Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02261991 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa oa February 20, 1991 County�'•`o F -_ .fir' .y DATE: �.rrq- N`� LEGISLATION INTENDED TO REPEAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART REVENUE SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED TO COUNTIES BY SB 2557 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS' 1. Adopt a position in OPPOSITION to the following pieces of legislation for the reasons identified in the Background Section following: SB 40 (Hart) SB 61 (Cecil Green) SB 63 (Kopp) SB 72 (Davis) AB 17 (Quackenbush) AB 26 (Lancaster) AB 73 (Lempert and Sher) AB 132 (McClintock) 2. Adopt a position of SUPPORT IF AMENDED in regard to SB 169 (Boatwright) for the reasons indicated in the Background Section following. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMEfI s__YESSIGNATURE: X&4-6- ��L�Y� OI�64I ,4_ 2L-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE n/ —OTTHER SIGNATURE(S): ( il..�ly4h 1,4 q�q ACTION OF BOARD ON Febr.uary 2 , 11 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X and OTHER X Also, REQUESTED County Administrator to send letters to the school districts and cities advising them of the Board's position. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X 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 oZG, /99/ Please see Page 5. PHIL BATCHELOR,ARK' OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ;DEPUTY M382 (10/88) 3 . Reaffirm the Board' s willingness to support a statewide solution which is mutually agreeable to counties, cities, school districts, the Legislature and the Administration, which will replace the booking fee and property tax administration fee revenue in total for the 1990-91 fiscal year and thereafter, which does not reduce any other existing sources of revenue to counties and which addresses in a meaningful way the fundamental structural problems with the way in which local governments are currently funded in California. BACKGROUND: The implementation of the jail booking fee and property tax administration fee by counties has done more to set cities, counties and school districts at each others' throats than almost any other action which has been taken in recent years. In part, this was because the State Budget and accompanying implementing legislation was passed a month late, after many cities and school districts had already adopted their 1990-91 budgets. In addition, the implementation of these measures was seen by the cities, in particular, as dragging cities into the State-county funding difficulties from which they had successfully disengaged themselves. SB 2557, the legislation which authorized the booking fee and property tax administration fee, passed both houses of the Legislature on July 28, 1990. The bill passed the Assembly 43 : 16 with Assemblymen Campbell and Isenberg voting in favor of the bill, and Assemblyman Baker voting to oppose the bill. It is interesting to note that not a single Democrat voted to oppose SB 2557 in the Assembly. In the Senate, SB 2557 passed 25 :8 with Senators Boatwright and Petris voting to support SB 2557 . It is interesting to note that three Democrats joined five Republicans in voting to oppose SB 2557 on the Senate Floor: Senators Ayala, McCorquodale and Presley. Between the time the 1989-90 Legislature was adjourned on August 31, 1990 and the time the 1991-92 Legislature was convened on December 3 , 1990, enormous pressure was brought to bear on many members of the Legislature to repeal these features of SB 2557 entirely. A variety of bills were introduced between December 3 and December 7 to address the issue. A description of these bills follows: SB 40 (Hart) - Repeals authority of the County to invoice school districts, community college districts and the county superintendent of schools for the property tax administration fee. Leaves in place authority to invoice other special districts for the property tax administration costs, but requires ( rather than authorizes) the Auditor to do so only if directed to do so by the board of supervisors. Leaves in place the requirement to withhold from the property taxes due to cities their proportionate costs of the property tax administration fee. Would repeal the authority to invoice the schools retroactively for the current fiscal year. Contains an urgency clause and thus would become effective as soon as signed into law. SB 61 (Cecil Green) - Repeals all authority to impose a jail booking fee on any agency. SB 63 (Kopp) - Identical to SB 61 . Repeals all authority to impose a jail booking fee on any agency. SB 72 (Davis) - Identical to SB . 61 and 63, except that it also contains an urgency clause and thus would become effective as soon as signed into law. -2- AB 17 (Quackenbush) - Essentially identical to SB 40, except the reference is to the county office of education rather than to the county superintendent of schools. Contains an urgency clause and thus would become effective as soon as signed into law. AB 26 (Lancaster) - Repeals all references to the jail booking fee and to assessing the costs of the property tax administration fee on any jurisdiction, thereby eliminating both revenue sources in their entirety. Contains an urgency clause and thus would become effective as soon as signed into law. AB 73 (Lempert and Sher) - Exempts only school districts from being assessed with a jail booking fee, leaving in place the authority to assess all other jurisdictions which were provided for in SB 2557 . Also exempts only school districts from being assessed with the proportionate share of the property tax administration fee, leaving in place the authority to assess such a fee against cities, community colleges and all other special districts. Contains the same change included in SB 40, requiring that the board of supervisors direct the Auditor to make the assessment, and thereupon making it a mandate on the Auditor to do so. AB 132 (McClintock) - Repeals provisions reducing the quarterly Trial Court Block Grant payments effective January 1 , 1991 to $44, 944 per judicial position and restores former provisions providing for the Trial Court Block Grant quarterly payments to be $53 , 000 per judicial position effective January 1, 1991. Also repeals all. provisions for the jail booking fee and property tax administration fee for all jurisdictions. Also repeals the limitation on the amount the "no and low" cities can receive in the 1990-91 fiscal year. By increasing the Trial Court Block Grant by about $32,000 per judicial position, this bill provides a partial replacement for the loss of the booking fee and property tax administration fee. SB 169 (Boatwright) - SB 169 does all of the following: * Repeals all provisions relating to the imposition of a jail booking fee. * Repeals all provisions relating to the imposition of the property tax administration fee on all jurisdictions. * Repeals the reduction of the subsidy to the "no and low" cities, thereby restoring their full allocation under the "no and low" property tax city provisions of law. * Increases the vehicle license fee depreciation schedule as follows: AGE OF VEHICLE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASE PRICE USED FOR VLF CURRENT LAW SB 169 1 Year 850 85% 2 85% 85% 3 70% 85% 4 55% 70% 5 40% 550 -3- AGE OF VEHICLE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASE PRICE USED FOR VLF CURRENT LAW SB 169 6 3,0% 40% 7 25% 30% 8 15% 25% 9 10% 15% 10 + 5% 10% 11 + 5% The proceeds from this increase in the vehicle license fee would be placed in a newly created County Assistance Fund. These funds would be allocated to the counties by an as yet undetermined formula to replace the lost booking fee and property tax administration fee revenue. our concerns with all of these bills except SB 169 should be obvious - they repeal an existing revenue source provided to the counties which this county and most others have budgeted as revenue for the current fiscal year, relying on the actions of the Legislature in having made this revenue source available to the counties, to partially backfill the enormous losses counties sustained in the adoption and balancing of the State' s 1990-91 Budget. None of these bills provide any additional revenue to backfill the revenue sources which are repealed, except AB 132, which provides only a marginal replacement revenue, all of which has to be dedicated to programs eligible for the Trial Court Block Grant. None of these bills addresses the fundamental, structural problems in the way local government is financed. For these reasons, we believe that the Board of Supervisors must oppose each of these bills. Turning now to SB 169, we have some concerns with the bill as it was introduced, although we can foresee amendments which would make it possible for the Board of Supervisors to support the bill. The bill proposes to generate revenue by changing the depreciation schedule for the vehicle license fee. While this might be a useful and greatly appreciated source of revenue under other circumstances, we cannot recommend that it be relied on as replacement revenue under the circumstances. Governor Wilson has also proposed that the vehicle license fees be increased to generate substantial sums of money to finance a transfer of mental health and indigent health care programs to the counties. If this proposal is going to be implemented, it does not appear likely that vehicle license fees could be increased sufficiently to pay for both the Governor' s initiatives and as replacement revenue for the booking fee and property tax administration fee. Another guaranteed source of replacement revenue which would hold counties 100% harmless for the loss of the booking fee and property tax administration fee revenue would have to be identified. Of equal concern is the fact that SB 169 does not address the need for a statewide solution which addresses the fundamental, structural problems in the way counties,- cities, school districts and other special districts are financed in California. These problems must be addressed in a way which is mutually acceptable to cities, counties, school districts, special districts, the Administration and the Legislature. -4- If amendments are proposed which address each of these points, we would have no problem in recommending that the Board of Supervisors support SB 169. In the absence of such amendments we would recommend that the Board of Supervisors take no position on SB 169 and so instruct its lobbyist. CC: County Administrator County Counsel Auditor-Controller Larry Naake, Executive Director County Supervisors Association of California 1100 R Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates 770 L Street, Suite 960 Sacramento, CA 95814 All County Department Heads (Via CAO) -5-