Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund allocations: excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund moneys.
Summary
Existing law requires the county auditor-controller, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue 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 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. Existing law requires the transfer of the local property tax revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education, with any remaining excess funds allocated to the county, cities, and special districts. Existing law additionally requires the county auditor-controller to determine annually the amount of property taxes that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency had the agency not been dissolved and to deposit that amount into the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund. Existing law requires the county auditor-controller for each fiscal year to allocate moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund for passthrough payment obligations, enforceable obligations of the dissolved redevelopment agency, and administrative costs, as specified. Any remaining moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund are required to be distributed as local property tax revenues to local agencies and school entities, which may include ERAF, as prescribed. This bill would modify the provision of law relating to the allocation of remaining local property tax revenues in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund by deleting language requiring that the provision be construed in such a manner so as to not increase any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining ERAF funds that would otherwise have been allocated to cities, counties, cities and counties, or special districts pursuant to existing law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Senate Passage
Mar 2012
Assembly Passage
Aug 2012
Vetoed
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 6, 2012
Vetoed Sep 29, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Sep 1, 2012 · Assembly Aug 29, 2012
How they voted
21–9
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 31
Sep 1, 2012
D
Democratic20
95% Yea
R
Republican11
72% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
4
Committee
6
Amendments
1
Sep 29, 2012
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Sep 29, 2012
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 1, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (21-9-1)
senate
Aug 31, 2012
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 27. Noes 11. Page 5106.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 30, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 10. Noes 4. Page 5042.)
upper
Aug 30, 2012
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 4994.) Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.
upper
Aug 30, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Aug 29, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (43-25-2)
assembly
Aug 29, 2012
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Mar 26, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on BUDGET.
lower
Feb 16, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 6, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
0 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
No sponsor information available.
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1030
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1030. 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