The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07171990 - 1.34 -034 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 Y Contra CostaFROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator x ;a 4° County DATE: cOr'r•------" cP�, - July 10, 1990 q °�K SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 998 (Presley) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Indicate that the Board of Supervisors continues to SUPPORT SB 998 by Senator Presley which would impose additional requirements on redevelopment agencies in terms of notice to other taxing agencies and the amount of information which much be supplied to other taxing .agencies so that a decision can be made regarding whether the area involved is or is not predominately urbanized. The bill also provides other taxing agencies an opportunity to veto a proposal by a redevelopment agency to change the redevelopment plan in such a way that it increased the number of dollars which would be allocated to the redevelopment agency or extended the life of the project. The bill also provides an alternate method of determining the property tax increment which a redevelopment agency would be required to pay to a taxing jurisdiction during the time the redevelopment project is effective. BACKGROUND: On February 27, 1990 the Board of Supervisors voted to support SB 998 as it was amended June 26, 1989. On June 20, 1990 the bill was amended again. Under the Community Redevelopment Law, a redevelopment "project area" is defined to mean a predominantly urbanized area of a community which is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effect the public purposes declared in the redevelopment law. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VeS3ES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): l/t1r�i e,tL,-6 � V�G�K. ,L _ ACTION OF BOARD ON July--17 , 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE 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 JUL 17 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Please see Page 3 . BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) -2- SB 998 has been introduced by Senator Presley at the request of CSAC. As amended June 20, 1990, the bill requires a redevelopment agency which includes a provision for the division of certain tax increments in a redevelopment plan, to prepare and send to each affected taxing entity a preliminary report which contains a description of the project area which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the project area is predominantly urbanized and that when a redevelopment agency submits a plan to its governing body that .it also be accompanied by a report which contains a description of the project area which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the project area is "predominantly urbanized" . The bill would also expand the definition of "affected taxing entity" to include the State of California. The bill would also prohibit a redevelopment agency from adopting an amendment to a redevelopment plan without the prior approval of each affected taxing entity if the amendment would increase the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the redevelopment agency or extend the time limit within which to establish loans, advances or indebtedness, or increase the limit on bonded indebtedness, or extend the period during which the redevelopment plan is effective. The bill would also require the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan to contain findings and determinations on the legislative body that the project area is predominantly urbanized as defined under existing law. The bill would also authorize an action to be brought to determine the validity of the legislative body' s findings and determinations that the project area is predominately urbanized. Under current law, taxing agencies are permitted to elect to be allocated certain amounts, allocated to the redevelopment agency in that jurisdiction under tax increment financing, that are attributable to increases in' the tax rates within the project area occurring after the tax year in which the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan becomes effective. - Existing law precludes that election if an agreement has been entered into between the taxing agency and the redevelopment agency or the redevelopment agency has distributed specified payments in accordance with another provision of law. If an election is an alternative available to a taxing agency, existing law specifically permits any affected taxing agency to elect, and requires every school district and community college district to elect, to be allocated all or any portion of the tax revenues allocated to the redevelopment agency which are attributable to either or both of the following: 1. Increases in the rate of tax imposed for the benefit of the taxing agency where the increased levy occurs after the tax year in which the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan becomes effective. 2. Increases in the assessed value of taxable property in the redevelopment area, as the assessed value is established by the assessment roll last equalized prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan which are, or otherwise would be, calculated annually pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 110. 1 of the Revenue & Taxation Code (generally the 20 annual inflation increase) . SB 9.98 would add an alternative to # 2 above. This alternative would allow the taxing agency to elect to receive the average -3- annual percentage increase in the assessed value of the taxable property in the redevelopment project area, during the five years immediately prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan, applied to the assessed value of the project area during the fiscal year in which the redevelopment plan is adopted. If the five year average is less than or equal to 100, the taxing agency' s election to receive it shall be subject to the consent of the redevelopment agency. The redevelopment agency may defer payment of all or part of the amounts it owes to the taxing agency under this provision if the taxing agency consents to such a deferral. SB 998 provides a more generous method of allocating the property tax to which taxing agencies are entitled in redevelopment agencies. Rather than in general receiving only the 2% inflation factor over the base year value, SB 998 would provide an alternative which would allow the taxing agency to elect to receive an amount equal to the average annual increase in the property tax over the five years prior to the establishment of the redevelopment project area. If this figure is more than 20 the taxing agency would benefit from this alternative. In any case, the taxing agency would still be guaranteed at least the 20 inflation factor. In view of the fact that SB 998 strengthens the County' s hand in dealing with city redevelopment agencies and in view of the fact that SB 998 provides an alternative manner of electing to receive property taxes from redevelopment agencies, the Assistant County Administrator-Finance has recommended that the Board of Supervisors indicate their continued support for SB 998 . SB 998 passed the Senate on June 28, 1989 by a vote of 21: 10. The bill is currently on referral to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community. Development where it was heard June 27, 1990 for testimony only. cc: Senator Robert Presley County Administrator Assistant Administrator-Finance Auditor-Controller Deputy Director-Redevelopment Agency Larry Naake, Executive Director, CSAC Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates