Redevelopment: payments to taxing entities.
Summary
Existing law requires a redevelopment agency to make specified payments of property tax increment funds in specified fiscal years to taxing entities, and requires that these payments be allocated among these entities in proportion to the percentage share of property tax revenues received by these entities in these fiscal years. Existing law requires, on or before October 1, 2009, each redevelopment agency to submit a report to the county auditor and to each affected taxing entity that describes each project area, including its location, purpose, date established, date or dates amended, and statutory and contractual passthrough requirements. Existing law requires the report to include specified information in a specified manner for each project area. Existing law requires the county auditor to review each redevelopment agency's report and any other relevant information to determine whether the county auditor concurs with the information included in the reports. Existing law requires the redevelopment agency to make outstanding payments to a local educational agency, as specified, if the agency's report indicates outstanding payment obligations to a local educational agency. This bill would include under these provisions a redevelopment plan that was adopted prior to January 1, 1994, but amended after January 1, 1994, to increase the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the redevelopment agency or that increased, or eliminated, the time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness, or that lengthened the period during which the redevelopment plan is effective, as specified. The bill also would declare that the changes to these provisions do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2010
Senate Passage
May 2009
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Aug 2010
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Signed Aug 23, 2010
Floor votes · Senate May 14, 2009 · Assembly Aug 5, 2010
How they voted
32–1
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 35
May 14, 2009
D
Democratic22
86% Yea
R
Republican13
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
26
Key actions
5
Committee
3
Aug 23, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by Governor.
legislature
Aug 5, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (55-0-6)
assembly
Jul 1, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
lower
Jul 1, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.)
lower
May 14, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (32-1-2)
senate
May 6, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 809.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Robert Dutton
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 530
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 530. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline