Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02281989 - T.5 T. 5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _February 28, 1989_,, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing on Proposition 90 Chairman Tom Torlakson convened the hearing on Proposition 90 , approved by the California voters in November 1988. Proposition 90 extends the existing provisions of law continued in Proposition 60 , which allows any person over the age of 55 years old who resides in a property which is eligible for the homeowner' s exemption, to transfer the base year value of that residence to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county; Proposition 90 extends that exemption to include transfers to another county. Kerry Harms Taylor, Assistant County Administrator, summarized the content of her report to the Board. (A copy of that report is attached and included as a part of this document. ) She presented several scenarios showing tax revenue lost to the County if Prop 90 was enacted. She recommended that the Board accept the report and determine the feasibility of adopting an ordinance to enact Propo- sition 90 in Contra Costa County. Supervisor Powers commented on the positive impact it would have on people moving into a county that enacted Prop 90. He noted that the report does not address the issue of other counties opting into Prop 90 and the positive impacts it could have on Contra Costa County. He advised that he was not ready to vote against it until the Board has an analysis on the positive impacts. Supervisor) Torlakson advised that neither is he prepared to vote on this is sue today. He requested information on property tax relief mechanisms in place today, an update on what the State is doing in this area, and the availability of revenues to overcome the losses in tax money if Prop 90 is enacted in this County. Supervisor Torlakson noted that a letter dated February 27, 1989, was received from Roy N. Swearingen, Mayor, City of Pinole, expressing support for the enactment of Prop 90 in Contra Costa County. The following persons spoke in support of the Board enacting Proposition 90 • H. C. Cox, American Association of Retired Persons, 316 Dover Drive, Walnut Creek 94598; John Chengson, 2218 Parker Street, Berkeley; Margaret Chengson, 2220 Parker Street, Berkeley; Norman O. Butler, 655 Evelyn Court, Lafayette; Donald Shaw, 3037A College Avenue, Berkeley; Mr. and Mrs. Carter, 1221 Avenida Sevilla, (no city) ; and Thamari Kuechau, 921 Everett Avenue, Oakland 94602. Helen Davies, representing the Los Medanos Community Hospital District, requested information on the impact this would have on her District. She advised that the District' s Board of Directors needs to have this information before voting on this matter. Supervisor Torlakson read a note from Joan Studabaker, 155 Roundhill Road, Orinda, requesting the Board to implement Prop 90. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Powers requested that decision on this matter be deferred for several weeks to allow staff to develop more information. He suggested as possible sources of information the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Board of Realtors who may be able to provide statistical information on number of people moving into Contra Costa County and in particular on those who would be eligi- ble to take advantage of Prop 90. Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD that decision on whether to enact provisions of Proposition 90 in Contra Costa County is DEFERRED to March 28, 1989 with the Clerk being instructed to list this on the Determination Section of the Agenda. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator is RE- QUESTED to provide further information on the issues raised by Board members. 1 hereby cortify that this Is a true ani!rorrnc ;opy of an action taken and entered on the minute of 1-he Board of Supervisors on the date shown. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED: 5-e '- ^f, f f fi PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By O �X �vt-�a� ,Deputy TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: Costa s "o February 28, 1989 County DATE: �'� ^fii cciun cA Proposition 90 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Accept report and take no action regarding the adoption of an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors to enact Proposition 90 in Contra Costa County. If the Board of Supervisors elects to adopt Proposition 90 after the hearing, it is then recommended that County Counsel be directed to prepare an ordinance to accomplish the Board's direction. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Assessor estimates that the annual loss to the County would range from a low of $99,225 in the first year plus administrative costs of $15,584 and up to a cumulative high by year five of $433,074, plus administrative costs of $18,942. The total loss to all taxing entities if Proposition 90 is implemented is estimated to b0367,500 for the first year of implementation and $1,603,977, cumulative, by year five. BACKGROUND Proposition 90 was approved by California voters in November 1988. It extends existing provisions of law contained in Proposition 60, which allows any person over the age of �55 years old who resides in a property which is eligible for the homeowner's exemption, to transfer the base year value of that residence to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county. Proposition 90 extends that exemption to include transfers to another county. On December 6, 1988, your Board set February 28, 1989, as the date for a hearing on Proposition 90 to try to determine the extent of the public's sentiment on this issue and to ascertain the preference of all the taxing entities which would loose taxes as a result of this change. X CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: / YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER i SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I 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: ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) I -2- All taxing entities have been notified of this hearing. Your Board also recommended that the County Administrator correspond with each of the County's taxing entitiesllto receive their recommendations prior to the hearing and prior to implementing the provisions of the act. I County's Taxing Entities Response On January 3, 19189, the County Administrator solicited comments from 191 taxing entities of the County. The County Administrator's Office received a total of 41 responses from the County's taxing jurisdictions of which five were in favor of implementing Proposition 90, eight opposed its implementation and 28 opted to allow the Board of Supervisors to determine implementation. See pages 1-4 for summary of agency responses. The major reason expressed for supporting implementation of the Proposition was that a majority of the voters approved allowing the Board to decide on the issue. A major reason f8r those opposed was the potential loss of tax revenue. Public Response There were seven citizens (individuals) responding in favor of adopting Proposition 90. iNo comments were received which opposed the Board implementing the Proposition. In addition, the Contra Costa Board of Realtors provided comments, see page 26, related to the County's Board Order of December 6, 1988 regarding the adoption of Proposition 90. A copy of the Board Order is also attached, page 31. They raised several issues. What follows is a response to their concerns. 1. The Board of Realtors states that information from the Department of Motor Vehicles appears to indicate that there are more transfers out of the County than into the County in the over 55 age group. Another point made is that due to the nigh cost of real estate in the County, more people will choose to move out of lthe County than into the County. Response: This may be the case. However, this has nothing to do with whether Contra Costa adopts Proposition 90 provisions. Revenue effects to our County w1ill be from transfers into the County with Proposition 90 assessed values, resulting in the loss of revenue estimated by the Assessor. 2. In response to a comment about the administrative burden which would be caused by implementation of Proposition 90, the Board of Realtors points out that in the case of a homeowner transferring into Contra Costa, the other county would experience a revenue gain due to property turning over at higher value, and consequently, this should not cause delay in providing information to our Assessor's Office. That a gain will be realized by the other county is correct. However, a system has yet to be established which would provide for efficient processing, resulting in a potential administrative burden to all counties and added costs. 3. The Decemberireport stated that it could be argued that a "tax break" is given unfairly to people moving out of the County. The Board of Realtors makes the point that persons moving out of our County will not get a tax break from Contra Costa County. Their break will have to come from the county into which they move if Proposition 90 has been enacted there. This is also true. The point being made was that people moving into Contra Costa, who are not currently paying taxes, will be the beneficiaries of. Proposition 910 being enacted, not those who are already here and paying taxes. Survey of Other Counties A survey of other I�counties was completed by the County Supervisors Association of California, attached pages 5-7, as well as the County Administrator's Office in order to determine the position of counties regarding Proposition 90. Of the counties contacted by the County and the County Supervisors Association of California, only four counties have adopted Proposition 90, five counties have rejected implementation, 25 have no plans to implement it, and 24 are still discussing it. I 1 -3- Conclusion {I Based upon the responses received to date and a survey of other counties, the County Administrator maintains the stance that based on the potential revenue loss to the County, we cannot recommend that the Board enact Proposition 90. �4 I i I I v I I i j I i I i Proposition 90 WRITTEN RESPONSES ENTITY YES NO NO POSITION C.C.CountylSanitation District 1#15 - X Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District X City of Or Inda X Ambrose Recreation & Park District X C.C. County Office of Education X Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District X Byron Union School District I X C.C. Mosquito Abatement District X City of Hercules X TELEPHONE RESPONSES Byron-Brentlood- KnightsenlUnion Cemetery District X Moraga Fire Protection District I X Riverview Fire Protection District X ~ PROPOSITION 50-TELEPHONE RESPONSES page 2 ENTITY' YES NO NO POSITION C.C. Fire Protection District X Kensington Community Service's District X l - - Mt. Diablo Hospital District X Rodeo File Protection District X Orinda Fire Protection District X West C.C. Fire Protection District X C.C. Resource Conserv- ation District X TassajaralFire Protection District X San RamonlValley Fire Protection District X S.F. Bay Area Rapid Transit District X C.C. Community College District X Canyon Ellmentary School District X City of B lentwood X City of Clayton X City of concord X City of Lafayette X City of Malrtinez X City of Pinole X City of Pittsburg X PROPOSITION 90-TELEPHONE RESPONSES page 3 ENTITY YES NO NO POSITION City of Richmond X Dublin-SanlRamon - Service District X I East Bay Muni Utility District X East Diablo Fire Protection District X Bethel Island Muni Improvement District X Discovery Bay Reclamation District X Reclamation District #800 I X Byron Bethany Irrigation District X East Bay Regional Park District X Central C.C. Sanitary District X TOTAL 2 8 28 NO RESPONSE FROM TELEPHONE CONTACT A C Transit District Kensington Fire Protection District Los Medanos Community Hospital District West Contra Costa Sanitary District Acalanes High School District Antioch Unified School District i City of Antioch City of Danville City of El Cerrito 3 NO RESPONSE FROM TELEPHONE CONTACT page 4 City of Pleasant Hill City of San Pablo I City of San Ramon City of Walnut Creek -- - Pinole reek ._ -Pinole Fire Protection District I Danville Redevelopment Agency Diablo Community Services District Byron Fire Protection District Stege Sanitary District Crockett-Valona Sanitary District Bethel Island Fire Protection District East C.C. Irrigation District Sanitation District 7A Rodeo Sanitary District C.C.County Water District Town of Moraga Castle Rock County Water District Oakley Sanitary District Oakley Fire Protection District Mt.View Saiitary District Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District Byron Sanitary District b:prop90.do6 I I -FEB-2G-1 89- 1 W `U SUIPER.V 1=>_R ';_1 It_. O 5th 092-, P.02 c, . r.: FF._M COUNTY _ Hc. T_ tui_ 46�_ .c F r PROPOSITION 90 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS Fiscal Impact (Coumity 61ke re of PT Loss) Alameda Under discussion To be determined Alpine No plans to implement Unknown Amador No plans to implement Unknown Butte Under discussion Unknown Calaveras Under discussion Unknown Colusa No plans to implement Unknown Contra Costa Hearing (2/28/89) Year L $99,255 (taxes) Year 1: $15,584 (admin) Year 5: $433,074 (taxes) Year 5: $18,942 (admin) Del Norte No plans to implement Unknown El Dorado No plans to implement Unknown Fresno Hearing (2/28/89) To be determined Glenn Under discussion To be determined Humboldt No plans to implement Unknown Imperial No plans to implement Unknown Inyo Under discussion Year 1: $10,000 - $15,000 Kern Resolution adopted Minimal revenue loss based Effective: 2/2/89 on Prop 60 experience ]Gags No.plans to implement Unknown Lake Under discussion To be determined Lassen I No plans to implement Unknown Los Angeles Under discussion To be determined Madcra Hearing (3/28/89) To be determined Marin I Hearing (2/28/89) Year 1: $131,425 Year 5: $758,645 5 F't�-cc->19,=9 1r.:_c FRS;►I =�i1_ItJT..• __��,R�, =.OR'= ASSOC. TO 1416E, t=ty- F.0-7 - PROPOSITION 90 INIPI,EMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS FIS CAI Iarnact County fiction (County Share of PT Loss) Mariposa Under discussion To be determined Mendocino No plans to implement Unknown Merced Under discussion To be determined Modoc No plans to implement Unknown Mono Under discussion Unknown Monterey Implementation rejected Year 1: $109,871 (1/24/89) Year 5: $549,355 Napa No plans to implement Unknown Nevada No plans to implement Year 1: $16,906 Year 5: $24,007 Orange Ordinance adopted Unknown Effective: 2/15/89 Placer Under discussion Unknown Plumas No plans to implement Unknown Riverside Hearing (2/28/89) Year 1, $158,400 - $528,000 Year 5: $2,457,528 - $8,190,063 Admin: $50,000 annually Sacramento Implementation rejected 1989-90: $14,500 - $28,000 (1/17/89) 1993-94: $204,000 - $401,500 Admin: $16,605 - $32,220 San Benito No plans to implement Unknown San Bernardino No plans to implement Annual: $30,302 Admin: $16,700 annual San Diego Resolution adopted Admin: $5,500 annually Effective: 2/14%89 San Francisco Under discussion Minimal impact anticipated San Joaquin No plans to implement Unknown San Luis Obispo Hearing (2/28/89) To be determined b FEE;-2-21-19--,9 16;-T9 FRUP1 COUNT`` _UPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 141'564G4093' P.04 PROPOSITION 90 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS Flscal I`Wact 00-4-mvy Action (County Share of PT Loss) San Mateo Resolution adopted Unknown Effective: 2/16/89 Santa Barbara Hearing (3/27/89) 1989-90: $112,500 (taxes) 1989-90: $ 18,000 (admin) 1993-94: $412,500 (taxes) 1993-94: $ 16,000 (admin) Santa Clara Under discussion To be determined Santa Cruz Implementation rejected Unknown (12/13188) Shasta No plans to implement Unknown Sierra Under discussion To be determined Siskiyou No glans to implement Unknown Solano No plans to implement Annual: Minimum $50,000 Sonoma Implementation rejected Year 1: $117,980 (12/13/88) Year 5: $699,259 Stan,islaus No plans to implement Unknown Sutter Under discussion Unknown Tehema No plans to implement Unknown Trinity No plans to implement Unknown Tulare Irnplcmcntation rejected Unknown (12/13/88) Tuolumne No plans to implcmcnt Year 1: $40,000 Year 5: $200,000 Ventura Under discussion Annual: $388,700 Yolo Under discussion Unknown Yuba Under discussion To be determined Prepared by: County Supervisors Association of California (2/22/89)