Laws, Regulations & Annotations

Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2012
 

Revenue and Taxation Code

Property Taxation

Part 0.5. Implementation of Article XIII A of the California Constitution

Chapter 6. Allocation of Property Tax Revenue

Article 2. Basic Revenue Allocations

Section 96.6

96.6. Redevelopment increment. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purposes of this chapter, the apportionment of property tax revenues required by Article 1 (commencing with Section 95) to Article 4 (commencing with Section 98), inclusive, shall not involve the subtraction of the redevelopment increment, calculated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code, from any jurisdiction that is not within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area. For each fiscal year, if, in performing the calculations set forth in subdivision (a) and in subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code, the auditor determines that there is redevelopment increment to be allocated to a redevelopment agency, the auditor shall withdraw that redevelopment increment determined pursuant to Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code from those ad valorem property tax revenue allocations to be made to each a jurisdiction within the boundaries of the relevant redevelopment project area. Each of those jurisdiction's share of that redevelopment increment shall be computed on the basis of the factors or rates which are developed pursuant to Section 96.5. In order to determine each jurisdiction's share of that redevelopment increment, the factors or rates for all tax rate areas that are part of a redevelopment project shall be applied to the current assessed value of the taxable property within the redevelopment project area, less the assessed valuation on the assessment roll last equalized prior to the effective date of the ordinance establishing the redevelopment project. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting a county from making the allocation and payment of funds as provided for by subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code prior to the apportionment of property tax revenues to any jurisdiction.

(b) The amendment of subdivision (a) made by the act adding this subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. However, any apportionment of property tax revenues made prior to the effective date of the act adding this subdivision that is inconsistent with the provisions of subdivision (a), as amended by the act adding this subdivision, shall be deemed correct.

(c) (1) For the 2001–02 fiscal year, and each succeeding fiscal year thereafter, if the auditor of the County of Stanislaus determines that the withdrawal of the redevelopment increment from jurisdictions within the boundaries of the relevant redevelopment project area, on a project area basis as outlined in subdivision (a), results in jurisdictions receiving larger allocations of taxes than they otherwise would have received in the absence of redevelopment, the auditor may then determine if there is a redevelopment increment on a tax rate area basis and make withdrawals of the redevelopment increment from jurisdictions on a tax rate area basis to ensure that tax allocations to jurisdictions in the relevant redevelopment project are consistent with constitutional provisions and court rulings requiring that tax allocations to jurisdictions may never be more than they otherwise would have received without redevelopment.

(2) Any apportionment of property tax revenues made prior to January 1, 2003, that is inconsistent with this subdivision shall be deemed correct.

History.—Stats. 1999, Ch. 184 (SB 392), in effect January 1, 2000, added the second sentence, substituted "Each of those jurisdiction's share of that redevelopment increment" for "Any redevelopment increment that is subtracted from a jurisdiction within a redevelopment project area" before "shall be computed" in the former second sentence, substituted "share of that" for "liability for the" after "each jurisdiction's" and added "all" before "tax rate areas" in the former third sentence of subdivision (a); deleted former subdivisions (b) and (c), which provided for the Legislature's intent; and added new subdivision (b). Stats. 2002, Ch. 500 (SB 1329), in effect January 1, 2003, added subdivision (c).

Note.—Section 4 of Stats. 2002, Ch. 500 (SB 1329), provided that the Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of unique circumstances in Humboldt, Sonoma, and Stanislaus Counties.

Calculation of tax increment due to redevelopment agencies.—A county auditor is instructed to withdraw the revenue determined to be due to a redevelopment agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670. Next, the auditor is to refer to the tax rates set pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 96.5, to determine how much of that revenue should be charged to each taxing agency within the area included in the redevelopment plan. To determine each jurisdiction's share of that redevelopment increment, the factors or rates for all tax rate areas that are part of a redevelopment project shall be applied to the current assessed value of the taxable property within the redevelopment project area, less the assessed valuation on the base year assessment. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2050 provides no authority for a claim that the reference to "current assessed value of the taxable property" refers to the assessments on the last equalized roll. That statute provides that the phrase "last equalized county assessment roll," in those words or in similar words, or in any words intended to refer to the latest or current assessment roll of the county, is defined pursuant to the rules provided in that chapter. The phrase is defined in the subsequent statutes to include the entire assessment roll, Section 2051, as amended by the county board of equalization as it exists on August 20. The phrase "current assessed value of the taxable property," as used in Section 96.6, subdivision (a), is not the equivalent of the phrase "last equalized county assessment roll." Instead, current assessed value of the taxable property, like Health and Safety Code Section 33670, subdivision (b)'s requirement that all levied taxes are to be included in the tax increment, reflects the intent to include all property at its current assessed value. This phrase is inconsistent with an argument that errors in the equalized assessment roll may not be corrected. Thus, escape assessments must be included in the tax increment calculation. Community Development Comm. of the City of Oxnard v. County of Ventura, 152 Cal.App.4th 1470.

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.