Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT A <br />IN THE ui i f COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAi. .....,NDRO 1102 <br />RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 50 <br />RELATING TO COUNTY -WIDE METHOD FOR REDISTRIBUTION <br />OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOLLOWING ANNEXATION <br />OR CERTAIN OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES <br />Recitals <br />Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (AB 8) provides, among <br />other things, that no local agency jurisdictional change `(other than a city <br />incorporation or a formation of a district) can becompleted without the <br />agencies affected by such change f'rst having agreed upon a redistribution <br />of property tax revenue from such area bevgeen and among said agencies; and <br />The Alameda County Mayors' Conference on March 12, 1980, reviewed <br />and endorsed as equitable a policy proposal submitted by the Alameda County <br />Administrator whic.`t, in pertinent ;5art, calls for a redistribution of property <br />tax revenues currently derived from an unincorporated territory which is pro- <br />posed to be annexed to a city, in the following manner: <br />1. In all annexations involving developed or developing residential <br />territory, as well as mixed residential/commercial areas and vacant or under- <br />developed industrially zoned areas, the City would automatically be entitled <br />to receive an allocation of the County's general fund computed property tax <br />revenue from that area equal to the City's/County's existing allocation per- <br />centage ratio within its' corporate limits; <br />Z. Should a substantial portion of any annexation include a developed <br />commercial area (e.g., East 14th Street "st:-iP" in Ashland), the County will <br />undertake an analysis of non -property tax revenues vs. County service costs in <br />determining what portion, if any, of the County allocation is redistributed; and <br />