The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11) 7H Gann LimitationCity Council June 19, 2012 Page 2 CONCLUSION: In order to be in compliance with State law, City Council adoption of Resolution 12~4827 is necessary at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of this Resolution does not affect the Draft FY 2012-13 City Budget. ATTACHMENTS: A Resolution 12-4827 Adopting the FY 2012-13 Gann Limitation B . Calculations for the Appropriations Limit RESOLUTION NO . 12-4827 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY CONFIRMING THE FACTORS USED FOR CALCULATING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 ATTACHMENT "A" Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, the voters of California in November, 1979 added Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) to the State Constitution placing various limitations on the appropriations of the State and local governments ; and WHEREAS, the voters of California in June, 1990 modified Article XIIIB by approving Proposition 111 and SB 88 (Chapter 60/90) which revised the annual adjustment factors to be applied to the 1986-87 Limit and each year thereafter; and WHEREAS, the decision as to which of the factors: a) either the California Per Capita Income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the addition of local non-residential construction in the city ; b) either the city's own population growth or the entire county; must be done by a recorded vote of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Temple City has complied with all the provisions of Article XIIIB in determining the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2012-13 . NOW , THEREFORE , the City Council of the City of Temple City does resolve . determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. The adjustment factors (the California Per Capita Income and the population growth of the County) are to be applied to the 2011-12 Limit. SECTION 2. The accumulated growth in the calculation of these new factors are to be applied to the Appropriations Limit in Fiscal Year 2012-13 . SECTION 3. The Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2012-13 shall be $16,340,299 for the City of Temple City as determ ined by Exhibit B, attached hereto. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution . APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 191h day of June, 2012 MAYOR Resolution No. 12-4827 Page2 ATTEST: City Clerk ATTACHMENT "A" Page 2 of 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No . 12-4827 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 191h day of June, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember - Councilmember - Councilmember - City Clerk ARTICLE XIII-B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (GANN INITIATIVE) ATTACHMENT "B" Page 1 of 6 Effective July 1, 1980, Proposition 4 (Gann) put a limit on the City's expenditures from tax revenues based on 1978-79 appropriations that is adjusted each succeeding year by Consumer Price Index and population changes. Non-Proceeds of Taxes (Fines and Forfeitures and User Fees) were not subject to this limit. In 1989-90 Proposition 111 was passed, which changed the base year to 1986-87 and allows cities to adjust their limit annually by either the change in the California per capita income or the percentage change in growth in total assessed valuation due to non residential construction. For population changes, cities now have the option of using either the percentage increase of the City or the percentage increase of the entire county. The law also allows for the exclusion from the limit of "qualified capital outlay" which includes any appropriation for fixed assets costing over $100,000. The 2012-2013 budget expenditures are well within the statutory limit. It should be noted that future revenues exceeding the limitation require a return of the excess to the taxpayers or a substantial portion of such excess will be forfeited for State uses. COMPUTATION OF APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2012-2013 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2011-121imit (1) Per Capita Income and County population change factor applied to 2011-12 appropriations limit 2012-2013 appropriations limit APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMIT AND APPROPRIATIONS MARGIN Proceeds of Taxes Less Exclusions: Qualified Capital Outlay Appropriations Subject to Limit Appropriations Margin $15,687,691 1.0416 $16,340,299 $8,755,200 6,351,825 $2,403,375 $13,936,924 (1) Recalcuted as a result of Proposition 111 and in accordance with guidelines of the League of California Cities. Formal adoption for the FY 1991-92 recalculated appropriations limit was approved by the City Council on July 2, 1991. ATTACHMENT "8" Page 2 of6 Schedule of Calculations of Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2012-13 a) Revised Appropriation Limit Calculation Increase Annual Base City or County In California Adjustment Appropriations Fiscal Year Population Growth Per Capita Income Factor Limit 1986-87 $5,097,811 1987-88 101.91% County 103.47% 105.45% 5,097,811 X 1.0545 5,375,642 1988-89 101.62% County 104.66% 106.36% 5,375,642 X 1.0636 5,717,533 1989-90 101.14% County 105.19% 106.39% 5,717,533 X 1.0639 6,082,883 1990-91 101.36% County 104.21% 105.63% 6,082,883 X 1.0563 6,425,349 1991-92 101.73% County 104.14% 105.94% 6,425,349 X 1.0594 6,807,015 1992-93 101.49% County 99.36% 100.84% 6,807,015 X 1.0084 6,864,194 1993-94 101.42% City 102.72% 104.18% 6,864,194 X 1.0418 7151117 1994-95 100.79% City 100.71% 101 .51% 7,151,117 X 1.0151 7,259,099 1995-96 101.22% City 104.72% 106.00% 7,259,099 X 1.0600 7,694,645 1996-97 100.63% City 104.67% 105.33% 7,694,645 X 1.0533 8,104,770 1997-98 101.30% City 104.67% 106.03% 8,104,770 X 1.0603 8,593,488 1998-99 101 .39% County 104.15% 105.60% 8,593,488 X 1.0560 9,074,723 ATTACHMENT "B" Page 3 of 6 Schedule of Calculations of Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (Can't) a) Revised Appropriation Limit Calculation Increase Annual Base City or County In California Adjustment Appropriations Fiscal Year Population Growth Per Capita Income Factor Limit 1999-00 101.78% County 104.53% 106.3 9% 9,074,723 X 1.0639 9,654,598 2000-01 101.75% County 104.91% 106.75% 9,654,598 X 1.0675 10,306,283 2001-02 101.66% County 107.82% 109.61% 10,306,283 X 1.0961 11,296,717 2002-03 101.77% County 98.73% 100.48% 11,296,717 X 1.0048 11,350,941 2003-04 101.66% County 102.31% 104.01% 11,350,941 X 1.0401 11,806,114 2004-05 101 .52% County 103.28% 104.85% 11,806,114 X 1.0485 12,378,711 2005-06 101.50% County 105.26% 106.50% 12,378,711 X 1.0650 13,183,327 2006-07 100.78% County 103.96% 104.77% 13 ,183,327 X 1.0477 13,812,172 2007-08 100.72% County 104.42% 105.17% 13,812,172 X 1.0517 14,526,261 2008-09 100.86% County 104.2 9% 105.19% 14,526,261 X 1.0519 15,280,174 2009-10 100.90% County 100.62% 101 .53% 15,280,174 X 1.0153 15,513,961 2010-11 100.83% County 97.46% 98.27% 15,513,961 X 0.9827 15,245,569 Schedule of Calculations of Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011-12 (Con't) b) Past Appropriation Limit Calculation Fiscal Year 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 City Population Growth 101.72% 100.55% 99.19% 100.45% Increase In Consumer Price Index 103.04% 103.93% 104.98% 104.21% (1} Annual Adjustment Factor 104.80% 104.50% 104.13% 104.68% (1) The increase in California Per Capita Income was used instead of the Consumer Price Index ATIACHMENT "8" Page 5 of6 Base Appropriations Limit $5,097,811 5,097,811 X 1.0480 5,342,506 5,342,506 X 1.0450 5,582,919 5,582,919 X 1.0413 5,813,493 5,813,493 X 1.0468 6,085,565 ATTACHMENT "8" Page 6 of6 POPULATION GROWTH Fiscal Year City Count:,:: 1987-88 101.72% 101 .91% 1988-89 100 .55% 101 .62% 1989-90 99.19% 101.14% 1990-91 100.45% 101 .36% 1991-92 100.93% 101 .73% 1992-93 100.93% 101.49% 1993-94 101 .42% 100.96% 1994-95 100.79% 100.75% 1995-96 101 .22% 100.33% 1996-97 100 .63% 100 .48% 1997-98 101 .30% 101.24% 1998-99 101.37% 101.39% 1999-00 101 .62% 101 .78% 2000-01 101 .53% 101 .75% 2001-02 101 .33% 101 .66% 2002-03 101 .69% 101 .77% 2003-04 101 .17% 101 .66% 2004-05 101 .89% 101 .38% 2005-06 100.91% 101 .18% 2006-07 100.09% 100 .78% 2007-08 100.52% 100.72% 2008-09 100.50% 100.86% 2009-10 100.75% 100.90% 2010-11 100.78% 100.83% 2011-12 100.28% 100.38% 2012-13 100.32% 100.38%