HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03281989 - 2.1 2. 1 tL
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 28, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Enactment of Proposition 90 in Contra Costa County
The Board on February 28, 1989 continued to this day the
hearing on Proposition 90, approved by the California voters in
November 1988. In response to the request of the Board, the County
Administrator provided additional information relative to in- and
out-migration of the 55 and over population and impacts of enacting
Proposition 90. (A copy of that report is attached and included as
a part of this document. )
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, commented on the pro-
jected revenue loses and potential consequences to the County' s
Budget for the next fiscal year. He called attention to the fact
that greater demands are being placed upon the County to provide
services, particularly in the area of drug abuse. Mr. Batchelor
advised that to date six counties have implemented Prop 90, five
counties have rejected implementation, 24 have no plans to imple-
ment it, and 22 are still discussing it. He noted that implemen-
tation of Prop 90 could mean additional revenue loses to this
County.
Kerry Harms-Taylor, Assistant County Administrator, commented
on the scope of the report. She advised of the difficulty in
obtaining information in order to make a projection on revenue
impacts on this County if Prop 90 were enacted. She noted that
enactment of Proposition 90 by this County would only be pertinent
to in-migrants since they are the people who would benefit.
The Chair then declared the hearing open for further comments.
The following persons spoke in favor of Proposition 90 and urged
the Board to enact its provisions in Contra Costa County:
Charles Howard, A.A.R.P. , 906 Hawthorne, Rodeo;
Arthur P. Williams, 1 Treasure Hill, Oakland;
J. Musto, 602 W. Myrick Court, Clayton;
Thamari Kuechau, 921 Everett Avenue, Oakland;
Walter Blumst, members of the Advisory Council on Aging,
265 Inez Place, Orinda; and
Mr. & Mrs. F. A. Carter, 1221 Avenida Sevilla, Walnut Creek.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he could understand staff ' s
position relative to the fiscal impact on Contra Costa County with
the enactment of this proposition. He commented on the changes in
the life styles of people over 55 who are nearing retirement. He
advised that he would be in favor of enacting Prop 90 in this
County.
Supervisor Powers advised that he did not believe enactment of
Proposition 90 would have negative impacts on this County. He
expressed the belief that many counties throughout the State will
opt to enact Proposition 90 which will provide the stimulus for
i
people to move. He expressed his support for enacting Proposition
90 including the adoption of a resolution establishing an Assessor
fee of $65 for inter-county assessment value transfer services to
reimburse the Assessor' s Office for actual costs of processing the
transfers.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would be voting against
the measure because of fiscal uncertainties and budgetary con-
straints the County is experiencing. He expressed concern that the
County can only respond to half of the reported child abuse cases
because of the lack of fiscal resources to address this problem. He
stated that he did not believe this was the time to enact a measure
that would increase the revenue loss to the County and noted that
the County does have mechanisms in place to assist senior citizens.
Supervisor Torlakson called attention to the needs of young fami-
lies for affordable housing. He expressed the belief that the
Legislature should develop a process to equalize the losses to
local jurisdictions as a result of the passage of this proposition.
Supervisor Fanden advised that she is responding to the will
of the electorate and therefore would support enactment of Prop 90
in this County.
There being no further discussion, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD
that the hearing is CLOSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board DECLARES its intent to
enact Proposition 90 in Contra Costa County and directs County
Counsel to prepare the appropriate Ordinance implementing Proposi-
tion 90 for introduction on April 11, 1989 and adoption on April
18, 1989.
IS IS FURTHER ORDERED that Resolution No. 89/ 215is ADOPTED
establishing an Assessor fee of $65 for inter-county assessment
value transfer services to reimburse the Assessor' s Office for
actual costs of processing the transfers.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entored on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
AITESTEA: hl,"244 -1 A /I/' 9
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of SupwWso a and County Administrator
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
Assessor gY '_T"'_' ."_.4�eP►�`►
Auditor-Controller
Treasurer-Tax Collector
N
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor Y Contra
County Administrator ' `�YY
Costa
County
DATE: srq-couK`�
March 21, 1989
SUBJECT:
PROPOSITION 90
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Accept report and take no action to adopt an ordinance to enact Proposition
90 in Contra Costa County.
If your Board elects to enact Proposition 90, it is then recommended that
your Board adopt a resolution establishing an Assessor fee of $65 for
inter-county assessment value transfer services to reimburse the Assessor' s
Office for actual costs of processing the transfers and direct County
Counsel to prepare an ordinance implementing Proposition 90 and schedule
the first reading on April 11th for adoption on April 18. The ordinance
would become effective thirty days after adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The adoption of an ordinance implementing Proposition 90 would reduce
aggregating amounts of property tax revenues available to the County and to
other taxing entities within the County ranging from a low of $99,225 in
the first year plus administrative costs of $15, 584 and up to a cumulative
high by year five of $433 ,074, plus administrative costs of $18,942. The
total loss to all taxing entities if Proposition 90 is implemented is
estimated to be $367 ,500 for the first year of implementation and
$1,603 ,977 , cumulative by year five.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 1988, the State electorate passed Proposition 90 providing
that county Boards of Supervisors may opt to adopt an ordinance permitting
persons over 55 years of age to transfer base year values on dwellings in
another county to dwellings acquired in this county.
In November, the County Administrator requested the Assessor to prepare a
report on the fiscal and programmatic impacts of implementing Proposition
CONTIN D ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HER CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORR COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED O E MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAI OF SUPERVISORS ON ATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMI ATOR
BY UTY
M382 10/88)
Proposition 90
Page 2
90 . The Assessor' s report indicated that there would be both programmatic
and fiscal impacts to the County if Proposition , 90 is implemented.
Additional part-time staff would be required by the Assessor to administer
the program and tax revenue to the County would be reduced in increasing
amounts annually, aggregating to over $1. 6 million in five years.
On December 6 , 1988, the County Administrator reported to your Board the
impact of implementing Proposition 90 . A hearing was set for
February 28, 1989, and it was recommended that the County Administrator' s
Office notify all taxing entities and solicit their comments.
At the hearing on February 28, the County Administrator reported the
results of the responses from the impacted taxing entities and provided
some revenue loss scenarios to support the property tax loss to the County.
Your Board requested that a more extensive study be completed with respect
to in- and out-migration of the 55 and over population and the potential
positive impacts of enacting Proposition 90, that staff contact the County
Supervisors Association of California to review what other counties are
doing, gather statistics from the Association of Bay Area Government and
Contra Costa Board of Realtors, determine eligible types of property tax
relief programs for senior citizens and the number of seniors that are
homeowners in the County.
1. County Survey
An update of the survey of other counties' implementation of
Proposition 90 completed by the County Supervisors Association of
California is attached for your review. To date, six counties have
enacted Proposition 90, five counties have rejected implementation, 24
have no plans to implement it, and 22 are still discussing it.
2. Statistics from Board of Realtors and ABAG
The Contra Costa Board of Realtors could not provide any additional
information than previously provided relating to the in- and
out-migration in the County. The Association of Bay Area Government
has no current statistics relating to in- and out-migration.
3 . Senior Citizen Property Tax Relief
Your Board requested that the County Administrator determine what
property tax relief programs are available for seniors. There are two
programs in place that assist senior citizens: ( 1 ) Senior Citizens
Property Tax Assistance which provides direct reimbursements for a
portion of property taxes for people of age 62 and older and ( 2)
Senior Citizens Property Tax Deferral which provides a postponement of
property tax payments for age 62 and older. There is no data
available indicating the total number of senior citizens who are
property owners in Contra Costa County.
4. Migration Trends
The only data available on migration trends is from two sources:
census data supplied by the Community Development Department and in
and out migration by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The data
provided shows conflicting information regarding the number of persons
moving in and out of the County. The census data indicates more
in-migrants while the Department of Motor Vehicles data shows more
out-migrants. Although information on out-migration is provided, the
enactment of Proposition 90 by this County is only pertinent to
in-migrants, as they would be the people who would benefit. Any
benefit to the County from out-migration, which allows reassessment of
property to current market value, would exist even if the County does
not implement Proposition 90 .
CENSUS DATA
Based on the census data received, the total population of 55 and over in
this County in July 1988 was 154,185. Current census data is not available
Proposition 90
Page 3
regarding in- and out-migration from the County by the 55 and over age
group. The 1980 census data specifies the age groups of interest but is
neither current nor does it provide separate statistics on migration from
other counties. Instead, the data includes migration from other states,
which is not relevant to Proposition 90. The 1980 census data shows more
persons 55 and over moving into the County, 17 ,753 , than moving out,
16, 271.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) DATA
The County Supervisors Association recommended that the county use the data
and analysis used by Marin County to determine in-migration. Marin County
used the Annual Report, "Driver License Address Change" prepared for the
State Department of Finance by the Department of Motor Vehicles which gives
the number of in-migrants by County by certain age groups.
The age categories in the DMV report are 45-64 and 65 and over. Since
eligibility for Proposition 90 is 55 and over, some assumptions made by
Marin County were that one-half of the 45-64 age group is 55 and over.
This number is combined with the 65 and over for a total of 3412
in-migrants, and a total of 3601 out-migrants 55 and over for Contra Costa
County. Another assumption was that 600 of these totals would be heads of
households, thereby accounting for couples. By using this assumption, the
number of 55 and over heads of households moving into the County would be
2047 and the out-migration would be 2160. This particular data indicates
5% more movement out of the County than into in this age group. A further
assumption made on total heads of households would be that 70o would be
home buyers, or 1433 .
DMV data only deals with individuals with drivers licenses. Nevertheless,
it could be assumed that the majority of those moving have driver' s
licenses and, therefore, are included in these statistics. There are not
statistics, however, that connect these individuals to property ownership
in terms of in- and out-migration.
It should be pointed out that the assumed number of 1433 heads of
households moving into the County is over five times greater than the
number used by the Assessor of 245, in his estimation of the fiscal impact
to the County if Proposition 90 were to be enacted. The Assessor' s fiscal
impact study, however, was based on the current annual experience with
Proposition 60 applicants.
CONCLUSION
Available census data is neither current nor reflective of only
in-migration from other California counties. DMV data is not separated
into the relevant age groups. Neither data reflects the in- and
out-migration of property owners. Without such information, particularly
on the movement of property owners into this County and on the property
taxes they would pay depending on the base year values of the homes they
sold in the other counties and the ones they purchased in this County, it
is not possible to provide the Board with specific, accurate gain/loss
scenarios. However, three hypothetical' transactions are attached based on
actual Proposition 60 cases.
Although Proposition 90 may have positive benefits for non-County residents
moving into the County, due to the potential revenue loss to the County and
to taxing entities, and given the County' s current and projected fiscal
constraints relative to identified but unmet needs, this office cannot at
this time recommend proceeding with the implementation of Proposition 90 in
Contra Costa County.
Proposition 90
Page 4
I
PROPOSITION 90 SCENARIOS
Scenario 1 : Ineligible Prop 90, County Gains $:$
A house in Walnut Creek is purchased at a price of $250 ,000 by an
Alameda County buyer* who is ineligible for the Proposition 90
exemption. The pre-Proposition 13 value currently on the
assessment roll is $100,000 .
In this scenario, the County would gain $150,000 in assessed
value as follows:
$250 ,000 Purchase price (market value)
- 100,000 Current roll value
$150,000 Increased roll value
Although this scenario is not directly related to Contra Costa
County' s enactment of Proposition 90, it may be related to other
counties' enactment of it in that Contra Costa County 55+ year
old homeowners may be attracted to other counties and, therefore,
increase appraisable property turnover in Contra Costa County.
* In this scenario, the buyer may also be a Contra Costa
buyer who is ineligible for a Proposition 60 exemption.
Scenario 2: County Gains $$ , But Loses Opportunity For More
Proposition 90 is enacted.
An Antioch home (House 2 ) is purchased at a price of $170,000 by
a San Mateo County buyer who is eligible for the Proposition 90
exemption. The pre-Proposition 13 value on the Antioch house is
$65,000 on the assessment roll. The buyer had owned his house in
San Mateo (House 1) for 20 years and the San Mateo County roll
value for House 1 is $80,000 .
In this scenario, the County would gain $15 ,000 in assessed value
as follows:
$ 80,000 Prop. 90 Value
- 65 , 000 Current roll value
$ 15,000 Increased roll value
However, an opportunity cost exists under Proposition 90 . If
Proposition 90 was not enacted, the County would have gained
$105 ,000 from this transaction as follows:
$170 ,000 Purchase price (Market value)
- 65,000 Current roll value
$105 ,000 Potential increased roll value
Scenario 3 : County Gains
Proposition 90 is not enacted.
A house in Danville is purchased at a price of $300,000 by a
buyer of any age from Santa Clara County. The pre-Proposition 13
roll value is $100,000 .
In this scenario, the County would gain $200,000 in assessed
value as follows:
$300, 000 Purchase price (Market value)
-100,000 Current roll value
$200,000 Increased roll value
NAR-21-1989 17:-7,6 FROM _OUNTY SURERUISOR=; ASSOC. TO 141c6464098 P.01
PROPOSITION 90 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS
�'Qunty Action Fiscallnanact
(Couaty Share of PT Loss)
Alamcda Under discussion To be determined
Alpine No plans to implement Unknown
Amador No plans to implement Unknown
Butte Under discussion Unknown
Calaveras Under discussion Unknown
Colusa No plans to implement Unknown
Contra Costa Hearing (3/28/89) Year 1: $99,255 (taxes)
Year 1: $15,584 (admin)
Year 5: $433,074 (taxes)
Year 5: $18,942 (admin)
Dcl Norte No plans to implement Unknown
El Dorado Implementation rejected Unknown
Fresno Implementation rejected Year 1: $200,000
(2/28/89) Year 5: $733,000
Glenn Under discussion To be determined
Humboldt No plans to implement Unknown
Imperial No plans to implement Unknown '
Inyo Under discussion Year 1: $10,000 - $15,000
Dern Resolution adopted Minimal revenue loss based
Effective: 2/2/89 on Prop 60 experience
Kings No plans to implement Unknown
Lake Under discussion To be determined
Lassen No plans to implement Unknowns
Los Angeles Hearing (3/30/89) Minimal impact anticipated
MHF'�-21-1489 17:'E FROM COUNTY SUPERV I SOBS HSSOC. TO 14J--64C,4098 P.02
PROPOSITION 90 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS
Fiscal rmnact
Cony Adt (County Share of PT Loss)
Madera Hearing (3/28/89) Annual: $22,500
Mario Resolution adopted Year 1: $131,425
Effective: 3/30/89 Year 5: $758,645
Application fee: $400/pareel -
Mariposa Under discussion To be determined
Mendocino No plans to implement Unknown
Merced Under discussion To be determined
Modoc No plans to implement Unknown
Mono Under discussion Unknown
Monterey Implementation rejected Year 1: $109,871
(1/24/89) Year 5., $549,355
Napa Implementation rejected To be determined
Nevada Hearing (3/7/89) Year 1: $16,906
Year 5: $101,819
Orange Ordinance adopted Unknown
Effective: 2/15/89
Placer Under discussion Unknown
Plumas No plans to implement Unknown
Riverside Resolution adopted Year 1: $158,400 - $528,000
Effective: Year 5: $834,333 - $2,780,650
Admin: $50,000 annually
Sacramento Implementation rejected 1989-90: $14,500 - $28,000
(1/17/89) 1993-94: $204,000 - $401,500
Admin: $16,605 - $32,220
San Benito No plans to implement Unknown
San Bernardino No pians to implement Annual: $30,302
Admin: $16,700 annual
Sart Diego Resolution adapted Admin: $5,500 annually
Effective: 2/14/89
tt F, 1-1 c,` 17.36• FROM f OUh T''r' ' LtF F'.�I- P , -, OC. TO 1 115 6464 9a P.O3
r Cr
PROPOSITION 90 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS
)Fiscal Impact
COR
t 8g (County Sba re of FT Loss)
San Francisco Under discussion Minimal impact anticipated
San Joaquin No plans to implement Unknown
San Luis Obispo Implementation rejected Year is $67,000-$133,000 -
(2/28/89) Year 2: $148,000-$293,000
San Matto Resolution adopted Unknown
Effective. 2/16/89
Santa Barbara Hearing (3/27/89) 1989-90: $112,500 (taxes)
1989-90: $ 18,000 (admin)
1993-94: $412,500 (taxes)
1993-94: $ 16,000 (admin)
Santa Clara Under discussion To be determined
Santa Cruz Implementation rejected Unknown
(12/13/88)
Shasta Implementation rejected Year 1: $1,750
(2/28/89) (.used on "typical" transaction)
Sierra Under discussion To be determined
Siskiyou No plazas to implement Unknown
Solano No plans to implement Annual: Minimum $50,000
Sonoma Implementation rejected Year 1: $117,980
(12/13/89) 'Year 5: $699,259
Stanislaus No plans to implement Unknown
Sutter Under discussion Unknown
Tehama No plans to implement Unknown
Tzini.ty No plans to implement Unknown
Tulare Implementation rejected Unknown
(12/13/88)
2. 1b
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
I
i
Adopted this Order on March 28, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION
SUBJECT: Establish a Fee for Inter- NO. 89/215
County Assessment Value
Transfer Services
WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Board of Supervisors it has
become necessary to establish a fee to reimburse the County for the
Assessor' s service of processing the applications of qualified
homeowners under Chapter 66-10 of the Contra Costa County Code, to
transfer the current assessed value of their present home when they
purchase a replacement home of lesser or equal value in Contra
Costa County within two years of having sold their present home
located in another California county;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following fee is
hereby established:
$65 per Assessor' s Parcel for processing an
application for transfer of assessed value
under Chapter 66-10 of the Contra Costa
County Code.
I hereby Certify that this is a titre and Correct COPY Of
an actWn taken and entered On the Wfafts Of the
Board of Superviaaa on the date at"M
ATT UnW.
FHIL BATCHELOR.Clerk of the Board
CC: Assessor of aW County Admk+
Treasurer-Tax Collector n ��
Auditor-Controller By V •� '
County Counsel
County Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 89/215