City of Riverside v. Cohen CA3
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
In response to the governmental fiscal crisis arising from the Great Recession of 2008 and to redevelopment agencies taking an ever larger slice of the local tax pie, the Legislature, effective June 29, 2011, dissolved redevelopment agencies and redirected their property tax revenues to fund core local government services performed by cities, counties, school districts and special districts (Assem. Bill No. 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.), enacted as Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5 (hereafter Assembly Bill 1X 26)). (California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 241, 246- 247, 250 (Matosantos); Pasadena, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463, fn. 2.)
Health and Safety Code section 34178, subdivision (a),2 enacted as part of Assembly Bill 1X 26, invalidated agreements between a redevelopment agency and its sponsoring city, but allowed a successor agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency to “reenter” into those agreements with the sponsoring city, with the approval of the successor agency’s oversight board (comprised of representatives of the affected taxing agencies) and subject to review by the state Department of Finance (DOF).