Laws, Regulations & Annotations
Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2010
Revenue and Taxation Code
Part 0.5. Implementation of Article XIII A of the California Constitution
Chapter 6. Allocation of Property Tax Revenue
Article 2. Basic Revenue Allocations
96.5. Allocation of "annual tax increment." The difference between the total amount of property tax revenue computed each year using the equalized assessment roll and the sum of the amounts allocated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 96.1 shall be known and may be cited as the annual tax increment, and shall be allocated, subject to allocation and payment of funds as provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code, and modified by any adjustments made pursuant to Section 99 or 99.02, as follows:
(a) For each tax rate area, the auditor shall determine an amount of property tax revenue by multiplying the value of the change in taxable assessed value from the equalized assessment roll for the prior fiscal year to the equalized assessment roll for the current fiscal year by a tax rate of four dollars ($4) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed value. When computing the change in taxable assessed value between the 1980–81 fiscal year and the 1981–82 fiscal year, the assessed values for the 1980–81 fiscal year shall be multiplied by four. Starting with the 1981–82 fiscal year, the tax rate used in this calculation shall be one dollar ($1) per one hundred dollars ($100) of full value.
(b) Each amount determined pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be divided by the total of all those amounts computed for all tax rate areas within the county.
(c) The difference between the total amount of property tax revenue for the county and the sum of the amounts allocated pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 96 or subdivision (a) of Section 96.1 shall be computed.
(d) The amount determined pursuant to subdivision (c) shall be multiplied by the quotients determined pursuant to subdivision (b) to derive, for each tax rate area, the amount of property tax revenue attributable to changes in assessed valuation.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of former Section 97.3, as that section read on January 1, 1994, in the 1984–85 fiscal year only, in subdivision (d) of former Section 97.32, as that section read on January 1, 1994, in the 1985–86 fiscal year only, and in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of former Sections 97.35, 97.37, and 97.38 in the 1989–90 fiscal year only, the amount of property tax revenue determined pursuant to subdivision (d) shall be allocated to the jurisdictions in the tax rate area in the same proportion that the total property tax revenue determined pursuant to subdivision (d) for the prior year was allocated to all those jurisdictions in the tax rate area except that those proportions within each tax rate area may be adjusted for affected agencies pursuant to the provisions of Section 99 or 99.02.
(f) Any agency that has not filed a map of its boundaries by January 1, in compliance with Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 54900) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, shall not receive any allocation pursuant to this section for the following fiscal year.
(g) For purposes of the calculations made pursuant to this section or its predecessor for the 1993–94 and 1998–99 fiscal years, the amount of property tax revenue allocated to the county, a city, a special district, a school district, community college district, or an Educational Reserve Augmentation Fund in the prior fiscal year shall be that amount as determined pursuant to Section 96.1, as modified or as provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 97).
Enforcement.—A redevelopment agency may seek a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 to compel assessors to correct an improperly computed tax increment and to reallocate improperly misallocated revenue. Under this scenario, a county is not immune from suit under Government Code Section 860.2 because the agency is not seeking money damages but is seeking to enforce a mandatory duty imposed by statute (to correctly calculate and distribute tax revenue), even though the result compels the public official to release money wrongfully detained. City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare, 41 Cal.4th 859.