HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06241986 - 1.41 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1-041
FROM: Phil Batchelor +,,��,,rr���t,,,a
CWCounty Administrator �
DATE: June 16, 1986
@ Coin
SUBJECT: Legislation: Assembly Bill 2475 (Vuich)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt a position of support for AB 2475 by Senator Vuich.
Prior to Proposition 13 , counties were, in effect, able to
reimburse themselves for the cost of levying, collecting, and
administering the property tax by setting the tax rate at a level
that would adequately fund the Assessor, Tax Collector, and
Auditor-Controller. With the passage of Proposition 13, all
local taxing jurisdictions have had their property tax revenue
reduced by approximately one-half. Counties sustained
proportionately the same reduction as other taxing jurisdictions,
but continued to carry the full burden of administering the
property tax for all local jurisdictions. Senator Vuich has
introduced SB 2475 in an effort to at least partially remedy this
inequity.
SB 2475 would enact a fairly complex formula for determining the
"non-county cost shortfall" of administering the property tax.
This is done by determining the proportion of the cost of
administering the property tax in 1977-78 which was for
non-County jurisdictions. A similar proportion is then
determined for the 1979-80 fiscal year. The Auditor then
determines a "non-county cost ratio" by dividing the 1977-78
non-county cost by the 1977-78 property tax revenue for the
County. This ratio is then applied to the 1979-80 non-county
cost by subtracting from the 1979-80 non-county cost the
non-county cost ratio multiplied by the 1979-80 property tax
revenue for the County. This provides the 111979-80 non-county
cost shortfall" . The Auditor finally determines the "non-county
cost shortfall" by multiplying the 1979-80 non-county cost
shortfall by the ratio of the 1986-87 property tax revenue
allocated to the County divided by the 1979-80 property tax
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): G/1 .
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 24, 198b APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X, OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATES SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED
Auditor-Controller ---- --
PHIL OATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Treasurer-Tax Collector SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Assessor
Senator Rose Ann Vuich _
Kathy Snodgrass, Jackson/Barish BY DEPUTY
M382/7-83 Exec. Dir. , CSAC
Page 2
allocated to the County. In formula form this might be displayed
as follows:
(B-C)
D (E-FA ( E } F G
X = ( E ) C F
Where:
X = Non-county cost shortfall
A = Cost of administering the 1977-78 property tax
B = Total 1977-78 property tax revenue
C = 1977-78 county share of property tax revenue
D = Cost of administering the 1979-80 property tax
E = Total 1979-80 property tax revenue
F = 1979-80 county share of property tax
G = 1986-87 county share of property tax
The Auditor-Controller has not made any precise calculations of
what this formula might mean when applied to this County, but his
preliminary estimate is that we would recover about one-quarter
of 70% of the current cost of administering the property tax.
This would probably result in additional county revenue in excess
of $1, 000,000 for the 1986-87 fiscal year. This revenue to the
county would be kept by the county before property tax
allocations are made to other jurisdictions.