HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01221991 - 1.47 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and
THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 22, 1991, the Board of
Supervisors by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
and the Auditor-Controller by his following signature.
SUBJECT: Implementation of the )
Criminal Justice ) Findings
Administrative (booking) )
and Property Tax )
Administrative Cost )
Recovery Provisions of )
SB 2557 )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and Auditor-
Controller having on January 15, 1991 held a public hearing on
implementation of the criminal justice administrative (booking)
fee and property tax cost recovery provisions of SB 2557 , as
provided in Board of Supervisors' Resolution NO. 90/822 as
amended by Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 91/32, the Board
of Supervisors, and as to property tax administrative costs the
Auditor-Controller, hereby make the following findings and
determinations . In making these findings and determinations, the
Board of Supervisors and the Auditor-Controller adopt those
interpretations of SB 2557 contained in the August 31, 1990
letter from Senator Kenneth L. Maddy to Darryl R. White,
Secretary of the Senate, a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
A.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
1 . On January 3, 1991 the County Administrator filed with
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a report of the
Administrative costs, including the applicable overhead costs
permitted by federal circular A-87 Standards, of booking or other
processing of a person brought to a Contra Costa County jail for
booking or detention.
2 . . On January 15, 1991 , the Board of Supervisors held a
public hearing on the County Administrator' s report, notice of
which was given as required by law and by Board of Supervisors '
Resolution 90/822 as amended by Resolution 91/32 .
3 . The report of the County Administrator filed on January
3, 1991 is hereby adopted and the Board finds that $127 does not
exceed actual cost to Contra Costa County of booking or other
processing of a person brought to' a Contra Costa County jail for
booking or detention.
-1-
B
PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATIVE COST RECOVERY
1 . On January 3, 1991, the Auditor-Controller filed with
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a report of the 1989-90
fiscal year property tax-related costs of the assessor, tax
collector and auditor, including the applicable administrative
overhead costs permitted by federal circular A-87 standards,
proportionally attributable to each incorporated city and to each
local jurisdiction in Contra Costa County, in the ratio of
property tax revenue received by each incorporated city and local
jurisdiction divided by the total property tax revenue received
by all incorporated cities and local jurisdictions in the county
for the previous fiscal year. The report included proposed
charges against each incorporated city and local jurisdiction for
its proportionate share of such administrative costs .
2 . On January 15, 1991, the Board of Supervisors and the
Auditor-Controller held a public hearing on the Auditor-
Controller's report, notice of which was given as required by law
and by Board of Supervisors' Resolution 90/822 as amended by
Resolution 91/32 .
3 . The report of the Auditor-Controller filed on January 3,
1991 is hereby adopted, and the Board of Supervisors and the
Auditor-Controller find that amounts expressed in said report do
not exceed the actual amount of 1989-90 fiscal year property tax
administrative costs proportionally attributable to incorporated
cities and to local jurisdictions .
4 . The additional revenue received by Contra Costa County
on account of its 1989-90 fiscal year property tax administrative
costs pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 97 as amended
by SB 2557, . shall be used only to fund the actual costs of
assessing, collecting and allocating property taxes . An
equivalent amount of the revenues budgeted to finance assessing,
collecting and allocating property taxes in fiscal year 1990-1991
will be reallocated to finance other County services as indicated
in the August 6 , 1990 action by the Board of Supervisors adopting
the County's 1990-91 budget. In the event that the actual 1990-
91 costs for assessing, collecting and allocating property taxes
plus allowable overhead costs are less than the amounts
determined in the January 3, 1991 report by the Auditor-
Controller, the difference shall be proportionally allocated to
the respective incorporated cities and local jurisdictions .
C.
FINDINGS ON WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
First: Obiections to the report on criminal justice
administrative fees .
1 . The objection that the $127 cost includes functions
exceeding those expressed in certain definitions of 'booking' is
overruled. Government Code section 29550 provides for a fee to
recover the expenses of 'booking or other processing' and the
County Administrator's report reasonably interprets the statute.
2 . The objection that the $127 cost is a composite cost
which does not separately establish the cost of every booking and
processing function is overruled.
Government Code section 29550 authorizes counties to develop
and charge a single fee to recover the actual cost of booking or
processing arrested persons brought to the County jail. It does
not direct or require counties to develop separate fees for each
component of the booking process . In calculating the criminal
justice administration (booking) fee, the County Administrator
-2-
justice administration (booking) fee, the County Administrator
used the "all inclusive" method of costing as recommended by the
State committee which developed the statewide booking fee
guidelines . This method recognizes that in larger counties, such
as Contra Costa, part of the total booking cost is fixed and part
is variable. The rationale for the all inclusive method is to
determine the annual cost of the booking function and divide that
amount by the annual number of bookings to establish a unit cost
or rate per booking. Although the unit cost is an average cost
per booking, it is based upon the total actual cost of the
booking function and, if charged for 100% of bookings, will
recover no more than the actual cost of providing the booking
service.
The County Administrator's report reasonably interprets the
statute.
3 . The objection that the $127 cost includes services which
duplicate services carried out by arresting agencies is
overruled. There is no showing that the costs in question are
not actually incurred by the County and the statute does not
purport to limit the County' s recoverable actual costs to costs
which do not duplicate other agency practices .
4 . The objection that the $127 cost includes crime
laboratory services for which cities and other agencies have
already paid is overruled. No evidence of actual duplicate
charging was introduced. Costs charged separately to cities for
requested drug and alcohol testing services are not included in
the jail budgets from which the criminal justice administrative
fee was determined, and are therefore not included.
5 . The objection that the $127 cost exceeds actual costs is
overruled for the reasons stated above and on the ground that no
evidence was offered in support of that claim.
6 . The objection that the $127 cost violates State
Constitution Article XIII B is overruled on the ground that a
$127 fee does not exceed actual costs, for the reasons stated
above, and on the ground that no evidence was offered in support
of that claim.
7 . The objection that criminal justice administrative fees
will be unlawfully used to fund non-criminal justice programs is
overruled. There is no basis for such objection in the language
of Government Code section 29550. In any event, the proceeds of
the criminal justice administrative fee will be used to fund the
booking or other processing of arrested persons at the Contra
Costa County jail, and equivalent revenues budgeted for jail
booking or other processing will be reallocated to finance other
County services, as indicated in the August 6, 1990 action by the
Board of Supervisors adopting the County's 1990-91 budget.
8 . The objection that criminal justice administrative fees
can be collected only on account of arrests other than arrests
executing arrest warrants is overruled. There is no basis for
such objection in the language of Government Code section 29550 .
9 . Other objections based on questions involving the
imposition of criminal justice administration fees are overruled.
Before criminal justice administrative (booking) fees are billed,
the Board of Supervisors will adopt regulations governing
application and administration of the fee.
10 . The objection that criminal justice administration
(booking) fees may not be imposed or collected for services
provided prior to the effective date of County action fixing and
imposing the fee is overruled. Government Code section 29550
expressly provides for collection of the fees on account of all
booking and processing expenses incurred after July 1, 1990 .
-3-
11 . The objection that the indirect costs included in the
County Administrator's report are inconsistent with the County's
A-87 allocation plan is overruled. No evidence was offered in
support of that claim.
Second: Objections to the report on property tax
administrative cost recovery
1 . The objection that the determination and allocation of
1989-90 property tax administrative costs is based on composite
or average costs which do not separately establish the cost of
every real property tax assessment, collection and allocation as
to every agency is overruled. The methodology to determine the
costs is based on the guidelines of the State Controller on
county property tax administration charges and no/low property
tax city adjustments, which are correct in the professional and
official judgment of the Auditor-Controller and which represent a
reasonable interpretation of Revenue and Taxation Code section 97
as amended by SB 2557 .
2 . The objection that the determination and allocation of
1989-90 property tax administrative costs in the Auditor-
Controller' s report includes services which duplicate services
carried out by incorporated cities and local jurisdictions is
overruled. There is no showing that the costs in question were
not actually incurred by the County and the statute does not
purport to limit the County's recoverable actual costs to costs
which do not duplicate other agency practices .
3 . The objection that the determination and allocation of
1989-90 property tax administrative costs in the Auditor-
Controller' s report exceeds that County' s actual costs is
overruled for the reasons stated above and on the ground that no
evidence was offered in support of that claim.
4 . The objection that the determination and allocation of
1989-90 property tax administrative costs in the Auditor-
Controller's report violates State Constitution Article XIII B is
overruled for the reasons stated above and on the ground that no
evidence was offered in support of that claim.
5 . The objection that the Auditor-Controller' s report was
not based on 1989-90 costs is overruled. No evidence was offered
in support of that claim.
6 . The objection that recovered property tax administrative
costs will be used for purposes other than assessing, collecting
and allocating property taxes is overruled. See finding B 4 .
7 . The objection that the County may not lawfully recover
its costs of assessing, collecting and allocating property taxes
prior to the effective date of the SB 2557 amendments to Revenue
and Taxation Code section 97 is overruled. As amended, Revenue
and Taxation Code expressly provides for the collection of the
County' s 1989-90 property tax administrative costs .
8 . The objection that the indirect costs included in the
Auditor-Controllers ' report are inconsistent with the County's A-
87 allocation- plan is overruled. No evidence was offered in
support of that- claim.
9 . The objection that redevelopment agencies are not local
jurisdictions other than the county or cities under Revenue and
Taxation Code section 97 (f ) is overruled. The guidelines of the
State Controller on County Property Tax Administration charges
and No/Low Property Tax Cities Adjustments specifically provide
in Part III that redevelopment agencies should be included, as
does the August 31, 1990 letter of Kenneth L. Maddy. As amended,
Revenue and Taxation Code section 97 apportions property tax
administrative costs in accordance with benefits . Insofar as
-4-
redevelopment agencies receive the benefit of property taxes, it
is appropriate that they pay their share of the costs of
assessment, collection and apportionment. If redevelopment
agencies are not charged, their share of the costs will be spread
among the remaining incorporated cities and local jurisdictions .
The decision to include redevelopment agencies is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute, consistent with the purpose of the
Legislation.
10 . The objection that the Board of Supervisors and the
Auditor-Controller have not used lawful procedures in making
determinations and allocations of the County's 1989-90 property
tax administrative costs is overruled. On January 3, 1991, the
Auditor-Controller filed the report called for by Board of
Supervisors ' Resolution No. 90/822 . The hearing record includes
the State Controllers Guidelines for County Property Tax
Administration charges, with which the Auditor-Controller's
report is consistent. The procedure followed meets or exceeds
all applicable legal requirements .
11 . The objection that allocation of the County's 1989-90
property tax administrative costs should be adjusted to properly
account for property tax funds allocated to a city but which pass
to the County through a pass-through agreement is sustained.
This point is relevant only with respect to the City of San
Ramon. The 1989-90 property tax administrative costs allocated
to the City of San Ramon shall be reduced by $4,439 . 31 to
$66, 648 . 97 .
Third: General findings
1 . The Board of Supervisors and the Auditor-Controller find
that SB 2557 ( 1990 Statutes, chapter 466 ) is a lawful enactment,
lawfully adopted. No evidence to the contrary has been
introduced.
2 . The grounds stated herein to support findings are not
exclusive and any finding may be supported on any lawful ground,
whether or not expressed herein.
3 . If any finding herein is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect findings which can be given effect without the
invalid provision, and to this end, the invalid finding is
severable.
SoZf !:d and det in
So
Kenneth J. orcoran
Contra Cosla County Auditor-Controller
AM jb:jh
FB-5 a:\Mesol.tax
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: January 22 , 1991
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
ofnSupervisors and County Administrator
igy _ .Deputy
J. 0. Mqeio
-5-
.�;`rn`iJ-t-1�::7iJ l.i•1GY f`M1L+i'i t»�+v,i, , ._.... ,_... ___ ,. _
STATE CAPITOL,
aAMtCALFORNIA COMM(TTEC$:
t0-161 4A5.960APPReMATIQ
xN5
GOVERNMENTAL
Caof orn#a &tate cnato HEALTH ANO HUMAN SERVICES
tvIGE CtWRMANI
sass w ;r sw+w AVENUE.•r+s
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
PRRi•SNO.CALIf6RNK 93�t1 '
t2091.t43.5367 , JOINT CAMMfTTE-r$:
ARTS
POST OPF'C6 BOK 2A9 � ,�t 4l L.£61SLATWE AUM
1G�. 'hCECHAIRMAN)
+s9c)i w.PtAST STREET.•2 ra REFUGEE RESETTLE*+EriT
MfLMAIL!2t 0)66 RNM.iiS321 {} tNTV(NAT X4AL IMMIGRATION
'z04}667-37E+ , ANO COOPERATIVE aEYQPPMENT
REV151ON OR THE PENAL C=E
tC HAMMAN)
866 OSOt STR£ET.•C
N i.VtS 661$00.CAtJFORNIA 93401 SELECT COMMIT76£S:
.803!SA9•3i25 BUSINESS CCWa.OemE"+T
KENNETH L. MADDX cm root;6A wwS INDUSTR*
SENA'T'OR,t=0Uf7TEENT14 04STRtCT FAtRS ANO RURAL tSSUES
OOVERNMENTAt LT:F wcI -
REPUBLICAN FLOOR LEADER "tAt.TN CARE DELIvoRv sf$'TEms
. ta+AIRMANt
INFANT AND CmLO CARE
ANO DEVELC>�ENT
MEDI-CAL ANO UN'SJIO4SORE0
PATIENT GRE
August 31, 1990 PAc1F1cR1M
Darryl R. white .
Secretary of the Senate N 1J31
Subject: Senate Bill 2557 (Maddy)
" . Chapter 4 66, Statutes of 1990 AAaR 1NEZ' CAuFt
Dear- Mr. White:
Because of the complexity of the Budget Act of 1990 and the
necessity of swiftly enacting a packageL of twenty bills to
implement the budget, several inadvertent errors and ambiguities
were included in my Senate Bill 2557 (Ch. 466 Stats. 1990) . The
following is a listing of these errors and a clear statement of
the intent regarding each issue. The intent presented accurately
reflects the understanding of the leadership of both houses of
the Legislature and the Governor. This document is intended to
provide direction and guidance to the Office of the State
Controller and to counties and cities and counties in their
preparation for the imposition of these fees.
Criminal Justice Ad-ministration Fee
Section 1 of the bill, which authorizes counties to levy a fee
for the booking of persons arrested by cities, special districts,
school districts, community college districts, colleges, or
-universities, did not clearly state that this authority was also
extended to a city and county. It was the clear intent that this
authorization applied to any county and city and county.
The definition of the .fee in this section- states that it
includes "actual administrative costs. . . .incurred in booking or
otherwise processing of arrested persons. " This definition is
ambiguous in that it does not clearly state a fixed time at which
the cities and other entities would cease to be responsible for
4
Mr. Darryl R. White, P. 2
the costs associated with the arrested person. It was the intent
that these costs not be open-ended and that the obligation of the
cities and other entities end when the arrested persons are
either released from custody or committed to a housing unit of a
county or city 'and county jail facility.
It also was intended that the obligation of cities .and other
entities to pay this booking fee should occur 'at a definite time.
The bill did not contain a reference to when the fee was due and
payable. It was the intent that the booking fee be due and
payable thirty days from the invoice date.
Trial Court Funding Block Grant
Section 2 of the bill was intended to reduce the Trial Court
Funding Block Grant to counties and cities and counties by ten
percent on an ongoing basis. Due to an error in calculation the
full amount of the reduction was not accurately referenced in
the amendments to Section 77200(a) (�) of the Government Code. The
Correct amount referenced in Section 77200(a) (1) should be
forty-two thousand one hundred thirty five dollars ($42,135) .
It also was the intent that the "maintenance of effort"
requirement in Section 77204 of the Governtaent code be reduced in
a manner corresponding to the ten percent reduction of the block
grant in Section 77200 because the maintenance of effort
requirement is mathematically and functionally related to the
block grant. The language of the bill erroneously assumed that
the functional relationship between the two sections would
.accomplish the parallel reductions which were intended.
Rroperty Tax Administration Fee
Section 4 of the bill authorizes counties to charge a fee to
+ other local jurisdictions for the actual costs of administration
of the property tax system. It was intended that this fee be
imposed on cities, special districts, redevelopment agencies,
schools, county superintendents of schools; and community
colleges. Inadvertently,- the bill did not specifically identify
each of these entities, because they were thought to be included
in the term "local jurisdiction". This phrase is not consistent
with the terminology of the Revenue and Taxation Code and each of
the entities should have been separately identified.
It also was the intent that the fees for cities, redevelopment
agencies, and special districts be wi-thheld from the respective
shares of the property tax of each of these entities. Because of
the construction of this language as a one-time transfer of
•
Mr. 'Darryl R. white, P. 3
pr6perty' tax to counties and cities and - counties and its
placement in Section 97, cities, redevelopment agencies, and
special districts could, in future years, pay more than the
actual cost of property tax administration. This was not
intended.
The reduction of property tax revenues to no- and low-property
tax cities might have the effect of increasing the amount of the
Tax Equity Allocation to these jurisdictions. This was not
intended.
The bill intended that school districts, community college
districts, and county superintendents of schools be mandated to
pay their respective shares of the cost of property tax
administration. Counties and cities and counties would present
invoices to. these entities for the appropriate amounts. These
invoices would be due and payable within 30 days. The bill
creates an ambiguity with regard to this obligation by the use of
the word "may" in Section -97 (f) of the Revenue and Taxation code.
The use of an invoicing process with respect to school
entities was intended to ensure that the. property tax
administration fee would not be construed as A reallocation of
property tax revenues or as a transfer of financial or program
responsibility. Finally, it was intended that the mandatory
imposition of these fees on schools, community colleges, and
county superintendents of schools should supersede any
contradictory but previously enacted statutes.
It also was intended that counties and cities and counties not
'be allowed to claim, as property tax administration costs any such
costs for which they were already being reimbursed. Language
indicating this intent was not included in the bill.
No- andmow-property Ta2r�_.Cities
Section 5 of the bill limits the, amount of property tax
revenue transferred to no- and low-property tax cities in the
1990-91 fiscal year to 90 percentof the amount transferred in
the 1989-90 fiscal year. It was the intent that this 10 percent
reduction in the amount transferred to these jurisdiction be made
on an ongoing basis, not merely in the 1990-91 fiscal- year.
The language of this •section also has the effect of imposing a
10 percent reduction on the entire property tax allocation to
low-property tax cities, not merely the amount of revenue
transferred to guarantee those jurisdictions' Tax Equity
Allocations. This was not intended.
SSIT BY : 9- 4-90 9:06Aht 935 - y1Gsc'rSyGl:w
ter '
Kr. Darryl S. White, P. 4
Si.ncaroly,
KENNETH L. MADDY
senator, 14th District
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 3
(Criminal Justice Administrative (Booking) Fees )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as
follows :
SECTION I : Purpose and Authority. This ordinance
implements in Contra Costa County the provisions of Government
Code section 29550 ( 1990 Statutes , chapter 466 , Section 1 (SB
2557 ) ) , which provide for criminal justice administrative
(booking ) fees .
SECTION II . Fee Imposed . (a ) There is hereby imposed upon
every city, special district, school district, community college
district, college, or university, a fee equal to the
administrative costs , including applicable overhead costs , of
booking or other processing at any county jail of every person
arrested by an employee of such city, special district, school
district , community college district, college, or university and
brought to such county jail facility for booking or detention .
(b) Such fees shall be payable on account of every
booking or processing of a person at a Contra Costa County jail
on and after-- July 1 , 1990 .
(c ) For the purpose of this fee, the term 'Contra
Costa County jail ' means and includes every detention facility in
Contra Costa County operated under the control of the Contra
Costa County Sheriff-Coroner.
SECTION III . Fee Amount . The amount of the criminal
justice administrative (booking) fee is one hundred twenty-seven
( $127 . 00 ) dollars .
SECTION IV. Regulations . The Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors, by resolution, may adopt regulations governing the
application and administration of the criminal justice
administrative (booking ) fee.
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 3
SECTION V. Severability. If any provision of this
ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions,
and the Board of Supervisors declares that it would have adopted
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any
other part .
SECTION VI . Effective Date . This ordinance shall become
effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage
shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting
for and against it in the Contra Costa Times , a newspaper of
general circulation published in this County.
PASSED ON January 22 , .1991 by the following vote:
AYES : Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: '_`Ione
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
Board Chair
[SEAL]
AWW: fjb
YB5 •:\aw\0rd-Dkg.fee
—2—
ORDINANCE NO. 91-3
A
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and
THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 22, 1991, The Board of
Supervisors by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
and the Auditor-Controller by his following signature.
SUBJECT: Implementation of the )
Property Tax )
Administrative Cost ) Resolution No. 91/67
Recovery Provisions of )
SB 2557 )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Contra
Costa County Auditor-Controller having jointly and severally held
a public hearing on January 15, 1991 on the Auditor-Controller' s
January 3, 1991 report of the property tax-related costs of the
assessor, tax collector and auditor proportionately attributable
to each incorporated city and to each local jurisdiction in
Contra Costa County;
And the Board of Supervisors and the Auditor-Controller
having jointly and severally made findings and determinations on
the report and on each written objection received;
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Contra
Costa County Auditor-Controller hereby jointly and severally
determine that the property tax administrative costs
proportionately attributable to each incorporated city and to
each local jurisdiction for the 1989-90 fiscal year are as set
forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and that such property tax
administrative costs shall be collected as provided in Board of
Supervisors ' Resolution No. 90/822.
In the event that the actual 1990-91 costs for assessing,
collecting and allocating property taxes plus allowable overhead
costs are less than the amounts determined in the January 3, 1991
report by the Auditor-Controller, the difference shall be
proportionally allocated to the respective incorporated cities
and local jurisdictions.
So determined:
G
Kenneth J. Aorcoran
Contra Costa County I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: January 22 , 1991
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By J� �. � � Deputy
X. 0. Magl o
i
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91/6;7
'
`
printed 22-Jan-91
m&UUU��Uu
��y�,
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS 1989-90
—
FUND COST
ENTITY NO ALLOCATION
,- ------------------------------------------
GENERAL
________________________-___________-__GENERAL COUNTY ENTITIES
`
---------------------
County General 1003 2,077,318.06
Library 1206 147,242.95
COUNTY GOVERNED SPECIAL DISTRICTS '
----------------------------------------
4,-----Bethel
_______________________________________`, Bethel Island Fi 2003 7,239,03
Byron Fire 2005 9,055.56
Moraga Fire 2010 40,653.49
West Co Fire 2011 33,870,76
East Diablo Fire 2013 12059.80
Oakley Fire 2017 11 ,445.54
`~ Orinda Fire 2018 471723'83
Pinole Fire 2019 ' 3, 177,66
Riverview Fire 2022 1311706.45
. Tassajara Fire 2023 1,941.92
Consolidated Fir 2025 379,725.65
Crockett Carq Fi 2028 5,577. 11
SER AREA L-100 2401 5,817, 10
Sery Area M-1 2470 567.75
Sery Area 11-8 2478 3`450.01
Sery Area M-16 2488 156.23
Sery Area M-17 2489 2, 110.81
Sery Area M-20 2492 79.60
Sery Area RD4 2494 60.49
Sery Area M-23 2496 13,410.59
Flood Control 2505 25r023,05
�. Fld Cntl Z-38 2520 28, 123,68
Fld Cntl Z-1 2521 2446.71
Fld Cntrl Z-6A 2526 255. 17
Fld Cntl Z-7 2527 606.67
Fld Cntrl Z-11 2529 521 ,65
Fld Cntl Z-8 2530 175.32
�- Fld Cntl Z-8A 2531 222.81
Fld Cntrl Z-9 2532 505.50
Fld Cntl D290 2550 480,27
Fld Cntl D300 2551 3.33
Fld Cntl D13 2552 1,237.17 '
Fld Cntl D10 2554 1,506.96
�~ Storm Dr Mtc 4 2563 546.35
Storm Dr Z-/6 2583 423.70
Sery Area P-1 2651 299'62
`. Crockett Pk/Rec 2651 632. 18
Sery Ar PL2-Da 2652 26.67
��
.' printed 22-Jan-91
^
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS 1989-90 .
.~
FUND COST
ENTITY NO ALLOCATION
---------------------------------------
Sery Ar P2-Za 2653 826. 13
Sery Area P-5 2655 1 , 116.42
Sery Area P-6 2656 35,520,06
Sery Ar P2-Zb 2657 597.21
Sery Ar Lib 2 2702 847.54
Sery Ar Lib-10 2710 3.39
Sery Ar Lib-12 2712 39,43
. Sery Ar Lib-13 2713 1 ,888.39
`
Sery Ar R-4 2751 109.96
Sery Ar R-8 2755 3,003.23
Sery Ar R-7A 2758 3,839. 12
Sery Ar R-78 2759 440.42
Co Water Agcy 2825 39042.39
Danville Parking 2890 0.14
� AUTONOMOUS SPECIAL DISTRICTS
________________________________________
Danv/San Ram Fir 3005 176,405.07
Kensington Fire 3007 18,936.55
Rodeo Fire 3011 24,057,97
C C Resources 3102 11182.73
Kensington Com S 3255 13,864.37
Diablo Comm Sery 3260 1 ,083.39
Mosquito Abate 3301 21 ,241 ,42
Central Sanitary 3406 1115542.89
Mt View Sanit 3409 3,083.95
~ Oakley Sanit 3411 1 ,728.89
Rodeo Sanit 3414 31042.64
West Co Sanit 3416 9,889.63
Stege Sanitary 3418 2,885.02
Byron Sanitary 3422 180.27
Crockett Val San 3426 1 .786.92
Sanit 7A Z-1 3480 4`954.56
Sanit 7A Z-2 3481 31005.05
Sanit 7A Z-3 3482 6,500.37
Los Medanos Hosp 3515 9,093.46 '
Mt Diablo Hosp 3520 1 ,554.22
West Co Hosp 3525 229515,64
. Alamo Laf Cemet 3601 1 ,482.20
B.D.K. Cementery 3603 1 ,724.04
Ambrose Rec & Pk 37005,772. 18
Btwd Rec & Pk 3702 2,464.81
Green Valley 3715 219,31
PI Hill Rec & Pk 3735 27,500.48
Rollingwood Rec 3740 173.97
Beth Isl Muni Im 3770 2,932.09
-
'
. printed 22-Jan-91
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS 198900
FUND COST
ENTITY NO ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------
C C Water 3803 23,099.45
Castle Rock Wtr 3830 79.60
East Bay MUD 4001 66`479.88 �
East Bay Dist 1 4002 1 ,720.49 '
A C Transit 4007 54,029.45
B.A.R.T. 4009 511075.57
Air Quality Mgmt 4010 14,887,58
East Bay Reg Pk 4026 231 ,546.46
Reclam Dist 800 4110 6, 132.32
Discovery Bay 4111 326.28
East CC Irrig 4180 4,020.48
Byron-Beth Irr 4181 1 ,501 .61
CITIES/CITY SPECIAL DISTRICTS
-----------------------------------------
Clayton
_______________________________________Claytnn 4201 51690.81
Concord 4202 100,517.53 .
Brentwood 4203 7,690.73
San Pablo 4204 5,569.59 '
El Cerrito 4205 41 ,508. 13
Walnut Creek 4206 97,681 .98
Pleasant Hill 4207 2,598.98 �
Martinez 4208 571460.40
Antioch 4209 53,401 .91
Pittsburg 4210 28,002.92
Hercules 4211 10,989.32
Pinole 4212 14,591 , 18
Richmond 1 4213 226,442.04
Richmond 3 4227 59,423.86 ~
Lafayette 4214 2,787.19
Moraga 4215 11,834.96
Danville 4216 24,761.38
San Ramon 4217 66,648.97
Orinda 4218 13,002.31
Richmond Sewer 4230 1 ,939.39
PI Hill Light 4240 2`660.35
Clayton Ltng 4248 262.53
Martz Pine Ridge 4252 48,80 '
Martz Parking 4253 334.54
Pittsburg Parkin 4254 57.38
Lafayette Core 4263 975' 18
Laf Ltng 1 4264 5.95
Laf Ltng 2 4265 20.04
Laf Ltng 3 4266 8.74
Laf Ltng 4 4267 4'47 '
Laf Ltng 5 4268 0.90
Laf Ltng 6 4269 3.73
`
' printed 22-Jan-91
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS 1989-90
\
FUND COST
ENTITY NO ALLOCATION
________________________________________
Laf Ung 7 4288 0'70
Conc Val [err 4271 32,85
Conc Kirkwood 4272 402.07
Conc Balhan 4274 4-34
._
Diablo Vis Wtr 4275 716.73
Antioch Park 4280 299.14
Moraga Light 4285 788.21
`
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
______________________
�
AntiuchRDA 1 4701 361999.55
. Antioch RDA 2 4702 355.07
Brentwood RDA 4706 6, 134.50
Btwd RDA Amdt 1 4707 1 , 179.35
Concord Central 4710 158,285.57
Concd Commerce 4711 41938.22
Clayton RDA 4714 6,769.34
Hercules RDA 4716 10,579.67
El Cerrito RDA 4720 19,517'28
El Cerr Amdt III 4721 18.46
_ Pinole Vista 4725 40,144'79
Pinole Vista 81 4726 11 ,686.50
Pittsburg Marina 4730 598.79
J Pitt Riverside 4731 372. 14
Pitt Nbrhood I 4732 4,405.01
Pitt Nbrhood 11 4733 3, 199. 16
Pitt Los Medanos 4734 99,540.23
Pitt Los Med II 4735 9,986.02
Richmond IA 4740 4,859.77
.W Richmond 8A 4741 7,447.84
Richmond 10A 4742 8,910.00
Richmond 10B 4743 337.08
Richmond 11A 4744 27,990.43
Richmond 12A 4745 192. 11
Richmond Henley 4746 599.71
' WC So Broadway 4750 7,672.63
WC Mt Diablo Bl 4751 49027.70
Danville Dntown 4756 4,894.80
SP So Entrance 4760 2,790,91
SP El Portal 4761 14,360.99
SP El Portal Amd 4762 12,806.36
SP Oak Park 4763 3,494'20
SP Sheffield 4764 2,971 ,08
SP Bay View 4765 8,664.03
~~ SPElPortal Ctrl 4766 11 , 166. 16
9P Oak Park 79 4767 594,44
printed 22-Jan-91
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS 1989-9f1
FUND COS-[
ENTITY NO ALLOCA C I ON
-----------------------------------------
SP [-Say View 80 4"76PY
..
F'."H Commons 4770 1.3,038.3`7
PH Commons IA 4771 476. 14
PH School Yard 4772 2, 167. 15
:sail Ramon RDA 4777 10,293.21
PI Hill Bart 4780 14,670.96
West Pittsburg 47131 3,S41 .9,3
North Richmond 4782 465.73
PH Bart Aimnd 47133 11 .0'7
. SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Dublin Jt Unif 40.11 4.11.1
Pleasanton Sch 4014 :3.213
Ed Phy Handicapd 4016 51 .58
Livermore Unif 4018 21460.69
So Co Comm Col 41121.1 376.37
Amador Jt HSIEle 4021 1 .85
Dev Ctr Hdcp 4022 9.24
Educ TMR Ala 4029 23.27
Acalanes Hi 5001 179,751 .85
Canyon Elam 5101 3913.'71
Lafayette Elam 5201 64,389.0B
Moraga Elam 5301 35,616.05
Orinda Elam 5401 39,966.58
Walnut Creek Ele 5501 91 ,`'x'18.95
Liberty Hi 6001 54, 150.91
0.91.
Brentwood Elam 6101 1.;,990. x:3
Byron Elam 6201 15,698.59
Knightsen Elam 6301 4,546.58
Oakley Elam 6401 26,::376.65
Supt of Schools 6901 IP31499.05
Antioch Unified 7101 1.34,3117.1�1B
John Swett Unif 7201 45, I82.24
Martinez Unified 7401 ?C646.61
Mt Diablo Unif 7501 597,351 .::5
4 Pittsburg Unif 7601 97037.60
Richmond Unified 7701 414,853.74
San Ramon Unif 7BOI 472,010. 19
+ ,;+ CC Cam College 7901 97e,932.84
TOTAL 8,28 7,349.00