AB 1112 creates a statutory Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) mechanism that changes how county auditors compute and distribute portions of ad valorem property tax revenue to certain "qualifying cities." The bill directs auditors to compute a city's TEA amount from a formula that accounts for pre‑redevelopment allocations and net redevelopment agency (RDA) flows, then allocate that amount to tax rate areas within the city.
Why this matters: the TEA shifts incremental property tax flows among cities, counties, and special districts; adds auditor responsibilities and a potential cost‑recovery charge; and contains multiple adjustments and carve‑outs — including rules that phase distributions and special treatment for Santa Clara County — that will affect local budgets and how jurisdictions negotiate revenue exchanges and services agreements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires county auditors to calculate a TEA amount for each qualifying city based on total pre‑RDA property tax revenue minus net RDA retained amounts, then distribute a percentage of that base to the city and allocate it across tax rate areas by assessed value. Distributions are phased in by year (ramping from 1 percent to 7 percent).
Who It Affects
County auditors (new calculations and allocation mechanics), qualifying cities that incorporated before June 5, 1987 and were historically under‑allocated, counties that lose portions of their share, and parties affected by redevelopment payments and ERAF adjustments (notably Santa Clara County).
Why It Matters
The TEA changes the baseline used to compute property tax shares, creates predictable phased distributions for eligible cities, and embeds multiple offsets (negotiated exchanges, local tax reductions, special district receipts, appropriation limits) that will alter revenue available for local services and intergovernmental agreements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1112 instructs county auditors to modify the traditional Section 96.1 computations so that, for qualifying cities, a new Tax Equity Allocation amount is calculated and distributed each fiscal year. The core of the TEA calculation begins with the total property tax revenue allocated to jurisdictions in all tax rate areas inside the city before any distribution to a community redevelopment agency.
From that total the auditor nets out the redevelopment agency’s retained funds (after subtracting what the agency paid out to other jurisdictions and the cost or value of land or facilities transferred or payments to assist construction). The resulting net base is the foundation for the TEA distribution.
Once the auditor computes the net base, the city’s TEA distribution is a percentage of that amount that ramps up over time: 1 percent in the city’s first year of receipt, 2 percent in the second year, increasing each year until reaching 7 percent in the seventh year and every year thereafter. The auditor must then allocate the TEA dollars to the tax rate areas within the city in proportion to each tax rate area’s share of total assessed value and subtract the allocations from the county’s proportionate share within those areas.The bill layers multiple adjustments on top of the basic TEA allocation.
The auditor may bill each qualifying city for its proportional share of the auditor’s actual costs of performing the calculations, subject to a cap based on the city’s share of excluded county amounts. Distributions to a qualifying city are reduced by negotiated revenue exchanges, by revenue losses caused by certain local tax rate/base reductions (with court decisions and voter‑approved changes excluded), and by amounts received by special districts governed by the city — though some of those special‑district offsets are carved out beginning in later fiscal years.
The statute also protects certain added revenues (services‑for‑revenue agreements and Education Code 19116 receipts), applies an appropriation‑limit safety check, and prevents distributions to a city that has used specified tax‑exempt financing for certain facilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The TEA amount equals the city’s pre‑RDA total property tax base minus the redevelopment agency’s net retention (RDA allocations less RDA payments/transfers/assistance), and that net is the base used for the TEA percentage calculation.
The TEA distribution is phased in by year: 1% the first year, 2% the second, 3% the third, 4% the fourth, 5% the fifth, 6% the sixth, and 7% in the seventh year and thereafter.
The auditor must allocate the TEA dollars to tax rate areas inside the qualifying city in proportion to each area’s share of the city’s assessed value and subtract those amounts from the county’s share in those areas.
The auditor may charge qualifying cities for the actual cost of the TEA calculations, but the charge for a city cannot exceed its proportion of the total amounts excluded in the county under the statute.
Santa Clara County has bespoke ERAF adjustments: starting with 2006–07 and with a separate phased schedule for 2015–16 (80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, then 0%), the county’s and qualifying cities’ allocations are adjusted by an ERAF reimbursement mechanism defined in the bill.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Excluding TEA amounts from aggregate county allocations
Subdivision (a) tells auditors to exclude TEA-calculated amounts from the aggregate ‘‘property tax revenue allocated pursuant to this chapter to local agencies, other than for a qualifying city’’ when doing the Section 96.1 computations for counties (other than Ventura) that contain a qualifying city. In practice this creates a pre‑allocation carve‑out: the TEA dollars are separated from the pool used to compute other local shares and treated as a distinct allocation back to the qualifying city, which changes the denominator auditors use in subsequent property tax splits.
Auditor allocation mechanics for qualifying cities
Subdivision (b) prescribes how auditors must allocate the TEA amount once computed: the auditor determines the TEA for each qualifying city, divides it across the city’s tax rate areas in proportion to assessed value, subtracts the allocated amounts from the county’s portion in those areas, and then recalculates jurisdictional shares using those adjusted figures rather than the usual Section 96.5(e) methodology. This sequence ensures the TEA distribution reduces county shares first in the specific tax rate areas where the city’s TEA is concentrated.
TEA formula: components and netting rules
Subdivision (c) defines the TEA formula in six steps: start with total pre‑RDA property tax revenue allocated within the city’s tax rate areas; identify the total allocated to the redevelopment agency under Health & Safety Code 33670(b); subtract what the RDA paid to other jurisdictions and the cost/value of transferred land/facilities and construction assistance; net those figures to produce the base amount; then apply a percentage multiplier (the phased percentages) to determine the city’s TEA distribution. The practical implication is that TEA payments reflect a city’s exposure to redevelopment agency activity, but they are calculated after accounting for RDA passthroughs and transfers that effectively reduce the RDA’s net retention.
Who qualifies and auditor cost recovery
Subdivision (d) sets the eligibility test: a qualifying city is one that incorporated before June 5, 1987 and had a historic share of property tax revenue in 1988–89 that was less than 7 percent of a computed base. Subdivision (e) permits the auditor to charge each qualifying city its proportionate share of the actual costs to perform the TEA calculations, but caps that charge so it cannot exceed the share of excluded county amounts attributable to the city. This creates a modest user‑pay mechanism while preventing disproportionate billing relative to the allocation impact.
Offsets, protections, and limits on distributions
These subsections impose a series of offsets and protections on TEA distributions: the auditor must reduce a city’s TEA by amounts exchanged under Section 99.03, by revenue lost from certain local tax rate/base reductions (except for reductions compelled by court decisions or voter action), and by property tax revenue received by special districts governed by the city (with specific exemptions starting 1994–95 and 1997–98). The statute also excludes services‑for‑revenue agreements from reductions, requires an addition of Education Code Section 19116 receipts, enforces an appropriation‑limit dollar‑for‑dollar reduction if distributions would breach the limit, and directs that any amounts not distributed to the city be routed to the county. Together these rules constrain TEA payments and guard against creating windfalls or exceeding constitutional limits.
Prohibition tied to certain tax‑exempt financing
Subdivision (l) prohibits the auditor from distributing any TEA amount to a qualifying city that, in the prior fiscal year, used revenues or issued bonds for facilities defined in specified subsections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (as they stood before the 1986 Tax Reform Act) and are no longer eligible for tax‑exempt financing. This provision creates a categorical bar tied to a city’s prior financing choices and is a hard eligibility constraint regardless of the TEA calculation.
Santa Clara County ERAF reimbursement and phased adjustments
These paragraphs create a bespoke adjustment for Santa Clara County: beginning 2006–07 the county auditor must reduce qualifying cities’ allocations by an ERAF reimbursement amount and increase the county’s ERAF allocation by the same amount. Paragraph (n) adds a separate phased schedule applicable from 2015–16: for the first five years in which qualifying cities receive allocations under that subdivision the auditor applies percentage reductions of 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and then 0% thereafter. The provision also suspends the phased adjustments in years when state school funding is being computed under a particular constitutional formula, which introduces timing and calibration complexity for Santa Clara allocations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Qualifying cities with historically low allocations — they receive a phased‑in new distribution (up to 7% of the computed base) that can materially increase general revenues available for local services.
- Municipal finance officers in qualifying cities — the statute creates a predictable ramp for additional revenue and a clear formula they can use in budget planning and intergovernmental negotiations.
- County Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) in some years — under the Santa Clara provisions the county ERAF receives an explicit increase tied to the ERAF reimbursement amount.
Who Bears the Cost
- Counties (and their general funds) — county shares of property tax in affected tax rate areas are reduced by the TEA allocations, shifting revenue away from county budgets.
- County auditors — they must perform additional netting and allocation calculations for each qualifying city, administer proportional billing, and apply complex phased and conditional adjustments (notably for Santa Clara), increasing administrative workload.
- Special districts governed by qualifying city councils — their excess property tax receipts can reduce a city’s TEA distribution, and they may be drawn into disputes over which receipts count as offsets under the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is reconciling two legitimate objectives: correcting historical shortfalls to older, under‑allocated cities versus preserving county and special‑district revenue stability and minimizing administrative complexity; the TEA gives money to cities but only by reducing other local shares and imposing complex netting, phasing, and eligibility rules that can shift burdens and disputes elsewhere.
The bill attempts to reconcile historic under‑allocation to certain older cities with existing property tax distribution frameworks, but it does so by layering many mechanically precise offsets and conditional rules that create implementation challenges. Auditors must assemble data across multiple code provisions (Revenue & Taxation and Health & Safety Code cross‑references) going back decades, track net RDA payments and transfers, and apply year‑by‑year phased percentages — all of which increases the chance of calculation disputes between counties, cities, and successor agencies or special districts.
The Santa Clara ERAF language exemplifies the bill’s drafting tradeoffs: it provides an explicit remedy for one county’s situation but does so with phased percentage reductions and greenhouse timing exceptions tied to state school funding formulas. That creates a moving target for budgeting and invites litigation or negotiated settlements over how the ERAF reimbursement amount is computed.
Finally, the statute’s various carve‑outs (services‑for‑revenue protection, Education Code add‑backs, appropriation‑limit reductions, and the categorical bar tied to pre‑Tax‑Reform Act financing) point to competing policy goals — fairness to small cities, protection of voter or court‑driven tax changes, and fidelity to prior financing regimes — but leave unresolved questions about intergovernmental fairness and administrative cost allocation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.