Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03261985 - 2.2 i. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa DATE: March 19, 1985 County SUBJECT: Legislation: SB 1091 (Campbell) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a position of opposition to SB 1091 by Senator Campbell which would provide property tax revenues to the two cities in Contra Costa County which previously have not imposed a property tax at the expense of the County General Fund and the special districts which provide services within the cities of Pleasant Hill and Lafayette. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SB 1091 requires the Auditor to allocate to cities which were in existence in 1978 but did not impose a property tax the equivalent of 10 cents per $100 of assessed value within those cities as revenue to the cities. This amount is removed from the allocations made to the County General Fund and all special districts providing services within those cities. As the attached analysis from the Auditor-Controller reveals, the City of Pleasant Hill would gain $1, 019 , 357 and the City of Lafayette would gain $1 ,083 ,529, for a total of $2 ,102 , 886. Of this total of more than $2. 1 million, the County General Fund would lose $995 , 000; the Contra Costa Fire District would lose more than $511 ,000 ; the Contra Costa County Library would lose more than $55 , 000, and the other special districts would lose corresponding amounts . REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: As is obvious from the Auditor-Controller' s analysis of SB 1091 , the bill would severely, impact the County General Fund and a wide range of special districts to which property tax revenues are now allocated. With the financial difficulties the County and special districts have already sustained in recent years, it is obvious we do not need to be confronted with an additional property tax loss of this size. It is, therefore, my strong recommendation that the Board oppose SB 1091 and cooperate fully with CSAC and other jurisdictions which would also sustain losses under this bili in attempting to defeat its passage. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: _X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON March 26, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X REQUESTED the County Administrator to prepare letters urging the County' s legislative delegation to oppose SB 1091; REQUESTED employee represented . organizations and Contra Costa Taxpayers' - Association to communicate their VOTE OF SUPERVISORS opposition to the legislators. X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator March 26 1985 CC: County Auditor-Controller ATTESTED Contra Costa Librarian Chief Maxfield, Consolidated Fire DISI. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Chi a SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Senator Dan Boatwright �.�.1� Maaz/�.o9 ssemhl vman William Baker R� nrpIITv Office, of COUNTY AUDITOR - CONTROLLER • Contra Costo County, Martinez, California March 19, 1985 TO: Philip Batchelor, County Administrator C�ontr' 'GSt« Count„ FROM: Donald L. Bouchet, Auditor-Controll RECCIVL ) By: ' Sam Kimoto, Deputy County A r MAR 1 9 .1985 i SUBJECT: Allocation of Property Tax Revel es to No-Property Tax CitiQffice Of (SB 1091) COUW ' `\dminiStratOi- This responds to your memorandum dated March 14, 1985. We do agree that the bill does require allocation of property tax revenues to the City of Pleasant Hill. There is also the City of Lafayette which would be allocated property tax revenues. The total allocations will be $1,019,357 to Pleasant Hill and $1,083,529 to Lafayette. The loss to other jurisdictions are estimated as follows: Jurisdictions Pleasant Hill Lafayette Total Loss County General $ 437,093 $ 557,935 $ 995,028 Library 24,459 31,222 55,681 CC Fire 224,482 286,544 511,026 Flood Control 3,360 4,289 7,649 Flood Control 3B 13,360 17,053 30,413 Water Agency 633 808 1,441 Resource Conservation 295 376 671 Mosquito Abatement 4, 117 5,256 9,373 Central Sanitary 51,994 66,369 118,363 Mt. Diablo Hospital 3,032 3,032 PH Rec & Park 149, 116 149,116 Contra Costa Water 11,947 11,947 BART 10,350 13,212 23,562 Air Quality Management 3,017 3,851 6,868 East Bay Regional Park 49,208 62,812 112,020 PH Street Lighting 1 32,894 32,894 Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery 2,434 2,434 East Bay MUD 31,368 31,368 $1,019,357 $1,083,529 $2, 102,886 It should be noted that schools are left intact, therefore the entire loss will be .made up by local agencies. It should also be noted that there will be considerable computer programming effort required to make the allocations which the legislation says we may, assess the cities. SK:elp