post redevelopment compliance issues under abx1 26 and …...league of california cities 2013 spring...

League of California Cities 2013 Spring Conference Meritage Hotel, Napa

Post Redevelopment Compliance Issues Under ABx1 26 and AB 1484

Wednesday, May 8, 2013 General Session; 3:00 – 4:30 p.m.

T. Brent Hawkins, Best Best & Krieger

William H. Ihrke, Rutan & Tucker Deborah L. Rhoads, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman

Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Glendale


Notes:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

POST REDEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE ISSUES

UNDER ABX1 26 AND AB 1484

Brent Hawkins Partner

Best, Best & Krieger

William Ihrke Partner

Rutan & Tucker

Gillian Van Muyden General Counsel

Redevelopment, City of Glendale

Deborah Rhoads Senior Counsel

Kane, Ballmer & Berkman

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I - POST REDEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE ............................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 II. ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS ........................................................................ 2 III. THE ROPS PROCEDURE ..................................................................................... 5 IV. DUE DILIGENCE REVIEWS (H&SC SEC. 34179.5) ......................................... 7 V. THE FINDING OF COMPLETION (“FOC”) PROCESS AND

CHAPTER 9 POST COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS (H&SC SECTIONS 34191.1 – 34191.5) ........................................................................... 10 A. Property Disposition and the Long Range Property Management Plan ... 10 B. Interagency Loan Agreements. ................................................................. 13 C. Use of Pre 2011 Bond Proceeds................................................................ 14

PART II - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................................................ 15

I. TRANSFER OF HOUSING ASSETS AND FUNCTIONS TO HOUSING SUCCESSOR ........................................................................................................ 15

II. HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER STATUS .......................................................... 16 III. USE OF HOUSING ASSETS .............................................................................. 16 IV. ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ......... 19 V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELATED LITIGATION ...................................... 19

PART III - REDEVELOPMENT DISSOLUTION LITIGATION ........................... 23

I. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ................................................................. 23 A. ABX1 26 ................................................................................................... 23

1. Impairment of Contract ................................................................. 23 a. Facial Challenges ................................................................. 24 b. As-Applied Challenges ........................................................ 25

2. Home Rule .................................................................................... 25 3. Single Subject ............................................................................... 26

B. AB 1484 .................................................................................................... 27 1. Withholding, Offsetting or Deducting Sales or Property

Taxes Violates Propositions 1A and 22 ........................................ 27 a. Sales Taxes........................................................................... 27 b. Property Taxes ..................................................................... 27

2. True-up Payments Violate Proposition 22, Article XVI, §16 and Separation of Powers....................................................... 29

3. Due Diligence Review Payments Are Unconstitutional Under Proposition 22. ................................................................... 30

4. Unconstitutional Delegation ......................................................... 31 5. Unconstitutional Spot Bill............................................................. 32

II. ROPS CHALLENGES ......................................................................................... 32 A. Contracts ................................................................................................... 32 B. City/Agency Agreements .......................................................................... 33

1. Cooperation Agreements .............................................................. 33

2. Enterprise Fund Loans .................................................................. 33 C. Judgments and Settlements ....................................................................... 34 D. Use of Bond Proceeds ............................................................................... 34 E. Administrative Costs ................................................................................. 35

III. DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW CHALLENGES .................................................... 35 A. Whether Funds Are Obligated .................................................................. 35 B. Unused Loans............................................................................................ 35

IV. CALCULATION OF TRUE-UP PAYMENTS.................................................... 36 V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT ................ 36 VI. APPLICATION TO MILITARY BASE REUSE PROJECTS AND

NON-PROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS......................................... 37

1

PART I

POST REDEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE

By

William Ihrke & Gillian Van Muyden

I. INTRODUCTION

With the enactment of ABx1 26 on June 28, 2011, and subsequent enactment of AB 1484 on June 27, 2012, the Legislature established a complicated set of statutes, some clear and some ambiguous, to wind down over many years all of the activities of California’s over 400 former redevelopment agencies, which were dissolved on February 1, 2012.

Although both ABx1 26 and AB 1484 (referred to in this paper collectively as the “Dissolution Laws”) were adopted as budget trailer bills for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years, respectively, they both fundamentally changed substantive municipal, housing, and tax laws, in addition to rendering the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq) inoperative.1 The Dissolution Laws also fundamentally shifted decisions concerning the financing and funding of redevelopment obligations from the local level (cities, counties, and city and county) to the State (Department of Finance (DOF) and State Controller’s Office (SCO)), and have comprehensively changed how low and moderate income housing is funded.

Generally, the Dissolution Laws seek to accomplish the following: (1) Transfer former redevelopment agencies’ housing assets, powers, and responsibilities to “housing successor entities”; (2) Honor the “enforceable obligations” of the former redevelopment agencies via “successor agencies”; and (3) Eventually wind down the affairs of the former redevelopment agencies.

To implement the performance of enforceable obligations and winding down of former redevelopment agencies, the Dissolution Laws, and particularly AB 1484, set forth a host of new mandates on successor agencies, which are separate public agencies from the host jurisdictions of the former redevelopment agencies. (§ 34173(g).) Successor agencies can sue and be sued in their own name, and the liabilities of the successor agencies do not transfer to the host jurisdictions. (Ibid.)

Successor agencies, among other responsibilities, are to do the following: (1) ensure the timely payment of enforceable obligations by semi-annually preparing a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS); (2) contract with an independent, county auditor-controller approved accountants to perform a “due diligence review” (DDR) for both housing and non-housing assets of the former redevelopment agencies; (3) apply for an receive (or at least theoretically have a goal of receiving) a “finding of completion”(FOC) so that limited powers and rights may be “reactivated” as part of the winding down process; and (4) prepare a “long-range property management plan” 1 All references to “Section” or “§” are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.

2

(LRPMP) for the ultimate disposition, retention, and use of former redevelopment agency real property. (§§ 34173, 34177, 34179, 34179.5, 34179.6, 34179.7, 34180, 34181, 34191.1, 34191.3, 34191.4, 34191.5.)

This paper will discuss the wind down processes for redevelopment agencies and the impact of dissolution on housing authorities. Special attention will be paid to areas of ambiguity or statutory inconsistencies in the dissolution process. Finally, the paper will discuss the myriad litigation spawned by the Dissolution Act and will include a summary of completed and pending litigation.

II. ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS

The purpose and the processing of a ROPS make little sense without some background on enforceable obligations. An “enforceable obligation” is defined by statute. Specifically, Section 34167(d) defines an “enforceable obligation” for purposes of the redevelopment “freeze” that occurred between the enactment of ABx1 26 and the dissolving of redevelopment agencies on February 1, 2012. Section 34171(d) defines an “enforceable obligation” for purposes of successor agency-actions and obligations. Generally, the two definitions are identical, with the exception that, for the part of the Dissolution Laws that applies to successor agencies, agreements between a host jurisdiction and its former redevelopment agency are not included as “enforceable obligations” except in limited circumstances, and agreements between a former redevelopment agency and other public agencies for services or capital projects may not be included as “enforceable obligations.” (§ 34171(d)(2) & (3).)

Aside from these limited types of agreements and arrangements that are excluded from the definition, an “enforceable obligation” is defined to include:

• Bonds, including required debt service, reserve set-asides, and other payments required under an indenture or similar documents governing the issuance of outstanding redevelopment agency debt.

• Loans of moneys borrowed by the redevelopment agency for a lawful purpose.

• Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law (other than pass-through payments, which are handled separately by the Dissolution Laws), or legally enforceable payments required in connection with redevelopment agency employees.

• Judgments, settlements, or binding arbitration decisions against the former redevelopment agency.

• Any legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that is not void as violating the debt limit or public policy.

• Contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the successor agency, including litigation expenses related to assets or obligations, settlements and judgments, and costs of maintaining assets prior to disposition.

3

• Amounts borrowed from or owed to the former redevelopment agencies’ Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund that had been deferred.

(§ 34171(d)(1).)

While successor agencies generally lack the authority to enter into new enforceable obligations or begin new redevelopment work, successor agencies may do so in furtherance of an enforceable obligation existing prior to June 28, 2011. (§34177.3(a).) Successor agencies also may enter into new enforceable obligations in order “to conduct the work of winding down the redevelopment agency,” including hiring staff, consultants, legal counsel, and insurance. (§ 34177.3(b).) In fact, upon receiving a “finding of completion” (discussed below), loan agreements between a host jurisdiction and former redevelopment agency may be “reactivated” as an enforceable obligation, albeit with potential restrictions and limitations on the terms of the loan repayment. (§§ 34171(d), 34191.4.)

No published opinion (and thus no citable precedent) has decided the scope of the definition of an “enforceable obligation” -- yet.2 A few of superior court decisions, however, have provided guidance. Here is a sample:

• “AB 26 broadly defines the term ‘enforceable obligation’ to include bonds, loans, judgments, and any legally binding and enforceable contract or agreement that is not otherwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy, entered into prior to the effective date of AB 26.” (CRFL Family Apartments v. Matosantos (Sac. Superior Ct. Case No. 34-2012-80001354) Ruling Under Submission Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate, Jan. 16, 2013, p.2.) Court distinguishes between concept of successor agencies entering into new contracts or amendments of existing contracts and creating new “enforceable obligations,” the former being allowable under Section 34177.3 and the latter being prohibited under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code. (Id., at p.5.) Section 34177 provides that successor agencies are required, among other things, “to continue to make payments due for enforceable obligations and to ‘perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation.’” (Id., at pp.5-6.) In this case, which involved the consent by a successor agency of assignment and assumption agreements between a master developer and an affiliate after the effective date of ABx1 26, but were entered into pursuant to an agreement entered in 2010, the relevant inquiry for the court was not “whether the Successor Agency ‘executed’ or was required to execute an assignment and assumption agreement [under the 2010 agreement], but whether the Agency -- in consenting to the assignment -- created a new enforceable obligation.” The court held such consent did not create a new enforceable obligation, reconciling the Legislature’s intent to ensure that existing obligations would continue to be honored during the winding down of

2 As of the publication date of this paper, the authors are aware of no published court of appeal opinions deciding various challenges to actions that have been taken by public agencies, such as DOF, SCO, oversight boards, county auditor-controllers, and successor agencies, in connection with the Dissolution Laws. Nevertheless, there have been over 80 lawsuits filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, where such cases must be filed per Sections 34168 and 34189.3.

4

redevelopment, and the language in ABx1 26 that stripped redevelopment agencies from incurring new debt, commitments and obligations under Part 1.8 (the “freeze” provisions) and that require successor agencies to continue to pay existing debts and perform existing obligations. (Id., at p.6.)

• “[I]t is impossible for the 1986 Agreement (between a city and RDA] to be an E.O. [enforceable obligation] under H&S Code §34171(d)(1)(C), (D), and/or (E) while it is simultaneously not an E.O. pursuant to the exclusionary language of §34171(d)(2)…. It is worth noting here that §34171(d)(1) broadly states an E.O. includes any obligation, payment, judgment, agreement, etc. which falls into any one or more of the seven (7) definitions contained in subparts (A) through (G), whereas the legislation provides in subpart (d)(2) only a singular, narrowly tailored definition of what shall not be an E.O. under §34171. Thus, this legislation on its face goes to great lengths to broaden the scope of obligations which are deemed ‘enforceable’ under §34171 while at the same time deliberately excluding from the E.O. definition only one specifically identified, limited category of ‘agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city…and the former redevelopment agency.” (City of Pasadena Successor Agency v. Matosantos (Sac. Superior Court Case No. 34-2012-00134585) Minute Order granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Jan. 28, 2013, p.4.) In that case, the ability to receive RPTTF to pay for a city/RDA “Reimbursement Agreement” from 1986 is squarely at issue, as DOF denied payment for the obligation during the ROPS III (Jan.-June 2013) period. While several unique facts apply -- such as a statutory enactment related to the agreement and a related validation action -- the court’s analysis to determining whether the city/RDA agreement was an enforceable obligation focused on the broad inclusionary versus the narrow exclusionary language in Section 34171. Indeed, the court looked to legislative history of ABx1 26 and concluded, at least at the preliminary injunction stage, that the purpose for which city/RDA loan agreements appear to have been excluded was because “some legislators became concerned about some last minute transfers of assets from some redevelopment agencies about to be dissolved by AB 26 to the cities that created them, which transfers appeared to be nothing more than an artifice to circumvent the imminent legislation.” (Id., at p.5.) As such, the court was “reluctant to conclude here that the narrow exclusionary language in §34171(d)(2) actually trumps the broad inclusionary language found in §34171(d)(1)(C), (D) and/or (E).” (Ibid.) Also noteworthy, the court decided that the ultimate purpose for which the city as recipient of funds from the RDA under the 1986 Agreement intends to use those funds is irrelevant to the analysis of whether the payments committed by the RDA under the 1986 Agreement constitute an enforceable obligation. (Id., at p.2.)

• “Although the Dissolution Law (ABx1 26/AB 1484) purports to define what the term enforceable obligation ‘means,’ it is clear the Legislature actually was attempting to define what the term ‘includes.’ It is axiomatic that to constitute an ‘enforceable obligation,’ the bond, loan, judgment, or contract must give rise to an ‘obligation,’ and the obligation must be ‘enforceable.’ For example, a money judgment that was fully satisfied would not be an ‘enforceable obligation,’ even though it would meet the strict definition of ‘judgment…entered by a competent court of law.’” (Peebler v. Matosantos (Sac. Superior Ct. Case No. 34-2012-80001172) Ruling Under Submission Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate, Feb.

5

1, 2013, p.7.) In that case, petitioner property owner challenged the denial by DOF of a 1984 stipulated judgment as not being an enforceable obligation. While petitioners argued the Legislature intended to treat every judgment and contract (at least every legally binding and enforceable contract), to which the RDA was a party as an “enforceable obligation,” the court ruled the Legislature intended the term to be construed more narrowly, “encompassing only ‘enforceable obligations’ against the assets and revenues of the former redevelopment agency.” (Ibid.) The court ruled the settlement was not an enforceable obligation because its terms did not obligate the redevelopment agency to provide any minimum level of tax increment or guarantee any tax increment actually would be available for redevelopment purposes. (Id., at p.9.)

III. THE ROPS PROCEDURE

The ROPS serves as a spreadsheet list of all enforceable obligations that need to be paid during a given 6-month period. While this may sound simple in concept, it has proven to be, in many circumstances, difficult in practice. Usually the difficulties arise from disputes regarding whether item(s) is/are enforceable obligation(s), placing a successor agency at odds with its oversight board, county auditor-controller, and/or DOF, all of which have a role in the ROPS approval process.

Statutorily, the information that is required to be disclosed on a ROPS is each enforceable obligation and funding source or sources for payment thereof. 3 (§ 34177(l)(1).) If “excess” bond proceeds from pre-2011 bonded indebtedness are expected to be a funding source, specific provisions apply as part of the ROPS process, depending on whether those proceeds are from housing bonds (consult Section 34176(g)) or “regular” tax increment/non-housing bonds (consult Section 34191.4(c)).

All ROPS must be completed on a DOF-approved (and generated) form. (§ 34177(m)(1).) The form and instructions on its completion are available at the DOF Internet Web site at www.dof.ca.gov/aseembly_bills_26-27. DOF periodically updates the form and instructions, including a recent update changing the ROPS form and re-naming the periods covered by a ROPS from “ROPS I (Jan.-June 2012), ROPS II (July-Dec. 2012), and ROPS III (Jan.-June 2013), to ROPS 13-14A (July-Dec. 2013), ROPS 13-14B (Jan.-June 2014), and so on. Practitioners and staff should consult the DOF web site prior to commencing the completion of a ROPS.

The deadlines for completing a ROPS are keyed to the January 2 and June 30 distribution dates for Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds (RPTTF). Successor agencies must submit an oversight board approved ROPS no later than 90 days prior to the RPTTF distribution date for the applicable 6-month period. This means that, prior to that 90-day deadline, successor agencies must prepare and deliver a draft ROPS to the oversight board with enough time to have an agenda posted under the Ralph M. Brown 3 The following are the sources of payment that must be identified: (A) Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, (B) bond proceeds, (C) reserve balances, (D) administrative cost allowance, (E) RPTTF, to the extent other funding is not available, and (F) other revenue sources, such as rents, concessions, asset sale proceeds, interest earning, and other revenues derived from the former redevelopment agency, as approved by the oversight board. (§ 34177(l)(1).)

6

Act (Gov. Code. § 54950 et seq.) and public meeting to review and approve the ROPS. (§§ 34177(l) & (m).)

When the draft ROPS is sent to the oversight board, successor agencies are to send a copy of that draft to their respective county administrative officers, county auditor-controllers, and DOF. (§ 34177(l)(2)(B).) When the oversight board approved ROPS is sent to DOF, successor agencies are to send a copy of the approved ROPS to the SCO and county auditor-controller, and to post a copy of the ROPS on the successor agency’s web site. (§§34177(l)(2)(C), (m).)

Once a ROPS has been delivered to DOF, which must be delivered electronically with a clear note in the subject line of an email transmittal, DOF has 5 business days to request review, and if it does so, DOF has 45 days after the ROPS has been submitted to make a final determination on that ROPS. (§§ 34177(m), 34179(h).) DOF has the authority to eliminate or modify any item on a ROPS. (§ 34179(h).) A county auditor-controller also has review and objection authority over ROPS, either pre- or post-oversight board approval, subject to a 60-day “pre-RPTTF” disbursement deadline. (§ 34182.5.) An auditor-controller, if it objects to a line item, must send notice thereof to the successor agency, oversight board, and DOF, and if the oversight board (the statute does not include the successor agency) disputes an auditor-controller’s finding, the DOF then may be requested to make a final decision. (Ibid.)

If a successor agency disputes a determination by the DOF on any item in a ROPS, the successor agency (the statute does not include the oversight board or any interested party to an agreement that is being denied by DOF as an enforceable obligation) may request a “meet and confer” within 5 business days of receipt of DOF’s determination. (§ 34177(m).) Generally, the meet and confer process involves an informal meeting with DOF staff, and frequently follow up communications via email, after which DOF must issue a final determination on a ROPS no later than 15 days before the applicable RPTTF distribution date. (§ 34177(m).)

Once the meet and confer process has been completed for a ROPS, all administrative action by the DOF, for that ROPS, has concluded. If disputes remain, judicial relief may be the only recourse. The difficulty, of course, is if RPTTF is needed in the upcoming 6-month period to pay for a disputed enforceable obligation, then time may be of the essence and emergency court relief may be needed (such as a temporary restraining order, stay order, alternative writ) to sequester the amount of RPTTF needed to pay for that obligation before it gets distributed to the other taxing entities per Sections 34182, 34183, and 34188. In the event that a resolution is reached with DOF, a ROPS may be amended to reflect that resolution, but that resolution cannot affect any past allocation of property tax revenues from the RPTTF to other taxing entities and creates no liability on those taxing entities. (§ 34179(h).)

One case has addressed the ability of a successor agency to amend a ROPS to the extent it may have a clerical error that mistakenly designates a particular funding source. (Town of Apple Valley v. Matosantos (Sac. Superior Ct. Case No. 34-2012-00127355) Minute Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Aug. 31, 2012.) In that case, a successor agency could amend a ROPS to correct such a mistake, and the DOF has the

7

implied authority to review a revised ROPS. (Id., at p.4.)4 “[G]iven the extensive authority provided the DOF in the ROPS process, implied authority to correct, or at a minimum review a revised ROPS, to address alleged mistakes that occur in the ROPS process can reasonably be implied.” (Ibid.) This implied authority becomes particularly important in the event that such a clerical error or mistake on the ROPS form would lead to inadequate funding for debt service during an upcoming ROPS period, such that an omission of funding for an enforceable obligation cannot wait until the next ROPS period. (Id., at p.5.)

Regardless of errors or mistakes that may end up being on a ROPS, successor agencies should always timely complete them and submit them to DOF and the other public agencies. Failing to adopt a ROPS leads to severe penalties, added by AB 1484. Specifically, if a successor agency does not timely submit a ROPS, the host jurisdiction (city, county, or city and county) shall be subject to a $10,000 per day civil penalty for each day the ROPS is delinquent. (§ 34177(m)(2).) Similarly, failure by a successor agency to submit a ROPS within 10 days of the deadline shall result in a 25% reduction of the maximum administrative cost allowance for that period covered by the delinquent ROPS. (Id.) If a successor agency fails to submit an oversight board-approved ROPS within 5 business days after the April 1 and October 1 dated on which the county auditor-controllers release the estimated property tax allocations for RPTTF, the DOF may determine if any amounts should be withheld to pay for the successor agency’s enforceable obligations, with funds withheld from the successor agency to be distributed to the taxing entities. (§ 34177(m)(3).) If DOF orders an auditor-controller to withhold funds to pay for enforceable obligations, those funds thereafter can only be distributed pursuant to a DOF-approved ROPS. (Id.)

Therefore, if there is one “take away” to remember of the ROPS process, it is to complete the ROPS.

IV. DUE DILIGENCE REVIEWS (H&SC SEC. 34179.5)

The goal of the Due Diligence Review (“DDR”) process is to get a “precise accounting” of Successor Agency unencumbered housing cash assets available for distribution to taxing entities by October 15, 2012, and of available non-housing cash assets by January, 15, 2013. (H&SC section 34179.5) Similar to the ROPS process, implementation of the DDR process has been rocky. DDRs are required to include the dollar value of all former RDA assets; expenditure and accounting information; asset transfer and funding source identification; a reconciliation of assets and liabilities, and balance these figures against FY 09-10 totals. In addition, Successor Agencies are also required to perform a separate accounting for Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds (“LMIHF”), including a listing of all enforceable obligations and net balances. The statute also calls for Successor Agencies to employ a licensed accountant, approved by the county auditor-controller, and with experience and expertise in local government accounting to conduct the DDR to determine the unobligated funds available for transfer to taxing entities, or as an alternative to allow the county auditor-controller to provide the required information. (H&SC section 34179.5(a)-(c))

4 The case is not citable precedent, but does lend guidance on at least one court’s interpretation of ABx1 26/AB 1484 and the ROPS process. (See fn.2, supra.)

8

The DOF must complete its review of the housing fund DDR by November 9, 2012 and of the non-housing DDR by April 1, 2013. Successor Agencies have five days from the DOF’s DDR determination to request a meet and confer with the department to resolve any disputes regarding the amounts or sources of funds identified by the DOF. (H&SC section 34179.6(e)) Thereafter the DOF is required to either confirm or modify its determinations and decisions within 30 days of the meet and confer request. Agencies are required to transmit the amount of funds approved by the DOF DDR determination within five (5) working days of receipt of notification. (H&SC section 34179.6(f))If the Successor Agency fails to submit the required funds severe penalties can be imposed.

While the DDR process seems straightforward on paper, implementation and administration of this process has been far from easy. For example, typically, certified public accounts prepare audits and will certify “Agreed Upon Procedures” (“AUP”). Performing an audit of former Agency accounts should therefore have been straightforward had the Dissolution Act required an AUP audit, but it did not. The DDR process was neither an audit, nor an AUP and independent accountants apparently had not been consulted in the formulation of the DDR process. The state-wide California CPA organization stated that it would not perform any DDRs and advised its members not to accept an engagement to perform any DDRs until Cal CPA reached an agreement with the DOF on an acceptable AUP for the DDR process. Successor Agencies were caught in the middle; the housing asset DDR submission deadline was approaching in October, but SAs were unable to hire CPAs to perform this work. In recognition of the additional time needed to develop and vet an AUP the DOF acknowledged that the it was in the process of developing a DDR AUP with input from Cal CPA and others, and because of this delay SAs would not be penalized for missing the initial October 15, 2012 DDR deadline.

In August 2012, the DOF met with representatives from CCMA, Cal-CPA, the State Controller’s Office, and County Auditor Controllers, but cities and successor agencies were not at the table although they had the most at stake in this process. Further, although the H&SC section 34171 definition of enforceable obligations includes “contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the successor agency”, DOF took the position that contracts with CPAs required to perform the DDRs would be treated as administrative cost subject to the 3% cap. The net effect of this decision was further drain on the limited funds available for Successor Agency staffing and administrative services in order to hire a CPA firm to complete the DDR.

The DOF’s representation that SAs would not be penalized for missing the initial DDR submission deadline was significant because the penalty for missing DDR deadlines is severe. Successor Agencies that fail to remit to the county auditor-controller the required sums could be subject to having those funds recovered through an offset of sales and use tax or property tax allocations to the local agency to which the funds were transferred. (H&SC section 34179.5(h)) In doing so, the statute authorizes the DOF to order the State Board of Equalization to make an offset or withholding and directs the State Controller to issue a warrant in the amount of the offset to the County Auditor-Controller, and to distribute the offset to the taxing entities. (H&SC section 34179.8) Further, the statute empowers the County Auditor-Controller and DOF to demand the return of funds improperly spent or transferred to a private person or other private entity, and if not returned the funds could be collected through any “lawful means” and subject to a 10% penalty plus interest. The statute does not define what “improperly spent or

9

transferred” means. Alternatively, or in addition to these remedies, the DOF can direct the County Auditor-Controller to deduct the unpaid amounts from future allocations of property tax to the Successor Agency. Given that the Successor Agency ROPS should only contain DOF recognized enforceable obligations (including bond payments), it is unclear how Successor Agencies will avoid violating the Dissolution Act’s overarching fiduciary policy to protect third party debt holders from Successor Agency defaults. (See H&SC section 34179(i)) These DDR penalty provisions are another instance where the drafters did not think through the legal and practical consequences of imposing such onerous penalties.

Indeed, the constitutionality of these penalties has been challenged by the League of California Cities in a writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief filed in September 2012 against the State Department of Finance and others. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2012-80001275 summarized in this paper; Petition set for hearing on April 19, 2013.) Specifically, the League alleged that the withholding, deducting and offsetting of sales and property tax violates Propositions 1A and 22 which Propositions are designed to protect cities’ rights to local sales and use taxes and to prohibit reallocation of property taxes.

DOF shed further light on the penalty provisions during a special presentation to the State Board of Equalization (“BOE”) on March 23, 2013. Chris Hill, the DOF’s Principal Program Budget Analyst told the DOF that forty-one (41) Successor Agencies had failed to remit unencumbered monies based on the low and moderate income housing fund DDRs; that these Successor Agencies have been notified of their non-compliance and have been requested to remit the money within 30 days of the notice (by April 3, 2013). Interestingly, Mr. Hill also told the BOE that although the statute allows imposition of the offset whether or not the Successor Agency or the City is holding the money, the DOF made a “policy decision” to order sales and uses tax withholding only if the city is in fact in possession of the funds. As of the writing of this paper, DOF reported that the total outstanding remittances for Successor Agencies based on the low and moderate income housing fund DDR is approximately $251M out of a total $336.3 M in ordered LMIHF remittances. Based on the foregoing, and given the significant amounts of money in question, it is likely additional litigation over the imposition of the non-remittance penalties may ensue shortly after DOF’s April 3, 2013 remittance deadline and before the May sales and use tax distribution from which these amounts would be withheld.

DDR penalty provisions are only part of the problem DOF has had administering the DDR process. After the DOF and Cal CPA developed and agreed on a DDR AUP, and after Successor Agencies spent significant sums hiring County Auditor-Controller- approved accounting firms to prepare the DDRs for Oversight Board approval (which sums are capped as an administrative cost), the DOF demanded that Successor Agencies deliver all the same DDR backup documentation previously supplied to the CPAs for the DDR. Despite DOF’s agreement on an AUP for the DDR, and CPA certification of the AUP for Successor Agency housing asset DDRs, the DOF apparently does not trust its own process. This lack of confidence does not bode well for the non-housing DDRs review that DOF must complete no later than April 1, 2013. Successor Agencies will likely be required to deliver all of the non-housing DDR back up documentation to the DOF for review and be prepared to meet and confer.

10

The DDR process also required Cities and Agencies to consider the disposition of former Redevelopment Agency assets. Prior to dissolution many agencies transferred cash and other assets to their respective city and or county, usually in repayment of existing interagency reimbursement, loan or cooperation agreements. However, H&SC section 34179.5(a)(6) required SAs to account for such asset transfers such that any amounts that were transferred would be added back into the amount available for transfer to the taxing entities. While many agencies believed the pre-Dissolution Act transfers were legitimate, in many instances they nonetheless transferred these assets and funds back to the Successor Agency in order to avoid having the transferred assets counted against the Successor Agency in the DDR process. In some instances, such as the City of Pasadena, the Successor Agency filed suit to protect this type of transfer based on, among other reasons, prior validation of the agreement that gave rise to the transfer. Pasadena’s action arose out of a ROPS dispute concerning a DOF rejection of a validated reimbursement agreement. The Court granted Pasadena’s ex parte application for TRO and granted the preliminary injunction in mid-January 2013.

Other Agencies have also filed litigation challenging the DOF’s DDR determinations. Where such suits are pending, the State’s attorney general has agreed that no penalties will be imposed. DDR litigation issues include, but are not limited to, recognition of replacement housing obligations and county loan obligations and consideration of flexibility to fulfill payments on existing enforceable obligations. More litigation is anticipated as Successor Agencies work through the non-housing DDR process in anticipation of completing that process in order to obtain a Finding of Completion from the DOF.

V. THE FINDING OF COMPLETION (“FOC”) PROCESS AND CHAPTER 9 POST COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS (H&SC SECTIONS 34191.1 – 34191.5)

After completing the DDR which requires full payment of the amounts determined by the statutes (H&SC sections 34179.6(d)(e) to (g) and 34183.5), or a judicial determination of the amounts due, the DOF shall issue a “Finding of Completion” within five (5) business days of the County-Auditor Controller’s confirmation that those amounts have been paid. In sum, the FOC will allow Successor Agencies to 1) retain former redevelopment agency assets for certain purposes through an approved “Long-Range Property Management Plan” (“LRPMP”); 2) conditionally reinstate prior city-agency loan agreements; 3) spend pre-2011 bond proceeds with certain limitations.

The “FOC” has been often referred to as the “golden ticket” giving Successor Agencies a new lease on life. However, similar to the DDR process, this portion of the Dissolution Act contains some ambiguity that leaves open room for disputes over how its provisions should best be interpreted and implemented.

A. Property Disposition and the Long Range Property Management Plan

The Post-Compliance provisions suspended the “expeditious” disposition of former Redevelopment Agency property required by H&SC sections 34191.1, 34177(a) and section 34181, with an important exception - - so-called “governmental use” properties may be transferred prior to DOF approval of the LRPMP. It should be noted

11

that the governmental use exception applies to a limited group of assets that were constructed and used for a governmental purpose, and whose transfer is pursuant to an existing contract that was in place prior to ABx1 26. All Successor Agency actions to transfer ownership of those assets that were constructed and used for a governmental purpose, such as roads, school buildings, parks, police and fire stations, libraries, and local agency administrative buildings, to the appropriate public jurisdiction pursuant to any existing agreements relating to the construction or use of such an asset are subject to Oversight Board, and ultimately DOF approval. (H&SC section 34181(a)) If the DOF objects to the property transfer, the property must remain with the Successor Agency for inclusion in the LRPMP. If the DOF takes no action and does not object, then the Oversight Board’s action on the property disposition is considered final and conclusive. (more discussion on final and conclusive determinations later)

Typically, DOF has forty (40) days to review an Oversight Board action once it communicates its decision to do so; however, the DOF can extend its review up to sixty (60) days when property disposition is requested. (H&SC section 34181(a), and (f)) DOF has indicated that this extension gives DOF a total of 100 days to review these transactions; however, whether the extension tacks 60 days to the original 40 day review period, or simply extends the 40 days to a total of 60 days remains an open question. In some instances the DOF has agreed to 40 or 60 day review of these matters.

The spectrum of properties that qualify as “governmental use” has been the subject of much debate. H&SC section 34181(a) authorizes the Oversight Board to direct the Successor Agency to dispose of all assets and properties of the former redevelopment agency except that “assets that were constructed and used for a governmental purpose, such as roads, school buildings, parks, police and fire stations, libraries, and local agency administrative buildings” may be transferred to the “appropriate public jurisdiction pursuant to any existing agreements relating to the construction or use of such an asset.” Despite this broad and non-exhaustive list of examples of governmental use properties the DOF has taken the strained position that unless the property is used exclusively by the government it is not a governmental use property.

For example, roads are not used exclusively by the government, but are used in common with all members of the public, yet roads are included as examples of governmental use property. Similarly, public parking lots are typically used by members of the public, yet in some instances the DOF has rejected governmental use property dispositions of parking garages or lots because these lots were not principally serving a governmental building or being used by government workers.

The DOF has maintained this rigid position despite ample statutory evidence (add code reference) that the provision of public parking is a governmental purpose. Other Successor Agency owned assets such as museums or theatres, and historic buildings and other facilities purchased, rehabilitated or renovated for the public’s use are arguably susceptible to a more reasoned application of the governmental use definition but are being excluded. Based on the DOF’s response to governmental use property transfer requests it is likely disputes over this issue will continue. The dispositions are further complicated because title companies have taken the position that unless the DOF has approved the transfer a title policy will not be issued. It is important to note that after the LRPMP is approved, that Plan supersedes all other Dissolution Act provisions relating to property disposition, including the governmental use property disposition provisions.

12

This fact is important because the H&SC section 34191.5 governing implementation of the LRPMP does not allow early disposition of governmental use properties, or give priority to their disposition.

Post-FOC disposition of non-governmental use properties is governed by the “Long-Range Property Management Plan”. (H&SC section 34191.4) The LRPMP must be completed and approved by the Oversight Board within six (6) months of receiving a finding of completion. Upon LRPMP completion and approval of the LRPMP, the Successor Agency is authorized to commence property disposition in accordance with the approved plan. (H&SC section 34191.5).

The LRPMP must include an inventory of all properties in a “Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund” (the “Trust”) administered by the Successor Agency to serve as a repository of all of the former redevelopment agency’s real property. (H&SC section 34191.5(a). The DOF has developed a LRPMP form (available on its website), that requires the Successor Agency to list the: a) date of acquisition and value at that time, and estimate of current value; b) purpose for which the property was acquired; c) parcel data including the address, lot size, current zoning; d) estimate of current value and appraisal information if available; e) an estimate of any property lease, rental, or any other revenues and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds; f) history of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, any related environmental studies, and the history of any remediation efforts; g) description of the property’s potential for transit-oriented development and advancement of the Successor Agency’s planning objectives; h) a brief history of previous development proposals and activity including the rental or lease of the property. (H&SC section 34191.5(c)) The LRPMP must also address the use or disposition of all the properties in the Trust, with permissible uses including the retention of the property for governmental use, the retention of the property for future development, the sale of property, or use to fulfill an enforceable obligation. Properties designated for governmental use are to be listed separately from properties retained to fulfill enforceable obligations. (H&SC section 34191.5(c)(2))

It should be noted that the LRPMP process will give the DOF another opportunity beyond the ROPS process to examine the enforceability of existing obligations involving property dispositions. It is not clear how the DOF will treat property dispositions required by enforceable obligations for which the DOF has already issued a “final and conclusive” determination per H&SC section 34177.5(i). H&SC section 34177.5(i) states that the DOF’s review of payments for finally determined enforceable obligations on future ROPS will be limited to confirming whether payments are required by the prior enforceable obligation, but this section does not limit the DOF’s review of the property dispositions required by the enforceable obligation. In fact, the LRPMP does not reference or exclude property dispositions associated with prior DOF final and conclusive determinations from the LRPMP process. As a practical matter, title companies may resist issuing policies for property dispositions associated with enforceable obligations for which the DOF has issued a prior final and conclusive determination before the LRPMP process is complete. This is yet another area of potential controversy that may necessitate court intervention to resolve the inherent conflict between the Successor Agency’s contractual duty to timely dispose of property based on conclusively determined enforceable obligations and DOF’s position that all property disposition must occur within the LRPMP process.

13

H&SC Section 34191.5(c)(2) allows disposition of “all other properties”, i.e. not governmental use or tied to an enforceable obligation; It states that, “(A) if the plan directs the use or liquidation of the property for a project identified in an approved redevelopment plan, the property shall transfer to the city, county, or city and county…[or] (B) if the plan directs liquidation of the property or the use of revenues generated from the property, such as a lease or parking revenues, for any purpose other than to fulfill and enforceable obligation or other than [for an approved redevelopment plan], the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed as property tax to the taxing entities….[and] (C) Property shall not be transferred to a successor agency, city, county or city and county, unless the [LRPMP] has been approved by the oversight board and department of finance.”

Successor Agencies should be prepared to show that the properties proposed for disposition are in fact referenced in “an approved redevelopment plan”, which for purposes of this statute should include the redevelopment plans and required implementation plans approved by cities and former redevelopment agencies prior to dissolution.

B. Interagency Loan Agreements.

The Post-Compliance provisions allow Successor Agencies, upon application to and approval of their Oversight Board to re-enter and have deemed an enforceable obligation prior loan agreements between the former redevelopment agency and the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency provided that the Oversight Board makes a finding that the loan was made for legitimate redevelopment purposes. (H&SC section 34191.5(b)(1)). If the Oversight Board approves the re-entered loan, the accumulated interest on the remaining principal must be recalculated based on the interest rate earned by funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”), and the loan may be repaid on a defined schedule over a reasonable term of years at an interest rate not exceeding the LAIF rate. (H&SC section 34191.5(b)(2)).

Loan repayments are subject to additional limitations. They cannot be made prior to the 2013-14 FY, and beginning in that year the maximum repayment amount shall be equal to one-half of the increase between the amounts of property tax distributed to the taxing entitles in that FY and the amount distributed to taxing entities during the 2012-13 base year. Thus, although repayment can commence during the 2013-14 FY, the precise repayment amount cannot be known until the 2013-14 FY distribution amount has been determined. Some Successor Agencies have estimated the payments and placed the loan on ROPS 4 in anticipation of receiving a Finding of Completion from the DOF. The statute permits repayment to commence during the 2013-14 FY, however, DOF has indicated that it will not approve loan payments until the maximum payment can be calculated.

The statute also requires cities, counties or cities and counties that formed the redevelopment agency to first use the loan repayment to retire any outstanding amounts borrowed and owed to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for purposes of making a Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“SERAF”) payment, and to distribute such repayment amounts to the LMIHF. (H&SC section 34191.4(b)(2)(B)) In addition, twenty percent (20%) of any loan repayment must be deducted from the loan repayment and transferred to the LMIHF after the SERAF loan is

14

repaid. ((H&SC section 34191.4(b)(2)(c)) Successor Agencies should provide ample support that re-instated loans were made for legitimate redevelopment purposes.

C. Use of Pre 2011 Bond Proceeds

The Post-Compliance procedures permit bond proceeds derived from bonds issued on or before December 31, 2010 to be used for the purposes for which the bonds were sold. (H&SC section 34191.4(c)). Bond proceeds in excess of those needed to satisfy approved enforceable obligations can be expended in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants and will constitute “the creation of excess bond proceeds obligations to be paid from the excess proceeds” and be listed separately on the ROPS. However, if the remaining bond proceeds cannot be spent in the manner consistent with the bond covenants, then the proceeds “shall be used to defease the bonds or to purchase those same outstanding bonds on the open market for cancellation. (H&SC section 34191.4(c)(2)(B)).

Successor Agencies are well advised to determine what purposes/projects the bonds can be used for; obtain Oversight Board approval of proposed uses, and be prepared to provide the DOF with sufficient documentation supporting use of the bonds for their intended purposes.

It should be noted that recent proposed legislation (AB 981 (Bloom)) proposes to authorize the expenditure of excess bond proceeds derived from bonds issued on or before June 28, 2011. If AB 981 is signed into law it is likely that Successor Agencies will need a supply similar documentation to support use of 2010 or earlier bonds.

15

PART II AFFORDABLE HOUSING

By

Deborah Rhoads

I. TRANSFER OF HOUSING ASSETS AND FUNCTIONS TO HOUSING SUCCESSOR

The housing assets and functions of former redevelopment agencies have, with limited exceptions, transferred to the entity that assumed those functions -- either the city or county that formed the redevelopment agency or a local or county housing authority. That entity is commonly referred to as the housing successor, which nomenclature would be formalized under pending legislation (SB 341). Housing assets that transferred to the housing successor are any assets of the former redevelopment agency that meet the definition in HSC 34176(e) and include real property and receivables. Under HSC 34176(a)(2) if an asset was previously pledged to payment of bonded indebtedness, control of the asset remains with the successor agency to pay such debt.

Under HSC 34176(g) housing bond proceeds from bonds issued before January 1, 2011 and not already obligated under a third party agreement can be used in conformance with the bond covenants. The proceeds are retained by the successor agency to be used at the housing successor’s discretion but the successor agency must assure that the proceeds are spent in conformance with the bond covenants and with any requirements for maintaining the tax-exempt status of the bonds. The housing successor must give notice to the successor agency of its intended use of the proceeds at least 20 days before the deadline for submitting the ROPS to the oversight board and the proposed use must be listed as a separate line item on the ROPS. The successor agency, oversight board and the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) review of the housing successor’s proposed use of the bond proceeds is limited to determining that the use is consistent with the bond covenants and that there are sufficient bond proceeds available. The housing successor’s proposed use of the bond proceeds does not become a binding obligation until it is included on a ROPS approved by DOF. HSC 34176(g).

Even though the definition of housing assets in HSC 34176(e) includes encumbered Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds (“LMIHF”) and even though DOF may have approved those encumbered funds on the housing asset transfer list, amounts on deposit in the LMIHF are apparently excepted from transfer to the housing successor under HSC 34176(a) and (b). Further, the due diligence review of housing assets required by HSC 34179.5 requires successor agencies to demonstrate that future redevelopment property tax trust funds (“RPTTF”) will be insufficient to pay approved housing obligations in order for the successor agency to retain any portion of the LMIHF balance for that purpose. If DOF determines that some or all of the LMIHF balance is not needed because the successor agency will receive sufficient future RPTTF or if DOF determines that previous disbursements of LMIHF were not made pursuant to an enforceable obligation, it adds those amounts to the LMIHF balance that is deemed available for distribution to the taxing agencies.

16

Disagreement between DOF and successor agencies over the need to retain LMIHF for future payment of enforceable obligations (or the legality of previous disbursements of LMIHF to third parties) and DOF’s threatened imposition of penalties under HSC 34179.6 is the subject of several pending lawsuits, which are briefly summarized below. The inherent ambiguity and conflict between the various provisions transferring housing assets and obligations and the language excluding LMIHF from the transfer has raised numerous questions regarding the appropriate reporting of housing obligations and their funding sources on the ROPS and has resulted in often conflicting determinations by DOF.

II. HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER STATUS

Although DOF has completed its review of the housing asset transfer list required by HSC 34176(a)(2), some housing successors continue to dispute DOF’s disallowance of particular assets, on occasion resulting in litigation. If DOF disallowed those assets as housing assets, the housing successor is required by HSC 34176(a)(2) to return them to the successor agency. Such disputes are further complicated in those cases where a third party claims that the assets were previously obligated to them.

HSC 34167.5 requires the State Controller’s Office (“SCO”) to conduct a review of asset transfers from the former redevelopment agency to another public agency, which took place between January 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012. In conducting those reviews, the SCO has taken the position that if the successor agency’s oversight board has not adopted a resolution approving a transfer of housing assets to the housing successor, the assets must be returned to the successor agency. The SCO has taken this position even in those cases where the asset transfer had been approved by DOF. During the course of reviews previously completed by the SCO, it has indicated that an oversight board resolution ratifying the previous transfer of housing assets would be sufficient to allow the assets to remain with the housing successor. The SCO review of housing assets excludes those assets that were transferred after February 1, 2012. HSC 34178.8. The City of Fresno has filed litigation challenging the SCO’s determination that housing assets transferred without an oversight board resolution must be returned to the successor agency.

Until the SCO completes its review of asset transfers under HSC 34167.5 and DOF has approved any oversight board resolutions relating to such transfers (or the statutory period for such review under HSC 34181(f) has passed), housing successors may continue to encounter difficulties when transferring real property for development or when owners attempt to refinance existing loans.

III. USE OF HOUSING ASSETS

Former redevelopment agency assets that transferred to the housing successor must be held in a separate fund called the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (“LMIHAF”) and their use continue to be governed by applicable provisions of the CRL relating to affordable housing. HSC 34176(d).

Repayment of loans from the former redevelopment agency’s LMIHF and payment of deferred deposits into the LMIHF, subject to a formula cap, must be deposited into the LMIHAF. HSC 34171(d)(1)(G); 34176(e)(6). Because the formula for

17

the first repayment period compares RPTTF received in fiscal year 2013-14 with RPTTF received in fiscal year 2012-13, DOF has taken the position that payments to the housing successor cannot be estimated for purposes of the July-December 2013 and January-June 2014 ROPS and can only be included on the ROPS beginning with the July-December 2014 period. Therefore, housing successors should not expect to begin receiving those payments until mid-2014. Housing loan repayments, proceeds from the sale of housing assets and other program income should also be deposited into the LMIHAF.

Funds in the LMIHAF must be used in accordance with applicable statutory housing requirements. The provisions of the CRL that apply to a particular situation will depend upon the circumstances and there is uncertainty as to the continued applicability of certain provisions. For example, the requirement under HSC 33433 for a public report and findings prior to the disposal of real property has not been repealed, although the rationale for requiring that report no longer appears relevant when applied to real property that has transferred to the housing successor.

It is also unclear whether the housing successor incurs replacement housing obligations under HSC 33413(d)(1) (including the requirement under HSC 33413.5 to prepare a replacement housing plan) if LMIHAF assets are used for a project that destroys or removes from the market existing low and moderate income housing. Senate Bill 341 discussed below references but does not clarify the housing successor’s obligations in this regard.

Pending legislation would modify or repeal certain housing related provisions in the CRL. For example, Assembly Bill 569, as amended on March 18, 2013, would repeal the provisions in the CRL that require annual reports on housing activities, including numbers of units assisted, the income levels of households and the numbers of units restricted to seniors. Those reporting requirements would be replaced by the requirements in Senate Bill 341, discussed below, which requires housing successors to post on its website certain information relating to its housing activities.

Senate Bill 341 is comprehensive housing reform legislation. As amended on April 1, 2013, SB 341 would:

a. Establish the following priority for expenditure of funds in the LMIHAF:

i. To meet DOF approved housing obligations of the former redevelopment agency,

ii. To monitor and enforce long term affordability covenants and restrictions,

iii. At the housing successor’s option, to spend up to $250,000 per fiscal year for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing, but only if there are no outstanding housing replacement or production obligations and the housing successor has satisfied its monitoring and online database obligations,

iv. Remaining funds in the LMIHAF must be expended for affordable housing, provided that at least 30% must be expended for

18

Extremely Low Income households, 50% for Extremely Low or Very Low Income households and not more than 20% for Low Income households, with no provision for Moderate Income households. If the income targeting is not met, additional restrictions would apply.

b. Replace the current standard for use of LMIHF for planning and administrative costs found in HSC 33334.3(d) with a cap equal to the greater of $200,000 or 2% of the statutory value of real property and of loans and grants receivable held by the housing successor. This administrative cap would be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The term “statutory value” would be defined to mean the value of former redevelopment agency properties as listed on the Housing Asset Transfer Form and the purchase price of properties purchased by the housing successor.

c. Limit housing restricted to seniors to 50% of the units assisted within the previous ten years by the housing successor, former redevelopment agency and the host jurisdiction.

d. Allow program income to be spent anywhere within the jurisdiction of the housing successor without the finding of benefit required by HSC 33334.2(g).

e. Allow two or more housing successors within prescribed areas to pool funds in their LMIHAF (up to one million dollars each fiscal year for each housing successor) but only for purposes of developing “transit priority projects”, permanent supportive housing, housing for agricultural employees or special needs housing, but only if there are no outstanding housing replacement or production obligations. The pooled funds would be restricted to assisting housing for individuals and families at less than 60% of the area median income.

f. Require a housing successor with “excess surplus” to either encumber or transfer the funds within three fiscal years or the funds would be transferred to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure on designated housing programs. Defines “excess surplus” as the greater of one million dollars or the aggregate amount deposited in the LMIHAF during the housing successor’s preceding four fiscal years.

g. Retain the time limit for development of property transferred from the former redevelopment agency before requiring it to be sold and the proceeds deposited into the LMIHAF. The bill would restart the clock to the date the property is transferred to the housing successor and places no time limit on property acquired by the housing successor by means other than transfer from the former redevelopment agency.

h. Require the housing successor to conduct an independent financial audit of its LMIHAF each fiscal year and present it to its governing body. The bill

19

would also require the housing successor to post on its website certain financial information, information relating to real property holdings and information on its housing activities.

IV. ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AB 1484 created an additional source of funds for affordable housing that diverts 20% of the loan payments made by successor agencies to cities under HSC 34191.4(b). Such loans may only be repaid after a successor agency receives its Finding of Completion and the amount of the payment is subject to a statutory formula cap. The 20% of such payment set aside for affordable housing is thus very limited.

Legislation has been proposed that would provide additional funding for affordable housing but the potential for such legislation being signed into law is unknown. For example, Assembly Bill 981 is specific to redevelopment and would allow a housing successor to expend the proceeds of housing bonds issued by the former redevelopment agency in 2011.

Other legislation has been proposed to create new affordable housing funding sources, the most comprehensive of which is the California Homes and Jobs Act (SB 391), which would impose a $75 fee on the recording of every instrument relating to real property, with the exception of transfers subject to the payment of a documentary transfer tax. The proceeds would be remitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure on specified housing programs. Additional legislation would generate funds for certain categories of housing, such as transit priority projects (SB 628), veterans housing (AB 639), run away or homeless youth (SB 347) and transit oriented housing (AB 1051).

In addition, the various bills that would create new economic development tools for California’s cities would either include affordable housing in the list of uses (AB 1080) or would require that 20% of the funds be set aside for affordable housing (AB 229, AB 243, SB 1, and SB 628).

V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELATED LITIGATION

Litigation arising from disputes over DOF’s determination of housing assets and obligations can generally be placed in six categories. Filing information for the cases mentioned below can be found on the attached table of cases.

A. Enforceability of Pre-Existing Statutory Housing Replacement And Production Obligations.

At least three cases have been filed asking the Court to determine whether a former redevelopment agency’s obligation to produce replacement housing and/or inclusionary housing under HSC 33413 qualifies as an enforceable obligation under HSC 34171(d)(1)(C) that is eligible for payment with LMIHF and/or RPTTF if the obligation arose prior to the redevelopment agency’s dissolution.

The first case of this type was filed by the Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County and asks the Court to find that successor agencies in San Diego County are

20

required to place these pre-existing statutory obligations on the ROPS and to find that DOF must approve the use of RPTTF to carry out those obligations. Additional litigation has been filed by the Huntington Beach Successor Agency and the San Bernardino County Successor Agency. The Huntington Beach case asks the Court to declare that a statutory housing production obligation that was imposed upon the former redevelopment agency prior to its dissolution is an enforceable obligation that is payable with LMIHF cash on hand and/or RPTTF. The San Bernardino County case involves a housing replacement obligation that arose in connection with the former redevelopment agency’s residential property acquisition program established in 2005.

B. Use of RPTTF for Payment of Housing Administrative Costs.

DOF has taken the position that the cost of administering the housing obligations of the former redevelopment agency has transferred to the housing successor and is now an obligation of the housing successor that must be paid with funds other than LMIHF cash balance or RPTTF. This position has placed a burden on those housing successors with substantial project management, affordability monitoring and loan servicing obligations. Among the challenges to DOF’s position are cases filed by the Santa Monica Successor Agency and the Salinas Successor Agency that, among other things, seek a ruling that RPTTF may be used for payment of affordability monitoring and enforcement costs.

C. Obligations To Set Aside a Percentage of Tax Increment for Affordable Housing.

Several cases have been filed that seek to confirm that the successor agency remains obligated under a prior judgment or settlement agreement to set aside for affordable housing purposes a specified percentage of tax increment generated by the redevelopment project area. DOF has taken the position that, without contracts in place for specific projects, these types of agreements do not qualify as enforceable obligations. Cases challenging DOF’s position have been filed by the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and the City of Redwood City seeking to uphold the terms of a 1990 settlement agreement requiring the deposit of a specified amount of tax increment into a housing fund. Lawsuits have also been filed by private parties, including a developer and several low income persons, relating to five stipulated judgments that required the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency to set aside additional housing funds, some of which have already been committed to specific projects. These lawsuits have met with varying success, with preliminary rulings based largely on the specific terms of the judgment or agreement.

Cases have also been filed that seek to confirm the use of RPTTF to pay housing set aside required by special legislation. These cases include a lawsuit by the Pasadena Successor Agency in which the Court upheld an obligation to use tax increment to reimburse the City of Pasadena for certain pension bond payments and to set aside 20% for affordable housing purposes. The ruling has been appealed by DOF. A case has also been filed by the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, which seeks to enforce a City of Industry Successor Agency obligation to remit tax increment to Los Angeles County for affordable housing purposes. The obligation arises from special legislation that exempted City of Industry from certain aspects of the State’s Housing Element Law so long as the redevelopment agency remitted housing funds to the County

21

for distribution to surrounding communities. The lawsuit seeks to preserve that obligation through the remaining term of the current Housing Element.

D. Whether an Asset Qualifies as a Housing Asset.

The Union City Successor Agency has filed a lawsuit that, among other things, challenges DOF’s denial of a deed restriction that arose from a 2007 buy down of a market rate townhome restricting the unit for 45 years. When the townhome was sold to a new income-qualified owner in July 2011, the former redevelopment agency recorded a new restriction on the unit to renew the previous deed restriction. In its review of the housing successor’s asset transfer list, DOF determined that the 2011 deed restriction did not qualify as a housing asset because it was entered into after the passage of AB 26. The Union City case also disputes DOF’s denial of 2010 housing bond proceeds that had been allocated to a housing rehabilitation program administered by Alameda County since the 1970’s. The encumbered bond proceeds were denied as a housing asset because the former redevelopment agency’s standard annual contract with the County had expired and DOF failed to recognize any obligation to continue the contract.

E. Whether Certain Agreements and Actions Qualify as Enforceable Obligations.

Cases included in this category are fact specific and will not all be summarized here. Some of the cases address the enforceability of housing agreements between former redevelopment agencies and other public bodies and others address the enforceability of agreements entered into or actions taken with regard to obligations to third parties. Several of these cases (Bakersfield, San Leandro, Santa Rosa Canners, LLC, and West Sacramento) involve large projects that received a portion of their funding from the State in the form of Proposition 1C grant awards. The grant awards require the development of a specified number of affordable housing units as a condition of receiving funds for construction of infrastructure. DOF’s disallowance of former RDA funding for these projects could jeopardize the completion of the projects and could also result in a demand by the State for repayment of Proposition 1C funds already expended.

Some of the cases dealing with enforceability of obligations are somewhat unique to affordable housing in that they involve DOF’s denial of loan commitments, which have been commonly used to commit housing funds in advance of a developer’s obtaining low income housing tax credit allocations. Developers historically rely upon such commitments to demonstrate to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, private lenders and tax credit investors that public funding has been firmly committed to the project. In many cases, the funds have already been expended and the projects are nearing or have reached completion. Lawsuits challenging DOF’s disallowance of loan commitments include cases filed by Orange, Ridgecrest, Santa Monica and Palm Springs.

F. Whether Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds May Be Retained for Payment of Enforceable Obligations.

In addition to the question of whether LMIHF is encumbered by an enforceable obligation, issues have also been raised that are specific to the procedures in HSC 34179.5 and 34179.6 for determining the fund balance that is available for distribution to the taxing agencies. A primary issue in this regard is whether the successor agency has

22

adequately demonstrated that it will not receive future RPTTF in sufficient amounts to pay enforceable housing obligations, such that current funds must be retained. DOF’s position tends to be, alternatively, an assertion that if there is no immediate contractual payment obligation shown on the ROPS, there is no need to retain the funds or an assertion that if LMIHF was not identified on the ROPS as the funding source, the LMIHF balance cannot be retained for this purpose. These positions disregard the realities of affordable housing financing and place in doubt whether the necessary funds will be available when needed to avoid a breach of contract. A lawsuit filed by the San Leandro Successor Agency challenges DOF’s position in this regard.

23

PART III

REDEVELOPMENT DISSOLUTION LITIGATION

By

Brent Hawkins

There are currently over 80 cases pending in Sacramento Superior Court or the Third District Court of Appeal dealing with dissolution of redevelopment agencies in one way or another.5 Classifying these cases can be a challenge because many of them have multiple, overlapping causes of action. Rather than report on individual cases, we will describe the legal theories on which they are based. A table is included as an appendix which lists individual cases and describes generally the basis of the action and its current status.6

I. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

A. ABX1 26

In California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 231 (“CRA”), the California Supreme Court decided that the Legislature has the power under the California Constitution to dissolve redevelopment agencies and that, in doing so, ABX1 26 did not violate Article XVI, §16. However, a number of constitutional issues were either not raised or left unresolved. Several currently pending cases have raised the constitutional issues discussed below:

1. Impairment of Contract

The Supreme Court recognized the potential for ABX1 26 to interfere with contractual obligations in its CRA opinion:

As a practical and perhaps constitutional matter, to require an existing entity that has entered into a web of current contractual and other obligations to dissolve instantaneously is not possible; doing so would inevitably raise serious impairment of contract questions. (See U.S. Const., art. I, §10; Cal. Const., art. I, §9.)

(53 Cal. 4th at p. 263.)

ABX1 26 attempts to deal with the potential for impairment of contract in two ways: (1) declarations of legislative intent to the effect that obligations incurred by

5 Health & Saf. Code § 34189.3 requires “an action contesting any act taken or determinations or decisions made pursuant to this [Part 1.85] or Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161)” to be brought in Sacramento County Superior Court. 6 The table of cases was last updated April 8, 2013. Information on individual cases may be obtained on the Court’s website [www.saccourt.ca.gov].

24

redevelopment agencies prior to their dissolution will be honored,7 and (2) by establishing a process whereby revenues which were formerly tax increment are held in trust by county auditor-controllers (§34182) and disbursed to successor agencies semi-annually to pay enforceable obligations. (§34183) Although, in theory, this approach might avoid impairments of contract, in reality it has been so poorly executed, both in the language of the statute itself and in the administration of the statute by the Department of Finance (“DOF”), that serious facial and as-applied challenges have arisen. The facial challenges are based on language of the statute that causes the system to operate in ways that contradict the declared legislative intent that the obligations of the former redevelopment agencies will be honored. The as-applied challenges are based on DOF’s refusal in some cases to recognize legally binding obligations of former redevelopment agencies and approve the allocation of Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) to pay those obligations.

a. Facial Challenges

Any facial challenge of ABX1 26 based on the contract clause must begin with an analysis of the nature of the former redevelopment agency’s obligation. Redevelopment agencies were authorized under Article XVI, §16 and §33670 to pledge tax increment to repayment of indebtedness incurred to carry out the redevelopment project. The priority of that pledge is defined by statute. Section 33641.5 states that a pledge of tax increment by a redevelopment agency “. . . shall constitute a lien and security interest which immediately shall attach to the collateral and be effective, binding and enforceable against the [agency], its successors, purchasers of the collateral, creditors, and all others asserting the rights therein . . .” ABX1 26 changes the nature of the pledge of tax increment in at least the following ways:

(1) Tax increment is eliminated.8 Instead of being paid into a special fund of the redevelopment agency, administered by the redevelopment agency for the sole purpose of repaying the indebtedness it secures, property taxes are paid into the RPTTF, administered by the county auditor-controller for the benefit of both the obligees of the former redevelopment agency and taxing entities. (§34182(c)(2))

(2) Instead of having a first priority lien against the pledge of tax increment, redevelopment agency obligees share priority with numerous taxing

7 Section 34167(f) declares: “Nothing in this part shall be construed to interfere with a redevelopment agency’s authority, pursuant to enforceable obligations as defined in this chapter, to (1) make payments due, (2) enforce existing covenants and obligations, or (3) perform its obligations”). Similarly, §34175(a) states: “It is the intent of this part that pledges of revenues associated with enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agencies are to be honored. It is intended that the cessation of any redevelopment agency shall not affect either the pledge, the legal existence of that pledge, or the stream of revenues available to meet the requirements of the pledge.” 8 Section 1(i) (uncodified) states: “Upon their dissolution, any property taxes that would have been allocated to redevelopment agencies will no longer be deemed tax increment. Instead those taxes will be deemed property tax revenue . . . “

25

entities, subject to a complex allocation system under the control of county auditor-controllers, DOF and the State Controller. (§34183)

(3) Instead of receiving all tax increment up to the amount of the agency’s total indebtedness (§33675(g); Marek v. Napa Community Redevelopment Agency (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 1070, 1082-83), a successor agency receives only what is necessary to pay indebtedness due in the next six-month period, effectively eliminating the ability of a successor agency to: (a) establish a sinking fund or otherwise save for future obligations which may exceed the amount of property tax available from the RPTTF for that period, or (b) invest excess tax increment in the project, thereby enhancing property values and strengthening the security for the obligation.

This dilution of the force or effectiveness of the pledge of tax increment is an impairment of contract. It is not necessary for there to be a default to impair the obligation of contract. In U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey (1977) 431 U.S. 1, 22-23, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a contract is impaired where “an important security provision” is eliminated. The United Sates and California Supreme Courts have repeatedly held that acts authorizing or directing the material reduction of a contractually pledged security on a debt substantially impair the creditor’s contract. (See, e.g., Valdes v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal. App 3d 773, 789; Teachers’ Retirement Board v. Genest (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 1012, 1036.)

b. As-Applied Challenges

Several of the cases currently pending are as-applied challenges filed by developers, property owners, or others having a contract with the former redevelopment agency wherein tax increment has been pledged for the benefit of the plaintiff and DOF has refused to recognize the contract as a valid enforceable obligation. The result of this refusal will be a failure to allocate funds from the RPTTF for the obligation, impairing the obligation of contract.

2. Home Rule

To the extent that ABX1 26 purports to invalidate loans or advances from a charter city to its redevelopment agency (§§34171(d)(2), 34178(a)) by excluding them from the definition of “enforceable obligation,” it may also violate Article XI, §5 of the Constitution which provides that a city may adopt a charter to govern municipal affairs. Under this so-called “Home Rule Doctrine,” the ordinances and regulations of charter cities supersede state law with respect to municipal affairs. In State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 547, the California Supreme Court concluded that no statewide concern exists that would justify prevailing wage laws enacted by the State to preempt wage rates adopted by a charter city for locally funded public works. (Id. at 556) In doing so, the Court noted that the control over a city’s expenditure of funds is “quintessentially a municipal affair” (Id., at p. 562) and that autonomy with respect to the expenditure of public funds lies at the heart of what it means to be an independent governmental entity. (Id.) By invalidating a city’s right to repayment of a loan to its former redevelopment agency ABX1 26 violates Article XI, §5 because the State is purporting to usurp charter cities’ rights to control the expenditure of their own local funds.

26

A second home rule argument relates back to the earliest days of tax increment financing. This argument starts with a simple question: Why was it necessary to amend the state constitution to establish tax increment financing? Why could tax increment financing not have been established on a purely statutory basis? The answer to this question is found in In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 21, 73. Without a constitutional amendment, tax increment financing would have infringed on the home rule powers of charter cities. (Id. at p. 74) This insight informs one of the interpretive puzzles of Article XVI, §16 -- language which appears to make tax increment financing both permissive and mandatory. The second paragraph of Art. XVI, § 16 states: “The Legislature may provide that any redevelopment plan may contain a provision [for the allocation of property taxes as described in Art. 16,§16].” At the same time, the last sentence in Art. XVI, §16 states: “The Legislature shall enact those laws as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this section.” In CRA, the Supreme Court cited the former language for the proposition that Art. XVI, § 16 creates no absolute right to an allocation of property taxes (CRA, 53 Cal. 4th at pp. 256-57), i.e., that since the Legislature was not required to enact a tax increment scheme, it could therefore withdraw one at its pleasure. However in light of Bunker Hill, that language is better understood as a grant of authority to the Legislature to enact legislation that would otherwise have unconstitutionally infringed on the home rule powers of charter cities. The latter language then specifically commands the Legislature to enact a statute to implement the constitutional provision. This is consistent with the Legislative history which makes it clear that establishing tax increment financing was not merely a suggestion to the Legislature. The voters intended that it be implemented.

This argument takes the legs out from under the Supreme Court’s conclusion that redevelopment agencies are not constitutionally entitled to an allocation of tax increment.9 It leads inevitably to the conclusion that ABX1 26 conflicts with Article XVI, §16.

3. Single Subject

Article IV, §9 of the Constitution states that “[a] statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” ABX1 26 was adopted as a budget trailer bill. It does two things: first, it is an appropriations bill that appropriates the sum of $500,000 to DOF to implement its provisions; second, it effectuates a major substantive revision of the Community Redevelopment Law. It is settled under Article IV, §9, however, that a budget bill cannot be utilized to “substantively amend and change existing statute law.” (Cal. Labor Federation, AFL-CIO v. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 985, 981; see also Tomra Pacific, Inc. v. Chiang (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 463, 484.) The State cannot have it both ways. If ABX1 26’s $500,000 appropriation makes that bill related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of Proposition 25, ABX1 26 is unconstitutional because it substantively changes the Community Redevelopment Law. If, alternatively, ABX1 26 is not related to the Budget Bill, ABX1 26 is unconstitutional because (1) it could not properly be adopted in the Legislature’s special session, and (2) it was not adopted by a 2/3 majority.

9 The argument was not made to the Supreme Court.

27

B. AB 1484

1. Withholding, Offsetting or Deducting Sales or Property Taxes Violates Propositions 1A and 22

a. Sales Taxes

AB1484 authorizes withholding or offsets of cities’ local sales and use taxes (“sales tax”) if the successor agency fails to make certain payments in full and on time. These provisions violate the constitutional protections enacted by the voters in Propositions 1A and 22.

Article XIII §24(b), adopted by the voters as Prop. 22 in 2010, mandates that:

The Legislature may not reallocate, transfer, borrow, appropriate, restrict the use of, or otherwise use the proceeds of any tax imposed or levied by a local government solely for the local government’s purposes.

Proposition 1A, adopted by the voters in 2004, prohibits the State from changing “the method of distributing revenues derived under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law ... as that law read on November 3, 2004.” (Article XIII §25.5(a)(2)(A).)

Yet in violation of both these Constitutional provisions, AB 1484 reallocates, uses, and changes the method of distributing local sales tax revenue. Section 34183.5(b)(2)(C) provides that if the successor agency fails to make timely payment of the full amount of the True Up Payment, the city, an entity separate and apart from the successor agency,10 “shall not receive the distribution of sales and use tax …. up to the amount owed to the taxing agencies.” Similarly, AB1484 authorizes DOF to unilaterally order an offset of a city’s sales and use taxes if the successor agency, with cause or not, determines not to pay exactly what is demanded of it in connection with the Due Diligence Review (“DDR”) Payment. (§34179.6(h)(1)(C).) All the provisions of AB1484 that purport to authorize withholding or offsetting local city sales and use tax for alleged successor agency obligations violate the California Constitution.

b. Property Taxes

In addition to the sales and use tax protections discussed above, Proposition 1A also restricted the State’s ability to shift property tax revenue away from cities, counties, and special districts to schools and from changing the pro rata distribution of property taxes among cities, counties and special districts without a two-third’s vote of the Legislature. Proposition 22, approved in 2010, strengthened these property tax provisions and prohibited the State from borrowing property tax revenue from local agencies.

Prior to Proposition 13, each local agency imposed its own property tax. Proposition 13 capped all property tax at 1% of assessed value and gave the State 10 Section 34173(g) provides: “A successor agency is a separate public entity from the public agency that provides for its governance and the two entities shall not merge.”

28

responsibilities for allocating this 1% among the cities, counties, special districts and school districts that imposed property tax. As described in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 244-45 (“CRA”), Proposition 13 transformed the property tax:

First, by capping local property tax revenue, it greatly enhanced the responsibility the state would bear in funding government services, especially education. [Citations omitted.] Second, by failing to specify a method of allocation, Proposition 13 largely transferred control over local government finances from the state’s many political subdivisions to the state, converting the property tax from a nominally local tax to a de facto state-administered tax subject to a complex system of intergovernmental grants. [Citations omitted.] Third, by imposing a unified, shared property tax, Proposition 13 created a zero-sum game in which political subdivisions (cities, counties, special districts and school districts) would have to compete against each other for their slices of a greatly shrunken pie.

The State, between 1992 and 2004, to offset its obligations for school funding under Proposition 98, transferred local property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools through “Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds” or “ERAF.” (Stats. 1992, chs. 699, 700, pp. 3081-3125; Rev. & Tax. Code §§97.2, 97.3) The reduction of local city, county, and special district revenue because of the transfer of property tax revenue into the ERAF, and shifts in sales and use tax and vehicle license fees, led to the passage of Proposition 1A in 2004. The argument in favor of Proposition 1A in the Official Voter Information Guide states:

For more than a dozen years, the State has been taking local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services – more than $40 billion in the last 12 years. . . . Proposition 1A prevents the State from taking and using funding that local governments need to provide services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, health care, parks and libraries.

Proposition 1A expressly prohibits the Legislature from altering the pro rata share of the 1% rate received by cities, counties, and special districts (excluding school districts) under the law in effect on November 3, 2004. Section 25.5(a)(1)(A) prohibits the Legislature from reallocating property tax so as to reduce this pro rata share. Article XIII §25.5(a)(3) prohibits the Legislature from reallocating property taxes between cities, counties and special districts without a two-thirds vote. AB1484 was not approved by a two-thirds vote.

AB1484 provides for the offset or deduction of city property taxes if the successor agency fails to pay amounts determined by DOF to be owed as the DDR Payment. (§34179.6(h)(1)(C).) Any offset or deduction of property tax would essentially (1) reduce the City’s pro rata share of property taxes; and (2) reallocate property taxes between cities, counties and special districts without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

29

Under §34179.6(h)(1)(C), if the successor agency fails to remit the DDR Payment in full and on time, the auditor-controller reduces the city’s property tax allocation. If an offset of property tax is ordered by an auditor–controller, the auditor-controller “shall reduce the distribution of property taxes to the entity that is the subject of the offset and shall distribute the amount to the taxing entities of the former redevelopment area.” (§34179.8(c)(1).) This draconian method of enforcing payment has the unconstitutional effect of attributing the successor agency’s debt to the city and then transferring the city’s property taxes in satisfaction of this debt to the other taxing agencies. This transfer reduces the pro rata share of property taxes allocated to the city and moves a portion of this share to the schools. It also reallocates city property tax to counties and special districts without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Both transfers violate the Constitution.

2. True-up Payments Violate Proposition 22, Article XVI, §16 and Separation of Powers

AB1484’s scheme—that successor agencies owe True-Up payments based on tax increment lawfully distributed to redevelopment agencies in December 2011 or January 2012 (i.e., before RDAs were dissolved)—violates Proposition 22. ABX1 26 abolished tax increment concurrently with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. (“Upon their dissolution, any property taxes that would have been allocated to redevelopment agencies will no longer be deemed tax increment.” (ABX1 26, §1(i).) CRA v. Matosantos reformed the effective date of dissolution of redevelopment agencies from October 1, 2011, to February 1, 2012. (CRA at 245.)

In December 2011 and January 2012, redevelopment agencies, which were still in existence, received their regular distributions of tax increment based on December 2011 property tax collections. Proposition 22 protects that tax increment from being reallocated by the Legislature for some other purpose. Article XIII §25.5(a)(7) explicitly prohibits the Legislature from enacting a statute to

[r]equire a community redevelopment agency (A) to pay, remit, loan or otherwise transfer, directly or indirectly, taxes on ad valorem real property . . . allocated to the agency pursuant to Section 16 of Article XVI to or for the benefit of the State, any agency of the State, or any jurisdiction . . . .

AB1484 attempts to retroactively impose the rules that apply to post-dissolution property tax distributions on pre-dissolution tax increment, in violation of the Constitution. The Legislature cannot, under Article XIII, §25.5, retroactively convert tax increment lawfully paid to redevelopment agencies and used by them to satisfy their obligations to post-dissolution “property taxes” for distribution to other taxing agencies. As explained in Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994), “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic.”

Tax increment revenues lawfully received by redevelopment agencies prior to their dissolution were protected by Proposition 22 and cannot be stripped of their character as protected revenues merely because they are transferred to successor agencies. The character of funds is fixed on the date of transfer, and the State cannot later

30

enact a law retroactively changing that character to the detriment of others.11 Likewise the character of obligations is fixed at their creation, and the State cannot retroactively alter that character to the detriment of others.12 Applied to this situation, the character of tax increment was fixed when it was paid into a special fund of a redevelopment agency pursuant to Article XVI §16 and §33670 and cannot subsequently be transformed into ordinary property taxes. Constitutional protections cannot be changed by statute. AB1484 did not make Proposition 22 a dead letter.

3. Due Diligence Review Payments Are Unconstitutional Under Proposition 22.

Due Diligence Review (“DRR”) payments are unconstitutional under Proposition 22 for the same reasons set forth above for True-Up payments. Section 34179.5 requires successor agencies to employ a third party accountant to perform a so-called “Due Diligence Review” in order to “determine the unobligated balances available for transfer to taxing entities.” This review starts with the value of assets, cash, and cash equivalents transferred by the former redevelopment agency to the successor agency upon dissolution on February 1, 2012. Those assets would necessarily have included tax increment revenue received by the former RDA prior to its dissolution. After netting out assets restricted as to purpose or needed to pay enforceable obligations, “[t]he resulting sum shall be available for allocation to affected taxing entities pursuant to Section 34179.6.” (§34179.5(c)(6).)

Section 34179.6 describes a schedule for completing and approving the Due Diligence Reviews. Once the review has been finally approved by DOF, the successor agency must “transmit to the county auditor-controller the amount of funds required pursuant to the determination of the department within five working days.” (§34179.6(f).) This process necessarily results in the transfer of tax increment received by a redevelopment agency before its dissolution to other taxing agencies for the benefit of the State in violation Article XIII §25.5(a)(7).

11 Numerous cases so hold. For example, inheritance taxes are fixed and determined by the law in effect at the date of transfer—the date of death. “The Legislature cannot by a subsequent act increase or decrease the rate, remit the tax, or in any way surrender, impair or limit rights that have become fixed.” (Estate of Skinker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 290, 296.) The character of funds or property is fixed when it is acquired and can be altered only by the owner’s affirmative acts. (In re Marriage of Jafeman (1st Dist.1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 244, 255.) Civil Code §580a has no application to any mortgage executed prior to its passage because rights of the parties are fixed on the date the mortgage is executed. (Birkhofer v. Krumm (4th Dist.1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 513, 525-44, cert. denied (1938) 305 U.S. 653.) 12 E.g., Evans v. County of San Joaquin (3d Dist.1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 799 (State cannot change law to require payment of personal property taxes to redeem foreclosed land when these were not due at foreclosure sale but imposed by amendment).

31

4. Unconstitutional Delegation

Article III, §3 of the California Constitution, provides: “The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. An unconstitutional legislative delegation arises “when the Legislature confers upon an administrative agency unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy decisions” or unguided authority to implement the decisions. (People v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705, 712.) The Legislature “ ‘cannot escape responsibility by explicitly delegating that function to others or by failing to establish an effective mechanism to assure the proper implementation of its policy decisions.’” (Samples v. Brown (1st Dist.2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787, 804 [citations omitted].) “ ‘This doctrine rests upon the premise that the legislative body must itself effectively resolve the truly fundamental issues. It cannot escape responsibility by explicitly delegating that function to others or by failing to establish an effective mechanism to assure the proper implementation of its policy decisions.’” (People v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705, 712, quoting Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371, 376-377.)

An unconstitutional delegation occurs when the Legislature fails to provide adequate direction for implementation of policies adopted by the Legislature. (Carson Mobilehome Park Owners’ Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184, 190, following Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371, 376-377.) “While the delegation of governmental authority to an administrative body is proper in some instances, the delegation of absolute legislative discretion is not. To avoid such a result it is necessary that a delegating statute establish an ascertainable standard to guide the administrative body.” (State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 436, 448.) In the Dry Cleaners case, for example, the statute required the board to set minimum prices to enable cleaners “ ‘to furnish modern, proper, healthful and sanitary services, using such appliances and equipment as will minimize the danger to public health and safety incident to such services.’” The only other reference to an established standard declared that, after “ ‘an investigation therefor, the board may establish a reasonable and just minimum price schedule .…’” (Id. [quoting challenged statute].) The unguided delegation was especially subject to challenge because the board was composed in large part by members of the cleaning industry, who might be self-interested in the outcome of the decisions.

The unfortunate parallel in this instance is that DOF is necessarily interested as the agency charged with preparing, explaining, and administering the State budget. “Of all the types of bias that can affect adjudication, pecuniary interest has long received the most unequivocal condemnation and the least forgiving scrutiny.” (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1025.) As explained in California Teachers Assn. v. Cory (3d Dist.1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 494, 511, when the State’s own finances are at issue, “ ‘complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State’s self-interest is at stake. A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised.’” (Id. at 511, quoting United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977) 431 U.S. 1, 25-26.) In this instance, the Legislature failed to enact legislative guides or criteria for DOF’s implementation of multiple major decisions affecting millions of citizens and billions of dollars, leaving state agencies, the successor agencies and cities with no ascertainable standard to guide their actions and decisions. AB1484 lacks standards to

32

govern application of its most significant provisions, thereby permitting multiple variable interpretations and applications of the law to different successor agencies and different holders of enforceable obligations. (E.g., Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371, 376-77; State Board of Education v. Honig (3d Dist.1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 720, 750.) Without prescribed legislative standards, different DOF personnel acting in good faith could and do reach very different, ad hoc determinations on the same or similar facts, causing great disparity in results from one city to another.

5. Unconstitutional Spot Bill

AB 1484 was a spot bill13 passed after adoption of the budget of the type the Third District Court of Appeal has found unconstitutional. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Bowen, Case No. C071506, filed 2/15/13) Unfortunately, the Third District subsequently modified its opinion so that it applies only prospectively.14

II. ROPS CHALLENGES

Many (perhaps most) of the pending cases are challenges to decisions of DOF that individual items listed on a successor agency’s ROPS are not enforceable obligations, as defined in Health & Safety Code §34171(d). Despite the fairly lengthy definition of “enforceable obligations” contained in that section, the variety and complexity of redevelopment agreements has created numerous interpretive problems.

A. Contracts

Redevelopment agencies implemented redevelopment plans by entering into agreements with public and private parties. These agreements included disposition and development agreements, owner participation agreements, ground leases, loan agreements, negotiation agreements, option agreements, restrictive covenants, cooperation agreements with other public agencies, and an almost unlimited variety of other contractual instruments. ABX1 26 states generally that contracts entered into prior to its effective date are enforceable obligations and successor agencies are entitled receive an allocation from the RPTTF in order to perform their obligations. This seems like a simple concept, but in operation it has not turned out that way. DOF has disapproved numerous contracts entered into prior to the effective date of ABX1 26. Examples include a contract to contribute tax increment towards the construction of a new football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, contracts requiring the redevelopment agency to reimburse a developer for the cost of public facilities constructed by the developer in Marina and Hercules, and a contract to pay a portion of the city’s retirement contribution in Pasadena.

Several types of contracts raise special problems. One of these is contracts for phased development. DOF has taken the position that where there is a DDA that calls for phased development, only those phases for which construction contracts existed prior to the effective date of AB1X 26 will be considered enforceable obligations. A similar problem arises with respect to executory contracts. DOF has sometimes (but not always)

13 A blank bill with an assigned number, but no substance. 14 See Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Rehearing, filed 2/15/13.

33

determined that contracts entered into after the effective date of ABX1 26 which implement a contract entered into prior to that date are not enforceable obligations.

B. City/Agency Agreements

1. Cooperation Agreements

ABX1 26 specifically exempts from the definition of enforceable obligations agreements entered into between a redevelopment agency and its sponsoring city regardless of the date of the agreement. (Health & Saf. Code §34171(d)(2)) This has the effect of nullifying literally hundreds of agreements of various types where a city advanced funds to its redevelopment agency for redevelopment purposes. For example, it was a nearly universal practice for a city to advance money to its redevelopment agency for administrative costs and be reimbursed from tax increment. In other cases, a city would advance the cost of public improvements constructed in the redevelopment project and be reimbursed from tax increment. These kinds of agreements were generally viewed as a more efficient way of financing redevelopment than selling bonds, particularly where the amount in question was modest.

ABX1 26 included a provision that permitted cities and successor agencies to re-authorize these cooperative agreements with the approval of the oversight board. (§34178(a)) AB 1484 essentially rescinded this authority, but prior to AB 1484’s enactment many cities reauthorized cooperative agreements. DOF has taken the position that this reauthorization was unauthorized. Several cities, including Emeryville and Riverside, have challenged DOF on this point.

2. Enterprise Fund Loans

The Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (codified as Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Government Code, commencing with Government Code section 54300) and Public Utilities Code section 224.3 authorize cities to create special funds which are commonly referred to as “Enterprise Funds.” Enterprise Funds are designed to guarantee the availability of funds for the specific services for which the fees are collected, and are retained in a special account separate from the City’s general fund. Revenue from Enterprise Funds is generated from ratepayers that benefit from that Enterprise Fund and, because Enterprise Funds are often created well in advance of commencement of the capital improvement projects for which they are collected, these funds are often invested in short term loans in order to generate interest.

Generally, Enterprise Funds are subject to Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, as service fees are property-related fees.15 Article XIIID, Section 6(b) prohibits property-related fees or charges from (1) exceeding the cost of providing the property-related service; (2) being used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed; and (3) the amount of the fees imposed upon any parcel or person must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Enterprise Funds may also be subject to Article XIIIC, Section 1 of the California

15 See Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Virjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205.

34

Constitution.16 Article XIIIC, Section 1(e)(2) prohibits the City from imposing a fee or charge for a specific government service that exceeds the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service. Any fee or charge which exceeds the cost of providing that service is deemed a special tax and is invalid unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.17

A number of cities made loans to their redevelopment agency from City Enterprise Funds prior to enactment of ABX1 26. If loans from Enterprise Funds are not repaid, the fees and charges paid by ratepayers for the water, sewer or electrical service for which the Enterprise Fund was created will have been used for purposes other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed, in violation of Article XIIID, Section 6 and Article XIIIC, Section 1.

C. Judgments and Settlements

Judgments and settlements are included within the definition of enforceable obligations (Health & Saf. Code §34171(d)(1)(D)), but DOF has disallowed several of these. In the City of Santa Ana, there are several cases pending where the City settled validation actions attacking the validity of a redevelopment plan amendment by agreeing to deposit certain funds in the low and moderate income housing fund. DOF has claimed that it has the discretion to disallow these settlement agreements.

D. Use of Bond Proceeds

Many redevelopment agencies were holding bond proceeds when they were dissolved on February 1, 2012. Some of the bonds were issued between January 1, 2011 and the effective date of ABX1 26 on June 28, 2011 in anticipation of legislation that might curtail the use of tax increment financing. In other cases, agencies were still holding proceeds from bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. Successor agencies became the new owners of this money when redevelopment agencies were dissolved.

ABX1 26 states that “Bond proceeds shall be used for the purposes for which bonds were sold unless the purposes can no longer be achieved, in which case, the proceeds may be used to defease the bonds." (Health & Saf. Code §34177(i)) DOF has taken the position that unless bond proceeds were committed for expenditure through contracts approved prior to the effective date of ABX1 26, the proceeds may not be spent except to defease the bonds. Most bonds have call features that prohibit defeasing bonds

16 Prior to the enactment of Article XIIIC, Section 1, subdivision (e) (as adopted by the electorate on November 3, 2010 as Proposition 26), courts already recognized that regulatory fees did not qualify as “special taxes,” provided that certain conditions were met. (See e.g. City of Dublin v. County of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 264, 281 [special taxes, which require two-thirds voter approval under Article XIIIA, Section 4 of the California Constitution, “do not encompass fees charged to particular individuals in connection with regulatory activities or services when those fees to not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or activity for which the fee is charged…”] 17 “No local government may impose … any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.” (Cal. Const. Art. XIIIC, §2(d); see also Gov. Code §50076.)

35

for 8 – 10 years after issuance. In most cases, this means that successor agencies will be unable to spend bond proceeds, but must continue to pay debt service on those bonds for many years before they can be defeased. AB 1484 offers some relief, permitting expenditure of bond proceeds from bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011, after the successor agency obtains a finding of completion from DOF. (Health & Saf. Code §34191.4(c)(1))

Successor agencies claim that bond indentures themselves are enforceable contracts with bondholders requiring bond funds to be spent for redevelopment purposes in order to enhance the security of the bonds. Indentures should therefore qualify as enforceable obligations. Many bond issues, particularly those issued in early 2011, were quite specific about the use of the proceeds. Successor agencies argue that expending funds to accomplish those purposes is permitted by the Dissolution Law even if contracts for the expenditure of the funds were not executed prior to June 28, 2011.

E. Administrative Costs

DOF has sometimes required costs such as hiring accountants to perform the due diligence review and attorneys for project-related tasks to be paid from the successor agency’s administrative cost allowance rather than receiving an allocation from the RPTTF. The amounts involved are generally insufficient to justify litigation on their own, but some cities have added causes of action challenging DOF’s determination on these issues where they have other causes of action with greater amounts at stake.

III. DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW CHALLENGES

Currently, there are far fewer challenges to DOF determinations on DDRs than there are ROPS challenges, largely because DDRs have not been or are just being completed. However, DOF determinations on DDRs in the coming weeks are expected to trigger another wave of litigation. Described below are some of the issues that may be the focus of that litigation.

A. Whether Funds Are Obligated

The purpose of the DDR is to “determine the unobligated balances [of successor agencies] available for transfer to taxing agencies”. (Health & Saf. Code §34179.5(a)) The State is motivated to have as much money as possible transferred to taxing agencies in order to relieve pressure on the State’s general fund. The State can be expected to take an aggressive approach on this issue, as it has on the ROPS.

B. Unused Loans

Several cities made loans to their redevelopment agencies prior to the redevelopment agency’s dissolution, the proceeds of which are unspent, in whole or in part. In many cases, successor agencies are unable to expend these funds for the intended purpose because of limitations on entering into new contracts. DOF has taken the position that these unspent loan proceeds are unobligated and should be transferred to the county auditor-controller for distribution to taxing agencies. This amounts to a direct subsidy from the city’s general fund to the other taxing agencies. Several cities are

36

preparing or have recently filed litigation to require the return of unspent loan proceeds on a constructive trust theory.

IV. CALCULATION OF TRUE-UP PAYMENTS

Approximately 18 cases were filed challenging the amount of True-up Payments. In most cases, the amount of the True-up Payment was miscalculated based on errors of either the successor agency or DOF. Most of these cases have been settled favorably to successor agencies. A few have not yet been settled. DOF has not yet attempted to enforce any of the penalties associated with non-payment (withholding of city sales tax), but indicated in a recent meeting that it may start as early as May.

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets rulemaking procedures and standards for California state agencies. (Government Code §§11340 et seq.) APA requirements are designed to provide everyone a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of state regulations, to ensure that regulations are clear, necessary and legally valid, and to prevent ad hoc decisions. Government Code §11340.5(a) provides:

No state agency18 shall issue, utilize, enforce, or attempt to enforce any guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application, or other rule, which is a regulation as defined in Section 11342.600, unless the guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application, or other rule has been adopted as a regulation and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to this chapter.

The term “regulation” is defined in §11342.600 to mean “every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application or the amendment, supplement, or revision of any rule, regulation, order, or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure.” (E.g., Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (3d Dist. 2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794, 800; Capen v. Shewry (3d Dist. 2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 378, 386-87.) Proposed regulations must be transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for review and, if acceptable, for filing with the Secretary of State. (Government Code §11343(a).) DOF submitted no proposed regulations to that Office during 2011 or 2012 relating to AB1484 or ABX1 26.

A regulation subject to APA requirements has two principal identifying characteristics. First, the agency must intend its rule to apply generally, rather than in a specific case. The rule need not, however, apply universally; a rule applies generally when it declares how a certain class or range of cases will be decided. Second, the rule must “implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered” by the agency, or govern the agency’s procedure. (Government Code §11342(g); General Motors Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board (2006) 39 Cal.4th 773, 789; Tidewater Marine 18 The term “state agency” includes every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission. (Government Code §§11000(a), 11342.520.)

37

Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 571, cert. denied (1997) 520 U.S. 1248; Californians v. Pesticide Reform v. California Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation (3d Dist. 2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 887, 905-09.)

Unless “expressly” or “specifically” exempted, all state agencies not in the legislative or judicial branch must comply with APA rulemaking requirements when engaged in quasi-legislative activities. (Winzler & Kelly v. Department of Industrial Relations (1st Dist.1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 120, 125-28.) If an agency rule looks like a regulation, reads like a regulation, and acts like a regulation, courts will treat the rule as a regulation whatever the issuing agency called it. (State Water Resources Control Board v. OAL (1st Dist.1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 697, 702). Any doubt about applicability is resolved in favor of the APA. (Morales v. California Dep’t of Corrections (1st Dist. 2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 729, 735-39.) As explained in Tidewater Marine Western at 568:

The APA establishes the procedures by which state agencies may adopt regulations. The agency must give the public notice of its proposed regulatory action (Government Code §§11346.4, 11346.5); issue a complete text of the proposed regulation with a statement of the reasons for it (Id. §11346.2(a), (b)); give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation (Id. §11346.8); respond in writing to public comments (Id. §§11346.8(a), 11346.9); and forward a file of all materials on which the agency relied in the regulatory process to the Office of Administrative Law (Id. §11347.3(b)), which reviews the regulation for consistency with the law, clarity, and necessity (Id. §§11349.1, 11349.3).

DOF violated these and other APA provisions in the Government Code. DOF has published multiple “guidance documents” violating APA requirements for adopting regulations even though these documents plainly meet the definition in §11342.600. (E.g., Morning Star Co. v. State Board of Equalization (2006) 38 Cal.4th 324, 332-38, 340-42; Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2008 1st Dist) 169 Cal.App.4th 804, 815.) Calling a regulation “guidance,” a guideline, a protocol, or a bulletin does not alter its character or avoid APA requirements.19

VI. APPLICATION TO MILITARY BASE REUSE PROJECTS AND NON-PROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Several cases have been filed challenging the application of the Dissolution Law to military base reuse redevelopment projects. So far, these cases have been unsuccessful.

19 An exception for internal management documents (Government Code §11340.9) does not apply to documents that implicate the interests of persons or entities outside the agency. (California School Boards Assn. v. State Board of Education (1st Dist. 2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1328-30; Californians v. Pesticide Reform v. California Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation (3d Dist. 2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 887, 905-09.)

38

A few cities established non-profit development corporations prior to the effective date of ABX1 26 and transferred some or all of the assets of the redevelopment agency to the nonprofit development corporation. In most cases, these nonprofit development corporations were initially governed by a board identical to the city council, but have now been changed so that less than a majority of the governing board are members of the city council. DOF claims that these nonprofit development corporations are mere alter egos of successor agencies and assets held by them should treated the same as assets held by successor agencies.


This page left intentionally blank.

Statewide Summary of Redevelopment Litigation

Plaintiff File Date Defendant Real Parties Comments/Status Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Summary of Case

49’rs SC Stadium

Company LLC

6/27/12 Oversight Board,

AC, Santa Clara

Finance Agency

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001192, Reassigned to

Dept. 42 (Sumner) -

previously assigned to

Connelly;

County of Santa Clara

filed a cross petition on

8/17/2012; TRO issued

halting distribution of

funds pending 3/22/2013

writ hearing-Tentative

Ruling issued granting

petition, in part -

concluding agreements

between former RDA,

city, and a third party are

EOs and not subject to

exclusion under H&S

Code 34171(d)(2)

(3/21/2013)

Jonathan Bass, Lauren

Kowal, Charmaine Yu,

Coblentz Patch in SF

415-391-4800

[email protected]

[email protected]

Oversight Board

Dispute re OB's

Termination of Stadium

Agreements and Refusal

to List Stadium

Agreements on ROPS

III as EOs;

Adminstrative

Mandamus (CCP

1094.5)

#7760368 1 4/8/2013



Affordable Housing

Coalition of San

Diego County

4/25/12 San Diego AC DOF, Chiang AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001158, Dept. 31

(Kenny) (transferred from

San Diego)

Resps.' Mtn for Judgment

on Pleadings Granted

12/21/2012 - Petitioner to

Join Necessary Parties

(successor agencies and

taxing entities) per CCP

389(a)(2)(i) Amended

Petition filed 1/18/2013

naming Co of San Diego

as Class Representative

for all taxing entities in

SD Co entited to a

proportional share in the

balance, etc. - 3/29/2013

Hearing date 9:00 a.m.

Dept. 31 briefing almost

complete

Catherine Rodman,

Arlyn Escalante

Affordable Housing

Advocates

619-233-8474 2 other

firms

crodman@affordableho

usingadvocates.org

Impairment of Statutory

Contract (Cal. Const.

Art. I, §9) re LMIH

obligations

Apple Valley + SA &

taxpayer

7/12/12 DOF, AC none AB1X-26 and AB 1484

no. 2012-00127355, Dept.

54 (Chang) Settled

(Judgment entered 1/7/13)

Iris Yang, et al. BBK

Sacramento

True-up Payment

Dispute; Correction of

ROPS clerical error re

debt service payment

source

#7760368 2 4/8/2013



Bakersfield +SA 2/14/13 Matosantos, DOF,

Auditor Controller,

County of Kern,

State of California,

County of Kern

General Fund,

Advertising, Fire

Fund, Santitation

Authority, Mosquito

and Vector Control,

North of the River

Recreation and

Parks, Bakersfield

Separation of Grade,

Golden Empire

Transit District, Kern

River Levee District,

Kern County Water

Agency, Zone 7,

Zone 1, Zone 19,

Improvement #4,

Bakersfield City

School District,

Beardlsey City SD,

Fairfax SD, Kern

Joint Union High

SD, Kern Joint CCD,

Education

Superintendent

none 2013-80001400, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Stephn Sutro and Joseph

Audal, Duane Morris,

SF office (415) 957-

3000

ROPS III Dispute re

Prop 1C housing

projects; LMIHF Due

Diligence Review

Dispute

#7760368 3 4/8/2013



Bellflower + SA

Cerritos + SA

Chula Vista + SA

El Centro + SA

Folsom + SA

Grass Valley + SA

Hughson + SA

Lompoc + SA

Oxnard + Comm Dev

Comm.

San Gabriel + SA

Signal Hill + SA

Truckee + SA

Tulare + SA

9/19/12 Matosantos (DOF),

BOE, Watanabe (LA

Co), Woodard

(Tulare Co), Salter

(Nevada Co),

Valverde (Sac Co),

Newland (Imperial

Co), Klein

(Stanislaus Co),

Sandoval (San Diego

Co), Cohen (Ventura

Co), Geis (SB Co.)

none 2012-80001269, Dept 29

(Frawley)

Michael Colantuono,

Teresa Highsmith, Holly

Whatley of Colantuono

& Levin in Los Angeles

(213) 542-5700

[email protected]

AB 1484 Challenge re

True Up Payments and

"Self Help" penalties

(majority of named

petitioners paid true up

under protest)

Brea + SA

Also 3d party agt

7/16/12 State, Chiang, DOF,

BOE, AC

Ambac Assurance

(guarantor on bonds),

bondholder, bond

trustee and taxing

entities

AB1X-26 and AB1484.

No. 2012-80001204,

Reassigned to Dept. 42

(Sumner) -- Settled (Stip.

Judgment entered

12/20/2012)

James Markman (city

atty) + Sayre Weaver

and Richards, Watson &

Gershon

213-626-8484

True-up Payment

Dispute re reserves

forfuture bond debt

service payments

Berkeley SA +

Christine Daniel

(Trustee of various

retirement health

premium assistance

plan trusts)

2/22/13 Matosantos None 2013-80001417, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Zachary Cowan, Larua

McKinny (City

Attorney); Karen

Tiedemann, Juliet Cox

Goldfarb & Lipman

Oakland Office (5100

836-6336

ROPS III Dispute re

Retiree Medical Trust

Fund Loan to the

Former RDA

#7760368 4 4/8/2013



Brentwood +SA 12/18/12 DOF Matosantos,

BOE, Contra Costa

County Auditor

Controller

Contra Costa County,

Liberty High School

District, Brentwood

Elementary School

Dist, E. Contra Costa

Fire District, Contra

Costa Comm College

District, Oakley

Elementary School

Dist, E Contra Costa

Irrigation Dist,

Brentwood Rec &

Park Dist, Contra

Costa Co

Superintendent of

Schools, County

Flood Control Dist,

Mosquito Abatement

Dist, Knightsen

Elementary School

District, Bay Area

Rapid Transit, Byron

Elementary School

Dist, Byron Bku

Cememetery District,

Resource Cons Dist,

Bay Area

Management Dist,

Water Agency, East

Bay Regional Park

Dist

2012-80001341, Dept. 42

(Sumner) Stipulation for

Entry of Judgment filed

1/29/2013

T. Brent Hawkins,

BB&K - Damien

Brower

True-up Payment

Dispute

#7760368 5 4/8/2013



Carlsbad, Culver

City, Huntington

Beach, Ontario,

Oxnard, Palmdale,

Inglewood, their

RDAs, Linc Housing

Corp.

1/11/12 State, Chiang, DOF,

and

4 Acs

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001032, Dept. 33

(Lloyd Connelly)

Dismissed on 2/28/2012

Murray Kane, Bruce

Gridley, Guillermo

Frias, Gustavo Lamanna

of Kane, Ballmer &

Berkman in LA

213-617-0480

[email protected]

gfrias@

Constitutional challenge

to AB1X26

Cerritos 9/26/2011

(Appeal

filed

2/16/12)

State ABC Unified Sch.

Dist.

AB1X-26 and AB1484

Trial Court No. 2011-

80000952 Reassigned to

Dept 42 (Sumner);

Appeal Pending (3rd

DCA Case No. C070484) -

fully briefed

Jeffrey Oderman, Dan

Slater, Mark Austin,

William Ihrke (Rutan

Tucker)


to AB1X26 (as modified

by AB1484)

CRFL Family

Apartments LP,

CRFL Partner, LLC,

CRFL Housing

Partners

12/24/12 Matosantos, Cohen,

DOF, County

Auditor Controller,

City of Oxnard + SA,

Housing Authoirty of

the City of Oxnard,

United Water

Conservation

District, Calleguas

Municipal Water

District, The

Metropolitan Water

District of So CA,

Oxnard School

District, Oxnard

None 2012-80001354, Dept. 29

(Frawley)

TRO granted 1/16/2013 -

Writ Granted 1/18/2013

Hans Van Ligten,

William H. Ihrke

[email protected];

[email protected] (714)

641-5100

Impairment of Contract

(2010 OPA for aff

housing project); ROPS

III Dispute re Contracts

previously approved on

ROPS II (includes CCP

1094.5 writ)

#7760368 6 4/8/2013



Culver City + SA 3/18/13 Ana Matosantos,

Wendy Watanabe

Co of Los Angeles,

Co of Los Angeles

Administration

Servies, Co of Los

Angeles Library

Services, Los

Angeles Co. Fire

Dist. Los Angeles

County Flood Control

Dist, Los Angeles Co

West Vector Control

Dist, West Basin

Munciipal Water

Dist, Los Angeles Co

Office of Ed, Los

Angeles CCD, Culver

City USD, Los

Angeles USD

2013-80001446, Dept. 14

(Balonon) TRO scheduled

for 4/19 at 11 a.m.

Murray Kane, Guillermo

Frias, Kang of Kane,

Ballmer & Berkman in

LA

213-617-0480

[email protected]

gfrias@ edward@

ROPS III Disputre re

Adjustments to ROPS I

items included on ROPS

III

#7760368 7 4/8/2013



Duarte + SA,

Housing Authority

12/18/12 Matosantos,

Watanabe, Los

Angles County

Auditor Controller,

State, DOF, County

of Los Angeles,

Consolidated Fire

Prot District, Los

Angeles Flood

Control District, Los

Angeles County

Forester & Fire

Warden, Los

Angeles County

Office of Education,

Public Library,

Sanitation District

No. 5 and 22, Citrus

Comm. College Dist,

Duarte Unified

School District,

Upper San Gabriel

Valley Municipal

Water Dist

Andres Duarte

Terrace II, LP

2012-80001338, Dept. 31

(Judge Kenny)

(erroneously transferred to

Balonon following

peremptory challenge to

Sumner); TRO Hearing

scheduled for 12/21/12

taken off calendar at

Duarte's request b/c DOF

dropped objection to

ROPS III $1.2 million

item and agreed to allow

the $1.2 in LMIHF to be

retained per the findings

in the low-mod DDR.

Duarte received revised

DOF determination letters

on 12/20/12.

Jeffrey Melching, Dan

Slater, Jennifer Farrell,

Rutan Tucker (714) 641-

5100

[email protected],

[email protected],

[email protected]

ROPS III Dispute;

LMIH Due Diligence

Review Dispute re DOF

denial of DDA with

Housing Authority

related to HUD grant

(entered into on

6/26/12), funding

agreements, and

promissory notes

between City and former

RDA concerning LMIH

funds; Impairment of

Contract; Violation of

Cal. Const. Art. XIII,

§25.2(a)(3);

Administrative

Mandamus (CCP

1094.5)

El Cerrito +SA 7/12/12 DOF, BOE, AC many taxing entities AB1484. No. 2012-

80001200, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Settled - Stip. Judgment

Entered 12/21/2012

Sky Woodruff (city atty)

+Deborah Fox and Erika

Randall Meyers Nave +

True-up Payment

Dispute

#7760368 8 4/8/2013



Emeryville + SA 9/11/12 Matosantos none 2012-80001264, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Prel Inj Hrg 3/8/2013 9:00

a.m. - no tentative posted -

taken under submission

Ben Stock, Leah

Castella, Matthew

Visick of Burke

Williams & Sorensen

LLP in Oakland (510)

273-8780

[email protected]

and Michael Biddle,

City Attorney (510) 596-

4300

ROPS Dispute re

rejection of various

agreements related to

Brownfield loans and

2011 reimbursement

agreements between

City and former RDA

for redevelopment

projects

Folsom +SA 2/8/13 Matosantos, Julie

Valverde - Sac Co

Auditor/Controller

Sacramento County,

Folsom Cordova

USD, Los Rios CCD

2013-80001393, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Michael G. Calantuono,

Holly Whatley, Matthew

Summers, Colantuono &

Levin, PC, LA office

213-542-5700 and

Folsom CA - Bruce

Cline

ROPS Dispute re DOF

rejection of C&C

Construction Contract

on ROPS I, II, and III to

be paid with RPTTF

Fontana USD 4/2/13 Fontana SA not yet posted 2013-00141236 not yet posted not yet posted

Fontana USD,

Chaffey Joint Union

HSD, Rialto USD

4/2/13 Fontana SA, City,

Larry Walker,

County of San

Bernardino

none 2013-80001452, Dept. not

yet posted

Peter K. Fagen, Kimbely

Smith, Kelley Owens,

Fagen Friedman &

Fulfrost, LLP Los

Angeles (323) 330-6300

Pass-through payment

calculation dispute

Escondido + SA Not posted Matosantos, State of

California, DOF,

Tracy Sandoval,

Oversight Board of

the City of

Escondido as SA

None 2013-00140530, L&M

Dept. 54 - Case

Management Conference

8/29/2013 at 8:30 a.m. in

Dept. 36

Jeffrey R. Epp, Andrea

M. Velasquez (City

Attorney office), Jeffrey

Oderman, Wililam

Ihrke, Jennifer Farrell,

Rutan Tucker Costa

Mesa (714) 641-5100

ROPS III Dispute re

Loan agreements from

City to Former RDA

#7760368 9 4/8/2013



Fresno + SA 4/23/12 Oversight Board, and

AC

Fresno Metro. Flood

Control District

AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001121, Dept. 33

(Connelly) Order on

related cases after

judgment

names oversight board

members individually.

Peremptory writ issued

6/29/2012 Judgment

entered 7/5/2012

J. Scott Smith, Neli

Palma, Adam Lindgren,

Deborah Fox, at

Sacramento Meyers

Nave 916-556-1531

[email protected]

m

Judgment Entered in

City's Favor re

Oversight Board

Appointment Challenge

Fresno + SA 3/28/13 State of Calif,

Matosantos, Chiang,

Crow

None 2013-80001450, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Douglas Sloan, Francine

Kanne, City Attorney;

Thomas Webber, Juliet

Cox, Goldfarb &

Lipman, Oakland (510)

836-6336

ROPS III Dispute re

Downtown Stadium and

Convention Center

Agreements; LMIH Due

Diligence Review

Dispute; Dispute re

Controller's Order to

Return Housing Assets

Galt + SA + Jason

Behrmann

7/11/12 Matosantos, Julie

Valverde - Sac Co

Auditor/Controller

None Case No. 2012-00127322;

Settled


Sacramento

ROPS Dispute re

Correction of ROPS I

and II entries re bond

debt service paymentsGalt + SA + Jason

Behrmann

1/30/13 Matosantos Callander Associates

Landscape

Architecture, Inc.

No. 2013-80001380,

Dept. 14 (Balonon)

Hearing 7/26/2013 10:00

a.m.


Sacramento

ROPS III Dispute re Use

of Tax Allocation bond

proceeds for projects

subject to Validation

Judgment

#7760368 10 4/8/2013



Grand Hope Park 3/18/13 CRA/LA as SA;

David Riccitiello, as

CEO of CRA DLA;

Nelson Rising, Mee

Semcken, Timothy

Mcosker, as

governing board of

CRA DLA; Michael

Lawson, Hamid

Behdad, Ricahrd

Close, Steve

Koffroth, Floria

Molina, Megan

Reilly, Dan

Rosenfield, as

Oversight Board; All

persons interested in

the resolution and

ordinance

None No. 2013-80001444,

Dept. not yet posed

Jeffrey Dintzer, David

Edsall, Juliana Soic,

Gibson Dunn &

Crutcher, Los Angeles

office (213)229-7000

Impairment of Contract,

etc. re failure of

successor agency to

account for all EOs on

ROPS and DDR for

public park ground lease

Hercules LLC 5/22/12 State, DOF, AC, City

as SA

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001155, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Dismissed 6/20/2012

(Disputed payments were

finally approved by DOF)

Andrew Sabey, Robert

Doty Andrew Fogg at

Cox, Castle SF 415-262-

5100

[email protected],

rdoty@, afogg@

ROPS Dispute re DOF's

denial of 2001 DOPA

and related 2010

Settlement Agreement

Between

Petitioner/Developer,

Former RDA, and City

as EOs

#7760368 11 4/8/2013



Huntington Beach,

Housing

Authority,+SA

3/15/13 DOF Matosantos,

BOE, Jan Grimes

Co of Orange, Metro

Water District of So

Cal, Huntington

Beach Elementary

School Dist,

Westminster

Elementary School

Dist, Orange Co

Santiation Dist,

Orange Co

Transporation Auth,

Co Cemetery Dist,

Orange County Water

Dist, Orange Co

Vector Contorl Dist,

Orange Co

Department of Ed,

Hungtinton Beach

Union High School

Dist, Ocean View

Elementary Schooll

Dist, Coast CCD

2013-80001441, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Murray Kane, Guillermo



LA

213-617-0480

[email protected]

gfrias@ edward@

Due Diligence Review

Dispute re LMIH Funds

Inland Valley Dev.

Agency

4/11/12

(Appeal

Filed

10/20/12)

State, Chiang, DOF,

AC

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001112 (related to

80001113), Dept. 33

(Connelly)

alleges JPA w/ RDA

powers not governed by

AB1X-26; Demurrer

sustained w/out leave;

Appeal pending at 3rd

DCA - Case no. C072450)

Timothy Sabo, Karen

Feld of Lewis Brisbois

909-387-1130

[email protected],

kfeld@

AB1X26 Challenge re

Application of RDA

Dissolution to Military

Base Conversion RDA

(JPA) - specifically

concerns Norton AFB

Closure

#7760368 12 4/8/2013



Inland Valley

Development

12/28/12 State Controller

Chiang, DOF,

Matosantos, San

Bernardino County

Duditor Controller

Walker

No. 2012-80001357,

Dept. 29 (Frawley)

Karen A. Feld,

ElizabethL. Martyn,

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard

& Smith (909) 387-1130

ROPS III Dispute re

EOs (reliance on prior

DOF approval of same

items on earlier ROPS);

True-up Payment

Dispute; Erroneous

Collection of Duplicate

Pass Through Payments

Irvine as SA 5/25/12 DOF, AC Heritage Fields, El

Toro LLC

AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001161 Dept. 31

(Kenny) Order on related

cases denied (no

relationship to 80001154);

Answers filed; 5/31/2012

order denying ex parte and

TRO and OSC re prelim

inj

Philip Kohn, William

Marticorena, Jeffrey

Melching, Dan Slater at

Rutan & Tucker Costa

Mesa,

[email protected],

wmarticorena@,

jmelching@ dslater@

ROPS Dispute re DOF

Denial of Dev

Agreement and Loan

Agreement Between

City and former RDA as

EOs (RPTTF Funds)

#7760368 13 4/8/2013



Lancaster + SA 12/21/12 Matosantos, BOE,

Watanabe

Los Angeles County,

County Library,

Consolidated Fire

Protection Dist of

LOA County, LA

County Fire-Forester

& Fire Warden, LA

Co Waterworks #40,

Antelope Valley,

Lancaster Cemetary

Dist, Antelope Valley

Mosquito Vector

Control, LA County

Sanitation Dist No.

14 Operating,

Antelope Valley Soil

Conservation Dist,

City of Lancaster TD

#1, Lancaster

Lighting Maintenance

Dist, Antelope Valley

East Kern Water

Agency, Quartz Hill

Water Dist,

Educational Revenue

Augmentation Fund,

County School

Services, Eastside

Union School

District, Westside

Union School Dist,

Antelop Valley Union

No. 2012-80001348,

Dept. 42 (Sumner)

Stipulation & Order filed

1/2/2013 answers on file

David Robinson, James

Azadian, Chritina

DeVries, Enterpirce

Counsel Group, ALC

(949) 833-8550

True-up Payment

Dispute

#7760368 14 4/8/2013



Lawndale +SA 3/18/13 Ana J. Matosantos,

Wendy Watanabe,

State of California,

State of CA DOF,

Co. of Los Angeles,

Co. of Los Angles

Auditor-Controller

Consolidated Frie

Protection District,

Los Angeles County

Fire FFW, Los

Angeloes Co Flood

Control Dist, Los

Angles Co West

Vector Controll Dist,

Los Angeles Co

Santiation Dist No. 5,

Wet Basin Muni

Water Dist, Water

Replenishment Dist

of So Cal ,Hawthorne

School Dist, Los

Angles Co School

Services Fund-

Hawthorne, Lawndale

Centinela Valley

UHSD, El Camino

CCD

2013-80001445, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Tiffany Israel, June

Ailin, Lona Laymon,

Aleshire & Wynder,

Irvine, CA (949) 223-

1170

ROPS III Dispute re

bond proceeds, bank

loan, etc. as Eos

Legal Aid Society of

San Mateo County

3/27/13 DOF; Matosantos SA to Redwood City

and City

2013-80001449, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Lynn Martinez, Richard

Rothschild, Keandra

Dodds, Western Center

on Law & Poverty LA

(213) 487-7211;

Deborah Collins

Michael Rawson Public

Interest Project, Oakland

9510) 891-9794

ROPS and LMIH DDR

Dispute re affordable

housing fund

established by former

Redwood City RDA

pursuant to 1990

settlement agreement

#7760368 15 4/8/2013



Livermore + SA 6/14/12 All persons

Interested re:

Redevelopment

Ordinances and

Resolutions (various)

None No. 2012-00132727

(transferred from Alameda

Superior Court)

DOF/Controller Demurrer

Hearing rescheduled from

4/8/2013 to 5/23/2013 in

Dept. 54 (Chang); CMC

scheduled 8/1/2013 8:30

a.m. in Dept. 39

Thomas Webber, James

Diamond Goldfarb &

Lipman LLP Oakland

(510) 836-6226 and

John Pomidor, Jason

Alacala, City Attorney

of Livermore

Validation Action re

DDA and related

leases/subleases

Livermore Valley

Performing Arts

Center

1/23/13 DOF, Matosantos None No. 2013-80001370,

Dept. 14 (Balonon)

Jonathan Kitchen,

Andrew Fogg, Cox

Castle & Nicholson San

Francisco office (415)

262-5100

ROPS III Dispute re

Amended DDA

#7760368 16 4/8/2013



LOCC, Vallejo + SA,

Christopher

McKenzie

9/24/12 Matosantos (DOF),

Betty Yee, George

Runner, Michelle

Steel, Jerome

Horton, John Chiang

(members BOE),

John Chiang,

Controller, Simona

Padilla-Scholtens

(Solano Co)

County of Solano,

Solano County Free

Library, Solano

County Mosquito

Abatement District,

Greater Vallejo

Recreation District,

Vallejo Sanitation

and Flood Control

District, Solano

County Wter gency,

Bay Area Air Quality

management District,

Vallejo City Unified

School District,

Solano Community

College and Solano

County Office of

Education/Solano

County

Superintendent of

Schools

No. 2012-80001275,

Dept. 31 (Kenny) Petition

Hearing schedule

4/19/2013 9:00 a.m.;

Santa Clara County

granted leave to intervene

(1/4/2013)

Iris P Yang, Brent

hawkins, harriet Steiner

Ann Schwing of

Best Best & Krieger,

(916) 325-4000

[email protected]

brent.hawkins@bbklaw.

com,

harriet.steiner@bbklaw.

com

Constitutionality of

sales tax and property

tax claw-back;

unconstitutional

delegation of legislative

authority to DOF;

violation of

Administrative

Procedures Act

#7760368 17 4/8/2013



Los Banos

Designated Local

Authority as SA


BOE, Merced Co

Auditor Controller

City of Los Banos;

County of Merced,

Los Banos USD,

Merced CCD,

Merced Co Regional

OCC Program,

Merced Co Mosquito

Abatement Dist, Los

Banos Cemetery

District, Central CA

Irrigation District,

Merced Co Office of

Ed

No. 2012-80001352,

Dept. 31 (Kenny)

Stipulation entered

1/2/2013; TRO taken off-

calendar

John McClendon, Joy

Otsuki Leibold

McClendon & Mann,

Lagnua Hills 9949) 457-

6300 [email protected]

True-up Payment

Dispute

Mendota Designated

Local Authority as

SA


BOE, Merced Co

Auditor Controller

City of Mendota,

County of Fresno,

Fresno County

Library Mendota

Branch, Lower San

Joaquin Levee Dist,

Fresno WEst Side

Mosquito Abatement

Dist, Mondota USD,

Westlands Water

District

No. 2012-80001353,

Dept. 42 (Sumner)

John McClendon, Joy

Otsuki Leibold

McClendon & Mann,



True-up Payment

Dispute

#7760368 18 4/8/2013



Merced Designated

Local Authority as

SA


BOE, Merced Co

Auditor Controller

City of Merced, Co of

Merced, Merced City

SD, Weaver Union

SD, Merced Union

SD, Merced CCD,

Merced Co Regional

Occupational

program, Merced Co

Mosquito Abatement

Dist, Merced

Cemetery Dist,

Merced Irrigation

Dist, Merced County

Fire, Merced Co

Office of Ed,

No. 2012-80001351,

Dept. 29 (Frawley);

Stipulation entered

1/2/2013 and TRO taken

off calendar

John McClendon, Joy

Otsuki Leibold

McClendon & Mann,



True Up Payment

Dispute

Mission Viejo + SA 7/16/12 State, Chiang, DOF,

BOE, AC

6 taxing entities AB1X-26 and AB1484.

No. 2012-80001203,

Dept. 31 (Kenny)

Settled - Stip. Judgment

entered 10/23/2012

William Curley (city

atty), Sayre Weaver,

Peter Pierce, Ginetta

Giovinco Richards,

Watson & Gershon

[email protected],

ppierce@ ggiovinco@

True-up Payment

Dispute

Monterey + SA 8/20/12 DOF none AB1X-26 and AB1484.

No. 2012-80001249,

Dept. 29 (Frawley)

DISMISSED W/O

PREJUDICE - CITY

DECIDED NOT TO

PURSUE

Mark Austin, Dan

Slater, Jennifer Farrell

Rutan & Tucker Costa

Mesa

[email protected],

dslater@ jfarrell@

ROPS Dispute re DOF

Denial of Repayment

Agreement between City

and former RDA as an

EO

#7760368 19 4/8/2013



Moreno Valley + SA

+ Moreno Valley

Housing Authority

12/24/12 Riverside Co Auditor

Controller, State

Auditor, Elaine

Howle, Matosantos,

BOE, amendment

filed to add John

Chiang and

dismissed Elaine

Howle

MV Rancho Dorado

Ltd Part; PC Moreno

Valley Developers

LLC, Citbank, Palm

Communities,

Moreno Valley USD,

Perris Elementary

SD, Riverside CCD,

Riverside Co,

Riverside Office of

Educ, Riverside

County FCWCD, Val

Verde USD

No. 2012-80001350,

Dept. 42 (Sumner) - X-

petition filed on behalf of

developer by Goldfarb

Lipman

Suzanne Bryant,

Deborah Fox, Erika

Randall, Meyers Nave

Riback Silver & Wilson

LA office (213) 626-

2906,

[email protected],

[email protected]

om

LMIH Fund Due

Diligence Review

Dispute; Disputed funds

committed for aff

housing project in

escrow account

(includes due process

and impairment of

contract causes of

action)

Morgan Hill

Economic

Development Corp +

City

10/9/12 State Controller,

John Chiang, Vinod

Sharma (Santa Clara

Co), Ana Matosantos

(DOF), amended

petition BOE

none 2012-80001284,

Reassigned to Dept. 29

(Frawley) - Santa Clara

County Motion to

Intervene taken off

calendar (6/28/2013);

Petition hearing scheduled

8/16/2013 10:00 a.m.


Sacramento

"Claw Back" of

Transferred Agency

Assets; Determination

whether Petitioner is a

"public agency;"

Declaratory Relief re

H&S Code

34170.6(h)(1)(A) re

offset of sales and/or

property taxes; Violation

of Procedural Due

Process

#7760368 20 4/8/2013



Murrieta, City of 12/20/12 DOF, Matosantos,

Paul Angulo,

Auditor-Controller

County of Riverside

34-80001346, Dept. 31

(Michael P. Kenny);

Prelim Inj Hrg

rescheduled from

2/28/2013 to April 4 9:00

a.m. (failure to brief H&S

Code 34191.4)

Jeffery A. Morris, Casey

C. Shaw, Stutz Artiano

Shinoff & Holtz - (951)

676-6996

12/15/2012 Due

Diligence Review

Dispute re 2011

accelerated repayment

of City's loan to Former

RDA and Transfer of

funds from LMIH fund

to SA Housing

Authority for aff

housing project (prior

payments were approved

on ROPS)National City, Vista,

Oceanside, Chula

Vista, San Marcos, +

their SAs

7/12/12 DOF, BOE, AC none Murray Kane, Guillermo



LA

213-617-0480

[email protected]

gfrias@ edward@

True-up Payment

Disputes; Constitutional

challenge to Tax Offset

per Cal. Const. Art XIII,

§§24(b); 25.5

#7760368 21 4/8/2013



Oakley +SA 2/8/13 Matosantos, DOF,

Robert Campbell

A/C

County of Contra

Costa, Contra Costa

County FCWCD,

Contra Costa Co

Flood Control Zone

1, Contra Costa

Water Dist, East

Contra Costa Fire

Protection Dist,

Contra Costa

Resource

Conservation Dist,

Contra Costa

Mosquito & Vector

Control Dist,

Ironhouse Sanitary

Dist, Bay Area Rapid

Transit, Bay Area Air

Quality Management

Dist, East Bay

Regional Park Dist,

East Contra Costa Irr

Dist, Liberty Union

High School Dist,

Brentwood Union

School Dist,

Knightsen

Elementary School

Dist, Contra Costa

Office of Ed, k-12

ERAF, Antioch USD,

Contra Costa CCD,

34-80001435, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Derek Cole, Scott

Huber, Jonathan Miller,

Cota Cole, Roseville

(916) 780-9009

ROPS III Dispute

#7760368 22 4/8/2013



Orange + SA, OHDC

Serrano LLC, C&C

Serrano LLC

11/21/12 DOF, Jan E. Grimes None 2012-00135813, Dept. 53

L&M (Brown) Demurrer

hearing scheduled for July

11, 2013 Dept. 53 2:00

p.m.

Kane, Ballmer &

Berkman Murray Kane,

Guillermo Frias, Edward

Kang (213) 617-0480

and Goldfarb & Lipman,

Lynn Hutchins, Juliet

Cox in Oakland (510)

836-6336

ROPS Dispute re

whether LMIH Fund

loan commitment for

housing project is an EO

Oceanside + SA 12/27/12 Matosantos,

Sandoval

2012-00134586 Dept. 54

(Chang) Ex Parte

Application for TRO filed

concurrently with

complaint - TRO granted

on 12/28/12 to preclude

withholding of 1/2/2013

RPTTF distribution;

Prelim Inj Hearing on

1/31/2013 continued to

2/21/2013 at 9:00 a.m. -

Stip & Judgment filed

2/26/2013

Kane, Ballmer &



Kang (213) 617-0480

True-up Payment

Dispute; Constitutional

challenge to Tax Offset

per Cal. Const. Art XIII,

§§24(b); 25.5

Orange County as SA 8/3/12 DOF none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001224, Dept. 31

(Kenny)

Demurrer Hearing

scheduled for 1/25/2013 -

taken under submission

rebriefing by 4/12 and

reissue order

Laurie Shade, Elizabeth

Pejeau,

[email protected]

v.com

[email protected].

com

ROPS Dispute re DOF's

rejection of

Reimbursement

Agreements for

Infrastructure Project as

EOs

Palm Springs 3/14/13 Matosantos, BOE,

Elaine Howle

(auditor) , PS

Housing Investors

LP

Not Posted Yet 2013-00140481 Not Posted Yet

#7760368 23 4/8/2013



Palm Springs + SA 3/14/13 Matosantos, Elaine

Howle (auditor),

BOE, PS Housing

Investors, LP

Co of Riverside,

Palm Springs USD,

Desert CCD,

Riverside Co Office

of Ed, Riverside Co

FCWCD, Palm

Springs Cemetery

Dist, Desert

Healthcare District,

Coachella Valley

Mosquito & Vector

Control Dist, Desert

Water Agency,

Coachella Valley

Water Dist, Coachella

Valley Resource

Conservation Dist,

Coachella Valley

Recreation & Park

Dist

2013-80001440, Dept 14

(Balonon)

Douglas Holland, M.

Lois Bobak, Omar

Sandoval, Woodruff,

Spradlin & Smart APC,

Costa Mesa (714) 558-

7000



Pasadena + Pasadena

Community

Development

Commission, Marilyn

Diaz, Cheryl

Hubbard


Watanabe

2012-00134585 Dept 54

(Chang) Ex parte

Application for TRO file

concurrently with

complaint - TRO granted

re ROPS III; Prelim.

Injunction hrg 1/17/2013 -

WRIT GRANTED

1/28/2013

Kane, Ballmer &



Kang (213) 617-0480

Bruce Tepper, ALC,

(213) 551-6590

ROPS Dispute re DOF

rejection of Validated

Reimbursement

Agreement / Pension

Bonds as EOs

#7760368 24 4/8/2013



Petaluma + SA 11/26/12 Matosantos;

Sundstrom, County

of Sonoma

Sonoma County

Transportation

Authority, DOT

2012-80001321, Dept. 29

(Frawley); DOF Answer

filed 12/28/12 ex parte

hearing date of 5/3/2013

Eric Danly, Deborah

Fox, Erika Randall,

Meyers Nave Riback

Silver & Wilson in Los

Angeles (213) 626-2906

[email protected],

[email protected]

om

ROPS Dispute re EOs /

DOF rejection of

RPTTF and bond

proceeds for highway

infrastructure

improvements pursuant

to agreements between

City and third parties

Pittsburg + SA 8/16/12 AC, DOF, BOE many districts, taxing

entities

AB1484. No. 2012-


Dept. 42 (Sumner)

Settled - Judgment

entered 12/26/2012

Ruthann Ziegler

(Pittsburg); Deborah

Fox and Erika Randall,

Meyers Nave LA 213-

626-2906

[email protected]

[email protected]

om

True-up Payment

Dispute

Rancho Cordova +

SA


Valverde, Chiang,

BOE

2012-80001356, Dept. 42

(Sumner)

David Skinner, Adam

Lindgren, Danta

Foronda Meyers Nave

Riback Silver & Wilson

(916) 556-1531

ROPS Dispute re EOs /

DOF rejection of Loans

between Agency and

City (H&S Code

§34171(d)(2))

Redwood City +

Redwood City as

Housng Successor

SA

3/22/13 Ana J. Matosantos &

BOE, Bob Adler

Legal Aid Society of

San Mateo County

2013-80001447, Dept. 42

(Sumner)

Iris P Yang Sigrid

Asmundson, BBK,

Sacramento office (916)

325-4000, Pamela

Thompson City

Attorney

ROPS and LMIH DDR

Dispute re affordable

housing fund

established pursuant to

1990 settlement

agreement

#7760368 25 4/8/2013



Ridgecrest + SA 3/11/13 Matosantos, Mary B.

Bedard, CPA, State

of California, DOF,

County of Kern,

Sierra Sands Child

Dev. Education Dist,

Kern Co Water

Agency, Kern CCD,

Sierra Sands USD,

East Kern Resrouce

Conservation Dist

None 2013-80001438, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

W. Keith Lemieux,

Christine Carson,

Lemieux & O'Neill,

Westlake Village, CA

(850) 495-4770

ROPS Dispute re Senior

Housing Commitment

Agreement and Due

Diligence Review

Dispute re LMIH funds

for same project senior

housing project

#7760368 26 4/8/2013



Riverside, City of +

SA, Scott C. Barber,

Belinda Graham,

Emilio Ramirez

2/27/13 Matosantos, Paul

Angulo

Alvord USD,

Riverside County

FCWCD, County of

Riverside, Riverside

Co Regional Park and

Open Space Dist,

Riverside Co Office

of Ed, Edgemont

CSD, Jurupa Area

Rec and Park Dist,

Metro Water Dist,

Moreno Valley USD,

Northwest Mosquito

and Vector Control

Dist, Riverside CCD,

Riverside Corona

Resource

Conservation Dist;

Riverside USD, San

Jacinto Basin

Resource

Conservation Dist;

Western Muni Water

Dist

2013-80001421, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

T. Brent Hawkins,

Harriet Steiner, Sigrid

Asmundson, BBK,

Sacramento office (916)

325-4000 and Gregory

Priamos, City Attorney


of 2007 TA Bonds,

Cooperative Agreement,

and Enterprise Fund

Loans

#7760368 27 4/8/2013



Riverside, County of,

SA, Housing

Authority

3/1/13 DOF, Matosantos,

BOE, Paul Angulo

Cardenas Markets,

inc., GKK Works,

CTE, Inc., Alliant

Consulting, Inc.,

Desert Alliance for

Community

Empowerment, Inc.,

Riverside

Construction, Inc.,

Wildomar Tres Lagos

Limited Paratnership

2013-80001425, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Thomas Barth, Barth

Tozer & Daley,

Sacramento (916) 440-

8600; Pamela Walls and

Anita Willis, County

Counsel, County of

Riverside (951) 955-

6300

ROPS III Dispute re use

of 2011 bond proceed

and reclassification of

obligations as

administrative costs;



San Bernardinio, City

of

3/26/13 State of CA; Chiang;

State Controller;

Matosantos; DOF;

Larry Walker; Co of

San Bernardino;

Cynthia Bridges;

BOE

None Central Dist BK Court,

6:12-bk-28006-MJ

James Penman, Jolena

Grider, Donn Dimichele

City Attorney (909) 384-

5355


Dispute; Action to

enforce automatic BK

stay to prevent

withholding of sales and

use tax and property tax

revenues

San Bernardino,

County of +SA

2/27/13 Matosantos None 2013-80001420, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Jean-Rene Basle,

Michelle Blakemore,

San Bernardino County

Counsel and J. Leah

Castella,

[email protected],

Susan Bloch,

[email protected],

Nicholas Muscolino,

[email protected]

m, Burke Williams

Sorenson-Oakland

office (510) 273-8780

ROPS Dispute re loan

agreements (including

$10 million loan from

County General Fund

related to wildfire); Due

Diligence Review

Dispute re LMIH

replacement obligations

#7760368 28 4/8/2013



Salinas SA, Salinas 2/27/13 Matosantos, Michael

Miller Auditor-

Controller of

Monterey County

County of Monterey,

Monterey County

Water Resources

Agency, Spreckles

Memorial Dist,

Salinas Valley

Memorial Healthcare

Dist, North Salinas

Valley Mosquito

Abatement Dist,

Moss Landing Harbor

Dist,

2013-80001422, Not

posted

Vanessa Vallarta,

Chirstopher Callihan,

City Attorney, Lynn

Hutchins, Juliet Cox,

Goldfarb & Lipman

Oakland office (510)

836-6336

ROPS III Dispute re

Public Parking Garage

Agreement and

Certificates of

Participation, DOF

refusal to consider

amended ROPS,

permissible Oversight

Board costs, and

affordable housing

monitoring costs as an

EO

San Diego, City of 1/14/13 Matosantos, Chiang,

Sandoval

None 2013-80001364, Dept. 14,

(Balonon)

City Attorney Jan

Goldsmith, Andrew

Jones, Don Worley,

George Shaefer, Kevin

Reisch (619) 533-5800

ROPS III Dispute re

Ballpark Coop

Agreement btwn City

and SA

San Diego, City of as

succesor agency

12/21/12 Matosantos, John

Chiang, Tracy

Sandoval

Connections Housing

Downtown LP

2012-80001347, Dept. 42

(Sumner) Dismissed

2/4/2013

City Attorney Jan

Goldsmith, Andrew

Jones, Don Worley,


Reisch (619) 533-5800

ROPS III Dispute re

DOF rejection of DDA

for homeless shelter as

an EO Homeless shelter

under DDA(not

previously disputed on

ROPS I or II)

San Diego, City of

as SA


Chiang, Tracy

Sandoval

None 2013-80001409, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

City Attorney Jan

Goldsmith, Andrew

Jones, Don Worley,


Reisch (619) 533-5800

ROPS III Dispute re

Obligation to complete

and fund Naval Training

Center shoreline

improvements as an EO

(involves base closure

agreement w/ Fed.

Gov't)

#7760368 29 4/8/2013




SA


Chiang, Tracy

Sandoval

None 2013-80001410, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

City Attorney Jan

Goldsmith, Andrew

Jones, Don Worley,


Reisch (619) 533-5800

ROPS III Disputre re

Long Term Debt

Agreement between City

and Former RDA,

including applicability

of Health & Safety Code

§34178(b)(1) exception


SA


Chiang, Tracy

Sandoval

None 2013-80001411, Dept. 14

(Balonon) TRO app filed

3/19/2013 to be heard

3/22/2013 - taken under

submission

City Attorney Jan

Goldsmith, Andrew

Jones, Don Worley,


Reisch (619) 533-5800

ROPS III Dispute re

Oversight Board legal

expenses (Enforceable

obligation payable from

RPTTF vs.

Administrative Cost)

and permissible funding

sources for such legal

expenses

#7760368 30 4/8/2013



San Jose + SA 12/4/12 California Director

of Finance Ana

Matosantos, BOE,

Santa Clara County

Auditor-Controller

VINOD Sharma

County of Santa

Clara, Franklin-

McKinley School

District, Oak Grove

School District,

Orchard Elementary

School District, San

Jose USD, Santa

Clara USD, East Side

Union High SD, West

Valley Mission CCD,

San Jose Evergreen

CCD, Stanta Clara

County Office of Ed,

Santa Clara Valley

Water Dist,

BAAQMD,

Guadalupe Coyote

Reource

Conservation District

2012-80001327, Dept. 29

(Frawley) Settled - Stip.

Judgment entered

12/18/12

Richard Doyle, Nora

Frimann, Ardell Johnson

City Attorney Office

408-535-1900

True-up Payment

Dispute

San Jose as SA 6/26/12 Santa Clara County +

its director of finance

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-


Dept. 42 (Sumner)

Answers on file; County

of Santa Clara filed CCP

170.6 motion to disqualify

Judge Balonon Petition

hearing scheduled

4/5/2013 1:30 p.m.

Richard Doyle, Nora

Frimann, Ardell Johnson

City Attorney Office

408-535-1900

Pass Through

Agreement Dispute;

Breach of Contract;

Interference with

Contractual Relations;

Breach of Fiduciary

Duty; Negligence

#7760368 31 4/8/2013



San Leandro + SA 1/17/13 Alameda Co Auditor

Controller,

Matosantos, BOE,

Alameda County SA

Alameda Co,

Alameda Co Office

of Ed, Alameda Co

Fire Dept, Alameda

Co FCWCD,

Alameda Co Library,

Alameda Co

Mosquito Abatement

Dist, Alameda-Contra

Costa Transit Dist,

Bay Area Air Quality

Management Dist,

San Francisco Bay

Area Rapid Transit

District, Chabot-Las

Positas CCD, East

Bay MUD, East Bay

Regional Park Dist,

Hayward Area Rec

and Park Dist,

Hayward USD, San

Leandro USD, San

Lorenzo USD

No. 2013-80001367,

Dept. 31 (Kenny) Stip

Judgment entered

2/7/2013

Jayne Williams,

Deborah Fox, Erika

Randall, Meyers Nave

Los Angeles office

(213) 626 2906,

[email protected],

[email protected]

om

True-up Payment

Dispute

San Leandro + SA 2/26/13 Patrick O'Connell,

Matosantos, BOE

Alameda Housing

Associates, Bridge

Norcal, LLC

2013-80001418, Not

posted

Jayne Williams,

Deborah Fox, Dante

Foronda, Meyers Nave,

Riback etc. Los Angeles

(213) 626-2906



#7760368 32 4/8/2013



Santa Ana Station

District LLC, Santa

Ana Station District

Housing Partners LP,

Santa Ana Station

District II Housing

Partners LP

2/22/13 Matosantos, Change,

State, DOF, City of

Santa Ana, SA,

County of Orange,

Auditor/Controller,

Grimes, Orange Co

Cemetery District,

Orange Co Vector

Control District,

Orange Co. Transit

Authority, Orange

Co Santiation

District, Orange Co

Dept of Ed, Santa

Ana USD, Rancho

Santiago CCD

None 2013-80001416, Dept. 14

(Balonon) TRO granted

3/5/2013

William Ibrke, Jennifer

Farrell, Rutan Tucker

Costa Mesa (714) 641-

5100



currently in escrow

accounts for specific

affordable housing

projects pursuant to

2010 DDA

Cuenca, Hilda,

Castaneda, Claudia,

Hernandez, Enimia,

Avalos, Evangelina

(related to Santa Ana)


Grimes

City of Santa Ana as

SA, Housing

Authority of the City

of Santa Ana

2013-8001427, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Rober Grable, Dean

Zipser, etc. , Manatt,

Phelps, Phillips, LLP,

Costa Mesa office (714)

371-2500, Christian

Abasto, Vanessa

Leonardo of Public Law

Center (714) 541-1010

ROPS & Due Diligence

Review Dispute re DOF

rejection of transfer of

LMIH funds to Housing

Asset Fund pursuant to

five stipulated

judgments, as well as

related DDAs, which

Petitioners contend are

EOs

#7760368 33 4/8/2013



Peebler, Gerald

(Santa Ana -

commercial property

owner in Santa Ana

and party to 1984

Judgment)

6/7/12 DOF, AC, Santa Ana

as SA

none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001172, Dept. 29

(Frawley) (order on related

cases denied)

DOF denied earlier

judgment for plaintiff was

an enforceable obligation;

TRO denied 6/14; answers

on file - petition hearing

2/1 11:00 a.m. - denied

Carrie Hempel, Robert

Solomon at UCI School

of Law 949-824-9719

ROPS Dispute re DOF

rejection of tax

increment payment

obligations under 1984

Stipulated Judgment in

Reverse Validation

Action, which requires

LMIH set-aside and

funding for particular

redevelopment project)

as an EOSanta Clara, County,

Office of Education

3/11/13 Milpitas Economic

Dev Corp, City of

Milpitas, SA

John Chiang,

Matosanos, DOF

2013-80001436, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Lori Pegg, Orry Korb,

Steve Mitra, E. Ray

Ruiz, Office of the

County Counsel (408)

299-5900

Dispute re transfer of

assets from Milpitas

RDA to Milpitas

Economic Dev. Corp.

#7760368 34 4/8/2013



Santa Monica + SA,

Community

Corporation of Santa

Monica


BOE, Watanabe, Los

Angeles County

Auditor Controller

Santa Monica-Malibu

USD, LA Co Fire

Dist, LA Co Dept. of

Public Works, Co of

LA, LA West County

Vector Control

Distirct, Metro Water

Dist of So Cal, LA

Co Office of Ed,

2802 Pico, LP, 430

Pico, LP, High Place

East LP, Fame Santa

Monica Senior

Apartments LP, Step

Up on Second Street

Inc, Step Up on

Colorado LP,

Related/Santa Monica

Village LLC, Santa

Monica Housing

Partners, LP, Ocean

Park Community

Center, BofA

2013-80001382, Dept. 14

(Balonon) Petition

Hearing 5/24/2013 10:00

a.m.

Marsha Jones Moutrie,

Joseph Lawrens, Susan

Cola (City Attorneys),

Murry Kane, Guillermo

Frias, Kane Ballmer &

Berkman LA (213) 617-

0480 (atty for City and

SA), Lisa Schwartz

Tudzin, Law Office of

Michael Tudzin

Woodland Hills (818)

887-1000 (atty for

Comm. Corp. of Santa

Monica)

ROPS III Dispute re

Monitoring Costs, Aff

Housing Project Loan

Agreements by City and

Use of Proceeds; Due

Diligence Review

Dispute re LMIH Funds;

Interference with

Contract

Selma as SA 7/12/12 DOF, AC none AB1X-26 and AB1484.

No. 2012-80001199,

Dept. 29 (Frawley) Ex

Parte App for TRO denied

on 7/25/12; DOF answer

filed 8/2/12

Neal Costanzo, Michael

Slater Fresno

559-261-0163

ROPS Dispute re

Rejection of RPTTF for

Late ROPS II; RPTTF

Distribution Dispute

with AC

#7760368 35 4/8/2013



Santa Rosa Canners,

LLC + Railroad

Square Associates,

LLC

2/8/13 DOF, Sonoma

County A-C

Sundstrom

Burbank Housing,

Inc., City of Santa

Rosa + SA

2013-80001394, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Charles R. Olson, Frank

R. Petrilli, Stein &

Lubin San Francisco

(415) 981-0550

Action by affordable

housing developer;

ROPS III Dispute re

DOF rejection of project

funding agreements;

impairment of contract

Sharma, Santa Clara

County Auditor

Controller + Co

Office of Ed

2/8/13 Santa Clara SA, City

of Santa Clara,

Housing Authority of

the City of Santa

Clara, Santa Clara

Stadium Authority,

Sports & Open

Space Authority of

the City of Santa

Clara

Ana J. Matosantos,

DOF, Office of the

Controller, Chiang

2013-80001396, Dept. 14

(Balonon) reassigned to

Sumner, Dept. 42

2/25/2013

Lori Pegg, Orry Korb,

Lizanne Reynolds,

Office of the County

Counsel (408-299-5900

Challenge re transfer of

RDA assets post-

Dissolution Act to City,

Housing Authority, and

Stadium Authority

(includes causes of

action for unjust

enrichment, conversion,

and violation of

mandatory duty under

Gov Code 815.6;

requests constructive

trust)

Smart Growth

Investors II, LLC,

Bridge District

Riverfront LLC

2/15/13 Matosantos & DOF City of West

Sacramento,

Successor Agency

2013-80001405, Dept 14

(Balonon) notice of

related case to 80001406

(West Sac)

Jonathan Bass,

Charmaine Yu, Bejan

Fanibanda, Coblentz,

Patch Duffy & Bass

LLP San Francisco

office (415) 391-4800

ROPS I & III Dispute re

Financing Agreement w/

Former West

Sacramento RDA for

Bridge District mixed-

use redevelopment

project as an EO

#7760368 36 4/8/2013



So Cal Assoc of Non-

Profit Housing


Watanabe, City of

Industry, Successor

Agency to Industry

Urban-Development

Agency, Housing

Authority of the

County of LA, Dept

of Housing & Comm

Development

None 2012-80001355, Dept. 31

(Kenny) Ex Parte App for

TRO granted on 1/2/2013;

OSC re prelim injunction

hearing 1/15/2013 at 9:00

a.m.; Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings

scheduled for 4/12/2013

Allen J. Abshez, Katten

Muchin Rosenman

(310) 788-4400

ROPS III Dispute re EO

/ DOF rejection of

RHNA set aside

payments under Gov

Code § 65584.3 specific

to City of Industry

Sonoma SA 1/29/13 Matosantos, DOF None No. 2013-80001378,

Dept. 14 (Balonon)

Goldstein, Shupe

(County Counsel), John

Nagle, Juliet Cox,

Rafael Yaquian,

Goldfarb & Lipman

Oakland office (510)

836-6336

ROPS III Dispute re

Project Agreements,

General Services

Agreement,

Administrative; True-up

Payment Dispute

(reimbursement)So. Cal. Housing

Resource &

Development,

Creekside Land

Holding, etc.

6/7/12 DOF none AB1X-26. No. 2012-

80001171, Dept. 33

(Connelly);

Complete - writ denied

and judgment entered on

8/2/2012

Ofer Elitzur, Robert

Doty Andrew Fogg at

Cox, Castle SF 415-262-

5100

[email protected],

rdoty@, afogg@

ROPS / EO Dispute re

DOF rejection of Spring

6/28/2011 DDA/OPA

for aff housing project;

Impairment of Contract;

Unconstitutional

Deprivation of Property

#7760368 37 4/8/2013



Syncora Guarantee

(Bond Insurer)

8/1/12 State, DOF, Chiang,

AC class

none AB1X-26 and AB1484,

No. 2012-80001215,

Dept. 31 (Kenny); Writ

hearing currently

scheduled for 3/8/2013,

but date may change

Notice of Case

Reassignment to Kenny

and Hearing Date

rescheduled to 5/3/2013 at

9:00 a.m.

Kathleen Sullivan, Erika

Taggart at Quinn

Emanuel LA 213-443-

3000

Johnathan Pickhardt,

Brad Rosen at Quinn

Emanuel NY 212 849-

7000

Impairment of Contracts

(State and Federal

Constitutions);


to "Redistribution

Provisions" of AB1X26;

Inverse Condemnation;

Taking of Private

Property w/out Just

Compensation (Federal

Constitution/5th

Amendment)

#7760368 38 4/8/2013



Union City + SA 1/29/13 Matosantos,

O'Connell, Chiang

Chabot-Las Positas

CCD, East Bay

Regional Park

District, Alameda

County Water Dist,

Union Sanitary Dist,

County of Alameda,

County of Alameda

Zone 7, Alameda

County Flood Control

& Water

Conservation District,

Alameda Co Office

of Ed, Ohlone CCD,

Fremont USD, Bay

Area Quality

Management District,

Bay Area Rapid

Transit District,

Alameda County

Resource

Conservation District,

New Haven USD

2013-80001377, Dept. 14

(Balonon); TRO Hearing

2/7/13 -- TRO Denied

Benjamin Reyes,

Deborah Fox, Dane

Foronda, Eric Casher,

Meyers Nave Oakland

Office


of tax allocation bond

proceeds; Housing fund

assest transfer dispute;

True-up Payment

Dispute

Victor Valley

Economic

Development

Authority

4/12/2012

(Appeal

filed

10/29/12)

State; DOF;

Controller; San

Bernardino Auditor

none 2012-80001113, Dept. 33

(Connelly) 9/5/2012 Order

sustaining demurrers

w/out leave; judgment of

dismissal filed; Appeal

Pending (3rd DCA

C072518)

Andre deBortnowsky,

Charles Green, Green

deBortnowsky &

Quintanilla (818) 704-

0195

AB1X26 Challenge re

Application of RDA

Dissolution to Military

Base Conversion JPA -

specifically concerns

George AFB Closure

#7760368 39 4/8/2013



Walnut, City of+SA 12/19/12 DoF Matosantos,

BOE, Los Angeles

County Auditor

Controller Watanabe

Walnut Valley

Unified School

District, LA

Consolidated Fire

Dist, Mt. San

Antonio Comm

College Dist, LA

County Library, LA

Co Department of

Education, Co of LA

2012-80001344, Dept. 42

(Sumner) - Stipulation and

order filed 12/24/2012 re

temporary resolution for

1/2/2013 RPTTF

distribution

City Attorney Michael

B. Montgomery (626)

799-0500

True-up Payment

Dispute

Watsonville + SA 2/20/13 Matosantos (DOF) 2013-80001414, Dept. 14

(Balonon) - Case

Assignment sheet is not

posted on website as of

2/25 but Balonon was

listed when it was posted

Lynn Hutchins, Juliet

Cox, Goldfarb &

Lipman Oakland office

(510) 836-6336

True-up Payment

Dispute

West Sacramento +

SA

2/15/13 Howard Newens,

auditor Controller

County of Yolo,

Matosantos (DOF)

Smart Growth

Investors II, LLC,

Bridge District

Riverfront, LLC,

River Road Venture

LLC

2013-80001406, Dept. 14

(Balonon)

Debra Fox, Michael

Dean, Erika Randall

Meyers Nave, Los

Angeles office (213)

626-2906

ROPS I, II, and III

Dispute re Bridge

District redevelopment

projects as EOs

(involves Proposition

1C funding)

#7760368 40 4/8/2013

post redevelopment compliance issues under abx1 26 and …...league of california cities 2013 spring...

Documents