California Health and Safety Code § 34183.5

(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that due to the delayed implementation of this part due to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the case California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, some disruption to the intended application of this part and other law with respect to passthrough payments may have occurred. (1) If a redevelopment agency or successor agency did not pay any portion of an amount owed for the 2011–12 fiscal year to an affected taxing entity pursuant to Section 33401, 33492.140, 33607, 33607.5, 33607.7, or 33676, or pursuant to any passthrough agreement entered into before January 1, 1994, between a redevelopment agency and an affected taxing entity, and to the extent the county auditor-controller did not remit the amounts owed for passthrough payments during the 2011–12 fiscal year, the county auditor-controller shall make the required payments to the taxing entities owed passthrough payments and shall reduce the amounts to which the successor agency would otherwise be entitled pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 at the next allocation of property tax under this part, subject to subdivision (b) of Section 34183. If the amount of available property tax allocation to the successor agency is not sufficient to make the required payment, the county auditor-controller shall continue to reduce allocations to the successor agency under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 until the time that the owed amount is fully paid. Alternatively, the county auditor-controller may accept payment from the successor agency’s reserve funds for payments of passthrough payments owed as defined in this subdivision. (2) If a redevelopment agency did not pay any portion of the amount owed for the 2011–12 fiscal year to an affected taxing entity pursuant to Section 33401, 33492.140, 33607, 33607.5, 33607.7, or 33676, or pursuant to any passthrough agreement entered into before January 1, 1994, between a redevelopment agency and an affected taxing entity, but the county auditor-controller did pay the difference that was owing, the county auditor-controller shall deduct from the next allocation of property tax to the successor agency under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183, the amount of the payment made on behalf of the successor agency by the county auditor-controller, not to exceed one-half the amount of passthrough payments owed for the 2011–12 fiscal year. If the amount of available property tax allocation to the successor agency is not sufficient to make the required deduction, the county auditor-controller shall continue to reduce allocations to the successor agency under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 until the time that the amount is fully deducted. Alternatively, the auditor-controller may accept payment from the successor agency’s reserve funds for deductions of passthrough payments owed as defined in this subdivision. Amounts reduced from successor agency payments under this paragraph are available for the purposes of paragraphs (2) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 for the six-month period for which the property tax revenues are being allocated. (b) In recognition of the fact that county auditor-controllers were unable to make the payments required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 for the period January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012, on January 16, 2012, due to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, in addition to taking the actions specified in Section 34183 with respect to the June 1 property tax allocations, county auditor-controllers should have made allocations as provided in paragraph (1). (1) From the allocations made on June 1, 2012, for the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule covering the period July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, deduct from the amoun

‹ Prev All California sections Next ›

Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.