Revenue Sharing Agreement Debated Again

The city and county are back to fighting about their decades-old revenue sharing deal, Rachana Dixit and Brandon Shulleeta wrote in the Progress on Sunday. (I’ve had no power, telephone line, or mobile phone service; now that I’m in a hotel, I’m catching up.) The more conservative members of the Board of Supervisors want to eliminate the deal, in which a chunk of the county’s taxes go to paying the city, in exchange for the city not annexing any of the county’s land. The BoS doesn’t want the city to expand (which would have a much greater impact on their coffers than revenue sharing), but they also don’t want to keep paying—they just want to back out of the contract while getting the best of both worlds, or at least renegotiate it on friendlier terms. City Council has no interest in such a change, although annexation would likely be of enormous financial benefit to the city.

The county’s taxation rate of real estate is 74.2¢ per $100 of assessed value, while the city’s is at 95¢, Councilor Satyendra Huja points out, so it’s not like the county is helpless to generate more revenue. The city also emphasizes that the payments—$18M this year—go to projects of regional benefit, such as the bus system, parks, county fire stations, affordable housing, and the recycling center.

18 Responses to “Revenue Sharing Agreement Debated Again”

Comments are currently closed.