Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the computations and allocations made by each county pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section shall be modified for the 1992–93 fiscal year pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, and for the 1997–98 and 1998–99 fiscal years pursuant to subdivision (e), as follows:
(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to each county shall be reduced by the dollar amounts indicated as follows, multiplied by 0.953649:
Property | |
Alameda ........................ | $ 27,323,576 |
Alpine ........................ | 5,169 |
Amador ........................ | 286,131 |
Butte ........................ | 846,452 |
Calaveras ........................ | 507,526 |
Colusa ........................ | 186,438 |
Contra Costa ........................ | 12,504,318 |
Del Norte ........................ | 46,523 |
El Dorado ........................ | 1,544,590 |
Fresno ........................ | 5,387,570 |
Glenn ........................ | 378,055 |
Humboldt ........................ | 1,084,968 |
Imperial ........................ | 998,222 |
Inyo ........................ | 366,402 |
Kern ........................ | 6,907,282 |
Kings ........................ | 1,303,774 |
Lake ........................ | 998,222 |
Lassen ........................ | 93,045 |
Los Angeles ........................ | 244,178,806 |
Madera ........................ | 809,194 |
Marin ........................ | 3,902,258 |
Mariposa ........................ | 40,136 |
Mendocino ........................ | 1,004,112 |
Merced ........................ | 2,445,709 |
Modoc ........................ | 134,650 |
Mono ........................ | 319,793 |
Monterey ........................ | 2,519,507 |
Napa ........................ | 1,362,036 |
Nevada ........................ | 762,585 |
Orange ........................ | 9,900,654 |
Placer ........................ | 1,991,265 |
Plumas ........................ | 71,076 |
Riverside ........................ | 7,575,353 |
Sacramento ........................ | 15,323,634 |
San Benito ........................ | 198,090 |
San Bernardino ........................ | 14,467,099 |
San Diego ........................ | 17,687,776 |
San Francisco ........................ | 53,266,991 |
San Joaquin ........................ | 8,574,869 |
San Luis Obispo ........................ | 2,547,990 |
San Mateo ........................ | 7,979,302 |
Santa Barbara ........................ | 4,411,812 |
Santa Clara ........................ | 20,103,706 |
Santa Cruz ........................ | 1,416,413 |
Shasta ........................ | 1,096,468 |
Sierra ........................ | 97,103 |
Siskiyou ........................ | 467,390 |
Solano ........................ | 5,378,048 |
Sonoma ........................ | 5,455,911 |
Stanislaus ........................ | 2,242,129 |
Sutter ........................ | 831,204 |
Tehama ........................ | 450,559 |
Trinity ........................ | 50,399 |
Tulare ........................ | 4,228,525 |
Tuolumne ........................ | 740,574 |
Ventura ........................ | 9,412,547 |
Yolo ........................ | 1,860,499 |
Yuba ........................ | 842,857 |
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount of the reduction specified in that paragraph for any county or city and county that has been materially and substantially impacted as a result of a federally declared disaster, as evidenced by at least 20 percent of the cities, or cities and unincorporated areas of the county representing 20 percent of the population within the county suffering substantial damage, as certified by the Director of Emergency Services, occurring between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1994, shall be reduced by that portion of five million dollars ($5,000,000) determined for that county or city and county pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).
(3) On or before October 1, 1992, the Director of Finance shall do all of the following:
(A) Determine the population of each county and city and county in which a federally declared disaster has occurred between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1994.
(B) Determine for each county and city and county as described in subparagraph (A) its share of five million dollars ($5,000,000) on the basis of that county’s population relative to the total population of all counties described in subparagraph (A).
(C) Notify each auditor of each county and city and county of the amounts determined pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to each city, except for a newly incorporated city that did not receive property tax revenues in the 1991–92 fiscal year, shall be reduced by 9 percent. In making the above computation with respect to cities in Alameda County, the computation for a city described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 100.7, as added by Section 73.5 of Chapter 323 of the Statutes of 1983, shall be adjusted so that the amount multiplied by 9 percent is reduced by the amount determined for that city for “museums” pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 95.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount of the reduction determined pursuant to that paragraph for any city that has been materially and substantially impacted as a result of a federally declared disaster, as certified by the Director of Emergency Services, occurring between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1994, shall be reduced by that portion of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) determined for that city pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).
(3) On or before October 1, 1992, the Director of Finance shall do all of the following:
(A) Determine the population of each city in which a federally declared disaster has occurred between October 1, 1989, and September 30, 1994.
(B) Determine for each city as described in subparagraph (A) its share of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) on the basis of that city’s population relative to the total population of all cities described in subparagraph (A).
(C) Notify each auditor of each county and city and county of the amounts determined pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(4) In the 1992–93 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the auditor shall adjust the computations required pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) so that those computations do not result in the restoration of any reduction required pursuant to this section.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of property tax revenue, other than those revenues that are pledged to debt service, deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to a special district, other than a multicounty district, a local hospital district, or a district governed by a city council or whose governing board has the same membership as a city council, shall be reduced by 35 percent. For purposes of this subdivision, “revenues that are pledged to debt service” include only those amounts required to pay debt service costs in the 1991–92 fiscal year on debt instruments issued by a special district for the acquisition of capital assets.
(2) No reduction pursuant to paragraph (1) for any special district, other than a countywide water agency that does not sell water at retail, shall exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of that district’s total annual revenues, from whatever source, as shown in the 1989–90 edition of the State Controller’s Report on Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts (not including any annual revenues from fiscal years following the 1989–90 fiscal year). With respect to any special district, as defined pursuant to subdivision (m) of Section 95, that is allocated property tax revenue pursuant to this chapter but does not appear in the State Controller’s Report on Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts, the auditor shall determine the total annual revenues for that special district from the information in the 1989–90 edition of the State Controller’s Report on Financial Transactions Concerning Counties. With respect to a special district that did not exist in the 1989–90 fiscal year, the auditor may use information from the first full fiscal year, as appropriate, to determine the total annual revenues for that special district. No reduction pursuant to paragraph (1) for any countywide water agency that does not sell water at retail shall exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of that portion of that agency’s general fund derived from property tax revenues.
(3) The auditor in each county shall, on or before January 15, 1993, and on or before January 30 of each year thereafter, submit information to the Controller concerning the amount of the property tax revenue reduction to each special district within that county as a result of paragraphs (1) and (2). The Controller shall certify that the calculation of the property tax revenue reduction to each special district within that county is accurate and correct, and submit this information to the Director of Finance.
(A) The Director of Finance shall determine whether the total of the amounts of the property tax revenue reductions to special districts, as certified by the Controller, is equal to the amount that would be required to be allocated to school districts and community college districts as a result of a three hundred seventy-five million dollar ($375,000,000) shift of property tax revenues from special districts for the 1992–93 fiscal year. If, for any year, the total of the amount of the property tax revenue reductions to special districts is less than the amount as described in the preceding sentence, the amount of property tax revenue, other than those revenues that are pledged to debt service, deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to a special district, other than a multicounty district, a local hospital district, or a district governed by a city council or whose governing board has the same membership as a city council, shall, subject to subparagraph (B), be reduced by an amount up to 5 percent of the amount subject to reduction for that district pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B) No reduction pursuant to subparagraph (A), in conjunction with a reduction pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), for any special district, other than a countywide water agency that does not sell water at retail, shall exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of that district’s total annual revenues, from whatever source, as shown in the most recent State Controller’s Report on Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts. No reduction pursuant to subparagraph (A), in conjunction with a reduction pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), for any countywide water agency that does not sell water at retail shall exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of that portion of that agency’s general fund derived from property tax revenues.
(C) In no event shall the amount of the property tax revenue loss to a special district derived pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) exceed 40 percent of that district’s property tax revenues or 10 percent of that district’s total revenues, from whatever source.
(4) For the purpose of determining the total annual revenues of a special district that provides fire protection or fire suppression services, all of the following shall be excluded from the determination of total annual revenues:
(A) If the district had less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) in total annual revenues in the 1991–92 fiscal year, the revenue generated by a fire suppression assessment levied pursuant to Article 3.6 (commencing with Section 50078) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(B) The total amount of all funds, regardless of the source, that are appropriated to a district, including a fire department, by a board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25642 of the Government Code or Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 13890) of Part 2.7 of Division 12 of the Health and Safety Code for fire protection. The amendment of this subparagraph by Chapter 290 of the Statutes of 1997 does not affect any exclusion from the total annual revenues of a special district that was authorized by this subparagraph as it read before that amendment.
(C) The revenue received by a district as a result of contracts entered into pursuant to Section 4133 of the Public Resources Code.
(5) For the purpose of determining the total annual revenues of a resource conservation district, all of the following shall be excluded from the determination of total annual revenues:
(A) Any revenues received by that district from the state for financing the acquisition of land, or the construction or improvement of state projects, and for which that district serves as the fiscal agent in administering those state funds pursuant to an agreement entered into between that district and a state agency.
(B) Any amount received by that district as a private gift or donation.
(C) Any amount received as a county grant or contract as supplemental to, or independent of, that district’s property tax share.
(D) Any amount received by that district as a federal or state grant.
(d) (1) The amount of property tax revenues not allocated to the county, cities within the county, and special districts as a result of the reductions calculated pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall instead be deposited in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to be established in each county. The amount of revenue in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, derived from whatever source, shall be allocated pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) to school districts and county offices of education, in total, and to community college districts, in total, in the same proportion that property tax revenues were distributed to school districts and county offices of education, in total, and community college districts, in total, during the 1991–92 fiscal year.
(2) (A) The auditor shall, based on information provided by the county superintendent of schools pursuant to this paragraph, allocate the proportion of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to those school districts and county offices of education within the county that are not excess tax school entities, as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 95. The county superintendent of schools shall determine the amount to be allocated to each school district and county office of education in inverse proportion to the amounts of property tax revenue per average daily attendance in each school district and county office of education. In no event shall any additional money be allocated from the fund to a school district or county office of education upon that school district or county office of education becoming an excess tax school entity.
(B) The Controller shall issue, on or before December 31, 2020, guidance to counties for implementation of subparagraph (A). Any guidance issued to counties pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or Section 30200 of Government Code. Commencing with the 2019–20 fiscal year, if a county auditor-controller fails to allocate Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund revenues in accordance with the guidance issued by the Controller pursuant to this subparagraph, the Controller may request a writ of mandate to require the county auditor-controller to immediately perform this duty. Such actions may be filed only in the County of Sacramento and shall have priority over other civil matters.
(C) Calculations made pursuant to subparagraph (A) for fiscal years before the 2018–19 fiscal year shall be considered final as of the 2018–19 fiscal year second principal apportionment.
(D) Calculations pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the 2018–19 fiscal year shall be considered final as of the February 20, 2020, certification.
(3) The auditor shall, based on information provided by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges pursuant to this paragraph, allocate the proportion of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to those community college districts within the county that are not excess tax school entities, as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 95. The chancellor shall determine the amount to be allocated to each community college district in inverse proportion to the amounts of property tax revenue per funded full-time equivalent student in each community college district. In no event shall any additional money be allocated from the fund to a community college district upon that district becoming an excess tax school entity.
(4) (A) If, after making the allocation required pursuant to paragraph (2), the auditor determines that there are still additional funds to be allocated, the auditor shall allocate those excess funds pursuant to paragraph (3). If, after making the allocation pursuant to paragraph (3), the auditor determines that there are still additional funds to be allocated, the auditor shall allocate those excess funds pursuant to paragraph (2).
(B) (i) (I) For the 1995–96 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, if, after making the allocations pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) and subparagraph (A), the auditor determines that there are still additional funds to be allocated, the auditor shall, subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), allocate those excess funds to the county superintendent of schools. Funds allocated pursuant to this subclause shall be counted as property tax revenues for special education programs in augmentation of the amount calculated pursuant to Section 2572 of the Education Code, to the extent that those property tax revenues offset state aid for county offices of education and school districts within the county pursuant to Section 56836.15 of the Education Code.
(II) For the 2007–08 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, both of the following apply:
(ia) In allocating the revenues described in subclause (I), the auditor shall apportion funds to the appropriate special education local plan area to cover the amount determined in Section 56836.173 of the Education Code.
(ib) Except as otherwise provided by sub-subclause (ia), property tax revenues described in subclause (I) shall not be apportioned to special education programs funded pursuant to Section 56836.173 of the Education Code.
(III) If, for the 2000–01 fiscal year or any fiscal year thereafter, any additional revenues remain after the implementation of subclauses (I) and (II), the auditor shall allocate those remaining revenues among the county, cities, and special districts in proportion to the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be shifted from those local agencies to the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the relevant fiscal year.
(IV) A county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund shall not be required to provide funding for special education programs funded pursuant to Section 56836.173 of the Education Code or any predecessor to that section for a fiscal year before the 2007–08 fiscal year that it has not already provided for these programs before the beginning of the 2007–08 fiscal year.
(ii) For the 1995–96 fiscal year only, clause (i) shall have no application to the County of Mono and the amount allocated pursuant to clause (i) in the County of Marin shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000).
(iii) For the 1996–97 fiscal year only, the total amount of funds allocated by the auditor pursuant to clause (i) and clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 97.3 shall not exceed that portion of two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) that corresponds to the county’s proportionate share of all moneys allocated pursuant to clause (i) and clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 97.3 for the 1995–96 fiscal year. Upon the request of the auditor, the Department of Finance shall provide to the auditor all information in the department’s possession that is necessary for the auditor to comply with this clause.
(iv) Notwithstanding clause (i) of this subparagraph, for the 1999–2000 fiscal year only, if, after making the allocations pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) and subparagraph (A), the auditor determines that there are still additional funds to be allocated, the auditor shall allocate the funds to the county, cities, and special districts in proportion to the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be shifted from those local agencies to the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the relevant fiscal year. The amount allocated pursuant to this clause shall not exceed eight million two hundred thirty-nine thousand dollars ($8,239,000), as appropriated in Item 6110-250-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 1999 (Chapter 50, Statutes of 1999). This clause shall be operative for the 1999–2000 fiscal year only to the extent that moneys are appropriated for purposes of this clause in the Budget Act of 1999 by an appropriation that specifically references this clause.
(C) For purposes of allocating the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the 1996–97 fiscal year, the auditor shall, after making the allocations for special education programs, if any, required by subparagraph (B), allocate all remaining funds among the county, cities, and special districts in proportion to the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be shifted from those local agencies to the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the relevant fiscal year. For purposes of ad valorem property tax revenue allocations for the 1997–98 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, no amount of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the county, a city, or a special district pursuant to this subparagraph shall be deemed to be an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to that local agency in the prior fiscal year.
(5) For purposes of allocations made pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section for the 1993–94 fiscal year, the amounts allocated from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund pursuant to this subdivision, other than amounts deposited in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund pursuant to Section 33681 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be deemed property tax revenue allocated to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in the prior fiscal year.
(e) (1) For the 1997–98 fiscal year:
(A) The amount of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to any city subject to the reduction specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) shall be reduced by an amount that is equal to the difference between the amount determined for the city pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and the amount of the reduction determined for the city pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
(B) The amount of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to any county or city and county subject to the reduction specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) shall be reduced by an amount that is equal to the difference between the amount specified for the county or city and county pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and the amount of the reduction determined for the county or city and county pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(2) The amount of property tax revenues not allocated to a city or city and county as a result of this subdivision shall be deposited in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
(3) For purposes of allocations made pursuant to Section 96.1 for the 1998–99 fiscal year, the amounts allocated from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed property tax revenues allocated to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in the prior fiscal year.
(f) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that this section supersede and be operative in place of Section 97.03 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as added by Senate Bill 617 of the 1991–92 Regular Session.
(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 24, Sec. 84. (SB 98) Effective June 29, 2020.)