Loading...
Exhibit CC 04-03-12 #7 Tax Equity Allocation Committee Members District Office &Contact Information Contact Assembly MembcrC Cameron Smyth Cameron Smyth-Chair Rep-38 Capitol Office State Capitol,Room 4098,Sacramento,CA 94248-0001;(916)319-2038 Contact Assembly Member Luis A.Alejo Luis A.Alejo-Vice Dem- Capitol Office Chair 28 P.O.Box 942849,Room 2137,Sacramento,CA 94249-0028;(916)319- 2028 Contact Assembly Member Steven Bradford Dem- Capitol Office Steven Bradford . 51 State Capitol,Room 5136,Sacramento,CA 90301;(916)319-2051 Contact Assembly Member Nora Campos N_c)ra_Ci,m.l)os Dem- Capitol Office 23 P.O.Box 94284),Room 2175,Sacramento,CA 94249-0023;(916)319- 2023 Contact A ssembly Member Mike:Davis Dem Capitol Office Mike Davis 48 P.O.Box 942849,Room 2160,Sacramento,CA 94249-0048;(916)319- 2048 Contact Assemblyman Richard S.Gordon Dem- Capitol Office Richard S.Gordon �1 P.O.Box 942849,Room 5175,Sacramento,CA 94249-0021;(916)319- 2021 Contact Assembly Member Ben flueso Bic n_Hue'so Dem- Capitol Offiice 79 P.O. Box 942849, Room 5144,Sacramento,CA 94249-0079;(916)319- 2079 Coon tact ssemlrl i.n.Steyr.Knn.ight Steve Knight Rep-36 Capitol Office P.O.Box 942849,Room 4015,Sacramento,CA 94249-0036;(916)319- Committee Members District Office Sr Contact Information 2036 Contact Assemblyman Chris Norby Capitol Office Chris Norby Rep 72 P.O.Box 942849,Room 4116,Sacramento,CA 94249-0072;(916)319- 2072 • CITY HALL 51"•t 9sr 10300 TORRE AVENUE• CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE:(408)777-3212•FAX: (408)777-3366 CUPERTINO April 4, 2012 Assembly Member Richard S. Gordon State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Room 5175 Sacramento, CA 94249-0021 Dear Assembly Member Gordon; The City of Cupertino is asking for your Yes vote on AB 1816(Beall)to treat us equitably with all other Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) cities. In 1978, legislation was enacted which limited the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills to 55%of what other TEA cities in the stale receive. In 2006, Assembly Bill 117 repealed the 55% limit, however the four cities were required to remit a higher ERAF rate to the State on these TEA funds so that the State budget would not be impacted. As a result,the City is still being apportioned less than seven percent of property taxes as set forth in the California revenue and taxation code. AB 1816 (Beall)has been introduced to phase out the higher ERAF rate requirements for the four cities. To lessen the effect on the State budget, while finally bringing the cities into parity with other no/low property tax cities, AB 1816 proposes a 5-year phase i 1 period. Please vote Yes to AB 1816 on April 11th Thank you for your support in correcting this 34 year inequity for our community. Very Truly Yours, Mark Santoro Mayor Tax Equity Allocation. (TEA) Santa Clara County/Los Altos Hills, Monte Serenxo, Saratoga, Cupertino Fact Sheet PROBLEM THIS REQUEST The ERAF rate that the County was remitting was When Proposition 13 passed in 1978, it froze 47.7%, compared to the rate for the four separate property taxes at their current levels. This action cities, which ranged from 7.53%to 17.05%. Due to created significant problems for cities that at the this difference, approximately $1.955 million in time had low property tax rates, because they property tax dollars is still not vesting to these cities. couldn't raise those rates to meet their community They are being treated differently than the other needs. In Santa Clara County, four cities were TEA cities adjusted with Section 98 of the significantly below the average rate: Los Altos Hills, California Revenue and Tax Code. Cupertino, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. SUMMARY Section 98 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code was passed to correct this situation, giving Legislative reallocation of scarce property tax qualified cities what is referred to as Tax Equity dollars frequently leads to bitter local controversies. Allocation (TEA). If the County accepted trial court By repealing Santa Clara County's unique 55% limit funding, it also had to provide at least 7% of the on TEA funding, AB 117 eliminated a long-standing property tax to its cities. Impacts to ERAF created source of contention between the County and by the shift were backfilled by the state. Santa its four-no/low cities. Clara County told its TEA cities that the amount of revenues the County would receive from trial court The inconsistency of ERAF requirements for all funding would not offset the amount it would lose TEA cities however still exists. Impacts to ERAF by bringing its TEA cities up to 7%. as a result of the shift in property tax should be automatically backfilled by the state for these last Consequently, legislation was enacted which limited four effected cities per current law, like every the four TEA cities in Santa Clara to just 55% of other county and city in California. AB 1816 what other TEA cities in the state received. The seeks to remedy this situation over a 5-year phase four TEA cities in the Santa Clara County were in period. the only cities in the state disadvantaged by this legislation. Staff Contact: Carol Atwood (408) 777-3226 In 2006, Assembly Bill 117 repealed the 55% limit Date: November 20,2007,November 8,2010, in the County of Santa Clara on Tax Equity November 23, 2010,March 27,2012 Allocation (TEA) funding for the county's four no/low-property-tax cities. The State, however, required the cities to continue to remit the County's ERAF rate on these funds so that the bill would have no effect on the State budget and would avoid the Appropriations Committee.