HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01051999 - C44 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
- : Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ! �� �� ;� Costa
DATE: December 17, 1998 Tq .UU
Coon
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 24 (MADDOX) - FREEZE 1N THE ''EDUCATIONAL
REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in support of AB 24 by Assemblyman Maddox, which would
freeze the growth of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund {ERAF} at the
1998-99 fiscal year level, effective for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has included in its 1999 Legislative Program support for
the efforts of CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus to at least cap the growth of
ERAF, and preferably begin to return some of the base to counties and cities.
Assemblyman Ken Maddox of Orange County has introduced AB 24 which, as
introduced,would freeze the growth in the ERAF at the 1998-99 fiscal year level and
allow existing taxing jurisdictions to retain the growth which would otherwise have
been transferred to the school districts and county offices of education. The bill
exempts community colleges from these provisions and allows them to continue
receiving the growth on their share of the property tax that is transferred to the
ERAF.
In view of the fact that AB 24 appears to be consistent with the Board's adopted
Legislative Program,it is recommended that the Board indicate its support of AB 24.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -YES YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES: 147 e
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED MEIN
January 5, 19139
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
.LSc UNANIMOUS(ABSENT l.L-��� } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON TAIE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISOR THE DATE SHOWN,
ATTESTED
Contact: HIL BATCHELOR, EFW OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 2 SI1 RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
Tony Enea, Sr. Deputy County Administrator
Assemblyman Ken Maddox
68th Assembly District
Room 2179 State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Les Spahnn
Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
1121 L Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
-2-
YI?
_. ._..._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
... ......_... ...._.... ......... ._....... _....... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
...................................................................................
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1999-00 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 24
Introduced by Assembly Members Maddox, Bates, and
Runner
December 7, 1998
An act to amend Section 41204.1 of the Education Code, and
to add Section 97.52 to the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to local government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 24, as introduced, Maddox. Local fiscal relief: property
tax revenue allocation.
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in
each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenues to local
jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and
procedures, and generally requires that each jurisdiction be
allocated an amount equal to the total of the amount of
revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year,
subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion
of the annual tax increment, as defined. Existing property tax
law reduces the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenues
that would otherwise be annually allocated to the county,
cities, and special districts pursuant to these general allocation
provisions by requiring, for purposes of determining property
tax revenue allocations in each county for the 1992-93 and
1993-94 fiscal years, that the amounts of property tax revenue
deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to the county, cities,
and special districts be reduced in accordance with certain
formulas. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the
99
�7
_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._._.._. _
_.... ................._..._. ......... ........ ......... ......... __....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
_. _........ . ._...... .........
r�
AB 24 — 2 —
county,
--- 2 —county, cities, and special districts as a result of these
reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to
school districts, community college districts, and the county
office of education.
This bill would, except as otherwise provided with respect
to amounts attributable to community colleges, prohibit a
county auditor, for the 1999-2000 fiscal year and each fiscal
year thereafter, from allocating to that county's ERAF a total
amount of ad valorem property tax revenue greater than the
amount allocated from that fund to school districts and the
county office of education for the 1998-99 fiscal year. This bill
would require any reductions resulting from these provisions
in the amount of revenues deposited in a county's ERAF to be
exclusively applied to reduce allocations from that fund to
school districts and the county office of education. By
imposing new duties in the annual allocation of ad valorem
property tax revenues, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the Director of Finance to make
certain adjustments in one of the formulas used in computing
the state's obligation under the California Constitution to
provide funding for school districts and community college
districts so as to ensure that the modifications in property tax
revenue allocation requirements that were made by a prior
enactment do not have a net fiscal impact on school districts
or community college districts, or upon the state's funding
obligation to those districts.
This bill would instead apply the adjustment requirement
to modifications in property tax revenue allocation
requirements that are made by "qualified provisions," and
would define "qualified provisions" to include both the prior
enactment currently specified by the adjustment
requirement and a specified statute proposed to be added by
this bill.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for
making that reimbursement.
r^f
— 3 — AB 24
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required
by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. .Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State--mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 41204.1 of the Education Code is
2 amended to read:
3 41204.1. (a) (1) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of
4 subdivision (b) of Section 41204, the Director of Finance
5 shall annually adjust "the percentage of General Fund
6 revenues appropriated for school districts and
7 community college districts, respectively, in the 1986-87
8 fiscal year" for purposes of applying paragraph (1) of
9 subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the
10 California Constitution, to reflect those property tax
11 revenue allocation modifications, required by the
12 amendments made to Chapter 6 (commencing with
13 Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
14 Taxation Code by the aet a4ding this seet4 qualifying
15 provisions, as defined in paragraph (2), in a manner that
16 ensures that those modifications will have no net fiscal
17 impact upon the amounts that are otherwise required to
18 be applied by the state for the support of school districts
19 and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of
20 Article XVI of the California Constitution.
21 (2) For purposes of this section, "qualifying
22 provisions" means both of the following:
23 (A) The amendments made to Sections 97.2 and 97.3
24 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by Chapter .1111 of the
25 Statutes of 1996.
26 (B) Section 97.52 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
27 (b) It is the intent of the Legislature itt enaeting the
28 etet ad4ing this seetkm to ensure both of the following:
29 (1) That the changes required by the aef a44ing---this
30 seetion qualifying provisions in the allocations of ad
31 valorem property tax revenues do not have a net fiscal
32 impact upon school districts, as defined in accordance
33 with Section 41302.5, or community college districts.
......... ......... ......... ......... ....._....__._. _
..................._.... ......... ......... ......... ._....... ......... ......... ......... .............._.
. . . ....................................................................................................................
AB 24 — 4 -
1
4 —.-1 (2) That the changes required by the aet adding this
2 seems qualifying provisions in the allocations of ad
3 valorem property tax revenues do not have a net fiscal
4 impact upon the amounts of revenue otherwise required
5 to be applied by the state for the support of school districts
6 and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of
7 Article XVI of the California Constitution.
8 SEC. 2. Section 97.52 is added to the Revenue and
9 Taxation Code, to read:
10 97.52. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
11 this chapter, for purposes of ad valorem property tax
12 revenue allocations for the 1999--2000 fiscal year and each
13 fiscal year thereafter, the auditor shall comply with all of
14 the following requirements:
15 (1) The auditor shall not allocate to the county's
16 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund a total
17 amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is
18 greater than the sum of the following amounts:
19 (A) An amount of ad valorem property tax revenue
20 that is equal to the amount of revenue that was deposited
21 in the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation
22 Fund, and allocated from that fund to school districts and
23 the county office of education, in the 1998--99 fiscal year.
24 (B) The amount of ad valorem property tax revenue
25 that is attributable in the relevant fiscal year to the
26 amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that was
27 deposited in the county's Educational Revenue
28 Augmentation Fund, and was allocated from that fund to
29 community college districts, in the prior fiscal year.
30 (2) Any amount of revenue not allocated to the
31 county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund as a
32 result of the limitation established in subdivision (a) shall
33 be allocated among the county, cities, and special
34 districts, in accordance with each local agency's
35 proportionate share of those revenues that would be
36 required to be allocated to the county's Educational
37 Revenue Augmentation Fund for the relevant fiscal year
38 in the absence of paragraph (1).
39 (b) (1) For the 2000-01 fiscal year and each fiscal year
40 thereafter, the total amount of ad valorem property tax
— 5 — AB 249:s
1 revenue that, in the absence of subdivision (a), is
2 required to be allocated to the county, a city, a special
3 district, or the county's Educational Revenue
4 Augmentation Fund shall be determined without regard
5 to any increase or reduction that was made pursuant to
6 subdivision (a) in the prior fiscal year.
7 (2) Any reduction in the amount of ad valorem
8 property tax revenues deposited in the county's
9 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund resulting
0 from the implementation of subdivision (a) shall be
lI applied exclusively to reduce the amount of revenues
2 allocated from that fund to school districts and county
i 3 offices of education, and shall in no event be applied to
,A reduce the amount of revenues allocated from that fund
5 to community college districts.
6 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act
7 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
.8 Constitution because this act provides for offsetting
9 savings to local agencies or school districts that result in
10 no net costs to the local agencies or school districts, within
'.1 the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
12 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government
'3 Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act
'4 shall become operative on the same date that the act
15 takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
O
99
f,�iVr
I