Cal. Codes » Government Code / TITLE 5. LOCAL AGENCIES / DIVISION 2. CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES / PART 1. POWERS AND DUTIES COMMON TO CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES / CHAPTER 2.5. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 / ARTICLE 1. General Provisions
California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 53311.5 (2026)

General Provisions — The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter provides an alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services, especially in developing areas and areas undergoing rehabilitation. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of governmental facilities or services or the raising of revenue for these purposes. A local government may use the provisions of this chapter instead of any other method of financing part or all of the cost of providing the authorized kinds of capital facilities and services.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2003–2016 · leading case: Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area v. City of San Ramon, 4 Cal. App. 5th 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area v. City of San Ramon, 4 Cal. App. 5th 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “), commonly known as the Mello-Roos Act, and here sometimes referred to as “the Act,” to “provide [] an alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services, especially in developing areas and areas undergoing rehabilitation.”
Azusa Land Partners v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 191 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “, Gov. Code, §§ 53311.5, 53313.5.) Under the act a CFD may only finance the purchase of a facility built after formation of the CFD “if the facility was constructed as if it had been constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority of, the local agency…”
Tower Acton Holdings, LLC v. Los Angeles Cnty. Waterworks Dist. No. 37, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “ntiffs contend that Public Contract Code article 37’s restrictions are inapplicable to any reimbursement agreement for these water improvements, because: (1) Mello-Roos provides that “[a] local government may use the provisions of this chapter instead of any other method of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.