Property tax revenue allocations: public utilities: qualified property.
Summary
(1) The California Constitution requires the State Board of Equalization to assess the property, other than franchises, of companies transmitting or selling gas or electricity. Existing property tax law provides for the valuation, as a unit, of properties of a state assessee that are operated as a unit as a primary function of that assessee, and for the allocation of the assessed value of the unit among various counties in which the state assessee's unitary property is located. Existing law also provides, pursuant to specified formulas, for the application in each county of specified tax rates to unitary assessed value, and for the allocation among jurisdictions in that county of the resulting revenues. This bill would, for the 2011–12 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, require that a specified amount of property tax revenues derived from applying a specified tax rate to qualified property, as defined, be allocated first to the county in which the qualified property is located and to all of the school entities located in that county, 2nd to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, and 3rd to specified special districts, with the balance allocated to the redevelopment agency governing the project area in which the qualified property is located. This bill would also require that a specified amount of property tax revenues derived from applying another specified tax rate to the qualified property be first allocated to taxing jurisdictions in those tax rate areas in the county in which the qualified property is located, with the balance allocated to taxing jurisdictions pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would require the Oakley Redevelopment Agency to reimburse the county auditor for the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the county auditor in administering these allocations. The bill would also require the Oakley Redevelopment Agency to develop one new housing unit for each 40 jobs created on real property within the project area, as prescribed. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute. (3) This bill would also incorporate additional changes in Section 100 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, proposed by AB 308, to be operative if AB 308 and this bill are both enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, and this bill is enacted last. (4) By establishing new duties with respect to the annual allocation of property tax revenues derived from state‑assessed property, this bill would create a state‑mandated local program. 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. (5) This bill would change the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county, within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
Bill status
died
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Senate Passage
Jun 2010
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Governor
Introduced Feb 19, 2010
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Jun 3, 2010 · Assembly Aug 31, 2010
How they voted
26–3
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 34
Jun 3, 2010
D
Democratic23
95% Yea
R
Republican11
36% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
43
Key actions
11
Committee
11
Amendments
3
Aug 31, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (49-7-4)
assembly
Aug 31, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on August 31.)
lower
Aug 31, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.)
lower
Aug 30, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. On APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Aug 25, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on August 25.)
lower
Aug 25, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.)
lower
Aug 23, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. On L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Aug 16, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee August 12.)
lower
Aug 16, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.)
lower
Aug 5, 2010
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jul 1, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
lower
Jul 1, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 3, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (26-3-5)
senate
May 28, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3. Page 3675.)
upper
Apr 20, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 3307.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 15, 2010
Upper · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Feb 19, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1398
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1398. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline