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