On June 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them, and violated the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a looming fiscal crisis across California. As local agencies prepare to adopt their fiscal year 2020-21 budgets, some are eyeing the option of selling or leasing surplus property in order to generate funds to ease potential shortfalls.
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Governor has issued a series of executive orders, each addressing impacts of the pandemic.
The coronavirus global pandemic and the related shutdowns are causing far-reaching impacts on just about everyone and everything. As the economic toll continues to mount, state and local governments are seeing their tax revenue materially decline, due to decreases in both taxable sales transactions and taxable income.
In the midst of the emergency surrounding the novel coronavirus and its associated respiratory disease (COVID-19), the federal government passed a two trillion dollar spending bill.
On March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills, Senate Bill (SB) 117 and SB 89, into law which provide for emergency funding to help fight the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and help to clarify the law as it relates to school districts.
The State Allocation Board (SAB) has increased the amount of "Level 1" developer fees that school districts are authorized to collect to $4.08 per square foot of residential development and $0.66 per square foot of commercial development.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that third parties (private citizens, taxpayers, watchdog groups, etc.) do not have legal standing to sue public agencies to invalidate contracts allegedly made in violation of Government Code section 1090.
A recent California Appellate Court ruling has determined that a public entity's award of a second contract to a construction firm did not create a conflict of interest even though it related to an earlier contract between the parties.