Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01211986 - X.1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra January 21, 1986 CWIQ DATEAdopt a Position of Opposition to AB 2206 (Cortese) CO^ SUBJECT: as Amended January 14, 1986. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(_S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a position of opposition to AB 2206 (Cortese) as amended January 14, 1986. BACKGROUND: Under current law, before LAFCO can proceed with an annexation the governing bodies of the affected jurisdictions (city council, board of supervisors, etc. ) must enter into an agreement providing for the exchange or transfer of property tax revenues. Failure to agree on a property tax transfer means LAFCO cannot proceed with the annexation. AB 2206 would provide that if no agreement for a property tax transfer has been entered into within 120 days after the annexation proceedings have been initiated, LAFCO itself shall determine the amount of the property tax transfer, including the allocation of future annual tax increments and notify the Auditor to adjust the allocation accordingly. This new procedure would apply to all annexations initiated on or after January 1, 1987 . The only guidelines for LAFCO are that they shall take into consideration other sources of tax revenue in determining the amount of the property tax transfer. Currently, staff for the affected agencies must negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to both parties. This often requires compromises on both sides. The negotiations involve complex calculations of future projected growth, the value of services which are being transferred between jurisdictions, and the remaining responsibility to provide services by the jurisdiction ( such as county) which is losing territory. Turning the responsibility over to LAFCO means that one party to the negotiations who believes his or her jurisdiction may be benefited by waiting for LAFCO to make the decision can stall CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): nt�r ACTION OF BOARD ON Jamiary 21 , 1` 86 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �"" AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN' OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED County Auditor-Controller - �---- LAFCO Executive Officer PH BATCHELOR, LERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .Assemblymen Baker, Campbell , Isenberg CSAC Executive Director Jackson & Associates BY ( - ` �� .DEPUTY ,M382/7-83 Page 2 the negotiations for 120 days thereby eliminating any pressure to reach a negotiated agreement. LAFCO does not have the staff resources to perform the detailed calculations which are necessary and will, therefore, probably have to rely on figures submitted by the respective jurisdictions. Since LAFCO is only required to take into account the other sources of tax revenue received by the jurisdictions, they need not consider the respective level of services which must continue to be provided and could, in fact, make an arbitrary decision which does not result from the tough negotiations and compromise which are now required. For these reasons, we believe AB 2206, as amended January 14, 1986, does nothing to benefit the County in negotiating property tax transfers and would, in fact, make such negotiations more difficult, or even meaningless. We, therefore, recommend that the Board of Supervisors oppose AB 2206. The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Ways & Means Committee on January 22, 1986. The County Supervisors Association of California also opposes AB 2206.