HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04171990 - 1.38 1.®033
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS L
Contra
FROM: `! . _ „\ ' Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator � ;
�_
DATE: April 11/ 1990 >"��~� County
rT'C C'6UK'�'
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION - SB 2165 (Boatwright)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECON MIENDATI ONS
Indicate that the Board continues to be OPPOSED to SB 2165
(Boatwright) which would allow the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court to determine which property tax allocation formula
should be applied to future property tax distributions when the
affected jurisdictions are unable, within 60 days, to reach
agreement on the property tax exchange in cases of annexations.
BACKGROUND:
on March 20, 1990 the Board of Supervisors voted to oppose SB
2165 . On March 26, 1990 the bill was amended.
Under existing law, LAFCO is prohibited from proceeding with
processing an annexation application until the taxing
jurisdictions which are involved come to agreement on how to
distribute property taxes in the future in the area subject to
annexation. In Contra Costa County, over the past several years
forty-six of forty-six applications for annexation have been
processed following agreement between the County and the city
involved. While in some cases these negotiations have taken
longer than the city might have wished, all such annexations have
been approved. .
SB 2165 would provide that if any two or more taxing
jurisdictions ( including for our purposes here the County and a
city) cannot agree on an exchange of property taxes within a 60
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YeS YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREM: 6&,&4 / ZLfir/! w-
ACTION OF BOARD ON_ Anr i 1 17 ' 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED C OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 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 DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED APR 17 19go
Please see Page 2. PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88)
BY � &0&_1ZS DEPUTY
day period after receiving the Auditor-Controller' s estimates of
the amount of property tax generated within a proposed annexation
area each agency must file with LAFCO and the Superior Court a
resolution indicating that no agreement was reached and setting
forth the agency' s specific proposal for the exchange of
revenues. The resolution must also indicate that the agency is
willing to be bound by the decision of the Superior Court
regarding the exchange of property taxes, without right of
appeal.
Once a resolution is filed with the Superior Court, the Presiding
Judge must set a date for a hearing within 20 days of the date
the resolution is filed with the Superior Court. After the
hearing, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court must determine
the specific proposal which is the most reasonable and most
accurately reflects the exchange of responsibilities between
agencies. The proposal chosen by the Presiding Judge thereby
becomes the basis for the exchange of property taxes and the
Presiding Judge is required to so notify LAFCO. The order of the
Superior Court is used by LAFCO as the basis for making any order
or findings with regard to the exchange of property tax revenues
between and among the affected jurisdictions.
The March 26, 1990 amendments to SB 2165 also provide that if one
taxing agency fails to submit a proposal to the Superior Court
within the 15 day time period, the Presiding Judge would be
prohibited from considering any proposal or information from that
agency in reaching a decision.
The County Administrator continues to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors oppose SB 2165 for all of the reasons previously
outlined in the Board' s order of March 20 , 1990, even though the
March 26, 1990 amendments extend the time period of negotiations
from 30 days to 60 days.
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
Assessor
Executive Officer, LAFCO
Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates