HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091988 - 3.8 I
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order in February 9, 1988 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I
SUBJECT: City of Lafayette Opposition to
Proposed Legislation SB 1725
The Board received the attached letter from Don Tatzin,
Lafayette City Council, 251 Lafayette Circle, Lafayette 94549,
expressing the City's opposition to proposed legislation SB 1725
which would repeal the no property tax and low property tax provi-
sions of SB 709.
Supervisor Sunne McPeak stated that at a recent Mayors '
Conference meeting the City of Lafayette had presented a resolution
requesting the County to implement SB 709. She advised that she
had requested a meeting with the elected officials of the concerned
cities to present the County' s position on SB 709, and that it had
been suggested bytheayors ' Conference that the Board of
Supervisors ' City/Cou y Relations Committee and the County
Administrator meet with city representatives to discuss the issues.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
letter from the Lafayette City Council relative to proposed legis-
lation SB 1725 is REFERRED to the City/County Relations Committee.
cc: City of Lafayette
City/County Relations Committee
County Administrator
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the inin-'es c: :�e
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL BATCHELOR, C e k ca th-, oz d
of Supervisors and County
BY � 1 , Dep�iy
I
i
I
i
^-gl� 4
w I CITY COUNCIL
Ernest W.Parti,Mayor
Avon M.Wilson,Vice Mayor
Richard F.Holmes
\ Donald L.Tatzin
Gayle B.Uilkema
LAFAYETTE
SMLED 11w8=1.%C0*"1Lven J9U
�o
January 25, IkECEIVED
Mr. Robert Schroder
Contra Costa''. County Board of Supervisors FEB 0 1 1988
651 Pine Street
Martinez CAI 94553 PHIL BATCHELOR
K 6 A )OF SUPERVISORS
NTRA COSjA Cp.
Dear Bob: 6.4. . . .. ...... D.Cuty
Lafayette has just received a copy of Phil Batchelor's memorandum
to the Board dated January 6, 1988 concerning SB 1725 (Bergeson) .
As you know,' SB 1725 would repeal the no and low property tax
provisions of SB 709 of 1987.
It is surprising - and disappointing - that the Contra Costa
County Boa 4 of Supervisors continues to use the arguments cited
in the draftjresolution attached to Phil Batcheior's memorandum.
The arguments are:
1. SB 709 ! discriminates against counties having no and low
property tax cities. This argument is specious. Consider:
Any County containing a no property tax city has, for the 10
years since Proposition 13, been able to retain property
taxes which would have been returned to the city if the city
had a property tax in 1978 or if the city incorporated after
1978. Our no property tax cities (Lafayette and Pleasant
Hill ) had to provide municipal services, but did so entirely
from non-property tax sources, unlike every other city in the
County. The County, in such cases, has been an obvious
gainer from this inequity. For the County now to complain at
the loss ,of an unjustifiable gain is without merit.
2. The statement is made that no and low property tax cities do
not provide the full range of municipal services provided by
other cities.
i
There are two answers here:
a. !The statement is a broad generalization that is
frequently untrue. (It could, of course, be true if
cities depended on property taxes as their sole source
of Irevenue, but we all know this is not factual ) .
DrISTRIBUnON -Martinez is a property tax city of the approximate
population of Pleasant Hill . Could you describe for us
. „ Board Members 4�av�11'eD the range of muni c pal services Martinez provides that
County Administrator Pleasant Hill does not? (Recognizing, of course, that
Hoalth services Martinez provides domestic water, but this service pays
..L..cornmun4 Development for itself separately) .
Public Works
County Counsel
251 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
TELEPHONE: (415) 284-1968
• Robert Schroder
January 25, 1988 Page 2
b. Where o and low property tax cities provide fewer services it
is out of necessity because they are deprived of their share of
legitimate property tax returns.
3. It is alleged that the transfer of property tax revenue to no and low
property tax cities will eventually exceed the revenues counties will
receive under the Trial Court Funding Act.
This is the sole argument presented by the County which has validity.
What should be done?
Contra Costa County should cease its efforts to beggar the no and
low property tax cities, because that eventuality is believed - by
County staff and ourselves - to be at least 8 years ahead. In the
interim, there is no question that the County will gain
financially. The County should support the no and low property
tax cities now and seek their support for long range relief for
the County 'from its financial problems. Lafayette would be glad
to join inisuch an effort.
We urge that Contra 'Costa County opt-in to the Trial Court Funding Act and
cease its efforts to undermine the small yet vital steps toward economic
justice for low andlno property tax cities that are included in SB 709.
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Parti
Mayor City of Lafayette
EWP:It
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Mayors of No and Low Propety Tax Cities in Contra Costa Co.
CCC Mayors Conference
Senator Daniel W. Boatwright
Senator Nicholas Petris
Assemblyman William Baker
1-23ewp
i