Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05261987 - 1.2 (2) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS + FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra County Administrator Costa DATE: May 20, 1987 County SUBJECT: 1 'l Legislation: Assembly Bill 2266 (.Ferguson) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION- Adopt a position in opposition to AB 2266 by Assemblyman Ferguson which would require that each local agency which receives property tax revenue spend that portion of its annual tax increment allocation which is due to new construction solely for capital facilities necessary to service that new construction. BACKGROUND: Under current law, property tax revenue is among the last totally discretionary sources of revenue available to a county. Property tax revenue for the county, and all other local taxing jurisdictions which receive property tax revenue, is made up of the 2% annual increment on existing property which has not changed hands during the year, increases in property tax due to the completion of new construction, and increases due to the supplemental property tax which taxes changes of ownership and new construction at the time the change in ownership occurs, or the new construction is completed. Property tax revenue is used to provide a broad range of services, including health and welfare,. courts, jails, Sheriff ' s patrol, animal services, and nearly every other service provided by the county. Assemblyman Ferguson has introduced AB 2266 which would require that the Assessor and Auditor-Controller account separately for increased property tax which is due to new construction. These property tax revenues could only be used to provide capital construction necessary to service that new construction. AB 2266 has two major problems: 1. It requires an extremely complex, if not nearly impossible, record-keeping task for the Assessor and Auditor-Controller plus the Governings Boards of every local jurisdiction which receives property taxes. Not only would increased property taxes due to new construction have to be identified for every taxing jurisdiction, that jurisdiction, in turn, would be required to use the property tax only /yfor capital CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA(((TION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): VA" le Y4ya ACTION OF BOARD ON May 26, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X 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 DA SHOWN. MAY 261 7 Cc: County Administrator ATTESTED Countv Auditor County Assessor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CSAC Director Jackson/Barish & Associates M382/7-assemblyman Ferguson BY �`� DEPUTY Page 2 1 . (continued) construction necessary to service that new construction. The computer programming necessary to maintain such records, and the responsibility of each taxing jurisdiction to track each such dollar of increased property tax revenue to show that it went to capital construction that was necessary to serve the new construction which generated the increased property tax, is staggering. 2 . Aside from the record-keeping involved, AB 2266 ignores the fact that new construction generates new residents and employees who receive traffic tickets, need health care and welfare services, want police patrol and make increased use of many county services, none of which necessarily involve new capital expenditure needs. The inability of the County to use these increased property tax revenues to meet the increased non-capital demands of the community would reduce the availability of such services to all residents. The County provides more than roads, sewers, curbs, sidewalks and street lights. Increased residential and commercial construction places increased demands on all taxing jurisdictions to provide a broad range of services. The Auditor-Controller notes that the State Association of County Auditors is already opposed to AB 2266 and recommends that the Board of Supervisors also oppose AB 2266 . We join the Auditor in that recommendation.