Home › Crime, Courts & Public Safety › Courts
Suit centers on school construction funds
District contends it should receive $15.5 million in fund, not developer
Whether an elementary school is built within the Seabridge development may depend on the outcome of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the Oxnard School District against the city of Oxnard and Seabridge's developer.
At issue is whether the school district or developer D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. should get $15.5 million now held in a community facilities district fund controlled by the city.
"It would be very difficult to build the school without this money," said Yuri Calderon, general counsel for the school district. The development is adjacent to Channel Islands Harbor, and the school would be constructed on 9 acres there.
The $15.5 million represents the proceeds of bonds issued against development fees paid by Seabridge homeowners and is intended to be used for school construction. A second pot of money in the fund is for city facilities.
The current construction estimate for a school for 600 to 1,000 children at Seabridge is about $30 million, Calderon said.
What prompted the suit, filed June 11 in Ventura County Superior Court, was the city's stated intention to transfer $7 million of the school funds to D.R. Horton, Calderon said. The city also said it might transfer the entire $15.5 million to the developer, he said.
"It is really an outrage," Calderon said. "These are taxpayer dollars. This is essentially fraud."
A cross-complaint filed the same day by attorneys for D.R. Horton states the district's suit is not supported by the facts and is fraudulent. The city has not yet responded to the suit.
D.R. Horton's attorneys did not return calls Friday afternoon, and company executives could not be reached for comment.
Alan Holmberg, an assistant city attorney, said D.R. Horton's position is that it has already paid the school district $7 million under a separate impact mitigation agreement, and the school money in the community facilities district fund should be given to the company.
Calderon contends the impact mitigation agreement has nothing to do with the community facilities district money.
Because the amounts payable by developers to school districts under impact mitigation agreements are limited by state law, it is not uncommon for community facilities districts to be created to cover the full cost of school construction, he said.
Calderon said the district would have preferred to resolve the matter amicably, adding that it is highly unusual for a district to sue the city where it operates.
Officials in Oxnard's city manager's office did not return calls Friday. No hearing in the case has been set yet.




Posted by ThePhantomKnows on July 19, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting. We always heard City Council was a little too generous with Developers. In this case D.R.Horton. We all seen Developments take place without proper planning to traffic, parks, and school sites. Here we find out a developer's agreement with D.R.Horton and the Oxnard School District is in place. Then the Community Facility District is placed and voted on by the City Council to tax(separate from property taxes)the new homeowners of this project for the partial cost of construction to this school site. So, the way The Phantom sees it, the conflict is with the developer and the Oxnard School District. I say..... Interesting. Why is the City Council taking funds away from the children's education and giving to a developer? This is not a City Council fight. Question; how close is the Mayor to this issue? Question; how close is members of City Council to this issue? Who is directing the high jack of the Children's school funds for D.R. Horton's purse? It appears the Mayor and City Council is taking the sides of a Developer versus defending The Tax Payers and Children of this community. Who will be the Knight to cry out the wrong taking place with the Mayor, City Council, and the Developer? Is anyone outraged by this action? Will the Children and the Tax Payers be defended? The Phantom believes this not the action of the City Manager. Who is actually pulling the strings? Stay tune... While the World Turns.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.