Headlines  |  Bills  |  Leg. Votes  |  Code/Laws  |  ElectionTrack   |  About   |  Feedback
Create Account  Log In
Get the free THE NOONER daily e-mail update of aroundthecapitol headlines:
   

help wanted - php/mysql geek with interest in politics

Comments/questions on SB 80

Get free e-mail updates on SB 80


No Spam Privacy Policy







california political news, opinion,
laws & legislation
california legislation > SB 80

Create a free account to track bills.
SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
Community redevelopment: Education Revenue Augmentation Fund.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 80, as amended, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
Budget Act of 2009.
Community redevelopment:
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund.

(1) Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, for
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 law requires a redevelopment agency
to make a remittance, as determined by the Director of Finance prior
to May 10, to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
for the 2008-09 fiscal year and authorizes a legislative body to
remit, in lieu of making that payment prior to May 10, 2009, a
designated amount to the county auditor for deposit in the county
ERAF.

This bill instead would require a redevelopment agency to make the
remittance on or before June 30, 2009 of that fiscal year.


The bill would require the county auditor-controller to distribute
funds that are remitted to the county ERAF by a city-operated or
county-operated redevelopment agency only to a K-12 school district,
as defined, that is located partially or entirely within the project
area of the redevelopment agency in an amount proportional to the
average daily attendance of each school district. The bill would
require the county superintendent of schools to provide the average
daily attendance reported for each school district as of the Second
Proportional Apportionment for the 2008-09 fiscal year to the county
auditor-controller. The bill would require the county
auditor-controller to notify, on or before October 1, 2009, the
Department of Finance of the amount of funding apportioned to each
school district pursuant to this act.

The bill would also require, for the 2008-09 fiscal year, the
amount apportioned by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
each school district pursuant to a specified provision of existing
law and, for purposes of making the computations required by Section
8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, specified General
Fund revenues appropriated for school districts, to be reduced by the
total amount of ERAF moneys a school district receives, regardless
of the actual date the funds are received from each redevelopment
agency.

By imposing new duties upon local tax officials and school
districts with regard to the annual allocation of these revenues,
this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) 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.

(3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact
statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.




Comments/questions on SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review): Community redevelopment: Education Revenue Augmentation Fund.

 

Bill Text:

  • 06/25/09 - Amended Assembly (pdf)
  • 01/20/09 - Introduced (pdf)

  • Bill Location:

  • Legislature Desk

  • Last Action:

  • 01/19/10: Stricken from Senate file.

  • Votes
  • 06/29/09 - Senate Floor: 23-13 (PASS)
  • 06/29/09 - Senate Floor: 24-14 (FAIL)
  • 06/29/09 - Senate Floor: 24-14 (FAIL)
  • 06/29/09 - Senate Floor: 23-13 (PASS)
  • 06/29/09 - Senate Floor: 23-13 (PASS)
  • 06/25/09 - Senate Floor: 23-14 (FAIL)
  • 06/30/09 - Senate Floor: 25-14 (FAIL)
  • 06/25/09 - Assembly Floor: 58-3 (PASS)
  • 06/25/09 - Senate Floor: 34-0 (PASS)
  • 06/25/09 - Senate Floor: 23-14 (PASS)
  • 04/16/09 - Senate Floor: 22-14 (PASS)


  • Bill Analysis
  • 10/12/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 06/30/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 06/29/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 06/25/09 - Assembly Floor Analysis
  • 06/25/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 04/02/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses

  •  

    E-mail this bill to a friend

    Top Headlines

    1. Brown Recruits Hispanic Activists To Gov Campaign
    2. Bid denied to force Brown, Schwarzenegger to appeal Prop. 8
    3. Former Democratic Lawmaker Parra To Help Whitman
    4. Boxer Continues Criticism Of Gop Challenger Fiorina
    5. First Take: Boxer and Fiorina debate. End-of-session wrap-up.
    6. Meg Whitman Called Back To Court For Jury Duty
    7. Court won't force Brown, Schwarzenegger to defend Prop 8
    8. If You Don't Like Tax Increases, Why Would You Vote for a Republican Governor?
    9. Jerry Brown Touts Latino Support In Oakland
    10. Session ends with pork and petty politics
    Comments