BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  SB 1030|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 1030
          Author:   Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
          Amended:  8/23/12
          Vote:     21

           
           SUBJECT  :    Budget Trailer Bill:  Redevelopment

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill removes language that was contained in 
          AB 1484 (Assembly Budget Committee, Chapter 26, Statutes of 
          2012), relating to the disposition of certain additional 
          property tax revenues that would result from the 
          elimination of redevelopment agencies (RDAs).  The removal 
          of the language would result in specified additional 
          property taxes going to counties receiving excess Education 
          Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
          
           Assembly Amendments  delete the Senate version of the bill 
          which expressed legislative intent and replace it with the 
          above language.

           ANALYSIS  :    Each county has a fund into which are 
          deposited property tax revenues that have been shifted from 
          cities, counties, and special districts for the support of 
          K-14 education.  The fund is known as ERAF and was 
          established in 1992 to support local school districts and 
          offset General Fund payments to education required by 
          Proposition 98.  ERAF is distributed in inverse proportion 
          to the receipt of property taxes by school districts in 
          order for each district to be brought up to the revenue 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1030
                                                                Page 
          2

          limit.  No basic aid school districts receive ERAF funding. 
           Basic aid school districts are those that reach or exceed 
          the revenue limit based only on the receipt of local 
          property taxes without any state funding.

          Following the 2004 enactment of the vehicle license fee 
          (VLF) "swap" (which shifted property taxes from school 
          districts to local governments, thus replacing the General 
          Fund VLF backfill resulting from the VLF reduction) and the 
          "triple flip" (which shifted property taxes from school 
          districts to local governments to compensate for local 
          sales tax reductions related to the issuance of the 
          Economic Recovery Bonds), ERAF funds have been used to 
          reimburse local governments for their revenue losses 
          associated with these revenue shifts.  As a result of the 
          establishment of ERAF and subsequent revenue shifts 
          discussed above, county auditor-controllers are required to 
          determine (but not distribute) the amount of ERAF required 
          for K-14 revenue limit funding.  Any amounts in excess of 
          this required amount are generally distributed to cities, 
          counties and special districts in proportion to their ERAF 
          contributions. Amounts remaining after this initial 
          distribution are used to compensate for local governments' 
          revenue losses from the VLF swap and the triple flip.  In 
          situations where ERAF is insufficient to compensate for the 
          revenue shifts, non-basic aid school district property 
          taxes are shifted to local governments.  In this case, 
          General Fund backfills the revenue losses to schools.

          Section 30 of AB 1484, adopted as a budget trailer bill to 
          the 2012 Budget Act, contains a provision, Section 34188 
          (d) of the Health and Safety Code, that stipulates that any 
          additional excess ERAF attributable to the dissolution of 
          RDAs should not be construed in a manner that results in 
          increased allocations of these moneys to cities, counties, 
          or special districts. Additional ERAF from RDA dissolution 
          can result both from additional "freed-up" property tax 
          going to schools as well as additional property tax amounts 
          going to ERAF.  There is no indication in the language of 
          where this additional excess is to go; however, in order 
          for any state benefit to result from this provision, any 
          additional excess ERAF would be required to go to schools 
          to supplant General Fund Proposition 98 support.  This 
          would occur if, for example, ERAF resources were 







                                                               SB 1030
                                                                Page 
          3

          insufficient to replace local revenue losses due to the VLF 
          swap and the triple flip and school district property taxes 
          were used for this purpose.  In this case, the state 
          Proposition 98 obligation would be reduced as a result of 
          additional excess ERAF going to schools and offsetting 
          state General Fund support.

          The proposal encompassed in this bill would remove the 
          language that stipulates that additional excess ERAF that 
          may result from the dissolution of RDAs should not be 
          construed to increase allocations of these moneys to 
          cities, counties, or special districts.  As a result, any 
          additional excess ERAF created under the dissolution would 
          go to cities, counties and special districts.  

           Comments  

          The Legislative Counsel Bureau has issued a letter 
          regarding the provision of AB 1484 that relates to the 
          disposition of additional excess ERAF.  The letter states 
          that Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California 
          Constitution limits the authority of the Legislature to 
          modify the apportionment of ad valorem property taxes to 
          reduce amounts received by cities, counties and special 
          districts.  It further notes that by modifying revenue 
          allocation shifts from ERAF, thereby increasing the share 
          of ad valorem property tax revenues allocated to school 
          districts, the measure may result in reducing the 
          percentage going to cities, counties and special districts, 
          and be in contravention of the California Constitution. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  Yes   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No

          It appears as though three counties - Marin, Napa and San 
          Mateo - are receiving funds from excess ERAF and would be 
          affected by the provision in current law.  Based on this 
          information, the fiscal impact of redirecting additional 
          excess ERAF would likely be in the range of $4 million, 
          with potential losses of up to $16 million.  As RDA debts 
          are extinguished, and depending upon revenue limits and 
          other factors, other counties could be affected by the 
          diversion of a portion of excess ERAF, as directed under 
          current law.  This could result in additional revenue 







                                                               SB 1030
                                                                Page 
          4

          losses in future years.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/30/12)

          County of Marin
          County of Napa
          County of San Mateo


          DLW:m  8/30/12   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****