said, noting roughly $1,500,000 in net expenditure savings compared with the board‑adopted budget. He identified primary sources of savings as staffing and benefit underspends (roughly $570,000 due to vacancies), lower affordable housing services costs and renegotiated contracts, and some one‑time or limited revenues that are being drawn down to help balance year‑end results.
On the ROPS draft, staff laid out preliminary totals and funding categories. The draft before the commission showed a total of about $224,000,000 in obligations for the July–December 2014 period with the following preliminary requests: non‑admin RPTTF approximately $55,760,000 and an administrative cost allowance (ACA) request of about $1,350,000, for a preliminary RPTTF total of about $57,110,000. The ROPS draft includes bond proceeds, reserves, developer reimbursements and other funds; staff noted the numbers remain iterative and that cash‑balance and prior‑period adjustment worksheets are still being completed.
Commissioners and the public flagged a handful of data and presentation issues staff said they would correct before final ROPS submission. Staff acknowledged an inadvertent omission in the template for SB 2,113 replacement housing obligations (a missing total outstanding debt/obligation line) and said they would restore those numbers. Commissioners asked for updated packets if staff make corrections before the oversight board meeting.
Public comment again focused on concerns about redevelopment impacts and accountability. Ace Washington delivered extended commentary criticizing what he described as repeated agency failures and said he is preparing legal complaints, and other speakers raised questions about transparency and community impacts.
ROPS is an iterative, statutorily required schedule. Staff outlined next procedural steps: workshops and oversight board review in February followed by submission to the Department of Finance; an initial DOF determination is expected in April with a meet‑and‑confer window to follow, and final distribution of RPTTF anticipated with the June tax‑distribution cycle.
