Matosantos

California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos

Good Law
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269·212 Cal. App. 4th 1457
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 2013No. C064907; No. C065329; No. C065390California15,684 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hull, J.

*1464 Opinion

Responding to a fiscal emergency declared by the Governor on July 1, 2009, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 4X 26 (2009-2010 4th Ex. Sess.), requiring redevelopment agencies throughout the state to contribute portions of their property tax increment funding for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years into supplemental educational revenue augmentation funds (SERAF’s) to be used for financing K-12 education in redevelopment areas. (Assem. Bill No. 4X 26 (2009-2010 4th Ex. Sess.) (hereafter Assembly Bill 4X 26), enacted as Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 21, §§ 6-9.) However, because Assembly Bill 4X 26 further required that the funds deposited in SERAF’s be counted toward the state’s overall obligation to fund education, the legislation effected no net increase in school funding. Instead, redevelopment agencies were forced to transfer funds to the state General Fund as reimbursement for other state-funded local programs.

In these consolidated appeals, we conclude the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority in directing redevelopment agencies to deposit portions of their property tax funding into SERAF’s. In California Redevelopment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.