Agenda

Return

SD.3

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	David Twa, County Administrator
Date:	March 3, 2009

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Property Tax Administrative Cost Recovery

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 03/03/2009

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Lisa Driscoll, 335-1023
cc:	Steve Ybarra Rebecca Hooley Laura Strobel

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.
ATTESTED: March 3, 2009
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

CONDUCT a public hearing, previously fixed for March 3, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., on implementation of the property tax cost recovery provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code section 95.3.

ADOPT the report of the Auditor-Controller filed on January 20, 2009, of the 2007-2008 fiscal year property tax-related costs of the Assessor, Tax Collector, Auditor, and Assessment Appeals Board, including the proposed charges against each local jurisdiction excepting school entities, for the local jurisdiction's proportionate share of such administrative costs.

ADOPT Resolution No. 2009/47 regarding the implementation of the property tax administrative cost recovery provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code section 95.3 for fiscal year 2008-2009.

RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal year 2007-2008 net cost of property tax administration was $17,387,160. This amounts to approximately .81% of all 2007-2008 property taxes levied countywide. This cost is allocated to each taxing entity in the County based on net revenues of each entity as a percentage of total revenues. School districts, community college districts, and the County Office of Education are exempt from cost recovery. As a result, the County absorbs the schools' share, which this year amounts to $6,179,648. The net recovery to the County is $8,059,319.

BACKGROUND:

In 1997, the Board adopted Resolution 97/129 which provides procedures for property tax administrative cost recovery. Written objection from the City of Oakley was received on February 3, 2009. The objection is overruled on the ground that the Auditor Controller's report of January 20, 2009 properly includes property tax revenues resulting from the application of Revenue & Taxation Code § §97.68 and 97.70 in the calculation of administrative costs under Revenue and Taxation Code §95.3. The recommended actions are necessary for implementation of Resolution 97/129 for the current fiscal year.

CLERK'S ADDENDUM

Supervisor Piepho requested that copies of the tax objection letters from various cities be copied to each Supervisor. She asked what the efforts are statewide to address the issues between cities and counties.

Lisa Driscoll, County Administrator's Office, said the costs methodology was devised in 1982 and has been in use since then.

Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel, added that all counties in the State use the same methodology.

Chair Bonilla asked how the proposed tolling agreement works.

Mr. Marchesi said a tolling agreement gives more time for the parties--in this case, the County and the cities--to come to an agreement and it would put off the need for cities to file litigation. He added that the related lawsuit in Los Angeles County is expected to go to litigation in May and that statewide, cities and counties are looking to see the outcome of that case.