A story on Page 1 of our January edition about the impact of new state redevelopment laws on the San Jose Redevelopment Agency contained several errors that may have mischaracterized the agency's $350 million bond issue.
CP&DR suggested that the agency would likely not be permitted under state law to receive property tax increment in order to make debt payments past 2019. This was an error. Under the provisions of AB 1290 from 1993, redevelopment agencies may receive property tax increment for the purpose of repaying debt for up to 50 years after the creation of individual project areas, even if those areas later become part of a merged redevelopment project.
The San Jose Redevelopment Agency created a merged area in 1981 from the project areas that existed then, and subsequently added several other newly created project areas to the merged project. According to the agency's Preliminary Official Statement for the bond issue, only two project areas in the merged project will see their ability to collect tax increment and repay debt terminated in 2019 – Park Center and San Antonio Plaza. The remainder will terminate at various dates between 2024 and 2044. For example, the Rincon North and South project area, which generates the most tax increment ($50 million in 2001-02), will terminate in 2032, the year that the new bond issue is scheduled to mature.
According to the Preliminary Official Statement, the agency's tax-increment revenues will decline over time as these individual project areas reach their termination dates. However, according to the document, the agency will have approximately $1.40 in tax increment revenue for every $1 in annual debt service (including previous bond issues as well as the 2002 bond issues) each year until the bonds mature in 2032. The Preliminary Official Statement is available at www.emuni.com.
CP&DR also erred by failing to report that the San Jose Redevelopment Agency bond issue received high ratings from all major bond ratings agencies, including Moody's (A2), Standard & Poor's (A), and Fitch (A). CP&DR also erred in reporting the date of the bond issue and the date of the bond's maturation. The date of the bond issue was January 15, not January 8 as we reported, and the date of the bond's maturation is 2032, not 2033 as we reported.
Since our story appeared, the city's redevelopment agency has successfully sold the bonds.
California Planning & Development Report takes great pride in providing its readers and subscribers with accurate information about events that we cover. We regret these errors, and we believe it is important to correct them.
Although they cannot be false and misleading, ballot arguments need not be relevant, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The panel issued its opinion in a lawsuit challenging the title of, and ballot arguments for, a City of Huntington Beach measure on the March ballot that would impose a tax on a power plant.
An Orange County ballot initiative that sought to block the development of a civilian airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station has been thrown out by a state appellate court. The court ruled that Measure F from March 2000 interfered with essential governmental functions, crossed the line into administrative activities, and was vague.
The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that subdivision maps recorded prior to the first version of the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels. In January, all seven of the state's high court justices voted to review the decision in Gardner v. County of Sonoma (see CP&DR Legal Digest, November).
The Third District Court of Appeal has allowed a California Environmental Quality Act suit to proceed even though the plaintiffs did not name every entity involved in the proposed project.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an endangered species decision in a California case handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court's decision, issued in mid-January, means that the appellate court opinion upholding the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services listing of four species of fairy shrimp that live in California as either endangered or threatened will stand.
Corrections. A case involving enforcement of the Williamson Act in Tehama County and the payment of attorney fees to the state has in fact been published in full. A story in the June edition erroneously reported that only a portion of the case was certified for publication. The case is People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama County Board of Supervisors.
Correction. A story in the December edition regarding downtown Stockton contained two inaccuracies. Weber Point Event Center is 10 acres, not 17. Also, the 156 apartments for senior citizens on the upper floors of the Hotel Stockton have been filled since 2005.
Correction. A story in the December edition regarding downtown Stockton contained two inaccuracies. Weber Point Event Center is 10 acres, not 17. Also, the 156 apartments for senior citizens on the upper floors of the Hotel Stockton have been filled since 2005.
A story in the March edition regarding the Castaic Lake Water Agency's urban water plan listed incorrect terms of office for Lynne Plambeck. She has been a member of the Newhall County Water District board since 1999. She previously was a member from 1993 to 1997, when her slow-growth alliance controlled the board majority.
