California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly Bipartisan · 3 D · 1 R cosponsors

AB 213 — Local government finance: property tax revenue allocations: vehicle license fee adjustments.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 provides 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 requires that, for purposes of determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for the 1992–93 and 1993–94 fiscal years, 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 in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. Beginning with the 2004–05 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, existing law requires that each city, county, and city and county receive additional property tax revenues in the form of a vehicle license fee adjustment amount, as defined, from a Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation Fund that exists in each county treasury. Existing law requires that these additional allocations be funded from ad valorem property tax revenues otherwise required to be allocated to educational entities. Existing law, for the 2006–07 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, requires the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount for the prior fiscal year, if specified provisions did not apply, and the product of that sum and the percentage change from the prior fiscal year in the gross taxable valuation within the jurisdiction of the entity. Existing law establishes a separate vehicle license fee adjustment amount for a city that was incorporated after January 1, 2004, or on or before January 1, 2012. This bill, for the 2019–20 fiscal year, would instead require the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount in the 2018–19 fiscal year, the product of that sum and the percentage change in gross taxable assessed valuation within the jurisdiction of that entity between the 2018–19 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, and the product of the amount of specified motor vehicle license fee revenues that the Controller allocated to the applicable city in July 2010 and 1.17. This bill, for the 2020–21 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, would require the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount for the prior fiscal year and the product of the amount as so described and the percentage change from the prior fiscal year in gross taxable assessed valuation within the jurisdiction of the entity. By imposing additional duties upon local tax officials with respect to the 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, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1859.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (May 16).

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Coauthors revised.

  13. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  14. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  15. From printer. May be heard in committee February 15.

  16. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 112 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (9)

Not signed on (112)

112 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 112 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 3002
Democratic 1000
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Not Voting
Bates — Not Voting
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 45003
Republican 7000
Democratic 25000
Total 77003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Mathis — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chu — Yea
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Weber — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Levine — Yea
Wood — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Cooley — Not Voting
Frazier — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 11000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2000
Democratic 5000
Republican 1000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 213 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 provides 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 requires that, for purposes of determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for the 1992–93 and 1993–94 fiscal years, 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 in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. Beginning with the 2004–05 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, existing law requires that each city, county, and city and county receive additional property tax revenues in the form of a vehicle license fee adjustment amount, as defined, from a Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation Fund that exists in each county treasury. Existing law requires that these additional allocations be funded from ad valorem property tax revenues otherwise required to be allocated to educational entities. Existing law, for the 2006–07 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, requires the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount for the prior fiscal year, if specified provisions did not apply, and the product of that sum and the percentage change from the prior fiscal year in the gross taxable valuation within the jurisdiction of the entity. Existing law establishes a separate vehicle license fee adjustment amount for a city that was incorporated after January 1, 2004, or on or before January 1, 2012. This bill, for the 2019–20 fiscal year, would instead require the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount in the 2018–19 fiscal year, the product of that sum and the percentage change in gross taxable assessed valuation within the jurisdiction of that entity between the 2018–19 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, and the product of the amount of specified motor vehicle license fee revenues that the Controller allocated to the applicable city in July 2010 and 1.17. This bill, for the 2020–21 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, would require the vehicle license fee adjustment amount to be the sum of the vehicle license fee adjustment amount for the prior fiscal year and the product of the amount as so described and the percentage change from the prior fiscal year in gross taxable assessed valuation within the jurisdiction of the entity. By imposing additional duties upon local tax officials with respect to the 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, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 213?
AB 213 is sponsored by Reyes, Eloise Gómez (Democratic), Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca (Democratic), Gallagher, James (Republican), Smith, Chu, Obernolte, Rodriguez, Waldron, Mathis, and Ramos, James C. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 213?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 213?
Track AB 213 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 213

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 213

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →