Page 4 San Bernardino County Sentinel
Grand Terrace Works Out Ten Year Repayment Schedule With SBVMWD
The Grand Terrace City Council this week resolved to return to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District almost $2.3 million in state redevelopment pass-through funds mistakenly credited into the Grand Terrace’s redevelopment agency account two and three years ago.
In 2008-09 and 2009-10, the county auditor-controller’s office, which handles the apportioning of state redevelopment pass-through funds to the county’s cities and various agencies, utilized an incorrect schedule and formula to calculate the amount of money to be shared by Grand Terrace, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA).
The water district was shorted roughly $8.8 million over those two years and IVDA received $6.5 million more than it was entitled to and Grand Terrace received a $2.294 million windfall to which it was not entitled. This spring, after the water district’s finance officer noted a discrepancy between his own calculation of what his district was owed and what it had received, the district’s general manager contacted the county auditor-controller/treasurer’s office. The auditor-controller verified the miscalculation and notified both Grand Terrace and IVDA in May, informing both entities they would need to repay the water district.
The issue was almost rendered moot a month later when the state moved to abolish municipal redevelopment agencies and confiscate their assets. Grand Terrace, however, has agreed to pay the state $2.8 million this year and $670,000 next year to keep its redevelopment agency intact.
Pursuant to a three-month bargaining session with the water district, Grand Terrace officials have negotiated a payback arrangement that will allow the $2.3 million to be refunded to the district in increments over the next ten years.
In 2008-09 and 2009-10, the county auditor-controller’s office, which handles the apportioning of state redevelopment pass-through funds to the county’s cities and various agencies, utilized an incorrect schedule and formula to calculate the amount of money to be shared by Grand Terrace, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA).
The water district was shorted roughly $8.8 million over those two years and IVDA received $6.5 million more than it was entitled to and Grand Terrace received a $2.294 million windfall to which it was not entitled. This spring, after the water district’s finance officer noted a discrepancy between his own calculation of what his district was owed and what it had received, the district’s general manager contacted the county auditor-controller/treasurer’s office. The auditor-controller verified the miscalculation and notified both Grand Terrace and IVDA in May, informing both entities they would need to repay the water district.
The issue was almost rendered moot a month later when the state moved to abolish municipal redevelopment agencies and confiscate their assets. Grand Terrace, however, has agreed to pay the state $2.8 million this year and $670,000 next year to keep its redevelopment agency intact.
Pursuant to a three-month bargaining session with the water district, Grand Terrace officials have negotiated a payback arrangement that will allow the $2.3 million to be refunded to the district in increments over the next ten years.
Gramps Thinks: In 2008/09 Grand Terrace (Steve Berry and The Finance Department and then City Council Members), should have realized there was an overpayment and not used the excess funds and called attention to the error prior to the Passing of the Kill the RDA Law was passed. What are these folks thinking... OH MONEY... during a RECESSION... COME ON.. This sounds like we still have a bunch of people working in City hall that would not return money if the local cashier got the change wrong. I expect better of people who work in go GT. Don't YOU? City Manager Betsy Adams may not have noticed a year to year increase as she was hired after the initial error.
IF the CITY paid back the 2.3 Million could pay the State the funds to continue the RDA? BONDS WERE SOLD.... Sounds like some money shifting going on again... People are not pleased with the shell game being played.
IF the CITY paid back the 2.3 Million could pay the State the funds to continue the RDA? BONDS WERE SOLD.... Sounds like some money shifting going on again... People are not pleased with the shell game being played.
