Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. vZ 33 7 MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works AGENDA ITEM 4I. CITY MGR. SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR HAKONE GARDENS WATER SYSTEM, CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 981 Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt a budget adjustment resolution appropriating an additional $10,000 to the project. Report Summary: When the City Council awarded the construction contract for the Hakone Gardens water system, the contract award did not include the alternate bid item for the installation of the irrigation system to the Bamboo Gardens. The contract award only included the purchase of the irrigation system components. At the time, there was a possibility that the irrigation system for the Bamboo Gardens could be installed by'the Japan Bamboo Society. However, staff has recently been advised by the Bamboo Society that they are unable to install the irrigation system. Therefore, staff is recommending that the construction contract be amended at this time to include this work. The additional cost to install the irrigation system is $10,000, the amount bid by the contractor for the alternate item in the contractor's original bid proposal to the City. Fiscal Impacts: If the council approves the staff recommendation, the attached budget adjustment resolution should be adopted to appropriate the additional funds to the project. The supplemental funding will be provided to Project No. 981, Account No. 4510, by the Park Development Fund (Fund 31) balance. However, since there is a negative balance in the Park Development Fund, an interfund transfer from the General Fund is necessary until such time as the Park Development Fund is replenished and can reimburse the General Fund. Follow Up Actions: Staff will amend the contract amount and will authorize the contractor to proceed with the work. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The contract amount will not be increased and the work will not be performed at this time. Most likely, the irrigation system would be installed over time by the City's Parks crews. However, since this is not a scheduled activity for the crews, it would take some time for this to occur and until then, the Bamboo Gardens would continue to require hand watering. RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -25.5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1994 BUDGET: WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 93 -25 be amended as follows: Transfer: $10,000 from (0001 -2000) General Fund Balance $10,000 to (9010 -4510 -0981) Hakone Irrigation System Purpose: Fund the alternate bid item of Installation of an irrigation system to the Bamboo Gardens. The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a adjourned regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 26th - day of octo- ber,.1993 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. e-Z� 7F MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Property Taxes) Recommended Motion: Adopt the Resolution Background: On September 28, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution which implements an accrual rather than a cash basis for apportionment of property taxes and seeks agreement from cities to the use of this method. In a memo to the City Manager dated September 22nd (attached), County Director of Finance William Parsons requests such action by the City of Saratoga. Mr. Parsons estimates that in so doing Saratoga would receive a one time increase of property tax revenue for this fiscal year of $54,306. In future years property taxes would be apportioned on the basis of the City's assessed value and its AB8 share of the property tax. Any delinquent payments, penalties and interest would then stay with the County once they are collected. Currently Saratoga receives only its share of the taxes actually paid, whether delinquent or not. In my conversations with other city managers whether this alternate method results in a net increase or decrease in revenue, it appears to be situational. For example, Cupertino and Monte Sereno feel it is to their advantage while Campbell and Los Gatos believe they will lose a slight amount of revenue each year by agreeing to switch. The two factors which seem to impact the result are delinquency rates and the percentage of tax apportionment. Cupertino and Monte Sereno, like Saratoga, are low property tax cities. Further, Saratoga's delinquency rate is relatively small. Given the small amount of delinquency holdback and the fact that delinquencies are based on previous years assessed values while accrual distribution will always be based on the latest assessed value ( Saratoga's has grown historically by an average of 7% over the past 10 plus years), it is staff's view that Saratoga would be no worse off and perhaps better off using the alternative method. No analysis can be absolutely certain of a future outcome but we feel that that will be the case. A question which we will seek to get answered by the 26th is whether the City can decline to participate in future years. The resolution proposed for your consideration is worded so as to only commit the City for one year, fiscal 1994 -95. Fiscal Impacts: . A one time increase in revenue of $54,306. Follow Up Actions: City Clerk to send a certified copy of the resolution to the Clerk of the Board before November 12th. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Property tax allocation method would remain unchanged. Attachments: Resolution 9/22/93 letter from County Director of Finance RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AGREEING TO A DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4715 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 -95 1 WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution which elects an alternative method of distribution of property tax levies and assessments in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 8 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and WHEREAS, in said resolution the Director of Finance of said county was directed to seek the approval of cities in the county to the implementation of the alternative method authorized bylthe Law and WHEREAS, such a request has been directed to the City of Saratoga and WHEREAS, said Director of Finance estimates that the City of Saratoga would receive a one -time increase in revenue from delinquent secured property taxes of $54,306 in fiscal year 1993 -1994, and WHEREAS, the approval of this alternate method would make the annual allocation of property taxes to the City of Saratoga more certain, thereby increasing the accuracy of its revenue forecasting and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City's Finance Director that the net future property tax revenue and income from the investment of proceeds will at least equal the annual revenue expected under the current method of distribution in subsequent fiscal years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the City of Saratoga agrees to the implementation of the alternative method for the City of Saratoga, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. I The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular adjourned meeting held on the 26th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk County of Santa Clara Department of Finance Controller- 17easurer Division County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 951 10 (408) 299 -2541 September 22, 1993 Harry R. Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Teeter Plan) Dear Mr. Peacock: On August 19, 1993 1 attended the monthly City Finance Directors meeting and discussed An Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Teeter Plan) which the County was considering. The alternative method is applicable to all property tax levies and assessments made by the County on behalf of public districts except those for which the County Treasury is not the legal depository and which do not agree by resolution to participate in such an alternative method. The purpose of this letter is to inform those entities that I am recommending to the Board of Supervisors the County adopt An Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 4701 (et seq.) The Board of Supervisors will be considering my recommendation at it's regularly scheduled board meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 1993. 1 have enclosed with this letter a copy of my board transmittal and resolution which will provide you with some background information on the Teeter Plan and give you some information on how the plan will operate. Assuming the Board of Supervisors adopts the resolution to implement the Teeter Plan, I am asking each public district, for which the County Treasury is not the legal depository (other than Mello -Roos districts), and cities to decide if they want to participate in the Teeter Plan tax apportionment method. The estimated amount of one time delinquent secured property taxes which would be distributed to your entity is $ 54,306. This amount does not include any delinquent special assessments, if applicable, nor adjustments for Mello -Roos. These amounts are currently being determined for each entity. Entities would be paid 95% of the delinquent amount with 5% being transferred to the Tax Losses Reserve Fund. I would anticipate the following secured property tax distribution schedule: o As soon as the financing process has been completed for the buy out of the June 30, 1993 delinquent secured property taxes, the cash will be distributed to all entities. I am expecting this to take from 60 to 90 days Board of Supervisors: Michael M. Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Ron Gonzales, Rod Diridon, Dianne McKenna County Executive: Sally R. Reed before the financing will be complete. o The apportionment of the current secured property taxes will be distributed based on the attached apportionment schedule. I would expect entities to receive approximately 55% of their current secured property taxes by January 21st, and would receive 100% of their current secured taxes by June 6th. The apportionment of Mello -Roos taxes would also follow the attached schedule, but would only be for the actual taxes collected. There would be no change in the distribution of unsecured taxes. If your entity would like to participate in the Teeter Plan tax apportionment method, the County will need to have your city council or board adopt a resolution agreeing to so participate. The County will need your resolution no later than October 29, 1993. If your entity decides not to join in the Teeter Plan concept, we would also appreciate knowing that as soon as possible. If you have any questions on the Teeter Plan or need any additional information, please feel free to give me or Rich Atkinson a call at (408) 299 -2541. Sincerely, WVVA�M Pa4fW�- William L. Parsons Director of Finance Attachments cc: Patricia Shriver, Finance Director SANTA CLARA COUNTY I FISCAL YEAR 1993 -94 PROPERTY TAX AND TAX SUBVENTION APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE Current Secured_ Property Tax November 15 The percentage of total levy collected as of this date shall be determined. Each agency maintenance account shall receive a sum equal to such percentage applied to its share of the one per cent levy. November 30 The percentage of total levy collected as of this date shall be. determined. Each agency maintenance account shall receive a sum equal to such percentage applied to its share of the one per cent levy, less prior apportionments. December. 16 Apportionment equivalent to forty per cent (40 %) of annual one per cent tax levy less prior apportionments. January 4. Apportionment.to maintenance accounts equivalent to fifty per cent (50 %) of annual one per cent tax levy less prior apportionments. January 21 Apportionment of all remaining first half one per cent (December 10) collections together with first half debt service and Public Improvements /Direct Assessment collections. March 15 The percentage of total levy collected as of this date shall be determined. Each agency maintenance account shall receive a sum equal to such percentage applied to its share of the one per cent levy, less prior apportionments. March 31 The percentage of total levy collected as of this date shall be determined. Each agency maintenance account shall receive a sum equal to such percentage applied to its share of the one per cent levy, less prior apportionments. April 18 - P � Apportionment equivalent to eighty -five per cent (85 %) of annual one per cent tax levy less prior apportionments. - April 29 Apportionment equivalent to ninety per cent (90 %) of annual one per cent tax levy less prior apportionments. June 6 . Apportionment of all remaining second half one per cent (April 1.0) collect;i.ons together with second half debt service and Public Improvements /Direct Assessments collections. July 27 Apportionment of all delinquent current secured tax collections received during the period of April 11 through June 30. I !r - Page 2 0 Unsecured (Current and Delinouent) October 1 Collections postmarked August 31 or before. April 1 Collections through February 28. August 2 Collections through June 30. Prior Year Secured (Redemptions) February 2 Collections through December 31. August 2 Collections through June 30 Homeowner Exemption Three working days after receipt from State. Approximately December 6, 1993 (15 %); January 6, 1994 (35 %); May 5, 1994 (35%); June 6, 1994 (15 %) as/PT912108 . • County of Santa Clara Department of Finance Controller — Treasurer Division County Government Center, East wing n West I tedding Street San Jose. California 951 10 4081 399.2541 September 22, 1993 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: William L. Parsons nz�l Director of Finance Prepared by:�,,� Rich Atkinson SUBJECT: Resolution to Adopt An Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Teeter Plan) RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the attached Resolution authorizing the Director of Finance to adopt an Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Teeter Plan) pursuit to Revenue & Taxation Code Section 4701. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION AND BACKGROUND 1) Background An Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment has been permitted by Revenue & Taxation Code Section 4701 (et seq.) since 1949. Under this method of apportionment, sometimes referred to as the "Teeter Plan" (referencing the. author of the concept), it allows the Auditor - Controller to apportion 100% of the secured tax roll (including the supplemental roll) to the various taxing entities, including the County, if certain conditions are met. Some taxes would be apportioned before collection of the tax by the Tax Collector. At its inception, it was characterized as a means to simplify the tax allocation process. However, the primary focus has now changed due to the shift in county property tax revenue to the schools. as required by the State's FY 1993- 94 budget. By adopting the Teeter Plan concept counties, cities, schools, and special districts would have the opportunity to recognize significant one time property tax revenues in FY 1993 -94. Under new legislation (SB 742) if a county adopts the Teeter Board of Supervisors: Michael M H n . Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Roll Gonzales, Rod Diridon. Dianne McKenna County Executive: Sall%, R. Reed Plan by October 15, 1993 the amount of windfall delinquent property taxes allocated to non basic aid schools can be offset against the county's required property tax shift to schools. In order to realize this benefit the County would have to take some risks involving the distribution formula of the new sales tax and there are some potential problems involving bankruptcies. Only five small counties have implemented the Teeter Plan since it's passage in 1949. However due to the revenue potential that can now be realized, most major counties are now evaluating the Teeter Plan. 2) How the Plan Operates Normally, taxing agencies receive a proportionate share of tax receipts at the time the property tax money is actually collected. Under the provisions of the Teeter Plan, taxing agencies would receive the full amount of the tax levy as if there were no delinquencies.. The difference between the tax levy and the actual collections is paid by the County. In return, the County receives all future delinquent tax payments, including penalties (10% in the initial year) and interest (18% per annum after the initial year) on delinquent secured property taxes. A county could adopt the Teeter Plan concept for only one year in order to take advantage of the one time revenue windfall, and then go back to the current method of tax allocation. If a county chooses this approach, it is our belief the administrative impact of dealing with a dual tax allocation process would be significant until all of the Teeter Plan delinquencies were satisfied. If the County adopts the Teeter F ,1n concept, the County would distribute all delinquent secured taxes; as of June 30, 1993, which totals approximately $74.8 million. The law requires in the initial plan year the first 5% of the total delinquencies be deposited into a Tax Losses Reserve Fund (TLRF), and the remainder to be distributed to entities using the prior year AB8 factors. It is expected the County would need to do an internal borrowing from the commingled investment pool in order to make the initial distribution. of delinquencies. This approach is consistent with most other counties methodology. All counties go. Ing onto the Teeter Plan will have to establish and maintain a TLRF. The funding requirement for the TLRF is 50% of the outstanding delinquent amount. It is currently estimated the size of the TLRF for Santa Clara County would be approximately $37.4 million. Once the TLRF is fully funded, the County would receive all delinquent collections* would recommend the County use part of the one time revenue received from this process to fully fund the TLRF. By funding the TLRF now, the County would be preserving the future years revenue flow received from the delinquency process. This approach is consistent with the other counties we have contacted who are planning on implementing the Teeter Plan. It should be noted if in future years the amount of the delinquent roll grows, the TLRF would have to be increased by 50% of that growth. IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND 1) Benefits to the County I believe the primary considerations for the County in moving forward with the Teeter Plan are as follows: o There is a onetime revenue windfall to all taxing jurisdictions in the distribution of the delinquencies. The County's share of the initial delinquency distribution is estimated at a net of $13 million. The total County share is estimated at $15 million, but approximately $2 million was accrued at June 30th and included in FY 1992 -93 revenue. o There is new legislation (SB 742) which allows counties, which implement the Teeter Plan this year, to offset the amounts distributed to schools against the County General Fund property tax shift amount. I would estimate the County will be able to reduce the property tax shift to schools for FY 1993 -94 by approximately $28 million. o The one time revenue impact from implementing the Teeter Plan for the General Fund is computed as follows: Total delinquencies to be allocated (Schedule A) $ 74.850 000 General Fund shzn�e of delinquencies $ 15,114,386 Less: FY 1992 -93 accrual 2.000.000 Net additional revenue to General Fund $ 13,114,386 Properly taxes not shifted to schools (SB742) $ 27.954.000 Total available revenue $ 41,068,386 Less: Net reserve fund requirement (Schedule B) 33,682,500 Total one time revenue available after fully funding the TLRF. 7 385 886 This one time revenue estimate is calculated based on the assumption all of the cities and the water district agree to the Teeter Plan concept. To the extent that any of those entities decides not to join in the Teeter Plan concept, the reserve fund requirement would be decreased and County's one time revenue would increase. Earlier analysis estimated the one time revenue to be $15.7 million. This amount was reduced because of a decision to recommend that delinquent special assessments be included in the plan which increases the TLRF requirement and therefore reduces the net one time revenue by $4 million but increases ongoing revenues. The one time revenue was also reduced for delinquencies apportioned to basic aid school districts since there is no ERAF transfer to such districts to offset. Attached are various schedules which detail the different Teeter Plan calculations. 0 Schedule A shows the calculation of the delinquent amount to be distributed. 0 Schedule B shows the calculation of the TLRF requirements. The increase in future years revenue flow to the County from penalties and interest on delinquent taxes, less the net cost of money borrowed, is estimated to be $3.1 million per year and is computed as follows: (This revenue estimate does not take into account any growth in the size of the delinquent roll) Estimated annual collections from delinquent penalties and interest (Redemptions Only) $ 6,450,000 Estimated cost of borrowing related to funding of delinquencies - $74.8 million @ 4.5% $ 3,366,000 Less: estimated earnings on the TLRF $37.4 million 3.95% (pool earnings rate) 1.479.000 Net cost of - borrowing 1.888.000 Estimated gross revenue 4,562,000 Less: Current revenue from redemptions 1.500.000 Net ongoing revenue increase 3.062.000 This increase though could be partially or fully offset by increased TLRF requirements as the delinquent roll changes. The change in the delinquent roll over the past 4 years has had significant fluctuations ranging from a $2.4 million increase at July 1, 1990, to a $16.2 million increase at July 1, 1991, a $13.9 million increase at July 1, 1992, and a $5 million increase at July 1, 1993. The change in the delinquent roll is very much influenced by the state of the economy. 3) Risk Factors Implementation of the Teeter Plan is not without risk to the County. The risk factors are: o A major consideration is the amount of any delinquencies which are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings. *(Jntil recently, the conventional assumption was that all taxes ultimately are collected, even if some are only collected upon a tax sale. Federal bankruptcy law supported this thinking by providing "protection" for property tax liens by reactivating the liens, thus enforcing full collection of taxes and penalties through a Tax Collector's sale. However, a recent 9th Circuit Court ruling gives protection instead to the debtor by retaining property tax liens within the automatic stay. Thus, property tax may "escape" collection for all periods in which the bankruptcy protection is in force. Although the above risks are present concerning bankruptcy proceedings, so far our bankruptcies with Redemption charges have a relatively high distribution priority. To date, there has only been one bankruptcy case in which the tax charge was affected by a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court. Based on the court's order, the entire tax charge was transferred to the Unsecured Tax Roll. In all other bankruptcy cases, the County has received full payment of the tax charge; however, the accumulated penalties are often adjusted downward or eliminated entirely. Unfortunately we are unable to identify all Secured or Redemption charges upon which a claim for bankruptcy has been filed. The bankruptcy provisions are being further evaluated by County Counsel. The County does not, however assume the full risk that assessments will be reduced through appeal, etc. The Teeter Plan allows the loss to be spread to all taxing agencies. o How will tho Counts finance the initial allocation of delinquencies and the ongoing allocation c'\the current taxes. We are in contact with bond counsel to investigate various financing alternatives. We have contacted other counties to see what type of financing they are planning. Most of the counties are planning a formal internal borrowing from the commingled treasury pool. Sacramento County has already signed a loan agreement with their treasury pool to borrow the money. However bond counsel is requiring a comprehensive validation of both the "authority to sell" and "authority to borrow" issues. Although most counties are looking at doing an internal borrowing it should be noted that an outside borrowing may be possible, but with a likely taxable debt service and certain validation actions required. o Another issue is the impact of the Teeter Plan on the distribution of the new half cent sales tax to the County and cities. The law states the allocation is to be based on the relative share of the cities and county's contribution to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). If this contribution is determined after the offset to schools from the Teeter Plan method, the County share of sales taxes would be reduced by $3.6 million. This reduction would be an ongoing loss of revenue to the County. It is our understanding is that it was not the legislative intent to have the Teeter Plan monies impact the sales tax distribution formula. Corrective legislation will be required. c The County can elect to implement the Teeter Plan concept without specific approval from the cities or school districts. Preliminary discussions with the various cities resulted in a mixed reaction to the concept. It is our plan to give each entity (cities and Santa Clara Valley Water District) to whom the County distributes property taxes and the entity's bank account is outside the County Treasury the option of participating in the Teeter Plan concept. If the County does adopt the Teeter Plan concept, it has been suggested our plan should have a validation hearing by the court. A validation action would be of significant benefit in the event of future litigation involving the Teeter Plan concept. We will pursue this concept with bond counsel. o There is the risk of entering into long term debt obligations where the return to the County (18% per annum) could be reduced by legislative action. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION If the attached Resolution is not adopted by October 15, 1993, the County will not be able to implement the Alternate Method of Tax Apportionment for Fiscal Year 1993 -94, and the County would lose approximately $7.3 million in additional one time revenue net of the TLRF funding. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVA1. 1 1. Notify the cities and water district and give them the opportunity to participate in the Teeter Plan concept. 2. Continue to work with bond counsel to structure the documents relative to an internal borrowing. 3. Prepare an Appropriation Modification (F85) based on the outcome of the following events: , • After it is known which cities and if the water district are interested in participating in the Teeter Plan. • After the November sales tax election results are known. Attachments rza \93- 258A.DOC County. of Santa Clara Analysis of Delinquent Taxes Schedule A Total Delinquencies $ 75,650,000 Est. Adj. Moved to Unsecured Roll (800,000) Sub Total 74,850,000 Amount to be transfered to TLRF (5 %) (3,742,500) Amount to be Apportioned 71,107,500 County of Santa Clara Teeter Plan Reserve Analysis Schedule B Delinquent Amount to be Allocated Reserve 50% of Delinquent Amount Transfered to TLRF (5% of Delinquent Amount) Remaining Amount to be Funded l $ 74,850,000 37,425,000 (3,7427500) 33,682 500 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ELECTING THE• ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4701) of Part 8 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (hereinafter called "the Law ") authorizes a county to elect by resolution to adopt an alternative method of distribution of property tax levies and assessments on the secured roll made by a county on its behalf or as the tax - levying and tax - collecting agency for other political subdivisions; and WHEREAS, upon election, the alternative method is applicable to all property tax levies and assessments made by the County on behalf of public districts except those for which the-County treasury is not the legal depositary and which do not agree by resolution to participate in such an alternative method; and WHEREAS, the Law requires that the County establish a tax losses reserve fund which shall be used exclusively to cover losses which may occur in the amount of tax liens as a result of special sales of tax - defaulted property; and WHEREAS, thti'-Boarc] of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara desires to implemeu�t the alternative method authorized by the Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara that the Board hereby elects, pursuant to Section 4702 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to place into effect in the County the alternative method of distribution of property tax levies authorized by the Law for the 1993/1994 fiscal year and for all following years unless and until discontinued pursuant to the provisions of the Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara elects, pursuant to Section 4702.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to extend the procedures provided by the Law to assessments that are entered on the secured tax roll for the current year. -1- Resolution Electing Alt. Method of Dist. of Prop. Tax Levies & Assmts. September, 1993 Page Two BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara that the County shall establish and maintain a tax losses reserve fund in accordance with the provisions of Section_4703 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Auditor - Controller and Treasurer shall comply with the provisions of the Law necessary to carryout the purpose and intent of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara that this alternative method of distribution shall not be applicable, pursuant to Section 4715, to tax levies on behalf of any public district for which the County treasury is not the legal depositary unless agreed to by a resolution of the governing board of such public district and this Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Section 4702 for the fiscal year in which the alternative method is to apply to such district. This Resolution deemed the agreement of this Board of Supervisors t.o the application of property tax and assessment levies pursuant to the law for each and every public district which (a) is not a community facilities district under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended from time to time, or an assessment district organized under a law which provides for judicial foreclosure as a remedy, and (b) pursuant to Section 4715 of the Law, agrees that the Law shall have application, and upon the adoption of a resolution of the governing board of each such public district, there shall be deemed to be the agreement thereto on behalf of this Board of Supervisors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara that the Director of Finance is authorized and directed to seek the approval of the cities in the County to the implementation of the alternative method authorized by the Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of.the County of Santa Clara that the Director of Finance is authorized -2- Resolution Electing Alt. Method of Dist. of Prop. Tax Levies & Assmts. September, 1993 Page Three and directed to review alternative financing methods for the funding of the alternate procedure authorized by the law, including the tax losses reserve fund required pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 4703, and any operational system changes that may be required. The Director shall report his findings and recommendations regarding such funding to this Board within 90 days. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, State of California, on by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors DIRIDON GONZALES HONDA LOFGREN McKENNA NOES: Supervisors ABSENT: Supervisors RON GONZALES, Chairperson Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Phyllis A. Perez, Clerk Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: KEVIN D. .ALLMAND Deputy County Counsel KDA:smw:TL3 /305:63 -65 -3- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.* MEETING DATE: November 3, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA CITY MGR. 630zz SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be a Public Nuisance Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution declaring weeds growing on certain described property to be a public nuisance. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program administered by the County Fire Marshal. The County has determined that the parcels in Saratoga on the attached list have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the public hearing for weed abatement -- December 1 this year. Fiscal Impacts• None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to property owners. Follow Up Actions: The County sends the owners of the parcels notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners -or by the County; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well. After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the Council felt were invalid. The final steps take place next summer, when the County presents the Council with a list of propertiesl whose abatement bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Weed abatement could not be performed by the County. It would be necessary to depend upon property owners to take care of their own abatement. Attachments: 1. Resolution