HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-13; City Council; 6553-1; Master Property Tax AgreementCIT; JF CARLSBAD -- AGENDit HILL
AB# 4-,E�5-— TITE.E:
MTG. 11/13/84 MASTER PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT
DEPT. CM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Endorse proposed amendment to Master. Property Tax Agreement
i
DEPT. ND.
CITY ATTY F
CITY MGR.�
ITEM EXPLANATION:
When annexations to a city occur the County splits property taxes
with the city. The formula for the split was negotiated two years
ago. That agreement expired November 1, 1984. A committee of
City Managers has negotiated a new agreement which is more
favorable to Carlsbad.
The Board of Supervisors desires to act on the revised
agreement in November.
EXHIBITS:
1. Letter from County of San Diego, 10/24/84
z
0
0
a
0
Z
+.T •"•z� COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
a�
° 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
~0 ` TELEPHONE (619) 236-2722
CLIFFORD W. GRAVES
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
October 24, 1984
Robert Acker, City Manager
City of E1 Cajon
200 East Main Street
E1 Cajon, CA 92020
Dear Bob:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TOM HAMILTON
"S' DUTZ'
PAUL W. FOROEM
98COND 0I9TIIICT
►ATRICK M.•OARMAN
T N111D DI�TNICT .
LOON L. WILLIAMS
DYIITN DIET°ICT ?
►AUL ECKERT ;
/I.TN DIST.ICT
1/
C
Pursuant 'to our previous discussion I am sending you the
preliminary language on the master property tax agreement.
It obviously is not written in final but, rather, indicates
the intent of the agreement. I hope you are able to discuss
it next week with the other city managers. I would like to
take this to my Board in November if we can reach a consensus.
Please call if there is anything else you need from me.
D E. JANSSEN
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
DEJ: rm
Enclosure
• i
i
i
3
MASTER PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT
1. Retain the present agreement for the distribution of annual tax
increment. j
2. Treat the base revenue in the same fashion as annual tax increment;
pool county and detaching special district revenue, and reallocate
in accordance with the historic city/county ratios.
3. Proposals which may be excluded by either party from coverage under
the renegotiated master property tax agreement:
a) proposals having assessed valuation greater than $35 million;
b) proposals containing territory with existing commercial use
that exceeds $10 million in retail sales in the prior year;
c) proposals containing a nuclear power gewQration station;
d) Otay Mesa.
4. This agreement shall not be precedent -setting for coverage of
excluded cases.
I