|
tax increment for low -and -moderate -income housing. The following provides a brief summary of each
<br />stipulated judgment:
<br />a. Rodriguez, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Case No. 38 58 57, concerning the North
<br />Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project, established July 6, 1982 by City of Santa Ana Ordinance No.
<br />NS -1637, and requiring set aside of 30% of the tax increment revenue generated, or moneys repayable
<br />from tax increment from that project area, for low- and moderate -income housing purposes. A
<br />Stipulated Judgment for this validation action was filed March 2, 1984;
<br />b. Peebler, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Case No. 38 58 59, concerning the South
<br />Main Street Redevelopment Project, established July 6, 1982 by City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS -
<br />1639, and requiring set aside of 20% of the tax increment revenue generated, or moneys repayable from
<br />tax increment from that project area, for low- and moderate -income housing purposes. A Stipulated
<br />Judgment for this validation action was filed March 2, 1984;
<br />C, Edwards, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Case No. 38 58 60, concerning the Inter City
<br />Commuter Station Redevelopment Project, established July 6, 1982 by City of Santa Ana Ordinance
<br />No. NS -1636, and requiring set aside of 30% of the tax increment revenue generated, or moneys
<br />repayable from tax increment from that project area, for low- and moderate -income housing purposes.
<br />A Stipulation Judgment for this validation action as filed March 2, 1984;
<br />d. Gibson v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Case No. 38 58 61, concerning the South Harbor
<br />Boulevard Fairview Street Redevelopment Project, established July 6, 1982 by City of Santa Ana
<br />Ordinance No. NS -1638, and requiring set aside of 60% of the tax increment revenue generated, or
<br />moneys repayable from tax increment from that project area, for low- and moderate -income housing
<br />purposes. A Stipulated Judgment for this validation action was filed March 2, 1984; and
<br />e. Gonzales, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Case No. 614918, concerning the Bristol
<br />Corridor Redevelopment Project, established December 4, 1989 by City of Santa Ana Ordinance No.
<br />NS -2039, and requiring set aside of 30% of the tax increment from that project area, for specified low -
<br />and moderate -income housing purposes. A Stipulation for Entry of Judgment for this validation action
<br />was filed October 12, 1994.
<br />Each Stipulated Judgment is hereinafter referred to as a "Judgment' or collectively the "Judgments."
<br />Prior to dissolution, a redevelopment agency was generally required to establish and maintain a Low
<br />and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund") and deposit not less than 20 percent of tax increment
<br />allocated to such redevelopment agency (the "Housing Set -Aside") into the Housing Fund. The Former Agency
<br />used monies in its Housing Fund to fulfill its obligations under the Judgments.
<br />On April 3, 2013, parties interested in the enforcement of the Judgments filed an action, Hilda Cuenca,
<br />Claudia Castaneda, Emilia Hernandez, Evangelina Avalos and Habitat for Humanity of Orange County v. State
<br />of California Department of Finance, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-8001427-CV-WM-GDS
<br />(the "Successor Agency Lawsuit'), seeking to compel the State of California Department of Finance to (a)
<br />require the Successor Agency to continue to set-aside tax increment in the amounts set forth in the Judgment and
<br />(b) require the Successor Agency to remit funds held in its Housing Fund to finance a certain low and moderate
<br />income housing project for Habitat for Humanity.
<br />On April 1, 2014, the court ordered that the fund held by the Successor Agency in the Housing Fund
<br />must be remitted to Habitat for Humanity for the designated project. However, the court also stated the
<br />Successor Agency does not have an obligation to continue to collect and set-aside tax increment for low and
<br />moderate income housing in amounts set forth in the Judgments. The Court reasoned that the Dissolution Act
<br />only authorizes such amounts to be collected for enforceable obligations. The Judgments were not enforceable
<br />25
<br />SA -3-39
<br />
|