HomeMy WebLinkAboutAB-741~'~ ADM[NISTRATIO~t CENTER
25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 204 - OROVILLE, CALIFORhkIA 95965
"'~ TELEPHOPIE; (534) 538-7631
March 21, 2013
°~~`~~~ B4ARD OF SUPERVISORS
~~~
The Honorable Katcho Achadjian MAR 2 5 2013
Member, California State Assembly
P. O. Box 942849 p~OVILLE, CALIFORNIA
State Capital, Room 4098
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
RE: Assembly Sill~741(Brown) ~- OPPOSE
Dear Assembly Member Achad~ian:
BILL CONNELLY
First District
LARRY WAHL
Second t]Istrict
MAUREEN KIRK
Third Distinct
STEVE LAMBERT
Fourth District
Dau~ TEETER
Fifth nistrict
On behalf of the Butte County Boards of Supervisors, I am writing in OPPOSITION of Assembly Bill
741, in which Assembly Member Brown proposes to shift property taxes from counties to cities via a
new Tax Equity Allocation {TEA} formula. Butte County's key concerns are as follows:
• Property taa share does not equal inequity -There are a variety of reasons that same cities
receive more ar less property tax than others. The primary difference is the level of service
responsibility the city has. Many cities are not full service and do not provide the full range of
municipal services because special districts provide the services and, therefore, receive less
property tax revenue.
• Counties' on-going service obligations require stable and oa-going revenue sources -Over
the past few years counties have taken on considerable new service responsibilities from the
State without sufficient funding. Counties cannot continue to provide services on the State's
behalf if the very discretionary revenue (property tax) that counties rely onto fill the gaps
caused by inadequate funding for shifted responsibilities is taken away. There is no logical ar
rational assertion to be made that counties should contribute anything to assist cities in reaching
an arbitrary property tax share.
• Redevelopment impacts are real, but the proposed remedy is absurd -Poor planning on
behalf of the cities and their governing bodies that relied heavily on redevelopment revenues to
fund general city obligations should not be fixed an the backs of counties. Regrettably some
cities did rely on redevelopment funds to assist with general city functions and did not plan
accordingly when they saw redevelopment going away. It is not the California counties'
responsibility to make up for poor financial planning. In any instance where this bill will help a
city, it will hurt the affected county and require commensurate reductions in County services.
This is truly an example of "robbing Peter to pay Paul." There is no new money, this bill
simply takes one entity's funding and gives it to another entity.
~~~.,~05
of stt'~tv~~s
Butte County welcomes discussions with the State and local gover~unents regazding public service
delivery in California, which is the larger discussion that should be takiuag place. Focusing an. one
aspect of the service delivery system without taking into account the others is a huge mistake! Cities
and counties rely on each other; :Far local systems of service delivery, in the same way a human body
relies on its appendages to perform daily activities. Breaking the "left arm" in order to fix the "right
arm" doesn't make any sense.
'V~e appreciate your time and consideration of this critical matter, and urge your OPPOSITION of AB
741 (Brown} when heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
Sincerely,
fiy'r-~`~
Bill Connelly, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
cc: ~1Govemor Jerry Brown
Q-1V`iembers of the Assembly Local Government Committee
The Honorable Brian Dahle, Member of California State Assembly
..?~h~ ~Ionorable Dan Logue, Member of California State Assembly
~'~%he Honorable Tim Nielsen, Member of California State Senate
Members, Board of Supervisors
~RCRC
CSA.C
Paul Yoder, Strategic Local Government Solutions