BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 1676
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   March 28, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    AB 1676 (Alejo) - As Amended:  March 15, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                              Local 
          GovernmentVote:8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  :  This bill addresses errors made in allocating property 
          tax in San Benito County.  Specifically, this bill:  

          1)States the property tax apportionment factors applied in 
            allocating property tax revenues in the County of San Benito 
            for each fiscal year through 2000-01, inclusive, are correct, 
            including the factors used to allocate funds to the 
            Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).

          2)Specifies for 2001-02 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
            property tax apportionment factors applied in allocating 
            property tax revenues in the County of San Benito shall be 
            determined on the basis of property tax apportionment factors 
            for that have been fully corrected or adjusted, pursuant to 
            the review and recommendation of the Controller.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Based on the audits they perform, the Controller's Office 
            states the County of San Benito underfunded ERAF by a net of 
            $3.8 million from July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2001.  Absent this 
            bill, repayment of this amount would be subject to a 
            negotiated agreement with the Controller.  Typically repayment 
            would occur over three to seven years.  The repayment would 
            benefit the General Fund, which backfilled the underpayments 
            to ERAF.

          2)Other counties are repaying the state for incorrect 
            misallocations of property tax.  The enactment of this bill 
            could affect the willingness of other counties to repay the 
            state, increasing the impact of this bill on the General Fund.









                                                                  AB 1676
                                                                  Page  2

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Background  .  In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious 
            budgetary shortfalls, the Legislature and Governor permanently 
            redirected over $3 billion of property taxes from cities, 
            counties and special districts to schools and community 
            college districts.  Under Proposition 98, these redirected 
            funds reduce the state's funding obligation for K-14 school 
            districts by a commensurate amount.  The property tax shift is 
            accomplished through contributions that cities, counties and 
            special districts deposit into ERAF, the proceeds of which 
            then are transferred to school districts within the county.

           2)Rationale  .  This bill is sponsored by the County of San Benito 
            to rectify a local taxation problem.  Following an audit by 
            the Controller's Office, it was determined that San Benito 
            County underfunded ERAF between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 
            2001.  The Controller's Office and the County of San Benito 
            have had different interpretations of state law and its 
            applicability to ERAF between the years of 1993 and 2001.  

           3)Controller's audits  .  In the 1998 audit of San Benito County, 
            the Controller's Office determined that ERAF was underfunded 
            by approximately $500,000.  The county did not reimburse ERAF 
            for this amount nor change their allocation methodology, which 
            led to the underpayment growing, as noted in subsequent audits 
            published in 2005 and 2009.  Beginning July 2001, San Benito 
            County began using the correct formulas and there is no 
            dispute about the allocations from FY 2001-02 onward.

           4)Second forgiveness for San Benito County.   SB 1030 (Mello), 
            Chapter 846 Statutes of 1995, deemed correct mistakes made by 
            the County of San Benito in the allocation of property tax.  
            The legislation was sought to protect the county from 
            litigation after the county settled a case with the City of 
            Hollister.  The bill also stated:  

               "It is the intent of the Legislature not to validate 
               in the future any other mistakes made in San Benito 
               County in the allocation of property tax revenue, 
               unless the mistake is the result of written advice 
               from the Department of Finance with respect to the 
               particular allocation."

           5)Previous legislation.   








                                                                  AB 1676
                                                                  Page  3


             a)   AB 1339 (V. Manuel Perez), of 2010) allowed an incorrect 
               calculation to stand when the county auditor did not 
               include the Imperial County Free Library in the ERAF shift 
               and forgave the over $950,000 that was owed.  AB 1339 died 
               in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

             b)   SB 1096 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), 
               Chapter 211, Statutes of 2004, forgave county property tax 
               allocation errors and deemed correct any misapplication of 
               apportionment factors for any State Controller's audit 
               conducted between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 2001.  The 
               effect of this provision reduced the underpayment owed by 
               San Benito County by approximately $500,000.

             c)   AB 1615 (Longville), Chapter 604, Statutes of 2000, 
               deemed Riverside County's property tax calculation in 
               previous years as correct.  In the course of the audits, 
               the Controller discovered that Riverside County owed the 
               state $2.4 million, which the county paid back prior to 
               enactment of the legislation.

             d)   AB 236 (Honda), Chapter 567, Statutes of 1999, deemed 
               correct past property tax allocations to fire districts in 
               Santa Clara and Santa Barbara Counties and relieved the 
               counties of the obligation to pay the state the funds.

             e)   AB 1945 (Honda), of 1998, deemed correct past property 
               tax allocations to fire districts in Santa Clara and Santa 
               Barbara Counties and relieved the districts' of the 
               obligation to pay the state the funds.  Vetoed by Governor 
               Wilson.

             f)   AB 1712 (Cuneen), of 1998, deemed as correct San Joaquin 
               County property tax allocations for the 1992-93 fiscal year 
               to the San Joaquin County Free Library and for specified 
               fire districts in Santa Clara County and relieved both 
               counties of their obligation to repay the state.  Vetoed by 
               Governor Wilson.

             g)   SB 1895 (O'Connell), of 1998 deemed correct past 
               property tax allocations to fire districts in Santa Barbara 
               County and relieved the districts' of the obligation to pay 
               the state the funds.  Vetoed by Governor Wilson.









                                                                  AB 1676
                                                                  Page  4

             h)   AB 1082 (Leslie), Chapter 179, Statutes of 1995, deemed 
               Plumas County's property tax calculation in previous years 
               as correct.  These errors favored the state by $140,000 but 
               the county sought this legislation protect the affected 
               local governments from possible litigation.



           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081