Property taxes: TEA formula allocation: maintenance or improvement districts: City of Simi Valley.
Summary
Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with an established Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) formula and to make corresponding reductions in the amount of property tax revenue that is allocated to the county, as specified. This bill, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, would prohibit the auditor of the County of Ventura from reducing the amount distributed to the City of Simi Valley by reason of that city receiving property taxes previously allocated to a maintenance or improvement district pursuant to specified provisions. This bill would require the City of Simi Valley to reimburse the auditor for the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the auditor to administer these allocations, as provided. This bill would also make findings and declarations regarding the necessity of a special statute. By imposing new duties upon county officials in the allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Assembly Passage
Jun 2011
Senate Passage
Aug 2011
Signed into Law
Sep 2011
Introduced Feb 15, 2011
Signed Sep 26, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly Jun 1, 2011
How they voted
32–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
Aug 30, 2011
D
Democratic23
95% Yea
R
Republican12
83% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
26
Key actions
7
Committee
9
Amendments
2
Sep 26, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 2, 2011
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 2834.).
lower
Aug 31, 2011
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 2 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 30, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (32-0-3)
senate
Jul 12, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 11).
upper
Jun 22, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: to consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 8, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
upper
Jun 1, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (68-0-4)
assembly
May 27, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 27).
lower
May 18, 2011
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
May 5, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (May 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 9, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Feb 16, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
CS
Cameron Smyth
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 468
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 468. 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