RTC §96.6: (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

(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 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.