The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/28/2002 BAKERSFIELD Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR 'MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, January 28, 2002 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference-Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 19, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SUBCOMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF ANNEXATION PROCEDURES 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW.AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING OPPOSITION TO AB680: LAND USE: SALES TAX AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ALLOCATION B. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SUPPORT FOR AB 100: PROPERTY TAX REVENUE SHIFTS: LIMITATION AND AB 1076: LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ERAF BILLS) C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 2002 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:\'crs~002LegLitCom~AG N020128.wpd DR. AF ' BAKERSFIELD Aian~Manager - ) Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan ..AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, November 19, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, arriving 1:12 p.m. 2. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (A) OF*GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 PEOPLE v. CLOVIS CLINTON;, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. BM607521A Committee Chair Sue Benham indicated there was no reportable action from the closed session. 3. ADOPT OCTOBER 22, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. ' Agenda Summary Report .Legislative and Litigation .Committee November 19, 2001 Page 2 5, DEFERRED BUSINESS A, REVIEW,-DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO .PROPOSED FIREWORKS ORDINANCE CHANGES Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford and City Treasurer Bill Descary explained the changes which were being proposed, including the elimination of the clause on flame retardant canopies as well as "free standing" canopy issues. City Treasurer Descary handed out a list of 2001 -Fireworks Stand Drawing Applicants, listed by organization. A lengthy.discussion ensued on the allowance of'more than one subunit,' meeting the City's criteria, under one tax identification number, making application for the limited number of available fireworks stand permits. The Committee agreed that subunits under one tax.identification number could apply but after a subunit using that tax identification number was picked, the others under that same tax identification number would be ineligible in that drawing. If at the end of the drawing, fireworks stand permits remain available to be drawn, a second drawing would be conducted wherein those subunits would be placed once again in the drawing until the tax identification number was once again drawn. This process of separate drawings would continue until all fireworks stand permits are drawn or until the number of applicants is exhausted. Chairperson Benham and Committee Members Couch and Sullivan were unanimously in favor of the proposed changes. Staff will include the appropriate language within the proposed ordinance for forwarding-to Council for approval. Staff will report back to Committee after the application period on issues arising from the new application process and also after July 4 regarding issues with distance requirements. Staff will further explore issues raised regarding City liability and manufacturers of fireworks. B, REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SUBCOMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF .ANNEXATION PROCEDURES City Attorney Bart Thiltgen referred to his memo of November 1, 2001 relating to draft answers to questions posed by Becky Kaiser. He indicated he was in receipt of additional questions/comments relating to his response. Committee Member Couch indicated issues relating to "informational" meetings and notification remained, whether the meetings were mandatory, and the timing of the meetings. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated flexibility is an issue ~elative to specific needs within an annexation area, i.e., large vs. small, requests of inhabitants, etc. The "bundling" of annexation areas non-contiguous to each other was also discussed. Response cards would be tallied 'by staff for Council review, interpretation, and action. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee November 19, 2001 Page 3 Committee Chairperson Benham indicated she would like to address Palm-Olive residents concerns without the City and LAFCo duplicating processes, that there was only so much the City can do to engage public participation, and that it was important to be specific when adopting standards. Committee Member Couch indicated he felt that not ever being able to bundle annexation efforts was inefficient but that this issue could be addressed at a latertime. Committee Member Sullivan indicated the informational meetings should focus on the benefits of belonging to the City. Committee Member Couch indicated the affected County Supervisor and County staff should be invited to the informational meetings. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated, in response to.Committee Member Couch's question, that most of the items would be in the Council policy resolution. The process for the informational meetings would not be in the resolution. The resolution can be set up se that it takes effect at a time specific in 2002. City Attorney Thiltgen will draft the resolution. The subcommittee will meet again. Committee Chairperson Benham indicated she felt a mission statement would be very appropriate. 6. NEW BUSINESS A, DISCUSS AND SET MEETING SCHEDULE - JANUARY 2002 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2002 The Committee reviewed the proposed schedule prepared by Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater. The-proposed meeting date of April 15 was changed to April 22, 2002 to accommodate Council Member schedules. A motion was made,.seconded and passed to set the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting schedule for 2002 on Mondays at 1:00 p.m. on the following dates: January 28; February 25; March 18; April 22; May 13; June 17; July 22; August 19; September 23; October 21; and November 18. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Finance Director Greg Klimko, City Treasurer Bill Descary; Director of Environmental Services Ralph Huey Other Attendees: Ray Allen, Barbara. Fields, Barbara Fowler, Cheryl Nelson, Bill Brimmer, James Burger, Mark Dickerson (L011119.MIN) THE NEW AB 680 SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION FORMULA Each city and county would retain their 2002 base · Priority for funding the 2004-2011 ITIP (Interregional year sales tax dollar amount and growth in sales tax Transportation Improvement Program) Allocation revenues would be distributed according to the following Process-for the Sacramento region transportation formula: projects. · Situs - Return 1/3 of all regional sales tax growth no · Bonuses and priority on project applications to the differently than it is today, on a point of sales basis. State Infrastructure Bank. This is designed to enable jurisdictions to recover infrastructure costs related to building neighborhood · Bonuses and priority in accessing help from the state retail facilities, library bonding authority. · Per Capita - Return 1/3 of all regional sales.tax growth on a per capita basis. A per capita distribution League Opposition is designed to .place all jurisdictions on a more "level The basis of the League's opposition is: playing field" and .would "minimize" the fiscal incentives cities and counties have to compete over · Constitutional Protection of Local Revenues retail development. Should be a Top Priority. Any proposal to funda- mentally alter a prime city revenue source should only · Regional Need - Return 1/3 of alt regional sales tax be considered after the state has stabilized local growth on a point of sale basis only if the jurisdiction government finances through constitutional revenue builds its fair share of the region's affordable housing protection measures that prevent the state from using and social services and has a plan for infit[ develop- local government revenues to cover state general fund ment and acquisition of open space, shortfalls. Regional Projects Fund · A Budget Crisis is a Bad Time to Alter Distribution of Local Revenues. This is not the time to entertain Any sales tax growth revenue that results from a a proposal such as AB 680 when the state is attempt- jurisdiction failing to meet their "regional needs" (hous- lng to close an $8 to $12 bilEon revenue gap in its lng, social services, infi[l development and acquisition of general fund and local government revenues are open space).will be placed in a regional funding pool declining due to an economic recession. administered bY the Sacramento Area Council of Govern- ments. Eligible projects from this funding pool include: · Deepens Local Governments' Lack of Trust in State Polities. The state has not been a trustworthy partner · Regional transportation projects when it comes to local government finance. The state · Affordable workforce housing cfitidzes and regulates local government priorities, · Infill development but is unwilling to devote meaningful state resources · Mixed-use development to these very real local issues. Local governments have · Quality of life projects, including theater and the arts lost considerable revenue in the name of"tocal · Transit-Oriented Development (TOD's) government finance reform." · Social.service siting · 3obs/housing balance programs · Possible State. de Implications. City officials · Open space and agricultural land preservation outside the Sacramento area are worried that this · Other priorities deemed appropriate by SACOG legislation sets a precedent to redistribute local government revenues in other regions of the state. Regional Value-Added Projects In order to reward the region for working together to address regional problems, partidpating jurisdictions would be eligible for the fo[towing state assistance: Visit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 14, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 24, 2001 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAy 14, 2001 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2001 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--2001-02 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 680 Introduced by Assembly Member Steinberg (Coauthor: Assembly Member Kehoe) February 22, 2001 An act to add Article 10 (commencing with Section 65500) to Title 7 of the Government Code, and to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 7215) to Part 1.5 of Division 2 of.the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to land use. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEUS DIGEST AB 680, as amended, Steinberg. Land use: sales tax and property tax revenue allocation. .............. ~ .... , ........., ............................... crcdlts 95 AB 680 2 ~e Bradley-B~s U~fo~ Local Sales ~d Use T~ Law au~ofizes a co~W to ~pose a 1~ s~es ~d ~e t~ at a rote of 1.25%, ~d s~il~ly au~odzes a ci~, located wi~ a co~ ~pos~g such a tax rate, to ~pose a loc~ sales t~ rate of 1% ~at is cre~ted agmt the co~ rate. E~st~g law requkes a ciW,.co~W, or ciW ~d co~W ~pos~g a local sales ~d use t~ p~su~t to ~e Bradley-Bras U~fom Local Sales ~d Use T~ Law to con~act wi~ ~e State Bo~d of Equalization to a~ster ~e local sales ~d use tax. E~st~g law also requkes the bo~d, at least ~ice d~g each calend~ queer, to ~s~t local sales ~d use t~ revenue to ~e ci~, co~, or ciW ~d co~ ~ w~ch ~e revenue was collected. T~s bill would, p~su~t to specified deletions ~d proced~es, req~re ~e bo~d to dis~bute sales t~ revenue, derived ~om ~e application of a 1% t~ rate ~ ~e ~eater Sacrmento region, to t~g co~ties ~d cities ~ ~at region on ~e b~is of(l) ~e ~o~t of sales t~ revenue ~at ~ose co.ties ~d cities received ~e 29~1 2002 calendar ye~, ~d (2) ~e relative populations of ~ose co.ties ~d cities, as dete~ned by ~e bo~d ~d ~e population rese~ch ~t of · e D~ent ofFence. ~is bill wouMpmvide that up to 1~ of the sales t~ r~enue ~owth be sh~ed away~Om those counties and cites in the m~on that fail to become ho~ing eligible, as defined, and require those r~enues to instead be allocated to the Sacramento Area Council 95 3 AB 680 of Governments (SACOG) for the funding of regional products. This bill wouM also establish the Sacramento Regional Smart Growth Fund Allocation Program to provide funding incentives for responsible regional growth policies, as specified. By imposing allocation duties upon SACOG, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law, until January I, 2005, prohibits a city or county from providing financial assistance to an automobile dealership or big box retailer, or to a business entity that sells or leases land to an automobile dealership or big box retailer that is relocating from the territorial jurisdiction of one city or county to the territorial jurisdiction of another city or county, but within the same market area, .unless the receiving city or county offers the other city or county a contract that apportions sales tax generated by the dealership or retailer between the 2 cities or counties, as specified, and the city or county holds a public hearing and adopts a resolution .ma/a'ng specified findings relating to whether or not a contract has been approved. This bill would provide that any contracts executed pursuant to these provisions prior to the effective date of the bill would remain in effect as provided in the contract. This bill would also provide that, on and after the operative date of the bill, these provisions requiring contracts to share sales tax revenue do not apply to counties and cities in the greater Sacramento region. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute, and as to the public purposes served by this bill. +1. ....... 1 +~.. .~...1 ..... +1,.~~^.._+~ ^,.c' ~.,-1 ..~1 .... ---~. + ............ +1,,.~. ...... 1d 95 AB 680 4 This bill also would require the Legislative Analyst's Office, in conjunction with the State Board of Equalization ,~,c~,c'-,c¢c:, Dca~d, to report to the Legislature regarding the impact of the bill, as specified, in the greater Sacramento region. The California Constitution requi~es the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation o£ a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs o£ mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. 'Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal commit-tee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people af the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Article 10 (commencing with Section 65500) is 2 added to Title 7 o£ the Government Code, to read: 3 ~5 1~' ..... A~+ 95 95 AB 680 6 ...................... t ~ aL ............................ a~b:-,~a:c ...:,1. _ ' ^--+,:'*-. · ~.L~ 10 ................... ~ .................... ~ i~ ....... ~,','a:¢ ...... ,, may ..,o, +1. ....:. ^~:~: .... .~..~+:~ ..... ,--..:,~p,,,,, :_ +t. 13 ~ ....... · .... 19 ~ "' "v'~-- a~a¢c ir, ,, Fa":, ......... growth 20 21 Article 10. Sacramento Regional Smart Growth Act of 2002 22 23 65500. Forpurposes of this article, the following definitions 24 apply: 25 (a) "Greater Sacramento region" means the region 26 encompassing the total combined area of the County of ElDorado, 27 the County of Placer, the County of Sacramento, the County of 28 Sutter, the County of Yolo, and the County of Yuba. 29 (b) "Regional project" includes, but is not limited to, the 30 following: 31 (1) Regional transportaa'on projects. 32 (2) Transit-oriented development. 33 (3) In. fill development. 34 (4) Development to provide a balance between jobs and 35 housing. 36 (5) Mixed use development. 37 (6) Quality of life projects, incading, but not limited to, theater 38 and the arts. 39 (79 Open space acquisin'on. 95 7 AB 680 1 (8) Other regional land use projects as determined to be 2 necessary by the Sacramento Area-Council of Governments. 3 65501. Those moneys apportioned to the Sacramento Area 4 Council of Governments pursuant to subparagraph (C) of 5 paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 7215.1 of the Revenue 6 and Taxation Code shall be allocated for the purpose offunding 7 regionalprojects, as defined in Section 65500. 8 SEC. 2. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 7215) is 9 added m Part 1.5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, 10 to read: 11 12 CH~d'~R 1.5. Gm~^~R S^C~dV~EN'rO P~GION PEt*, C.~rr^ 13 REVENUE ALLOCATIONS 14 15 7215. The Legislature hereby fmds and declares all of the 16 following: 17 (a) The sims-based allocation of local sales tax revenue has 18 caused serious fiscal problems and public service inefficiencies, as 19 well as a fiscalization of governmental land use decisions that 20 focuses upon .maximizing sales and use tax revenue from retail 21 establishments, rather than upon land use needs in the community. 22 (b) Among other things, the sims-based allocation of'local sales 23 tax revenue has led to unhealthy competition among local 24 jurisdictions for retail development, and to local government 25 revenue streams that do not correspond to the level of public 26 services supported by those revenue streams. 27 (c) The adverse results of the sims-based allocation of local 28 sales tax revenue has impacted each county and city imposing a 29 sales tax, and has not been remedied by either existing law or by 30 local actions or agreements. Instead, existing law and the 31 dynamics of local government finance have maintained or even 32 exacerbated the adverse fiscal, governmental, and public service 33 consequences of a sims-based allocation of local sales tax revenue. 34 (d) The greater Sacramento region provides a unique and 35 instructive perspective on the issue of local sales tax revenue 36 allocation, inasmuch as the greater Sacramento region continues 37 to be subject to both extremely rapid development and new 38 incorporations of jurisdictions with authority, under current law, 39 to impose a local sales tax. These dynamics establish the greater 40 Sacramento region as a region that is uniquely suited for the trial 95 AB 680 8 1 and implementation of a proposed regional local sales tax revenue 2 allocation program aimed at eliminating the adverse fiscal, 3 political, and public service consequences of the sims-based 4 allocation of local sales tax revenue. 5 (e) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this act, to 6 implement a pilot program of local sales tax allocation in the 7 unique circumstances currently presented by the greater 8 Sacramento region, that will allow state.and local governments to 9 jointly establish, test, and refine an alternative system of local sales 10 tax revenue allocation. It is the further intent of the Legislature that 11 this pilot program not be implemented statewide until after the 12 report described in Section 3 of.the act adding this section is 13 submitted to the Legislature. 14 7215.1. Notwithstanding any other provision.of this part, all 15 of the following apply: 16 (a) The board shall segregate into a separate account that 17 amount of sales tax revenue, net of refunds, that is collected 18 pursuant to this part in the greater Sacramento region as a result of 19 the application ofa 1 percent sales tax rate imposed pursuant to this 20 part. 26 m, o .... ., _..,.:_,.. v ..... t .... ,:e..~.~ ..... .. ~_., .... 38 t'1% ~IT~ ....... _+ ................. ~.,, ............. ~. _.e ~1~.. 95 ~ 9 ~ AB 680 1 t ~) For the first calen&r quarter of 2003 and each calen&r 12 quarter thereafie~ the board shall a~portion the r~enue 13 segmgated pursuant to subdivision (a) as follows: 14 (1) Each qual~ed coun~ or qual~ed ci~ shall be appo~ned 15 ' its b~e quarter r~enue amount. 16 (2) ~e m~ining ~enues se~gated pumuant to subdivision 17 (a) shall be allocated as follows: 18 (A) One-third of the r~enues shall be apportioned in ~o or 19 more installments, among qual~ed counties and qual~ed cities 20 in accordance with each qual~ed coun~ ~ and each qual~ed 21 ci~ ~ propor,'onate share of the amounts segregated pursuant to 22 subdivision (a). 23 (B) One-third of the r~enues shall be apportioned, in ~o or 24 more installments, among qual~ed counties and qual~ed cities 25 in shams dete~ined by mul~lying thatpom'on of the r~enu~ by 26 the most recentju~sdicKonal share dete~ined for each qual~ing 27 coun~ and qual~ing ci~ pursuant m Section 7215.2. 28 (C) One-third of the r~enues shall also be apportioned in 29 shares dete~ined in the same manner ~ required by paragraph 30 (2), except that any share that is so calculated with respect to a 31 qual~ed coun~ or qual~ed ci~ that is not housing eligible for 32 that calendar year shall i~te~d be appor~oned to the Sacramento 33 Area Council of Governments for apportionment as provided in 34 Section 65501 of the Government Code. 35 (c) Forpu~oses of this chapte~ all of the following apply: 36 (J) "B~e qua~er muenue amount" means an amount of sales 37 t~ ~enue that ~ eq~l to the amount of sal~ t~ r~enue for each 38 ju~sdic~'on that a qual~ed coun~ or qual~ed ci~ in the greater 39 Sacramento region received in the corresponding calen&r 40 quarter in the year 2002, except that for n~ly inco~orated cities 95 AB 680 ~ 10 ~ 1 the "base quarter revenue amount" is the corresponding calendar 2 quarter in theyearprior to incorporation. 3 (2) "Greater Sacramento region" means the region 4 encompassing the total combined area of the County of ElDorado, 5 the County of Placer, the County of Sacramento, the County of 6 Sutter, the County of Yolo, and the County of Yuba. 7 (3) "Qualified city" means a city in the greater Sacramento 8 region that imposes a sales tax pursuant to this part, that has a 9 population growth rate of more than one-halfofonepercent. 10 (4) "Qualified county" means a county in the greater ! 1 Sacramento region that imposes a sales taxpursuant to this part, 12 that has a population growth rate of more than one-half of one 13 percent. 14 (5) 4 "qualified city" or "qualified county" is "housing 15 eligible "for a caIendar year if the city.or county meets all of the 16 following criteria: 17 (4) The governing body of the city or county has done either of 18 the following: 19 (i) Caused to be issued residential building perrnits for new 20 construction in the jurisdiction that, by regulatory agreement 21 recorded against the property, is affordable to, and occupied by, 22 Iow or very low income households (as defined annually for the 23 region by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 24 DevelopmenO, at least one-half of which shall be affordable to 25 very low income households, or the jurisdiction has caused to be 26 issued perrnits for substantial rehabilitation (over seven thousand 27 five hundred dollars ($7,500) per unit construction contract value) 28 of existing residential units that are, by regulatory agreement 29 affordable to, and occupied by, low income and very Iow income 30 households, that in the aggregate are equal to 5 percent or more 31 of their building permits for residential units built within the last 32 year, or averaging 5percent over a three-year period. 33 (ii) 4dopted a mixed-income housing ordinance that assures 34 construction of units affordable to a minimum of 5 percent very low 35 and 5 percent low-income households (total minimum of 10 36 percent) in any new residential development of more than 10 units. 37 (iii) A qualified city or a qualified county with a population of 38 10,000 people or less, is exempt from the requirements of this 39 subparagraph. 95 ~ 11 ~ AB 680 1 (B) The city or countyprovides shelter oryear-round services 2 for the homelesspopulation in the city or county, as determined on 3 the basis of the minimum ofl5percent of the nationally recognized 4 Urban Institute homeless population estimation formula (1 5 percent ofthepopulation within a given jurisdiction). A qualified 6 city or qualified county with apopulation oflO, OOOpeople or less 7 is exempt from the requirements of this subparagraph. 8 (C) The city or county ftled an inventory of potential infill 9 development or open-space acquisition sites in its jurisdiction, 10 and an action plan for proceeding on those opportunities, in the 11 form and manner approved by the Sacramento Area Council of 12 Government Board of Directors. In each year thereafter, the Board 13 of Directors of the Sacramento Area Council of Government shah 14 certify both the receipt of the action plan, and that the city or 15 county has made substantial progress toward meeting the action 16 plan. 17 (6) "Smart growth principles" include, but are not limited to, 18 programs designed to end the fiscalization of land use, including 19 regional equity in tax income; the provision of social services; 20 enhancing open-space and agricultural land acquisition; transit 21 oriented development; and inftll development. 22 (d) Any agreement executed pursuant to Section 53084 of the 23' Government Code prior to the operation of this act shall be 24 operative as specified in the agreement. However, on and after the 25 operative date of this act, Section 53084 of the Government Code 26 does not apply to any qualified city or county in the greater~ 27 Sacramento region. 28 7215.2. (a) No late~ than March 1 of 20022003 and eachyear 29 thereafter, and within 30 days of determining new population 30 estimates pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of 31 subdivision (c), the board shall calculate the jurisdictional shares, 32 determined pursuant to subdivision Co), for those counties and 33 cities imposing a sales tax pursuant to this part in the greater 34 Sacramento region. 35 (b) The board shall, for each county or city imposing a sales tax 36 pursuant to this part in the greater Sacramento region, determine 37 a jurisdictional share in accordance with the following formula: 38 (1) Determine the total population of the greater Sacramento 39 region. 95 AB 680 t 12 -- 1 (2) Determine the total population of the relevant county or 2 city. In the case of a county, total population means the total 3 population of only the unincorporated area of that county. 4 (3) Divide the amount determined pursuant to paragraph (2) by 5 the amount determined pursuant to paragraph (1). 6 (e) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the 7 population determinations described in subdivision Co) shall be 8 made upon the basis of annual population estimates that are made · 9 by the population research unit in the Department of Finance for 10 purposes of this section, and are transmitted to the board not later 11 than February 1 in each year. 12 (2) (A) For the 2992 2003 calendar year, the population 13 determinations described in subdivision (b) shall be made on the 14 basis of the later of the following: 15 (i) The most recent population estimates for counties and cities 16 in the greater Sacramento region, as otherwise required or 17 authorized by law, that have been made by the population research 18 unit in the Department of Finance. 19 (ii) The most recent census validated by the population 20 research unit in the Department of Finance. 21 (B) The population research unit in the Department of Finance 22 shall newly estimate the population 'of the affected city, and any 23 other affected city or county in the greater Sacramento region, and 24 provide those new estimates to the board within 30 days after any 25 of the following occur: 26 (i) A newly incorporated city in the greater Sacramento region 27 imposes a sales tax pursuant to this part. Fc, r 28 ~1 ..... +1.~ ...... 1~4-:~_ ~-.~ ...... 1.. : ....... +~,,.l ~:~-.. ~1.~.11 L._ 30 (ii) A city in the greater Sacramento region.that imposes a sales 31 tax pursuant to this part completes the annexation of additional 32 territory. 33 (iii) A consolidation of one city in the greater Sacramento 34 region with another city in that region results in a consolidated city 35 that imposes a sales tax pursuant to this part. 36 SEC. 3. On or before January 1, 2007 2010, the Legislative 37 Analyst's Office, in conjunction with the State Board of 38 Equalization ---:"- ret, peet .... ' ....... "-~':~-: 40 report to the Legislature regarding the reallocation of local sales 95 ~ 13 ~ AB 680 1 tax revenue pursuant to this act ~-'~ 3 the extent possible, the Legislative Analyst's Office shall 4 incorporate comments from the Sacramento Area Council of 5 Governments regarding the impact of this act on affected local 6 jurisdictions. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the 7 following: 8 (a) Estimates of the fiscal impact of this act on local 9 governments in the greater Sacramento region. 10 (b)-To the extent that data are available, representative case 11 studies documenting whether land use decisions made by local 12 jurisdictions in the greater Sacramento region were affected by this 13 act. 14 (c) Recommendations regarding whether to continue the sales 15 tax allocation formulas specified in this act, and, if applicable, 16 suggestions for amending this act to better achieve the 17 Legislature's intent to promote smart growth land use policy. 19 28 cnactccL 29 (d) an analysis of the number of permits issued for low and very 30 low income affordable housing, shelter and services for the 31 homeless, infilI development projects, open-space acquisition, and 32 regional projects by local governments in the greater Sacramento 33 region. 34 SEC. 4. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact in -this' 35 section a program to encourage cities and counties in the greater 36 Sacramento region, as described in this act, to participate in 37 responsible regional growth by rewarding, in accordance with 38 subdivision (b), those jurisdictions within the region that meet the 39 criteria set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 40 7215.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 95 AB 680 -- 14- 1 (b) The Sacramento Regional Smart Growth Fund ~4llocation 2 Program is hereby established, and shah be known and may be 3 cited as the C,4PSMART Program. During the 2004 State 4 Transportation Improvement Program funding cycle, and every 5 two years thereafter, the Department of Transportation may 6 designate Interregional Transportation Improvement Program 7 funds as smart growth incentive funding for eligibleprojects that 8 support smart growth strategies and are identified as priority 9 transportation spendingprojects by the Sacramento ~lrea Council 10 of Governments. The Sacramento ~lrea Council of Governments 11' shah review requests from individual jurisdictions in a process to 12 be developed by the Sacramento ~4rea Council of Governments 13 using criteria developed by the Department of Transportation, and 14 to be implemented in coordination with existing Sacramento ~4rea 15 Council of Governments RTIP procedures..4llocations and 16 decision guidelines developed by the Sacramento ~4rea Council of 17 Governments, in consultation with cities and counties, shah meet 18 California Transportation Commission Guidelines, and 19 applicable national and state requirements. The Sacramento,4rea 20 Council of Governments shah forward C~IPSMART funding 21 recommendations to the Department of Transportation which 22 shah make those changes, additions, or deletions as it deems 23 appropriate, and then may include the projects in the state 24 discretionary portion of the State Transportation Improvement 25 Program. 26 (c) ~4ny multicounty region in California that adopts regional 27 tax-sharing agreements or multicounty smart growth principles, 28 as defined in Section 7215.1, shah be entitled to both of the 29 following: 30 (1) Beginning in the 2008-09 fiscal year, 1 percent of the funds 31 allocated to the Transportation Investment Fund pursuant to 32 ~Issembly Constitutional ~Imendment 4 of the 2001-02 Regular 33 Session. 34 (2) Ten points awarded for applications to the State 35 Department of Housing and Community Development for the 36 Jobs-Housing Balance Program, the Cai Home Program, and the 37 Multi-Family Housing Assistance Program. 38 SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law 39 is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable 40 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California 95 -- 15 -- AB 680 1 Constitution because .the unique fiscal, jurisdictional, and public 2 service dynamics in the greater Sacramento region provide a 3 unique opportunity to implement and refine possible solutions to 4 the fiscal, planning, and public service problems resulting from the 5 imposition of multiple local sales taxes. 6 SEC. 6. The Legislature finds and declares that requiring the 7 allocation of local sales tax revenue in the greater Sacramento 8 region on a per capita basis serves a public purpose of each county 9 or city imposing a sales tax in that region by reducing~the unhealthy 10 competition that currently exists between these entities for new 11 retail establishments, helping to equate revenue streams with 12 public service requirements, and allowing land use decisions to be 13 made solely on the basis of land use planning considerations. 14 SEC. 7. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government 15 Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this 16 act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local 17 agencies and school districts 'for those costs shall be made pursuant 18 to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 19 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for 20 reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), 21 reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims 22 Fund. O 95 January 11, 2002 Issue #2-2002 GOVERNOR*KEEPS PROMISE NOT TO BALANCE STATE BUDGET Hot Bilts ON :BACKS :OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT The city officials in Sacramento this week for the League's Mayors and · ,,. to Watch Council Members Institute and ,League Leaders Workshop were pleased with ~- Governor Davis' State of the State Address where he reiterated his previous ~- AB 100 promise.not to balance the looming state budget deficit on the backs of ·· (Simitian). local governments. Seated in the Assembly gallery as the governor's guests at -" Propert. y Tax the Tuesday night speech, and honored by the governor, were League Presi- · dent Mayor Beverly O'Neill, Long Beach, Mayor Heather Fargo, Sacramento ·· Revenue Shifts: and Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana. For more, see page 3. · Limitations. · .- · · · n · · · ·.. · .... · AB 1076 HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION FUNDING REDUCTIONS OR i (Canciamilla). PROGRAM :DEFERRALS ·· Local Govern- The budget contains some reductions and deferred funding that will affect local _' ment Finance. government. Key areas include the following: · · · · Transportation. Included in the Governor's proposal to fill the budget gap is · the transfer of $672 million from the Govemor's transportation program enacted · · two years ago. It is expected that no pro~ects will be delayed as a result of this ·· transfer. For more, see.page 2. ; ~.~' ERAF BILLS ADVANCE-- CITY SUPPORT NEEDED ~ · Want more detai~on Two League-supported property tax measures (AB 100, Simitian and A~ " ?_e_se_ an.d o.~.her,bj~.s~ .... 1076, Canciamilla) moved out of the Assembly Local Government Committee ;~ge °o? ~emLeea°~r~C~ao~f wet~ this week on unanimous votes. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will California Citi;gs,lea~r hear these bills in the coming weeks. Cities are urged to contact Members www. cacities, o~'nd clickof the Assembly Appropriations Committee to voice their support of Page~'4~2 BALLOT Page 5 - LEGISLATIVE BILL ~IES HOUSING from page I · · · · · · · ·,,,. Housing. The budget assumes passage of a "We appreciate the governor's strong major new housing bond in rNovember 2002 that will commitment to preserve local funding for provide an new funding source for a variety of hous- public safety and other essential community lng-related programs that have previously been funded services. We're never happy about cuts, but through general obligation bonds, tax credits and the we also understand the Governor had tough Califomia Housing Finance Agency's lending programs, budget choices to make, just as we do in The budget reduces funding for these programs in ' our cities." 2002-03: Riverside Mayor and League Second Vice · $29.5 million for the Multifamily Housing program President Ron Loveridge. · $3.6 million for Farmworker Housing grants · $3 million-for Downtown Rebound Project loans and _/~_ ~ grants. (/'ERAF from page I · · · · · · · · · · · · · · $2.1 million for the Self-Help Housing program ~ What -They Do: · $2 million for Emergency Housing assistance AB 1OO (Simitian). This bill would reduce grants, the growth of ERAF by 10 percent, beginning in 2005. ERAF growth would be decreased by an In addit:ion, the budget proposes transfers to the additional 10,percent each year thereafter until General Fund from the current programs: the growth on ERAF is totally capped. Under AB 100, the base of E -P, AF, now approximately $4.7 · $59.6 million from Jobs-Housing Balance Improve- billion, would remain with the state in perpetuity ment incentive grants in 2001-02. at its 2005 value. AB 100 also contains a trigger which would allow the suspension of growth · $1.4 million from childcare facilities loan guaran-repayments in years where the.state sees a signifi- tees. cant drop-off in state general fund revenues. AB 1075 (Canciamilla), similar to AB 100, All in all, the Governor's budget is generally would reduce .the growth on ERAF by 20 percent favorable.for local govemments, given the economic in each "qualified fiscal year" after 2004. "C)uali- condition of the state and the nation. If the economyfled years'" are those in which the state reserve at least holds, or even strengthens, local governments exceeds three percent and that revenues in Sep- may escape being a "solution" for the state general tember exceed the forecast from the May revision. fund deficit. If the economy weakens further, there may be trouble ahead in the summer of 2002. Our Mission Restore and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. PAGE 2/PRIORITY FOCUS ViSit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 16, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 7, 2002 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--2001-02 REGULAR SESSION P/SSEMBLY BILL No. 100 Introduced by Assembly Member Simitian (Coauthors: Assembly Members Arcnet, Bates, Briggs, John Campbell, Canciamilla, Cardenas, Cardoza, Chan, Chavez, Cox, Diaz, Florez, Frommer, Harman, Hollingsworth, Horton, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Koretz, Leach, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Pavley, Pescetti, Richman, Salinas, Shelley, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Washington, Wyman, and Zettel) (Coauthors: Senators Chesbro, Costa, and Sher) January 11, 2001 An act to amend Section 41204.1 of the Education Code, and to add Section 97.42 to the ReVenue and Taxation Code, relating to local government finance. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 100, as amended, Simitian. Property tax revenue shifts: limitation. Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, and generally requires that each jurisdiction be allocated an amount equal to the total of the amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion of _. 97 AB 100 2 the annual tax increment, as defmed. Existing property tax law also reduces the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that would otherwise be annually allocated to the county, cities, and special districts pursuant to these general allocation requirements by requiring, for purposes of determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for.the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years, that the amounts of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to the county, cities, and special districts be reduced in accordance with certain formulas. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would, for each successive qualified fiscal year, as defined, beginning on or after July 1, ~g34.-2005, modify these reduction and transfer provisions by restricting the total amount of revenue allocated to a county's ERAF to the applicable revenue shift limit, as defmed. This bill would require that .those revenues that may not be allocated to the county's ERAF as a result of this limitation to instead be allocated among local agencies in the county in accordance with each local agency's proportionate share of those revenues that would be deposited in the county's ERAF in the absence of this bill. By imposing new duties upon local tax officials in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also state the intent of the Legislature, and would require the Director of Finance to make certain adjusWaents, with respect to ensuring that the modifications required by this bill and earlier acts to property tax revenue allocations do not have a net fiscal impact on school districts or community college districts, or upon the state's obligation under the California Constitution to provide funding to those districts. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts -for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is requiredby this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 3 AB 100 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 41204.1 of the Education Code, as 2 amended by Chapter 1111 of the Statutes of 1996, is amended to 3 read: 4 41204.1. (a) (1) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) 5 of Section 41204, the Director of Finance shall annually adjust 6 "the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school 7 districts and community college districts, respectively, in the 8 1986-87 fiscal year," for purposes of applying paragraph (1) of 9 subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California 10 Constitution, to reflect those property tax revenue allocation 11 modifications required by the amendments made to Chapter 6 12 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the 13 Revenue and Taxation Code and by the qualifying provisions in a 14 manner that ensures that those modifications will have no net fiscal 15 impact upon the.amounts that.are otherwise required to be applied 16 by the state for the support, of school districts and community 17 College districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the 18 California Constitution. 19 (2) For purposes of this section, "qualifying provisions" 20 means the following: 21 (A) The amendments made to Chapter 6 (commencing with 22 Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation 23 Code during the 1991-92 Regular Session and the 1993-94 24 Regular.Session. 25 (B) The amendments made to Sections 97.2 and 97.3 of the 26 Revenue and Taxation Code by Chapter 1111 of the Statutes of 27 1996. 28 (C) Section 97.42 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 29 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 30 2002-03 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, tt~ "the 31 percentage of ",qcncral General Fund revenues appropriated for 32 school districts and community college districts, respectively, in 33 fiscal year 1986-87," for purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision 34 (b) of Section 8 of ArtiCle XVI of the California Constitution, shall 35 be deemed to be the .percentage of General Fund revenues that 36 would have been appropriated for those entities if the amendments 37 made to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of 38 Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code during the 1991-92 97 AB 100 4 1 Regular Session, the amendments made to that same chapter 2 during the 1993-94 Regular Session, and Section 97.42 of the 3 Revenue and Taxation Code, had been operative for the 1986:-87 4 fiscal year. 5 (c) In no event may the recalculations required by subdivisions 6 (a) and (b) result in a percentage that exceeds the "percentage of 7 General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and 8 community college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 9 1986-87," for purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of 10 Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution prior to the 11 amendments made to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of 12 Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code during 13 the 1991-92 Regular Session. 14 (d) It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure the follOwing: 15 (1) That the changes required by the qualifying provisions.in 16 the allocations of ad valorem property tax revenues do not have a 17 net fiscal impact upon school districts, as defined in Section 18 41302.5, or community college districts. 19 (2) That the changes required by the qualifying provisions in 20 the allocations of ad valorem property tax revenues do not have a 21 net fiscal impact upon the amounts of revenue otherwise required 22 to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and 23 community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI 24 of the California Constitution. ' 25 SEC. 2. Section 97.42 is added to the Revenue and Taxation 26 Code, to read: 27 97.42. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 28 for purposes of annual property tax revenue allocations, all of the 29 following apply: 30 (a) The total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue 31 annually allocated to the county's Educational Revenue 32 Augmentation Fund may not exceed the applicable revenue shift 33 limit as described below: 34 (1) For the fa'st qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 35 thereafter until the second qualified fiscal year, the total amount 36 of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 37 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 38 preceding fiscal year, plus 90 percent of that fund's otherwise 39 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 5 AB 100 1 (2) For the second qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 2 thereafter until the third qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 3 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 4 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 5 preceding fiscal year, plus 80 percent of that fund's otherwise 6 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 7 (3) For the third qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 8 thereafter until the fourth.qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 9 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 10 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the mediately 11 preceding fiscal year, plus 70 percent of that fund's otherwise 12 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 13 (4) For the -fourth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 14 thereafter until the fifth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 15 ad valorem property, tax revenue allocated to the county's 16 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for .the Immediately 17 preceding fiscal year, plus 60 percent of that fund's otherwise 18 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 19 (5) For the fifth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 20 thereafter until the sixth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 21 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 22 Educational Revenue Augmentation .Fund for the Immediately 23 preceding fiscal year, plus 50 percent of that fund's otherwise 24 applicable share of the annual tax ~ncrement. 25 (6) For the sixth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 26 thereafter until the seventh qualified fiscal year, the .total amount 27 of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 28 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 29 preceding fiscal year, plus 40 percent of that fund's otherwise 30 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 31 (7) For the seventh qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 32 thereafter until-the eighth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 33 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 3'4 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund -for the mediately 35 preceding fiscal year, plus 30 percent of that fund's otherwise 36 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 37 (8) For the eighth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 38 thereafter until the ninth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 39 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 40 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the ~mmediately 97 AB 100 6 1 preceding fiscal year, plus 20 percent of that fund's otherwise 2 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 3 (9) For the ninth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 4 thereafter until the 10th qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 5 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 6 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 7 preceding fiscal year, plus 10 percent of that fund's otherwise 8 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 9 (10) For the 10th qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year t 0 thereafter, the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue 11 allocated to the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation 12 Fund for the ninth qualified fiscal year. 13 Co) Those amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that may 14 not be allocated to the county's Educational Revenue 15 Augmentation Fund as a result of subdivision (a) shall instead be 16 allocated among the local agencies in the county in accordance 17 with each local agency's proportionate share of the total amount 18 of ad valorem property tax revenues that would be required to be 19 allocated to the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation 20 Fund in the absence of this-section. 21 (c) Each reduction resulting from the implementation of 22 subdivision (a) in the amount of ad valorem property tax revenues 23 deposited in the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation 24 Fund shall be applied exclusively to reduce the amounts that are 25 allocated from that fund to school districts and county offices of 26 education, and may not be applied to reduce the amounts of ad 27 valorem property tax revenues that are allocated from that fund to 28 community college districts. 29 (d) For purposes of this section, "qualified fiscal year" means .............................. ,~,,, ,~ ..... o. a ca year 33 beginning on 'or after July 1, 2005, in which the Director of 34 Finance certifies, on or before November 1 of each year, both of 35 the following: 36 (1) The General Fund reserve is at least 3percent of revenues, 37 excluding the revenues derived from the 0.25percent sales and use 38 tax rate imposed pursuant:to Sections 6051.3 and 6201.3. 97 -- 7-- AB 100 1 (2) .4ctual General Fund revenues for the period May 1 to 2 September 30, inclusive, equal or exceed the May Revision 3 forecastprior to the November 1 determination. 4 (e) The Director of Finance shall, on or before November 1 of 5 each year, determine whether the conditions described in 6 subdivision (d)have been met. 7 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 8 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 9 this act provides for offsetting savings to local agencies or school l0 districts that result in no net costs to the local agencies or school districts, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government 12 Code. O 97 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 16, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 7, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2001 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--2001-02 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1076 Introduced by Assembly Member Canciamilla February 23, 2001 An act to amend Section 41204.1 of the Education Code, and to add Section 97.42 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to local government finance. LEatSLA~V~ COt~SEL'S DIGSST AB 1076, as amended, Canciamilla. Local government finance. Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, and generally requires that each jurisdiction be allocated an amount equal to the total of the amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdicfion's portion of the annual tax increment, as defined. Existing property tax law also reduces the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that would otherwise be annually allocated to the county, cities, and special districts pursuant to these general allocation requirements by requiring, for purposes of determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years, that the amounts of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to the county, cities, and special districts be reduced in accordance with 96 AB 1076 2 certain formulas. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would, for each successive qualified fiscal year, as defined, beginning on or after July 1, 2003 2004, modify these reduction and transfer provisions by restricting the total mount of revenue allocated to a county's ERAF to the applicable revenue shift limit, as defined. This bill would provide that, after the revenue shift limits are fully implemented, the amount of revenue allocated to a county's ERAF be adjusted annually by an inflation factor, as provided. This bill would require that those revenues that .may not be allocated to the county's ERAF as a result of this limitation to instead be allocated among local agencies in the county in accordance with each local agency's proportionate share of those revenues that would be deposited in the county's ERAF in .the absence of this bill. This bill would also require that the reduction, .resulting fi.om these provisions, in the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue deposited in the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, be applied exclusively to reduce the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated fi.om that fund to school districts and county offices of education. By imposing new duties upon local tax officials in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also state the intent of the Legislature, and would require the Director of Finance to make certain adjustments, with respect to ensuring that the modifications required by this bill and earlier acts to property tax revenue allocations do not have a net fiscal impact on school districts or community college districts, or upon the state's obligation under the California Constitution to provide funding to those districts. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions .establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 96 -- 3 -- AB 1076 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 41204.1 of the Education Code is 2 amended to read: 3 41204.1. (a) (1) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) 4 of Section 41204, the Director of Finance shall annually adjust 5 "the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school 6 districts and community college districts, respectively, in the 7 1986--87 fiscal year," for purposes of applying paragraph (1) of 8 subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California 9 Constitution, to reflect those property tax revenue allocation 10 modifications required by the amendments made to Chapter 6 11 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the 12 Revenue and Taxation Code and by the qualifying provisions in a 13 manner that ensures that those modifications will have no net fiscal 14 ' impact upon the amounts that are otherwise required to.be applied 15 by the state for the support of school districts and community 16 college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the 17 California Constitution. 18 (2) For purposes of this section, "qualifying provisions" 19 means the following: 20 . (A) The amendments made to Chapter 6 (commencing with 21 Section 95) of part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation 22 Code during the 1991-92 Regular Session and the 1993-94 23 Regular Session. 24 (B) The amendments made to Sections 97.2 and 97.3 of the 25 Revenue and Taxation Code by Chapter 1111 of the Statutes of 26 1996. 27 (C) Section 97.42 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 28 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 29 2003--04 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the percentage 30 of "General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and 31 community college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 32 1986-87," for purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of 33 Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, shall be 34 deemed to be the percentage of General Fund revenues that would 35 have been appropriated for those entities if the amendments made 36 to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 37 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code during the 1991-92 Regular 38 Session, the amendments made to that same chapter during the 96 AB 1076 4 1 1993-94 Regular Session, and Section 97.42 of the Revenue and 2 Taxation Code, had been operative for the 1986-87 fiscal year. 3 (c) In no event may the recalculations required by subdivisions 4 (a) and (b) result in a percentage that exceeds the "percentage of 5 General Fund' revenues appropriated for school districts and 6 community college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 7 1986-87," for purposes of para,apb (1) of subdivision (b) of 8 Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution prior to the 9 amendments madeto Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of 10 Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code during 11 the 1991-92 Regular Session. 12 (d) It is the -intent of the Legislature to ensure the following: 13 (1) That the changes required by the qualifying provisions in 14 the allocations of ad valorem property tax revenues do not have a 15 net fiscal impact .upon school districts, as defined in Section 16 41302.5, or community college districts. 17 (2) That the changes required by the qualifying provisions in 18 the allocations of ad valorem property tax revenues do not have a 19 net fiscal impact upon the amounts of revenue otherwise required 20 to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and 21 community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI 22 of the California Constitution. 23 SEC. 2. Section 97.42 is added to the Revenue and Taxation 24 Code, to read: 25 97.42. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 26 for purposes of annual ad valorem property tax revenue 27 allocations, all of the following apply: 28 (a) The total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue 29 annually allocated to a county's Educational Revenue 30 Augmentation Fund may not exceed the applicable revenue shift 31 limit as described below: 32 (1) For the fu'st qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 33 thereafter until the second qualified fiscal year, the total amount 34 of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 35 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 36 preceding fiscal year, plus §0 percent of that fund's otherwise 37 applicable share of the annual tax increment. 38 (2) For the second qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 39 thereafter until the third qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 40 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 96 -- 5 m AB 1076 1 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 2 preceding qualified fiscal year, plus 60 percent of that fund's 3 otherwise applicable share of the annual tax increment. 4 (3) For the third qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 5 thereafter until the fourth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 6 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 7 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately 8 preceding qualified fiscal year, plus 40 percent of that fund's 9 otherwise applicable share of the annual tax increment. 10 (4) For the fourth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 11 thereafter until the fifth qualified fiscal year, the total amount of 12 ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county's 13 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the immediately i4 preceding qualified fiscal year, plus 20 percent of that fund's 15 otherwise applicable share of the annual tax increment. 16 (5) For the fifth qualified fiscal year and each fiscal year 17 thereafter, the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue 18 allocated to the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation 19 Fund for the fourth qualified fiscal year, compounded annually by 20 an inflation factor that is the percentage change, rounded to the 21 nearest one-thousandth of 1 percent, from October of the prior 22 fiscal year to October of the current fiscal year in the California 23 Consumer Price Index for all items, as determined by the 24 Department of Industrial 'Relations. The amount specified in this 25 paragraph may not, in any ~fiscal year after the ~:~×~fifth qualified 26 fiscal year, be less than the total amount of ad valorem property tax 27 revenue allocated to a county's Educational Revenue 28 Augmentation Fund pursuant to ~-a~,rap~~,~t~ this paragraph. 29 (b) Those amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that may 30 not be allocated to the county's Educational Revenue 31 Augmentation Fund as a result of the limits in subdivision (a) shall 32 instead be allocated among the local agencies in the county in 33 accordance with each local agency's proportionate share of the 34 total amount of ad valorem property .tax revenues that would be 35 required to be allocated to the county's Educational Revenue 36 Augmentation Fund in the absence of this section. 37 (c) Each reduction resulting from the implementation of 38 subdivision (a) in the amount of ad valorem property tax revenues 39 deposited in the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation 40 Fund shall be applied exclusively to reduce the amounts that are 96 AB 1076 -- 6 -- 1 allocated from that fund to school districts and county offices of 2 education, and may not be applied to reduce the amounts of ad 3 valorem property tax revenues that are allocated fi.om that fund to 4 community college districts. 5 (d) For purposes of this section, "qualified fiscal year" means 6 a fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2993 2004, in which the 9 .......... ~- +1.,~ --.~ ^_ ~.~1 Di of Fi niles, ............... ~, .......... y¢ca', rector nance cer on 10 or before November 1 of each year, both of the following: 11 (1) The General Fund reserve is at least 3 percent of revenues, 12 excluding the revenues derived from the 0.25percent sales and use 13 tax rate imposed pursuant to Sections 6051.3 and 6201.3. 14 (2) Actual General Fund revenues for the period May I to 15 September 30, inclusive, equal or exceed the May Revision 16 forecast prior to the November 1 determination. 17 .(e) The Director of Finance shall, on or before November l of 18 each year, determine whether the conditions described in 19 subdivision (d) have been met. 20 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 21 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 22 this act provides for offsetting savings to local agencies or school 23 districts that result in no net costs to the local agencies or school 24 districts, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government 25 Code. O 96 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2001 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM THE CITY OF 'BAKERSFIELD PROVIDES GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. THEREFORE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP ON ISSUES WHICH -POTENTIALLY COULD IMPACT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENTS REFLECT THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORMOF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FOR 2001. _GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT?, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S-FISCAL AUTONOMY AND CHARTER CITY STATUS TO ALLOW DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE WHENEVER IT ISMOST LIKELY TO PRODUCE THE MOST'EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT RESULT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH MAINTAINS AND/OR ENHANCES THE CITY'S LAND USE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH FOSTERS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER 'PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH MAINTAINS THE PROVISION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES (E.G., ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, WATER) IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH ALLOWS STATE OR FEDERAL CONTROL OVER AND USE OF TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH SHIFTS TO THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH DETRIMENTALLY IMPACTS THE LOCAL ECONOMY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT PLACES GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES .IN COMPETITION FOR LIMITED FISCAL RESOURCES OR ENCOURAGES SHIFTING OF SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING. Page I of 3 QUALITY OF LIFE SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES SAFE, EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE, AND RESPONSIBLE 'MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF ISSUES SUCH AS URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES CITY PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN STATE AND 'FEDERAL ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONCERN. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES INCREASED FUNDING OF CULTURAL, RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD REPRESENTATION ON POLICY-MAKING BODIES WITH INTERJURISDICTIONAL POWERS (E.G., THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4). SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES THE COST OF OR ENDANGERS THE CLEAN, RELIABLE SOURCE OF WATER AVAILABLE TO THE CITY FROM THE KERN RIVER. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH EXPANDS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DEAL ON A STATE LEVEL WITH STATE-MANDATED ISSUES AFFECTING THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES MUNICIPAL CONTROL OVER PROGRAM SCOPE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND FUNDING. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE FUNDS FOR CITY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION OR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDES PERMANENT FISCAL RELIEF FOR CITIES IN LIGHT OF THE STATE BUDGET SURPLUS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH CONSOLIDATES SPECIAL DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS AND/OR RESPONSIBILITIES WHERE SUCH CONSOLIDATION IS CLEARLY OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INTRUDES INTO THE CITY'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AND RIGHTS. Page 2 of 3 FINANCES SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ADVOCATES RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE STATE- MANDATED PROGRAMS IF REVENUES ARE-PROVIDED AND SUCH LEGISLATION IS OF CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE CITY, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES CONTINUED DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH REDUCES THE NEGATIVE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING-ON AFFECTED AGENCIES, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH IMPROVES CITY GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO FINANCE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO FUND ITS .CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES THE USE OF LOCAL BANKS WHERE POSSIBLE AND LOCAL BRANCHES OF NATIONAL BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CITY INVESTMENT, OPPOSE THE IMPOSITION OF FEES AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL TO FUND STATE PROGRAMS NOT RELATED TO MUNICIPAL MATTERS, Page 3 of 3