Ben Reznik and Sheri Bonstelle
In a blow to the more than 400 redevelopment agencies in California, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion today upholding the constitutionality of AB1X26, the Dissolution Bill and finding AB1X27, the Pay for Continuation Bill, unconstitutional in the California Redevelopment Agencies v. Matosantos case.
The ruling, authored by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and joined by six other justices, concludes that Proposition 22 does not impede the state’s power to dissolve state agencies, stating that the Dissolution Bill is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state Constitution. The court further holds that Proposition 22, while it amended the state Constitution to impose new limits on the Legislature’s fiscal powers, neither explicitly nor implicitly rescinded the Legislature’s power to dissolve redevelopment agencies. Article XVI, Section 16 of the state Constitution also does not impair the power to dissolve redevelopment agencies.
The Court found that Proposition 22 prevents the state from enacting the Pay for Continuation Bill to force redevelopment agencies to turn over funding in order to continue operation. Because the flawed provisions of this Bill are not severable from other parts of that measure, the Pay for Continuation Bill is invalid in its entirety.
The Court extends the deadlines set forth in the Dissolution Bill, such that the deadline for performance of an obligation in Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code (§§ 34170-34191) arising before May 1, 2012, shall take effect four months later. For example: (i) under section 34170, subdivision (a), all provisions in part 1.85 are now operative on February 1, 2012, (ii) the draft obligation payment schedules, under section 34177, subdivision (l)(2)(A), are now due March 1, 2012, and (iii) successorship agency board membership (§ 34179, subd. (a)), must be complete by May 1, 2012. All deadlines arising after May 1, 2012, are not affected.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye authored a dissenting and concurring opinion, which dissented concerning the constitutionality of the Pay for Continuation Bill. The opinion argues that nothing in the Pay for Continuation Bill compels community sponsors to violate Proposition 22, and that petitioners have not met their burden to show this.
This decision is a crucial win for Governor Jerry Brown and state lawmakers. In a news release, Governor Brown said that “[t]oday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.”
___________________________