HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03231993 - 2.5 2 . 5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 23 , 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance for Local Control on Property Taxes
The Board considered a proposed Ordinance aimed at preventing
the State from taking Contra Costa County' s property taxes to be
collected for fiscal year 1993-1994.
The following persons spoke in support of the proposed
Ordinance:
Rosemary M. Corbin, City Councilmember, City of Richmond;
Pete Lawrence, Vice-Mayor, City of Clayton;
Herb Moniz, City of San Ramon;
Patricia Boom, Mayor, City of San Ramon;
David R. Williams, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez;
Joe Moran, 1774 Thornwood Drive, Concord;
John Wolfe, Executive Director, Contra Costa Taxpayers
Association, 820 Main Street, Martinez;
Joe Schneider, Pacheco Municipal Advisory County, 137 Algiers
Way, Pacheco 94553 ;
Phyllis Roff, 2893 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creet;
Jim Hicks, AFSCME, Martinez; and
Chuck Beesley, Contra Costa Special Districts, 155 Mason
Circle, Concord.
At the conclusion of. the discussion, Board Members were in
agreement to introduce the proposed Ordinance.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Ordinance,
Version 1, (on file with the Clerk of the Board) is INTRODUCED and
reading WAIVED.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
cc: Count Administrator ATTESTED: 2Zff �y
County PHIL BATCHELOR,clerk of the Board
County Counsel of Supervisors and County Administrator
By ,�y_, .GlI. Deputy
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
r 1
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the -
apportionment of property taxes among the county, the cities, school districts
(including community college districts) and other districts therein shall be in the
manner such apportionment was made for fiscal 1992-3 pursuant to Chapter 6 of
Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of California.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion and
disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2 unless the
Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency declaration
adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
3
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal]
c:\TROrdl P:3/23/93
4
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
P.O. Box 69
Martinez CA 94553
(510) 646-2058
Fax (510) 646-1078
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Dennis C. Graves
Deputy County Couidw
Date: March 24, 1993
Re: Tax Allocation Ordinance
Enclosed is the version of the subject Ordinance introduced on March 23, 1993.
We understand that final adoption of the Ordinance will not be scheduled until
requested by your Board.
cc: Phil Batchelor, CAO
Ken Corcoran, Auditor
c:covordt
DATE: �� 1�a� 13
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. e^,,,�1a.ems
NAME: 1 PHONE:
ADDRESS:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF ORCCA!VIJal'10N)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # a.
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
Al'T
DATE: Z'J
REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM 0/�
. (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. PVr;
/
NAME. y E "*E � �-- PHONE. J f " 7�ZD
ADDRESS: Y/ "0 2 Cr1y: CL•i9` �7'� AJ
I..am speaking formyself OR organization:
Check one: (NAME OF ORCAN17_M-10%)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general for against
.� I wish to speak on the subject of JC&o%~ fAd
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
I T V-:�-`O L -T+
La==nded 183 ,,, cor/,orrrted])64 .
Telephone, P.O. 13OX 230 . CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517
CITY HALL (510) 672.3622 City Council
0)N1N1IINrrr TrI.1:1,110N1i (510) 672-3622
Drvl;L(wmr..NT (510) 672.6690 WILLIAm R.WALCUT'T,Alapr
ENCINrrm NG (51()) 672.97110 I1li'rER A.L.AURENCE, Vice Mayor
ROBERT C.KENDALL
To: Board Of Supervisors Re:AdO tion of Local Ordinance To
GREGORY J.MANNING
P P JU LI r;K.
hI ERCG
Contra Costa County Prohibit Shift Of Property Taxes
Martinez, CA 94523
Dear Board Of Supervisors, 3/22/93
As you know, the State's attempt at solving it's own
financial mismanagement by the theft of funds from County,
City and Special District revenues, is unconscionable.
California's ailing economy (which is largely brought on
by the State's oppressive regulation) has caused reduced
revenues by the citizenry as well as at every level of
government. City, County and Special Districts have
economized, slashed and cut to live within this reduced
revenue limitation, and last year even co-operated by also,
helping absorb a large portion of the State's deficit.
However, this year the State has mistook that one-time
spirit of co-operation as being a path of least resistance to
solving it's budgetary problems at the expense of our own.
Not only would this raid by the State impoversh and eliminate
many worthy programs of local government that our people pay
their taxes to obtain, we as the leaders of City, County and
District constituencies, would be derelect in our duty if we
participated in this wholesale crime against our taxpayers.
While it may be too early to start a real revolution
against higher government as our forbears did against the far
away and unresponsive British, it would be a violation of our
heritage to not at least protest peacefully and fight this
injustice by whatever legal means are now at our disposal.
Accordingly, Supervisor McPeak's proposed ordinance is a
reasoned, desireable and necessary step. It is a step that I
as a taxpayer, citizen, and as the Vice-Mayor of Clayton have
wholeheartedly endorsed to Supervisor MCPeak before,and again
wholeheartedly endorse before you now. While I do not on this
occasion speak for the entire council or citizenry of Clayton
I feel certain that they would also agree, and that a
majority of the voters of this state will agree if able to
vote on this matter on a state-wide referendum in November.
I strongly speak in favor of and respectfully urge you
to pass this proposed Resolution and to work on getting
similar language on the November ballot.
Thank-You
Peter A. Laurence
cc: Clayton Council Vice-Mayor, Clayton
DATE: f Y �y3
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Boards
NAME: ` i u 1�,1 tz PHONE: Dqc) 1
ADDRESS: `�Aq, Vc;o— CITY: `;) o
I am speaking formyself OR organization: 2ev,-,S�
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 9,! Z.S
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: •`7 3 ^/,p
REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM
THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) C)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
• V Y _
NAME: >l-rt, (, PHONE: K57-10KY1,
ADDRESS: � a� a �aALvv-) CITY: �`. �IA �(
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
Check one: (*MV,10F ORCANIZV-10%)
a
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general for ; -7 against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
I DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINurE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: DAVIO R, ti ll-L 1,4ml PHONE: 68V-3 8Iv
ADDRESS: :5m? 2X41 (-)tf) /DLf)cA` Criy:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: '`"' .GAY -0 2 c'T
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANI%aTION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general for X against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: Gam'
R QuEsT To SPEAK FORm
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the J �Board.
�
NAME: c /L G PHONE:
ADDRESS:O��� :� �'J h��' ;9„y•�J CITY: 6U',r0,V ).
I am speaking for-irnyself.:-�, OR organization:
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
//��6Y6
/��'rdj"1'Cs'/A✓� ��/49V'/ (c] ic� �1. 'n A � - r V1/ :. r'. •,4.F'L c,^ ✓✓� A�
DATE: f -
REQUEST TO SPEAK "'CORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: J 04X3 �OA-F- PHONE: 7:29-6Z-
ADDRESS: S20 iA fA,A 5q-- CITY: "A Z-r/,-)�e Z1
I am speaking formyself OR organization: de25T-A A550,
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANI%-\T10%)
ap
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # r..
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: ,2,3 /SIX �
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Ck)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. pp
NAME:_ 4/,_ LJC/,,�AIZ/0,6-4 PHONE:
ADDRESS: /3 -71�- G G 1,6z.S /,i/p//� CITY: f)�4C iGm
I am speaking formyself _ OR organization: PM13C C0e6l),w4
(NAME OF ORGAN 17-VION)
Check one:
1� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # -'2• -5—
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: 2-3
REQ1 EST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 0
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing t e Board. J
NAME: / f D PHONE: /.J d✓ y �!�•6
ADDRESS: �i Gj 3 -5' ,4^/ Q CITY: 1.
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF ORCA!Vf7V-(0ti)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # e� . .
My comments will be. general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: 3 Z 3 3
vin ' REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
1� (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT / I
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: .0.. .0 Aeeslev PHONE: 6 E S 93a 1
ADDRESS: / Sr �` ate,m-, CrIY: ( '
I am speaking formyself OR organization: C C S v
Check one: (NAM of ORGANIZATION)
✓ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # z
My comments will be: general for ✓ against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
P.O. Box 69
Martinez CA 94553
(510) 646-2058
Fax (510) 646-1078
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Dennis C. Grave
Deputy County Co
Date: March 17, 1993
Re: Ordinance Specifying Retention of Local Property Tax Revenues
Pursuant to request of Supervisor McPeak, we drafted several versions of the
proposed Ordinance regarding the retention of local property tax revenues in the event
the State proceeds with its attempt to take $2,600,000,000 (or some other large
amount)of local property tax revenues from the counties of California. In addition to
consulting with Supervisor McPeak, we discussed the proposed Ordinance with the
Auditor.
Attached hereto is a memorandum to Supervisor McPeak which outlines the
legal theory supporting the proposed Ordinance.
The backbone of the proposed Ordinance is the first section, entitled Findings
and Intent, in which we set forth legislative findings that are intended to demonstrate a
prima facie case that the proposed State property tax"shift"would significantly impair
the County's ability to provide for the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens,
in contravention of the local agency home rule guaranteed by the California
Constitution. The findings also assert that the State's proposal would result in the
counties' paying part of the school funding that Proposition 98 contemplated the State
would pay and would violate the State Mandate provision of Article XIIIB, Section 6. We
conclude that the State's proposal would be beyond the power granted to the State in
Proposition 13 to pass legislation apportioning property tax revenues among local
agencies. In the absence of a lawful State apportionment scheme,we specify an
alternative in the proposed Ordinance.
Policy Question
Supervisor McPeak would like the Board to address the policy question of
whether the Ordinance should specify an allocation scheme other than all agencies
getting the same as in 1992-3 (Version 1). The possibilities are:
Version 1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein as done in 1992-3.
Version 1.1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein as done in 1991-2.
Version 2: Apportionment among the County and cities and school
districts (including community college districts), as done in 1992-3.
Version 2.1: Apportionment among the County and cities and school
districts (including community college districts), as done in 1991-2.
Version 3: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein, except sewer and water districts, as done in 1992-3.
Version 3.1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein, except sewer and water districts, as done in 1991-2.
The Versions are the same except for Section 2, which specifies the
apportionment The concept is that the agencies listed as the beneficiaries of
the County Ordinance apportionment would get what they got in 1992-3 or
1991-2, and other agencies would only get what the State law provides for
1993-4 (if anything).
All versions incorporate an additional justification for the Ordinance, which is the
Gann Initiative (Art. XIIIB).
Fiscal 1991-2 was the last year before the State exceeded the apportionment
authority granted under Article XIIIA by impairing our right to home rule and confiscating
our property taxes to pay part of the State's Portion of school funding. In fiscal 1992-3
the State began the confiscation it now wants to dramatically expand for fiscal 1993-4.
Rather than proposing our own apportionment scheme, the Ordinance simply defaults
to apportioning 1993-4 property taxes in the manner done by the State for fiscal 1992-3
or 1991-2 for the agencies that are the beneficiaries of the Ordinance. The thinking is
that this may be more legally defensible than a new apportionment scheme, for which
there is no statutory precedent or authority.
The 1992-3 allocation scheme might avoid some problems with schools, but
would still be confiscatory to some degree. If we allocate among the agencies that are
to be the beneficiary of the Ordinance in a way other than that specified in statute for
1991-2 or 1992-3, there are two potentially significant problems. First, any other
scheme would lack statutory precedent. Second, any other scheme would risk
complexities (and potential ambiguities) that may be very difficult to avoid. The current
law on property tax allocations (R+TC Secs. 95-100) covers approximately 60 detailed
pages and is meaningful only to a few who routinely work with the detail of the law.
While not all of this would need to be changed by departing from the 1992-3 (or 1991-
2) allocation scheme, the potential for real problems in a new allocation scheme should
not be ignored.
cc: Ken Corcoran, Auditor
Phil Batchelor, CAO
c:tgcmem2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
P.O. Box 69
Martinez CA 94553
(510) 646-2058
Fax(510) 646-1078
To: Supervisor Sunne McPeak
From: Dennis C. Graves
Deputy County Cou
4iT
Date: March 17, 1993
Re: Outline of Legal Theory of Proposed Ordinance to Retain Property Taxes
The legal theory supporting the subject Ordinance can be outlined as follows:
1. The California Constitution guarantees a measure of home rule to counties, primarily
by granting counties the authority to make and enforce regulations and provide the
services necessary to insure the basic health, safety and general welfare of the
citizenry.
2.An essential element of home rule is the ability of local governments to fund the
regulation and services necessary to insure the basic health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens.
3. The property tax historically has been the primary funding source for local
government and has always been used exclusively for local purposes. The property tax
is the most basic source of the funding used to insure the basic health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens and, thus, the most basic source of the funding required
for meaningful home rale.
4. The Gann Initiative (Article XIIIB) requires the state to reimburse counties for State
mandated costs, including costs incurred by shifting State obligations to counties.
5. The School Funding Initiative, Proposition 98, established property tax funding of
schools at the level of fiscal 1987-8 (adjusted slightly for inflation each year).
Proposition 98 requires the State to fund all school needs above the level of the 1987-8
property tax funding by local agencies.
6. For fiscal 1993-4, the State proposes an "allocation" of property taxes that would
"shift"a very large portion of property taxes from other local uses to schools. The
State's proposal would require property tax funding of schools far beyond the property
tax funding Proposition 98 specifies. This would constitute an illegal confiscation of
property tax revenues in that it will: 1) violate Proposition 98 by requiring counties to
provide part of the school funding that the State is supposed to provide, 2) violate the
Gann Initiative by shifting a State obligation to the counties without reimbursement, and
3) violate the home rule guaranteed to the counties by taking so much of property taxes
that the County will not be able to provide for the basic health, safety and general
welfare of its citizens.
7.Although the State may have pre-emptive authority to specify how property taxes are
to be allocated among local agencies, that authority does not allow the State to illegally
confiscate the property taxes that belong to local agencies.
8. Because the State's proposed "allocation" of property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 would
result in confiscation of the taxes, the County is entitled to fall back on a prior year's
allocation that is not confiscatory.
9. Accordingly, if the State continues with its proposed plans for fiscal 1993-4, the
County need not honor the State's 1993-4 allocation and, instead, can use the proper
State allocation formula of a prior year, preferably 1991-2, which is the last year before
the State's confiscation began.
10. Using the allocation scheme of a prior year, preferably the 1991-2 year, avoids the
argument that we have specified an allocation scheme for which there is no precedent
or arguable authority.
cc: Board of Supervisors
Phil Batchelor, CAO
Ken Corcoran, Auditor
c:TRout2
Version 1
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rale guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and cities and districts
therein shall be in the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal
1992-3 pursuant to Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of California.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invokinq Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
3
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal]
c:%TROrd1:3/17/93
4
Version 1.1
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and cities and districts
therein shall be in the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal
1991-2 pursuant to Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of California.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
3
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: Deputy [Seal]
CATROWI.1.3/17/93
Version 2
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and the cities and
school districts (including community college districts) therein shall be in
the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal 1992-3 pursuant to
Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of
California. To the extent not inconsistent with the foregoing, the
apportionment of property taxes to districts other than school districts
shall be in accordance with State law, provided such law specifies some
apportionment of property taxes to such districts.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
3
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal]
c:\TROrd2:3/17/93
4
Version 2.1
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and the cities and
school districts (including community college districts) therein shall be in
the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal 1991-2 pursuant to
Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of
California. To the extent not inconsistent with the foregoing, the
apportionment of property taxes to districts other than school districts
shall be in accordance with State law, provided such law specifies some
apportionment of property taxes to such districts.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
3
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal)
c:1TROrd2.1:3/17/93
4
Version 3
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rale guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b. Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and the cities and
districts therein, except districts providing sewer and water services, shall
be in the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal 1992-3
pursuant to Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of California. To the extent not inconsistent with the
foregoing, the apportionment of property taxes to districts providing sewer
and water services shall be in accordance with State law, provided such
law specifies some apportionment of property taxes to such districts.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
3
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal]
OTROM3:3/17/93
4
Version 3.1
Proposed
Ordinance No.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
Section 1: Findings and Intent
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds and determines
that:
a. As an essential element of the local agency home rule guaranteed by
the California Constitution, property taxes collected in a county have
always been intended for use in that county.
b: Proposition 13, as adopted in June of 1978 and amended thereafter,
allows the Legislature to specify how the property taxes collected in a
county are to be apportioned among the county and the cities and districts
therein, but did not contemplate that property taxes would be taken for
State purposes or would be apportioned in a manner inconsistent with the
home rule provisions of the Constitution of California.
c. Proposition 98, as adopted in November of 1988 and amended by
Proposition 111 in June of 1990, provides that a county's portion of
school funding is the amount of property taxes provided to the schools in
the county for fiscal 1987-8, adjusted annually for cost of living increases.
Pursuant to Proposition 98, the State's Portion of school funding is the
amount that, when added to the counties' portion, will bring total school
funding up to the level specified in the Proposition.
d. The Legislature of California has expressed its intent to take
approximately $2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California
counties in fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of
the State's Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, in
clear violation of the letter and intent of Proposition 98 and of Articles
XIIIA and XIIIB of the California Constitution.
e. For fiscal 1992-3, available revenues have fallen far short of the
expenditures necessary to meet the critical fiscal needs of Contra Costa
County, requiring that essential County services be cut substantially.
f. If the gap between available revenues and necessary expenditures
increases to any significant extent for fiscal 1993-4, the County will not be
able to fund State mandates and provide for the essential health, safety
and general welfare of its citizens that is requisite to meaningful home
rule.
g. If the Legislature acts upon its expressed intent to take approximately
$2,600,000,000 of the property taxes collected in California counties in
fiscal 1993-4 and use those funds to pay a substantial part of the State's
Portion of school funding or to pay other State expenses, this County
would lose a very significant part of the funding now used to provide
critical County services, would be prevented from providing for the
essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and would be
deprived of meaningful home rule in contravention of the Constitution of
California.
h. Contra Costa County hereby finds that the aforesaid intended State
action would constitute an illegal confiscation of the property taxes of
this County, in that such action would prevent the County from providing
for the essential health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, would
prevent the meaningful home rule guaranteed by the Constitution of
California, would violate the schools funding scheme of Proposition 98 by
requiring this County to pay a substantial part of the State Portion of
school funding, would violate Section 6 of Article Xiii6 of the State
Constitution by mandating increased local agency funding of schools
without State reimbursement, and would be in excess of the power given
to the Legislature in Section 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution
lawfully to apportion property taxes among the county and cities and
districts therein.
j. Contra Costa County, therefore, determines that it is necessary to take
action to prevent the intended State confiscation of the property taxes to
be collected in this County for fiscal 1993-4 and to insure the preservation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed powers of home rule, including the
power to provide for the essential health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the County. This Ordinance, therefore, provides for the
lawful apportionment among the county and cities and districts therein of
the property taxes collected in this County in fiscal 1993-4.
2
t
Section 2: Apportionment
Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, the
apportionment of property taxes among the county and the cities and
districts therein, except districts providing sewer and water services, shall
be in the manner such apportionment was made for fiscal 1991-2
pursuant to Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of California. To the extent not inconsistent with the
foregoing, the apportionment of property taxes to districts providing sewer
and water services shall be in accordance with State law, provided such
law specifies some apportionment of property taxes to such districts.
Section 3: Collection and Disbursement
The Treasurer-Tax-Collector and Auditor shall collect, apportion
and disburse property taxes for fiscal 1993-4 in accordance with Section 2
unless the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by emergency
declaration adopted pursuant to four-fifths vote, specifies an alternative
apportionment.
Section 4: Circumstances Invoking Operation of This Ordinance
In accordance with the findings and intent of Section 1, this Ordinance will
become operative, and property taxes shall be collected, apportioned and
disbursed in accordance herewith, in the event the State enacts Legislation that
would result in the aforesaid confiscation of property taxes collected in Contra
Costa County in fiscal 1993-4.
Section 5: Effective Date
This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Passed this day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes:
3
w w
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By: , Deputy [Seal]
cATROM3.1:3117193
4
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
P.O. Box 69
Martinez CA 94553
(510) 646-2058
Fax (510) 646-1078
To: Supervisor Sunne McPeak
From: Dennis C. Gra
Deputy County C
Date: March 17, 1993
Re: Versions of Ordinance for County Allocation of Property Taxes; Related Materials
Enclosed please find:
1. A memorandum explaining the legal theory behind the proposed Ordinance.
2. Several alternative versions of the proposed Ordinance, as follows:
Version 1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein as done in 1992-3.
Version 1.1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein as done in 1991-2.
Version 2: Apportionment among the County and cities and school
districts (including community college districts), as done in 1992-3.
Version 2.1: Apportionment among the County and cities and school
districts (including.community college districts), as done in 1991-2.
Version 3: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein, except sewer and water districts, as done in 1992-3.
Version 3.1: Apportionment among the county and cities and districts
therein, except sewer and water districts, as done in 1991-2.
The Versions are the same except for Section 2, which specifies the
apportionment. The concept is that the agencies listed as the beneficiaries of
the County Ordinance apportionment would get what they got in 1992-3 or
1991-2, and other agencies would only get what the State law provides for
1993-4 (if anything).
All versions incorporate an additional justification for the Ordinance, which is the
Gann Initiative (Art. XIIIB).
3. Updated cover memos to the Board to reflect the foregoing.
,s
4. A copy of the memo transmitting the Measure A language to the Elections
Office.
If you have any questions, please call at your earliest convenience.
cc: Phil Batchelor, CAO
Ken Corcoran, Auditor
c:MCPCov
I
' A
r
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
P.O. Box 69
Martinez CA 94553
(510) 646-2058
Fax(510) 646-1078
To: elavati, Elections Supervisor
From: Dennis C. Graves
Deputy County Coun
Date: March 17, 1993
Re: Measure A
The Board approved on March 16, 1993, the following language for Measure A,
which is to be on the ballots in each fire district voting on a fire benefit assessment:
"Shall the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor be instructed by the voters and
by ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors to collect and allocate the
same proportion of property tax revenues to fire districts, counties, cities and
schools as in 1992-3 and the State be requested to fully fund education and
enact legislation to retain existing property taxes for critical local services,
including fire and police protection?"
cc: Phil Batchelor, CAO
--rbc: Supervisor McPeak
c:measA