Tax Equity Allocation formula: County of Santa Clara.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 68 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 AB 68.
You're tracking AB 68
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 68 — Tax Equity Allocation formula: County of Santa Clara.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 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 property tax 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. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with a specified Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) formula established in a specified statute and to make corresponding reductions in the amount of property tax revenue that is allocated to the county. Existing law requires the auditor of Santa Clara County, for the 2006–07 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, to reduce the amount of property tax revenue allocated to qualified cities in that county by the ERAF reimbursement amount, as defined, and to commensurately increase the amount of property tax revenue allocated to the county ERAF, as specified. This bill would, for the 2012–13 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, delete the requirement that the auditor of Santa Clara County reduce the amount of property tax revenues allocated to qualified cities in that county by the ERAF reimbursement amount, and commensurately increase the amount of property tax revenues allocated to the county ERAF. This bill would make legislative findings regarding the necessity of a special statute. By imposing new duties in the allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues in the County of Santa Clara, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 12/14/10 - Introduced Current pdf December 14, 2010
- AB68 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee January 14.
-
Introduced. To print.
Sponsors
- Beall · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Beall
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Smyth | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Norby | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 68 do?
- Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, 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 property tax 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. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with a specified Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) formula established in a specified statute and to make corresponding reductions in the amount of property tax revenue that is allocated to the county. Existing law requires the auditor of Santa Clara County, for the 2006–07 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, to reduce the amount of property tax revenue allocated to qualified cities in that county by the ERAF reimbursement amount, as defined, and to commensurately increase the amount of property tax revenue allocated to the county ERAF, as specified. This bill would, for the 2012–13 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, delete the requirement that the auditor of Santa Clara County reduce the amount of property tax revenues allocated to qualified cities in that county by the ERAF reimbursement amount, and commensurately increase the amount of property tax revenues allocated to the county ERAF. This bill would make legislative findings regarding the necessity of a special statute. By imposing new duties in the allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues in the County of Santa Clara, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
- Who sponsors AB 68?
- AB 68 is sponsored by Beall.
- What is the current status of AB 68?
- This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 AB 68?
- Track AB 68 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 68
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 AB 68
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →