City of Grass Valley v. Cohen
C078981M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- California Great Dissolution context; RDAs dissolved and DDR audits created to unwind enforceable obligations.
- City of Grass Valley seeks recognition of enforceable obligations between its RDA and sponsor; Department of Finance disputes, issues writs.
- Two 2011 cooperation agreements: Dorsey (highway) and Omnibus (over $18 million) transactions; both anticipate dissolution.
- Section 34171(d)(2) generally bars enforceable obligations between an RDA and its creator; AB 1484 preserves pre-2011 agreements under certain conditions.
- Department determines these agreements are not enforceable obligations; City paid disputed amounts under protest; writs issued and remanded.
- Postdissolution SB 107 (2015) changes definition of enforceable obligations; court remands to Department to determine applicability first; issues relate to retroactivity and Department’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the goods and services transfer is reviewable. | City contends goods and services issue should be considered. | Department contends issue was not raised in meet-and-confer. | Remand error; exhaustion required; reverse that portion. |
| Whether Dorsey Agreement is enforceable under new retroactive definition. | City argues SB 107 retroactively includes Dorsey. | Department argues issue must be decided administratively first. | Remand to Department to decide first; appellate not decide now. |
| Whether postdissolution statutes apply retroactively to pre-dissolution agreements. | City asserts retroactive application. | SB 107 intended retroactive effect in DDR context. | Statutes apply retroactively; Department must evaluate enforceability first. |
| Effect of validation actions on enforceable obligations. | Validation judgments validate agreements. | Validation judgments do not resolve enforceability under dissolution laws. | Validation judgments not controlling; fund recovery under dissolution framework persists. |
| Proposition 22 constraints on dissolution remedies. | City relies on Prop. 22 to limit state remedies. | Prop. 22 does not bar dissolution remedies. | Proposition 22 does not bar the Department’s actions; remedy permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Brentwood v. Campbell, 237 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Retroactive invalidation of sponsor agreements; dissolution context)
- Cuenca v. Cohen, 8 Cal.App.5th 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (DDR and enforceable obligations; administrative remand considerations)
- Tracy v. City of California?, 3 Cal.App.5th 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (Retroactivity and impairment issues in Great Dissolution)
- Matosantos v. California Redevelopment, 53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal.Supreme Ct. 2011) (Legislature dissolution; state’s authority over RDAs)
- Sharma v. City of Watsonville, 5 Cal.App.5th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (Remand in light of retroactive definition changes; pension tax treatment)