HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04091985 - X.14 t
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS t
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra
Costa
DATE: April 9, 1985 County
SUBJECT., SANTA BARBARA COUNTY; NEW OIL TAX
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
' RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer the attached article to the
County Administrator' s Office to include in its review and analysis of
oil and gas taxes.
TT:gro
(oiltax.pei)
-Im L 7"` wL
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON _ Aprll 9 , 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 ) 1 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 SUPERVISOR"N THE DATE SHOWN.
s
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED Lfm,,_ q
I e or,CletK oTth-e-Wattlo
s aad Noy Administrator
M3e217.63 BYDEPUTY
----_ _..,.-,..,,-.-,>u��. �- T- .., - �.. .., -...
,
s
1: 311111
I
MARCH 15, 1985 NEWSLETTER OF THE CALIFORNIA TA P4YERS' ASSOCIATION VOL. 26 NO. 6
Santa Barbara County mulls new oil tax
Santa Barbara County plans a series long term are considered to be more than
of public hearings that could lead to a ma- adequate to cover the cost of impact on
jor new tax on oil processing in that coun- the community,immediate expenses are
tv. A tax of up to 10 cents per-barrel is expected to be a drain on county funds.
being.considered, and if enacted, would
be the only one of its kind imposed by a As part of the county permit process
I county in the state—and would establish for oil development,oil companies already
a landmark precedent in overall taxing have agreed to mitigate socio-economic
authority of counties. impacts resulting from offshore oil pro
duction. It is unclear at this point .
The tax proposal could be placed on whether the new tax.which could produce
the November 1985 county ballot by the up to S20 million per year,would be in ad-
Board of Supervisors. It would require dition to mitigation agreements or a
two-thirds voter approval to pass. replacement for some or all of the
The tax was first suggested.in July agreements.
1984 as one approach to mitigate in- One question raised by oil companies
creased costs forecast as a result of off- relates to timing of the tax and stated
shore oil development planned for that need of the countv. The-tax would not
region in the next several years. produce revenue at the beginning stages
While county property tax revenues of development but would yield revenue
from oil-related development over the (Continued on Page 2)
Santa Barbara County considers new oil processing tax
(Continued from Page 1) the next several years.Revenue from the amount to between $4. million and $5
after oil is produced.The county has said oil tax would be shared with other million. This 'amount will be shared
costs that need to be met are in the early jurisdictions in the county. among local jurisdictions, including
stages of oil development. In contrast to cities, which enjoy schools, cities, and the county.
The county counsel believes that the broad taxing powers under the Supplemental roll revenue from oil
California Government Code Section. "municipal affairs" authority, counties development will increase sharply as
50075 et seq. authorizes the county to have been limited in the types of taxes facilities are installed:This new revenue
levy the new tax.This section,added by they may impose.Counties have operated source should become an important con-
SB 785(Foran)in 1979,was a measure to under general statutes authorizing the sideration in the discussion of adequacy
implement Proposition 13's two-thirds levy of transient occupancy taxes (bed of the existing tax structure and
vote requirement for city and county taxes) and property transfer taxes. agreements with oil companies to
special taxes. A Santa Barbara County oil process- mitigate impacts from development in
When enacted, SB 785 was intended ing tax would be a dramatic departure Santa Barbara County.
to cover only those taxes already from the conventional view of county tax- _
authorized by the Legislature for cities ing authority.
and counties. Not taken into consideration by the
However, some local jurisdictions county at this point is the financial
have since interpreted this 1979 law to benefit from oil development to tFecoun-
allow imposition of a variety of new taxes. ty because of the relatively new sum
In the case of Santa Barbara County, it Plemental property tax roll.
is now being used as authority to levy a tate legislation now provides an op
new tax that is nowhere specifically portunity for local governments, in
authorized for counties. cluding cities and counties, to share
According to the county,the new tax. revenue from the supplemental propert
is necessary for increased police and fire tax roll.
service, as well as to finance more road According to estimates from the San-
repair, park maintenance, and other ser- to Barbara County Auditor's Office,this
vices needed to accommodate the influx total revenue from the supplemental roll
of new residents the county expects over —not including oil development—could
A ,
i. New Oil Tax Santa Barbara County
2 . Referral of Article to County Admin. 4/9/$5