Pacentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District v. Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency, et al.
Published: Sep. 24, 2002 | Result Date: Aug. 15, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 815398 Bench Decision – $7,136,000
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Jeffrey V. Dunn
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Lawrence J. Arceneaux Jr.
(technical)
Defendant
Martin C. Coren
(technical)
Facts
The California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq) gives cities and counties the
authority to establish redevlopment agencies and address problems historically associated with urban decay,
otherwise known as blight. The primary financial tool for redevelopment activities is what is generally referred
to as tax increment financing.
Under this procedure, redevelopment agencies can receive and use property tax revenue that, in the absence of
a redevelopment project, would otherwise have been allocated to other public agencies such as school districts,
counties and special districts.
Redevelopment law expressly recognized that the use of tax increment financing to alleviate blight could create
a financial burden and hardship on the taxing entities that would otherwise receive the property tax revenue.
To alleviate the burden on taxing agencies associated with the establishment of a redevelopment project area,
redevelopment law provided for redevelopment agencies and taxing authorities to enter into agreements to
alleviate financial burden and detriment for taxing agencies.
In this action, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement on Dec. 5, 1983,
regarding the Original Yorba Redevelopment Project Area. The agreement allowed the agency
to pay certain obligations and then pay the district from available revenue. While the agency did
pay the district some revenue, the district contended that the agency was misinterpreting the
agreement, which resulted in the agency underpaying the district millions of dollars of tax
increment revenue owing pursuant to the agreement.
Other Information
In an interlocutory judgment, the trial court found that the agency must pay the district what could be more than $240 million over the next several decades from tax increment revenue. The actual amounts payable will vary depending upon growth in assessed values in the area. The trial court also constrained the agency from incurring any obligation that would hinder its ability to pay the district, and ordered appointment of a referee to implement the court's ruling. The court also ordered the agency to pay the district $7,136,000 in back payments, but this sum is subject to modification based on the conclusions of the referee
Length
four weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390