Saratoga News

Simitian gives Saratoga little hope for getting relief from state

AB 922 singles out cities in Santa Clara County

Perlin calls bill unfair

By Sarah Lombardo

Saratoga officials say they will continue to seek legislative help in gaining back nearly $750,000 in tax equity allocation (TEA) funds despite what looks to be a lack of support from the county.

The TEA funds were lost to the city after residents voted in 1996 to repeal the city's utility-users tax. Since the TEA was provided as matching funds, when the utility tax went, so did the TEA money--amounting to a total fiscal loss of about $1.4 million.

But only for Saratoga and other cities in Santa Clara County.

Assembly Bill 922--introduced in February 1997, signed by Gov. Pete Wilson last October and in effect since January 1998--was designed to provide protection for cities that might face losing thousands in TEA funds because residents have voted or might vote down taxes similar to the utility tax. The bill held the prospect of returning to Saratoga about half the money it lost when the utility tax failed. But an amendment added shortly before a vote was taken on the bill exempts Santa Clara County cities from that protection, according to City Manager Larry Perlin.

AB 922 reads: "This bill would, except in the county of Santa Clara, prohibit this particular reduction from being made in the case in which a local tax is reduced or eliminated as a result of either a court decision or the approval or rejection of a ballot measure by the voters."Perlin and other city officials think that's unfair.

"It creates a double standard, really, that treats those cities and voters in those cities differently than other cities in the state," Perlin said.

City officials met with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian March 11 to discuss county support of a city effort to change the exemption in AB 922. They said the meeting was disappointing.

"We did have a meeting, and county representatives just don't see any relief given by the existing legislation," Vice Mayor Jim Shaw said.

"Simitian was not prepared to sponsor some legislation to remedy this," Perlin said.

"I indicated that I personally wouldn't support such an amendment, but I couldn't speak for my colleagues," Simitian said. But Simitian added that he didn't think Saratoga city officials should be too optimistic.

Simitian did say he was still supportive of an effort by the county to provide funding for Saratoga to ease its transition from a TEA recipient to a city that doesn't receive these funds. Last year, Santa Clara County supervisors voted to approve granting almost $675,000--nearly a year's worth of TEA funding--to the city over a two-year period to soften the blow to Saratoga's budget. The plan calls for Saratoga to receive about $450,000 the first year the TEA is scheduled to be cut off, and about $225,000 the second year.

At that time, Simitian said the battle to gain approval from other supervisors for that allocation was tough. The majority of supervisors, he said, thought Saratoga voters knew the TEA funds were at risk when they voted down the utility tax but voted it down anyway. County officials finally approved the funding on the condition that Saratoga agree to maintain its level of law enforcement in its contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department.

And Simitian said he worries about what effect the current situation will have on that transitional funding.

"I'm a little concerned that if the city and the county find themselves in a somewhat contentious position, the county may decide to not provide that funding," Simitian said.

Perlin said he plans to take the matter to the City Council to get councilmembers' opinions on what the next move should be. "It's going to be up to the council now," he said.

[ Back to Contents Page | Saratoga News Home Page | Archives ]