HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05021995 - 2.1 'ro: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
r'
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
County
y:d 4c
April 27, 1995 �sr
DATE: +c�ui+'�
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AB 915 RE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPROVEMENTS FROM REASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSIDER whether to modify the Board's position on AB 915 (Cunneen)
in light of proposed amendments to the bill .
BACKGROUND:
On April 11, 1995, the Board of Supervisors took an "OPPOSE"
position regarding AB 915, on the basis that it would exempt the
pending clean fuels projects at the refineries in this County from
being reassessed for property tax purposes . The issue was also
referred to the Finance Committee to determine the exact financial
impact on the County were the bill to become law in the form in
which it was amended on April 3, 1995 .
John Wolfe from the Contra Costa Taxpayers ' Association spoke to
the issue. Mr. Wolfe seemed to agree that 'the bill, as introduced,
was drawn more broadly that was intended since it was not the
Taxpayers ' Association' s intent to exempt the Clean Fuels projects
in their entirety from being reassessed for property tax purposes .
Mr. Wolfe suggested that some amendments might be worked out which
would limit the application of the bill in such a way as to better
reflect the intent of his Association. It was staff 's
understanding that the Board might be willing to reconsider its
position if such amendments could be drafted.
. Attached is a copy of AB 915 as it was last amended on April 3,
1995 . As a result of meetings with the California Taxpayers '
Association, amendments have been proposed which, we believe, would
substantially limit the bill ' s application. It is proposed that
the following language be added beginning on page 2 , line 30 of the
bill, following the word "pollution" : " . . .that is generated on-site
by the industrial or commercial activities of the facility. "
�, /�/
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: RYES SIGNATURE: C/^��
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 9r 199r; APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X_ OTHER
The following speakers addressed the Board on this matter: John Wolfe, Contra
Costa Taxpayers Association, 820 Main Street, Martinez; Paul Katz, Local 1,
P.O. Box 222, Martinez; and Gus Kramer, County Assessor. .
The Board of Supervisors REAFFIRMED its position opposing AB 915.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: 1.2,5,and 3 NOES: 4 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED May -2. 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 2 SULS AND COUNTY ADMINIST TOR
g DEPUTY
The intent of this language is to allow the Clean Fuels projects to
be reassessed for property tax purposes, while still allowing
improvements which are made in response to governmental
requirements to reduce air, water or land pollution on the site
itself to be exempt from reassessment. The Clean Fuels projects
are not necessarily intended to reduce pollution at the refinery.
The Clean Fuels projects are designed to reduce the subsequent
pollution from the gasoline which is manufactured at the refinery.
However, this pollution does not occur at the refinery. In fact,
it could occur anywhere else in California or in another state.
The thought here is that from the perspective of tax policy,
government should be encouraging industries to control pollution
generated at their facilities . The owner of the property would
still be required to purchase and pay for the installation of the
necessary pollution-control equipment, but would not then have to
also have his or her property taxes increased because of the
installation of the equipment which was required by the government
and which benefits the immediate community.
In addition, we have been working with Los Angeles County on the
amendments to AB 915 . Los Angeles County has asked that the
following amendment also be made to the bill : On line 25 of page
2 of the bill, that the words "wholly or partly" be deleted and be
replaced with language which would require that the equipment be
installed solely to comply with environmental regulations . This
would clearly have the affect of further limiting the application
of the exemption.
With both sets of amendments, the bill would read approximately as
follows :
For the purpose of subdivision (a) of Section 2 of
Article XIII A of the California Constitution, "newly
constructed" and "new construction" does not include
property used, constructed, acquired, or installed solely
to meet or exceed the laws, rules, or regulations
administered by any environmental protection agency of
this state for the prevention, monitoring, control, or
reduction of air, water, or land pollution that is
generated on-site by the industrial or commercial
activities of the facility. This subdivision applies to
all property that would otherwise be taxable for the
first time on or after March 1, 1995 .
AB 915 was scheduled to be heard in its first policy committee, the
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, on Monday afternoon, May
1, 1995 . We will be prepared to report to the Board orally on
Tuesday morning what action was taken by the Assembly Revenue &
Taxation Committee.
In view of these amendments, the Board of Supervisors may want to
consider modifying its position in opposition to the bill .
cc: County Administrator
County Assessor
County Counsel
John Wolfe, Executive Vice President
Contra Costa Taxpayers ' Association
Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
-2-
fi
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 3, 1995
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--1995-96 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 915
Introduced by Assembly Member Cunneen
F
i February 22, 1995
An act to add Section 744 70.1 to the Revenue and Taxation
Code,relating to taxation, to take effect immediately,tax levy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S,DIGEST
AB 915, as amended, Cunneen. Taxation.
Existing provisions of Article XIII A of the California
Constitution limit ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of
its full cash value, which is defined as the assessor's valuation
of the real property as shown on the 1975--75 tax bill under
"full cash value," or thereafter the appraised value of real
FT
�' property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change of
ownership has occurred.
This billwould provide that, for purposes of this limitation,
the term "neve construction" does not include property that
is used, constructed, acquired, or installed to meet or exceed
environmental regulations, as provided. This bill would apply
this exclusion commencing with the 44A 1995 property tax
lien date.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as
to the definition of the term `new construction. "
This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
98
AR 915 — 2 —
Th e
- 2 --The people of the State of California do enact as follows•
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the
2 following.-
3 (a) Article XIII A of the California Constitution does
4 not define the term "new construction"as used in that
5 article.
6 (b) In the absence of definition by the California
7 Constitution, the Legislature has deigned the term `new
8 construction"as used in Article XIII A of the California
9 Constitution to exclude from that term any rehabilitation
10 of property other than a `inajorrehabilitation.
11 (c) The addition of Section 70.1 to the Revenue and
12 Taxation Code by this act would further clarify the
13 meaning of the term new construction, in a manner
14 consistent with the existing definition of that term, by
15 excluding from that term certain pollution
16 control-related property that does not constitute a major
17 rehabilitation ofproperty to which it is added.
18 SEC. 2. Section 744 70.1 is added to the Revenue and
19 Taxation Code, to read:
20 744--
21
4:7-21 701. For the purpose of.. h - 4* of subdivisio r
22 je3 subdivision (a) -of Section 2 of Article XIII A of the
23 California Constitution, "newly constructed" and "new
24 construction" does not include property used,
25 constructed, acquired, or installed wholly or partly to
26 meet or exceed the laws, rules, or regulations
27 administered by any environmental protection agency of
28 the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of
29 this state for the prevention, monitoring, control, or
30 reduction of air, water, or land pollution. This subdivision
31 applies to all property that would otherwise be taxable for
32 the first time on or after March 1, 1%6 1995.
33 SEC. 2. This act provides for a tax levy within the
34 meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
35 immediate effect.
O
98
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY!
DATE: April 28, 1995
TO: Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Jim Rogers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Mark DeS Vn
Supervisor Tom TorlFROM: Claude L. Van Martant County Administrator
SUBJECT: AMENDED VERSION O Aunneen)
On the Determination Calendar May 2, 1995 is an item asking whether
the Board of Supervisors wishes to consider modifying its "Oppose"
position to AB 915 in view of certain amendments which were being
proposed for the bill . Attached is the April 26, 1995 version of
the bill, which contains the specific language which is referenced
in our report to the Board for Tuesday.
CLVM:amb
VAN4-32-95
Attachment
cc Gus Kramer, Assessor
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Clerk of the Board' s Correspondence File
9164414925 F-EIM NOACK & SPAHNN F-265 T-288 P-002 APR 28 195 10:38
° CC r ° t v. x
C3 0
ra
CS kf,
V.
W, Z., to
ViibO
_ t
fq w
CD
ca � y.ahti;s3 � CJ y � y
a. C ; i x
log Q
r4 a Sao � �°.r�as1 a ca � p° o
9164414925 hEIM NOACK & SPAHJN F-265 T-288 P-003 APR 28 195 10:39
• � � ao, m
4
a; �C
>f N
d• 4
d �
w �
L�O
U F"y
cC �
,O U
O
d '' o � g1Qpo p >'.� eay � -q opo
CJ
cs
4-1
wl
ID 0
"15 ca
4 _..
4 OOMU 0 O £4 s.-b ' c>'au';� xdCVC04 4.+ 4 ; _X,di f=•,'
Q�5
O , CD
V q) qJ b4 En 4+
IX 9
aS GY aS tr P' U C: -CU �'
O 4 «y w p t) S"r .fir +'
d d co t/3 11
booN O'�+ v CDS 6 N G. eK ¢, ume., O O d.41 � s6
sem'. u o U O ?'U.� i. 6 p pd O C7
_ 04r rG o o
d' O.tet'. U i F"V O G Q7.[: O d U + Q r. U b
+"+ r �"r �. �+' a d 0 w Ctr ++ p u i+ tib "' 4S.t2 .ti U
to lz C4 � iu0 'r., �0� RCS a, vCt1?1 U+'
+pF.. rt0 � Q 0 � f.
Z
cn 4� wa+ s+
uz Q 11U14 VX t t4 0..K p+
yaar+ Gr�)
U O O Q] wDO
U U i-. wO G
'
+.
•� >
U cl W Of CV N !'7 co
DATE:
REQUESTTO- SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: '! �i� C�C�.0-F�' PHONE: 2Z�a ✓� /O
ADDRESS: V)—c "4/,kJ CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: �rA AAd5 '�
(NAME OF ORGANV-\TION)
Check one:
�C I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �
My comments will be: general x 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: ,
RFQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(Two [2] Minute Limit)
Complete t m and place,Vit * tinear x near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name:
Phone: 2 7' b
Address City:
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR ❑ Organization: �l
NAME OF ORGANIZATION
CHECK ONE:
r
❑ 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:
Date: � )✓
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(Two [2] Minute Limit)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
Address: �'�`� City:
I am speaking for: ❑ Mself OR ❑ Organization:
NAME OF ORGANIZATION
CHECK ONE: /
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # l
P g
My comments will be: LV 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: