HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04271993 - 2.6 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April 27, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Proposed Legislation
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that determination of a
position on AB 1325 relative to requiring the San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection to continue to contribute to the Special District
Augmentation Fund is DEFERRED to May 4, 1993 .
1 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.
ATTESTED: &kil ;;?-7 / y '/,,3
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
cc: County Administrator of Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
i
• 2.6
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Q +
FROM: Costa 1 l
a County
April 23, 1993
DATE: rr c uK
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 1325 (Campbell)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Determine what position the Board wishes to take in regard to AB
1325 (Campbell) regarding requiring the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District to continue to contribute to the Special
District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) .
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors included the following in its 1993
Legislative Program:
1123. Sponsor legislation to incorporate any settlement with the San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District into State law - Sponsor
legislation which can be used as a vehicle to place in statute
any settlement to the pending litigation with the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District.
The County has been sued by the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District and the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement
District because these independent special districts believe
that the circumstances under which their districts were
created are covered by the American. River case in Sacramento
County. In this case, the court ruled that .certain types of .
reorganizations and consolidations of special districts.result
in the formation of a new district which cannot be required to
contribute to the Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) .
The Board has urged staff to try to arrange an out-of-court
settlement of this case. If such a settlement is reached by
both sides, it may be necessary to sponsor legislation to
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON '_�_3093 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.
• ATTESTED
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Les Spahnn; Heim, 'Noack, and Spahnn
BY DEPUTY
place the terms of the settlement in State law as an exception
to the normal rules for contributions to the SDAF, similar to
what was done by Sacramento County as a result of the American
River case. Such legislation should be introduced and held
until needed for this purpose. "
On April 1, 1993, the Superior Court ruled that the American River
case applied to both the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
and the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District and that,
therefore, neither district should be required to continue
contributing to the SDAF.
As introduced, AB 1325 would do the following:
1 . Regardless of the decision of the Superior Court, require the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District to continue to
contribute to the SDAF.
2 . Prohibit any retroactive refund to the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District for contributions made to the SDAF in
prior years .
It has been suggested that this bill might be amended in an effort
to provide some statewide, permanent solution to the issues raised
in the American River case. This could be done by providing that
the responsibility to contribute to the SDAF in the case of an
annexation, consolidation or merger would be measured by the extent
to which the surviving district(s) receives the property tax
benefits of the previous district(s) .
If the surviving district receives all of the property tax benefit
of the prior district(s) , it would continue to have the same
responsibility to contribute to the SDAF as the predecessor
district(s) . If the surviving district received only a portion of
the property tax benefits from the predecessor district(s) , it
would continue to have the responsibility to contribute only in the
same proportion as the proportion of- the property tax benefit the
surviving district(s) received. If the surviving district(s)
received none of the property tax benefit from the predecessor
district(s) , it would be entirely relieved from the responsibility
to contribute to the SDAF.
The Board of Supervisors would appear to have at least the
following options :
1 . Request Assemblyman Campbell to pursue passage of AB 1325 in
the form in which it was introduced.
2 . Request Assemblyman Campbell. to amend AB 1325 to incorporate
the statewide permanent solution outlined above and pursue
passage of the bill in its amended form.
3 . Request Assemblyman Campbell to take no further action on AB
1325 in 1993, pending the outcome of an appeal to the ruling
of the Superior Court and consider whether to pursue the bill
in the form- it was introduced in 1994 .
4 . Request Assemblyman Campbell to amend AB 1325 to incorporate
the statewide permanent solution outlined above, but to await
the outcome of an appeal to the Superior Court decision before
determining whether to further pursue passage of the bill in
1994 .
5. Thank Assemblyman Campbell for his efforts on . the County's
behalf, but withdraw all further support and sponsorship of
the bill and request Assemblyman Campbell to drop further
efforts to obtain passage of the bill.
-2-