HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091988 - 1.39 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � r^
FROM: Phil Batchelor C=tra
County Administrator CJlJslCl
DATE. February 3 , 1966 CO 1*
SUBJECT; � ��+
Legislation: Assembly Bi11 ' 2922 (McClintock)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt a position of support for AB 2922 by Assemblyman McClintock
which provides an interim solution to the problems presented by
the no- and low-property tax city provisions of SB 709.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to provide at least an interim solution to the
problems presented ; by the no- and low-property tax city
provisions of SB 709 , Assemblyman McClintock has . introduced AB
2922 . This bill does the following:
1. For the 1988-89 ;and 1989-90 fiscal years the bill allows the
County to reimburse itself from the fines and forfeitures
which would otherwise be remitted to the State the amount of
property tax which must be transferred to the no- and
low-property tax cities. In other words, the county would
subtract from the fines and forfeitures which it would have
to transfer to the State the amount of property tax it is
required to transfer to the no- and low-property tax . cities.
2 . Corrects what may well have been a drafting error in SB 709 .
According to SB 7091 the cities do not receive any share of
the annual increase in the property tax during the first ten
years during which the no- and low-property tax city
provisions are being implemented. AB 2922 provides that in
addition to a share of the 1987-88 assessed value the city
will receive a share. of the annual increase in the assessed
value above the 1987-88 base.
3 . AB 2922 corrects another problem with SB 709 relating to the
no-property tax cities receipt of a share of the motor
vehicle in-lieu .fees. These fees have been provided to the
no-property tax cities to compensate them for the loss of
certain revenues, they had received prior to Proposition 13 .
AB 2922 would reduce this amount by the amount of property
tax transferred from the County to the city. According to
the Legislative Analyst, there are 18 cities that will
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE;
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -, RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S I GNATURE(S j:
ACTION OF BOARD ON February" 9. 1988 .-PROVED AS REC'WMENDED X OTHER
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES:" AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: " OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CCCounty raATTESTED Administrator FEB 9 1988
: I _
Auditor-Controller - - - --
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CSAC
Ralph Heim, Jackson/Barish
Assemblyman McClintock __,DEPUTY
M382/7-83 —
t� 4
Page 2
3 . (continued)
actually lose money in the first year or two under SB 709.
This is because they lose all of their motor vehicle in-lieu
revenue and may initially receive little or no property tax
in return. AB 2922 guarantees that no city will actually
lose revenue as a result of the passage of SB 109 .
AB 2922 corrects some of the most glaring problems with SB 709,
although the offset for property tax transfers to the cities from
fines and forfeitures is only for two fiscal years. It is,
however, a sincere effort to resolve the problems created by SB
709 and, as such, deserves the support of the Board of
Supervisors with the clear understanding that this is not the
ultimate, nor even necessarily the best, solution to the problem.
It is, however, a good start and one which deserves the support
of the County.