California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 15 — Property tax revenue allocations: Local-State Sustainable Investment Program.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2019-2020 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 provides that each jurisdiction shall 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 amount 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 amount 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 property tax law 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. This bill would establish the Local-State Sustainable Investment Program, which would be administered by the Department of Finance. The bill would authorize a city, a county, or a specified joint powers agency that meets specified eligibility criteria to apply to the Department of Finance for funding for projects that further certain purposes, including increasing the availability of affordable housing. The bill would require that funding under the program be provided by an allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, as provided, and would limit the amount of funding approved under the program to $200,000,000 per fiscal year and $1,000,000,000 total. The bill, for each fiscal year in which funding for a project within a county is approved under the program, would require the county auditor to decrease the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the county ERAF by the countywide local-state sustainable investment amount and to allocate a commensurate amount to the county's Local-State Investment Fund, which is created by this bill in the treasury of each county. The bill would require the county treasurer to transfer from the county's Local-State Sustainable Investment Fund an amount approved by the Department of Finance under the program into a separate account for use by a city, a county, or a specified joint powers agency for an approved applicant, as provided. The bill would require, upon approval of funding for a project under the program, the Department of Finance to issue an order directing the county auditor of the county in which the project is approved to make the above-described reduction in property tax revenue allocations to the county's ERAF. By imposing new duties upon local officials, 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

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 16 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 16.

  4. May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 13.

  6. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 3. Page 773.) (April 22).

  8. Set for hearing April 22.

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 712.) (April 10). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  11. Set for hearing April 10.

  12. Re-referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and HOUSING.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  14. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  15. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 3.

  16. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Portantino · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Portantino

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.

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

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 3300
Total 8300
% of votes cast 73%27%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Bates — Nay
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic 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 SB 15 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 shall 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 amount 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 amount 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 property tax law 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. This bill would establish the Local-State Sustainable Investment Program, which would be administered by the Department of Finance. The bill would authorize a city, a county, or a specified joint powers agency that meets specified eligibility criteria to apply to the Department of Finance for funding for projects that further certain purposes, including increasing the availability of affordable housing. The bill would require that funding under the program be provided by an allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, as provided, and would limit the amount of funding approved under the program to $200,000,000 per fiscal year and $1,000,000,000 total. The bill, for each fiscal year in which funding for a project within a county is approved under the program, would require the county auditor to decrease the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the county ERAF by the countywide local-state sustainable investment amount and to allocate a commensurate amount to the county's Local-State Investment Fund, which is created by this bill in the treasury of each county. The bill would require the county treasurer to transfer from the county's Local-State Sustainable Investment Fund an amount approved by the Department of Finance under the program into a separate account for use by a city, a county, or a specified joint powers agency for an approved applicant, as provided. The bill would require, upon approval of funding for a project under the program, the Department of Finance to issue an order directing the county auditor of the county in which the project is approved to make the above-described reduction in property tax revenue allocations to the county's ERAF. By imposing new duties upon local officials, 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 SB 15?
SB 15 is sponsored by Portantino.
What is the current status of SB 15?
This bill died with 2019-2020 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 SB 15?
Track SB 15 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 15

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 15

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →