CITY OF DINUBA v. COUNTY OF TULARE
Filed 3/28/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| CITY OF DINUBA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF TULARE et al., Defendants and Respondents. | F046252
(Super. Ct. No. 03-205854)
O P I N I O N
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Patrick J. O'Hara, Judge.
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Steven R. Meyers, Andrea J. Saltzman and Joseph M. Quinn; Tuttle & McCloskey and Daniel T. McCloskey for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc., Thomas F. Winfield III and Michael H. Wallenstein for Defendants and Respondents.
Counties are required by law to collect property taxes on behalf of local taxing entities and then distribute the revenue to these entities pursuant to statute. This appeal concerns such distributions by respondents, the County of Tulare and the responsible county officials (collectively Tulare), to appellant, the City of Dinuba Redevelopment Agency (Agency).
The Agency conducted an audit and discovered that, due to Tulare's miscoding of certain parcels within a redevelopment project, the Agency had not received tax revenues to which it was entitled. Tulare agreed to correct this mistake prospectively but refused to allocate the mandated amount to the Agency retroactively. In response, the Agency along with co-appellant, the City of Dinuba (Dinuba), filed the underlying action seeking these prior tax revenues. However, the trial court dismissed this action on the ground that Tulare was immune from liability under Government Code section 860.2.
Appellants contend their claims for relief are not encompassed by the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) and thus the trial court erred in sustaining Tulare's demurrer without leave to amend. As discussed below, appellants are correct. Accordingly, the judgment will be reversed.
BACKGROUND
Under California law, a community may form a redevelopment agency to rehabilitate blighted areas. (Community Redevelopment Agency v. County of Los Angeles (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 719, 721.) Once a redevelopment or project area is designated and a plan adopted, the agency has broad powers to implement the plan. (Bell Community Redevelopment Agency v. Woosley (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 24, 27.) However, an agency does not have either the power or the ability to levy a tax to finance the redevelopment. (Ibid.) Thus, community redevelopment agencies typically use bonds to fund their projects. (Community Redevelopment Agency v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 721.)
In general, as property values in a redevelopment area increase, tax revenues also increase. These increases are referred to as â€
