HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/10/28 Item 11
'/iti
' W/I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
n
Meeting Date
10/28/80
ITEM TITLE: Report on Negotiated Property Tax Distribution - McCann Greenwood Reorganization
Resolution /tJ:7 t:f Accepting Negotiated Property Tax, Exchange relating to
~o/ Jurisdictional Change - McCann Greenwood Reorganization
SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No~)
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 9862 on November 27, 1979, which was the last step'
in annexing an undeveloped parcel of land of approximately 1.12 acres. That annexation,
known as the McCann Greenwood reorganization, has never been completed due to the City's,.and
the County's inability to arrive at a tax distribution formula. The owners of this property
have been trying for three years to finalize a parcel map which would divide the property
into two parcels, one of which would be sold and the other used for a new dwelling for
their own personal home. The entire last year the annexation has been held in abeyance
due to the tax distribution problem. Negotiations with the County in recent days have
developed a percentage distribution of taxes between the City and the County tha't County
staff is ready to recommend to the Board of Supervisors and, therefore, it is my
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution pertaining to the distribution of
taxes relating to the McCann Greenwood reorganization.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
DISCUSSION
On Janua ry 15, 1980, the Council entered into an agreement that 1 ea- to,'the annexat i on
of the ADMA property. This agreement provided that the City would receive 13.57% as
its share of the total funds available for distribution among the City, County and
other juri sdi cti ons excl us i ve of school di stri cts. The City Counc il agreed to thi s
negotiated distribution, not out of satisfaction with the formula, but only to provide
some degree of equity between the City and ADMA in their desire to proceed with annexa-
tion and development of their property. The resolution that was adopted provided that
if any changes were made in the State law at a subsequent date, a new distribution would
be applied to the ADMA annexation. The City Council also adopted a resolution that was
not binding upon the County but set forth this City's expectations that if a later
formula was agreed upon between the City and the County, that formula would be applied
to the ADMA annexation.
I believe the distribution agreement that has been worked out between the City and
County staff, in the case of the McCann Greenwood reorganization, should be approved
because the tentative agreement, while not entirely a distribution formula we are
ready to accept in all instances, is far superior to that agreed upon in the ADMA annexa-
tion. Further, the amount of property taxes that this parcel will generate in future
years will be relatively small in that a maximum of two dwelling units is all that can
be constructed on the property and-,we wish to accommodate the long-delayed desires of the'
~kCanns to develop thei r property, -
continued
/030 ?
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
_~I>f
--,',-
-.....
~._'m4:,:..:.. jiR1~'~f
EXHIBITS
Agreement____ Resolution-1L- Ordinance Plat
Notification List
Other
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
, .
I
, -
. .
, Item
Meeting
Page 2
11
Date '1 0/28/80
The distribution formula we are proposing would not provide for the City's sharing in any
part of the base tax, which in terms of 1979 values would only amount to less than $10
per year to the City, but we would share in all future incremental growth according to
the percentages indicated below:
Present Distribution
Negotiated Distribution
County
City of Chula Vista
.26745846%
.19775380%
.27168115
.53056505
Other Jursidictions
Flood Zone 3
.53056505
.00933961
.19263688
1 . 00000000
)included
) in
)City's share
Bonita Fire District
1 .00000000
The above negotiated distribution formula indicates that the City would receive a little in
excess of 27% of all taxes generated by reason of incremental growth, and the County would
continue to receive slightly less than 20% of incremental growth and all of the base taxes.
While we are prepared to accept this distribution, our main concern and the reason we
are not willing to accept it on an on-going basis is that the 27% Chula Vista will receive
is made up in large part by the 20+% of the total currently received by Flood Zone 3 and
the Bonita Fire District. The City of Chula Vista still contends that the County,
where the property being annexed involves special districts, should not view past special
district taxes as accruing to the County but should transfer them in their entirety to
the annexing City with the County sharing a greater percent of their presently distributed
share.
Under the McCann Greenwood distribution formula, the City will receive a larger portion
of taxes from this property than it does from an equivalent parcel in the City. For this
reason, our continued opposition loses much of its force because we have always contended
that property being annexed should be treated in terms of tax return in the same propor-
tion as other properties in the City. The problem we see, however, is that we believe
the City, as indicated above, should receive 100% of special district taxes and, on top
of that, something close to a pro rata share of equivalent property in the City.
The final reason for not wisning to accept the distribution formula as proposed in the
McCann Greenwood reorganization as a permanent formula is that early in November a special
committee of Mayors will be meeting in a joint session with the County Board of Supervisors
in an attempt to resolve the deadlock that the cities and County are experiencing. I
believe that a master agreement that the cities may agree upon should await at least
the outcome of that meeting.
ERA:mab
~;vw p ~d(_
by th,? City Council of
Chula Vista, California
/030/
Dated --.Lf2. - :l!? - fib
--....-...,
''''-, >-~' ......
',...._~. -.,-,-
.-,..O_"',"'-''"f!,d