Local government finance.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 684 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 684.
You're tracking SB 684
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 684 — Local government finance.
Last action — From Assembly without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenues 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. This bill would, for purposes of property tax revenue allocations for the 2011–12 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require the county auditor for a county for which a negative sum was calculated pursuant to a specified former statute, in reducing the amount of property tax revenue otherwise allocated to the county by an amount attributable to that negative sum, to apply a reduction amount equal to the reduction amount determined for the 2010–11 fiscal year. By imposing new duties in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/22/09 - Amended Assembly Current pdf June 22, 2009
- Introduced 02/27/09 - Introduced pdf February 27, 2009
- SB684 View text html
Action History
-
From Assembly without further action.
-
From committee without further action.
-
Set, second hearing. Held in committee and under submission.
-
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
(Heard in committee on July 8.)
-
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
-
To Com. on L. GOV.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1188.) To Assembly.
-
To Special Consent Calendar.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 1074.)
-
(Suspense - for vote only.)
-
Set for hearing May 28.
-
Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing April 20.
-
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 398.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing April 1.
-
To Com. on L. GOV.
-
Read first time.
-
From print. May be acted upon on or after March 31.
-
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Cogdill · Primary
- Denham · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Cogdill
Co-sponsors (1)
- Denham
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| De | — | Yea |
| La | — | Yea |
| Torre | — | Yea |
| Duvall | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Yea |
| Cogdill | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Benoit | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Negrete | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| McLeod | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Ashburn | — | Yea |
| Hollingsworth | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Maldonado | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 92% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Not Voting |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 0% | 0% | 15% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Not Voting |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Not Voting |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cox | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 684 do?
- Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenues 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. This bill would, for purposes of property tax revenue allocations for the 2011–12 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require the county auditor for a county for which a negative sum was calculated pursuant to a specified former statute, in reducing the amount of property tax revenue otherwise allocated to the county by an amount attributable to that negative sum, to apply a reduction amount equal to the reduction amount determined for the 2010–11 fiscal year. By imposing new duties in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors SB 684?
- SB 684 is sponsored by Cogdill and Denham.
- What is the current status of SB 684?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 684?
- Track SB 684 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 684
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 684
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →