Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11061990 - 1.61 IJ^ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa ;s ._ ..::: : .. ,�o DATE: October 25, 1990 c4-' County SUBJECT: POLICY ON APPROACHING PROPERTY TAX NEGOTIATIONS UPON ANNEXATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Review the proposed policy, provide any comments you feel are appropriate and refer the policy to the City/County Relations Committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: If the proposed policy is adopted, the county will be able to bring sales tax' and room tax issues into property tax negotiations disculssions with city consent, for certain types of annexations, but not others. The more favorable negotiating climate may prove beneficial to the county. BACKGROUND: The attached proposed policy is the result of ten months of meetings attended by Supervisors Schroder and Torlakson and Council members Bennet and Parent. Committee member concerns were very diverse at the onset of discussions, but over time it was determined that the cities and county have many common interests that could form the nucleus of an agreement. The proposed policy does not represent a viewpoint that addresses all of the county' s financial problems, but it does present a structure for approaching property tax negotiations fairly and amicably. This should help avoid prolonged, divisive negotiations with individual cities. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: ;l RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): I ACTION OF BOARD ON NOV 6 1990 1 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 NOV 6 1990 County-,Ad;#n�:s-trAtor PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C 0 N t R A C 0 S T A C 0 U N T Y Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Martinez, California DATE: October 11, 1990 TO: Board of Supervisors.. Mayors' Conference Members FROM: City/County Revenue Committee SUBJECT: PROPOSED POLICY ON APPROACH TO PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE NEGOTIATIONS UPON ANNEXATION You will find attached a copy of a proposed policy on approaching property ' tax exchange negotiations upon annexation. Our Committee was charged by the Mayors' Conference and Board of Supervisors with developing the proposed policy, among other things. The proposed policy is the result of over one year' s of meetings and represents a compromise between - city and county interests. Under '' this proposal, the master agreement would remain in effect.: The policy would supplement the master agreement by establishing4i� guidelines for approaching the negotiations process in a cooperative manner. A process is . . suggested on those1,1 situations when no agreement can be reached 1� after six months are allowed for negotiations. Our recommendation:' is that you consider the policy, develop any questions or concerns you may have, and forward both to the newly formed City/CountyRelations Committee for further review and recommendation back to your bodies for your final consideration in January of 1991:. We also recommend that you ask the City/County Relations Committee to develop specific criteria for when the city or county should provide notification of applications for development, as contained in the general policy statement. I Finally, we extend our offer to the City/County Relations Committee to designate one of our representatives, or our entire Committee, to attend the meeting of that Committee which first considers our proposal, to explain in more detail the thought process that went into the final product. With completion of this work, we consider our mission to have been accomplished; and have disbanded. KHT:cd Attachment Policy Statement on Property Tax Negotiations General Policy Statement: The Cities and County believe that annexations should be beneficial to all parties, and will approach property tax negotiations with that goal in mind. The Cities and County agree that they will notify each other of applications for development in areas of mutual concern. It is recognized by the Mayors Conference and Board of Supervisors that past conflicts over the transfer of property taxes upon annexation have been primarily due to the County' s financial problems, brought about by the fact that the revenues available to the County and many cities do not fully fund the services required to be provided by the State or desired by the citizens. The Mayors Conference and Board of Supervisors determine to work together to address the revenue short-fall problems until a resolution is achieved. Until this occurs, however, it is recognized that the County is not in a position to transfer additional property taxes above those contemplated in existing property tax transfer agreements. However, it is believed that the County and Cities can proceed to reach agreements on transfers on a more amicable basis than in the past. The following procedure will aid in this process. Agreements on Basis of Property Tax Exchange Negotiations 1. The Cities and County agree to pursue a process of regional planning to maximize the possibility of agreements related to the development of County unincorporated areas not in city. spheres, County unincorporated areas within city spheres, and development within cities. 2. The Cities and County agree that appropriate redevelopment is a tool that can have a number of positive public benefits. Cities and the County pledge to deal fairly with each other in redevelopment pass-through negotiations. 3. The Cities and , the County agree that already developed residential annexations are generally "break even" financially, at best, and that the most equitable way to process these annexations is based on existing master property tax exchange agreements, whereby existing City and County ratios of property tax in the rest of the city are maintained in the annexed area. 4. The Cities and County agree that non-residential annexations often have revenues associated with them in addition tc property taxes. These additional revenues can be considered in determining an equitable proportion of property to}: revenues to be retained by the Cit- and County, until suc:- time as the County has a revenue source that back-fill-s losses of existing or future revenues as a result o= Policy Statement on -3- Property Tax Negotiations continued 9. In the event that agreement on property tax exchanges cannot be reached in six months by the involved parties, a Committee made up of two city representatives appointed by the Mayors' Conference and two Board of Supervisor members will meet to review each agency' s last proposal and make a recommendation to both parties to resolve the differences. A recommendation will be forwarded to the city and county within 60 days after the appointments are made. 10. If the negotiations are not completed in six months due to the City' s action, the six month deadline can be re-initiated at the City' s request. 11. If negotiations are not completed due to the County' s lack of availability for negotiations, the master property tax exchange agreement shall become effective. 12. The six-month deadline can be extended for any length of time, based on the mutual agreement of the parties.