Filed 8/11/20; Certified for Publication 9/9/20 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CITY OF BRENTWOOD et al., C086344 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2016- 80002498-CU-WM-GDS) v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., Defendants and Respondents. This case involves another effort by the City of Brentwood (Brentwood) to obtain reimbursement for construction costs incurred in five redevelopment projects. In City of Brentwood v. Campbell (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 488 (Brentwood I), we rejected Brentwood’s contention that a statutory exception to the redevelopment dissolution statutes allowed the city to retain funds previously reimbursed under five public improvement agreements (PIA’s) between Brentwood and its former redevelopment agency (RDA). (Id. at pp. 500-505.) In this case, Brentwood seeks payment for expenses as yet unreimbursed, contending that the PIA’s are “enforceable obligations” under 1 Health & Safety Code section 34191.4, subdivision (b)(1),1 a 2015 amendment to the dissolution statutes. Under section 34171, subdivision (d)(2), a reimbursement agreement between a city and a former RDA would not be an enforceable obligation. The amendment created an exception for a “loan agreement” (§ 34191.4, subd. (b)(2)), defined to include an agreement “under” which the city “contracted with a third party on behalf of the former redevelopment agency for the development of infrastructure” and “the former redevelopment agency was obligated to reimburse the city . . . for the payments made by the city . . . to the third party.” (§ 34191.4, subd. (b)(2)(C)(i).)2 Brentwood contends that third party construction contracts for the five projects— all but a small fraction of which preceded execution of the PIA’s—were “under” the PIA’s within the meaning of section 34191.4, subdivision (b)(2)(C)(i). The trial court 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code. 2 Section 34191.4 provides in relevant part: “The following provisions shall apply to any successor agency that has been issued a finding of completion by the department: [¶] . . . [¶] “(b)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (d) of Section 34171, upon application by the successor agency and approval by the oversight board, loan agreements entered into between the redevelopment agency and the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency shall be deemed to be enforceable obligations provided that the oversight board makes a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes. “(2) For purposes of this section, ‘loan agreement’ means any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] “(C)(i) An agreement between the former redevelopment agency and the city, county, or city and county that created the former redevelopment agency under which the city, county, or city and county that created the former redevelopment agency contracted with a third party on behalf of the former redevelopment agency for the development of infrastructure in connection with a redevelopment project as identified in a redevelopment project plan and the former redevelopment agency was obligated to reimburse the city, county, or city and county that created the former redevelopment agency for payments made ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals