Local government finance: property tax revenue allocations: county of the 28th class.
Summary
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenues 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 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 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 in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would, for the 2012–13 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, require the auditor of a qualified county, as defined, to increase the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be allocated to that county by the county equity amount, as defined, and to commensurately reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be allocated to school entities in the county, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute. By imposing new duties in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, the 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, 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.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 17, 2011
Last action Feb 1, 2012
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
13
Key actions
3
Committee
9
May 27, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.
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 9. Noes 0.) (May 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 15, 2011
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. Re-referred. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 14). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Apr 11, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
lower
Apr 7, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
lower
Apr 5, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Mar 10, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
lower
Feb 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
MY
Mariko Yamada
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 866
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 866. 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