At 1:05 this afternoon, the dreaded announcement from Sacramento – possibly just formful – whirled into City Hall from cyberspace.
Newly required state approval of the City Council’s sale of the Downtown plot known has Parcel B is on hold.
A Sacramento verdict was due five working days after the hometown Oversight Board, the poor man’s Redevelopment Agency, officially approved the Council-engineered deal with a realty group a week ago this afternoon at 3:30. The disappointing the news landed at City Hall exactly on schedule.
The recently muscularized state Dept. of Finance said that it would need at least 40 more days, as established by freshly minted law, to review the details.
City Manager John Nachbar told the newspaper this afternoon he believes the Not Yet message was automatic. He said it carries no clue as to whether Sacramento will embrace or kill the Council’s putative sale of the long dormant patch of precious land.
Here was the cryptic message to City Clerk Martin Cole, Secretary to the Oversight Board
Mr. Cole:
On September 13, 2012, the Department of Finance (DOF) received resolution 2012-OB 006 approved by the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency. Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 34179 (h) allows DOF five business days to request a review of an Oversight Board action.
This email serves as notice that we are requesting a review of the Oversight Board action. Pending the resolution of the questions we have on this resolution, it shall not be effective.
Since Finance is statutorily obliged to operate within a 40-day review period, we will be contacting you shortly to obtain further clarification and supporting documentation for the Enforceable Obligations in question. We hope to work expeditiously with you to resolve these questions within the specified time frame.
Regards,
Michael Barr
Department of Finance
Local Government Unit
“I am not really surprised,” said Mr. Nachbar, not long returned from an Italian holiday with his wife.
“I think it is standard procedure on their part to review everything.
“I don’t think it is an indication of how they are going to rule. I don’t think it is cause for alarm.”
Mr. Nachbar said the documentation is “pretty straight forward.” The fact that the state would receive about $2.5 million less in revenue if it turns away this deal and the transaction goes to a fire sale, should, “as we say, make it a no-brainer.”
Other Reactions
City Councilman Andy Weissman was phlegmatic. “This was not unanticipated,” he told the newspaper. “There isn’t anything else to say. We will move on to the next step.”
By contrast, City Councilman Mehaul O’Leary was not nearly as reserved as the City Manager.
“I am disappointed,” he said flatly. “When I thought about my reaction, then I was angry.” But, he conceded, “at least they seem to be doing their due diligence.
“I would imagine once they have reviewed all the details and see the difference between yearly revenue generation if they approve this deal vs. the onetime dollars they would gain from a fire sale, it is a no-brainer to any mathematician, to any actuary.”
