Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting

« D E P A R T M E N T O F ^o™>FI N A N C E E D M U N D B R D W N J R , • G O V E R N O R 9 1 5 L S T R E E T • B A C R A M E N T O C A • 9 S B 1 4 - 3 7 0 6 • w w w . D a F . B A . a a v June 21, 2013 Ms. Sarah Schlenk; Agency Administrative Manager Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency 250 Frank H. Ggawa Plaza, #3315 Oakland, CA 94619 Dear Ms. Schlenk: Subject Staffing Gosts for Housing F*rojects TTiis letter Is in: response to your request for further review of staff costs for housing projects reported on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS) for the January through June 2013 (ROPS Ul) and July through December 2013 (ROPS 13-14A) periods and additional guidance to adequatelyjustify and report staff costs for housing projects in future ROPS periods. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 34177 (m), the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency (Agency) submitted ROPS 13-14A to Finance on February 28, 2013. The California Department of Finance's (Finance) ROPS 13-14A letter dated April 13, 2013. continued to deny Item 370 on ROPS Hi and ROPS 13-14A. Subsequently, the Agency requested a Meet and Confer session on one or more of the items dented by Finance, including Item 370. the Meet and Confer letter issued on May 17, 2013, continued to deny funding for Item 370. Item 370 in ROPS III - Low and Moderate Income Housing Project and Other Staff/Operations in the amount of $849,314. Finance had continued to deny this item because It was unclear how the staff costs were related to the specific projects approved as enforceable obligations on the ROPS. More specifically, the documentation (e.g., task list by line item) provided Included staff costs for projects,where the Agency had not requested funding. It was unclear why staff would be working on a project for which the Agency was not requesting funding. During the Meet and Confer process, the Agency provided additional documentation (e.g.. a staff report listing the employees and hours), but staff hours could not be substantiated on a project-by-project nor staff member basis. As such. Finance did not approve the item for Redevelopment Property Tax Tmst Fund (RPTTF) funding due to Insufficient documentation linking the staff costs to specific projects. Finance stated.that to the extent the Agency can develop a methodology and provide suitable documentation that allows for tracking staff time by project, the Agency may be able to obtain funding on future ROPS. Subsequent to the Meet and Confer process, the Agency provided an explanation as to why staff costs were being incurred even though funds were not being requested for the specific projects. The Agency had listed the entire amount needed for each of the projects on prior a