Item 11.5 – CC/LRA – 6/28/2022
RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.5
SECTION 11: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: June 28, 2022
Subject: St. Frances of Rome Church Harm Reduction Program From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Donna Kenney, Planning & Building Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Listen to the presentation on the St. Francis of Rome Harm Reduction Program and approve the Resolution expressing support.
BACKGROUND
Harm reduction: creates space to empower an individual to identify their priorities, potential risks, and tools to reduce harm(s) associated with drug use.
St. Frances of Rome Church is working to implement a Harm Reduction Program. This harm reduction program is the first of its kind in Stanislaus County. ● Stanislaus County is facing an opioid epidemic. In 2020, there were 74 deaths from opioid overdoses. In 2021, there were 168 opioid overdose deaths based on closed case data from the Stanislaus County Coroner’s office. ● Data shows that people between 20 and 39 are more likely to report substance use and die from an overdose. The goal of harm reduction is to keep people who use drugs alive and healthy until they can get the help they need to overcome their substance abuse.
There are eight (8) Harm Reduction Principles:
1. Accepts, for better or worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
2. Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from severe use to total abstinence, and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others.
3. Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being — not necessarily cessation of all drug use — as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.
Item 11.5 – CC/LRA – 6/28/2022
4. Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.
5. Ensures that people who use drugs and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
6. Affirms people who use drugs (PWUD) themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use and seeks to empower PWUD to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.
7. Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination, and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.
8. Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger that can be associated with illicit drug use.
As staff has stated during a previous Harm Reduction presentation, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) offers two (2) pathways to establishing a harm reduction program in a community:
• Programs that apply directly to the CDPH.
• Programs that have the approval of the local jurisdiction (less lengthy process).
St. Francis of Rome Church desires to host the program along with the other social service programs they host at their site.
St. Frances of Rome Church would like to establish a Harm Reduction program in Riverbank. Staff understood the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) required Council meeting minutes or an email from the Mayor to show St. Francis of Rome has the support of the local jurisdiction to undertake the less lengthy path towards a CDPH approved program. On March 22, 2022, staff provided a presentation on Harm Reduction and received direction from Council that they supported St. Francis of Rome’s efforts and a copy of the meeting minutes was sent to the CDPH. Staff’s current understanding is that CDPH wants a resolution (Attachment 1) from Riverbank showing its support.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None. Harm reduction supplies (Narcan, syringes, safe injection equipment, other survival supplies) would come from the California Department of Public Health and the Stanislaus County Opioid Safety Coalition (of which the Planning and Building Manager is an active member).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft City Council Resolution 2022-
CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA
DECLARING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE ST. FRANCIS OF ROME CHURCH
HARM REDUCTION PROGRAM
THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code 121349(b) authorized local cities and counties to have a harm reduction program that includes a clean needle and syringe exchange program; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 11364.7(a) establishes that no public entity, its agents, or employees shall be subject to criminal prosecution for the distribution of syringes or any materials deemed by a local or state health department to be necessary to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, or to prevent drug overdose, injury, or disability to participants in Syringe Service Programs authorized by a public entity; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code 118286 prohibits individuals from discarding home-generated sharps waste in home or business recycling or waste containers; and
WHEREAS, in Stanislaus County in 2021 there were 173 overdose and poisoning deaths due to an increase of the presence of fentanyl in street drugs and 45 overdoses and poisonings already verified for the first few months of 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Riverbank understands that an overdose or poisoning could happen to anybody and supports harm reduction programs as a strategy to assist in the effort to decrease drug overdoses and poisonings and limit the spread of communicable diseases within our community; and WHEREAS, St. Francis of Rome Church in the City of Riverbank desires to implement a harm reduction program using trained volunteers, which includes educational outreach, a syringe services program, and the provision of fentanyl test strips, Narcan (Naloxone), feminine products, and wound care products; and WHEREAS, harm reduction matters because it is all about addressing public health concerns; and
ATTACHMENT 1
CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
WHEREAS, in July 2021, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced historic $26 billion federal settlements against opioid manufacturers and distributors that will help bring desperately needed relief to people in California who are struggling with opioid addiction; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution 2021- 118 which authorized the City Manager to participate in the settlements with Riverbank’s allocated amount to be paid to Stanislaus County in support of the Stanislaus County Opioid Safety Coalition; and
WHEREAS, the Stanislaus County Opioid Safety Coalition has agreed to use the settlement funding in Riverbank to educate our citizens and address their needs, including funding for the St. Francis of Rome Harm Reduction Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank hereby declares that it supports the efforts of St. Francis of Rome Church in establishing a harm reduction program with syringe services program in the City of Riverbank.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June 2022; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Kathy L. Teixeira Richard D. O’Brien
Interim City Clerk Mayor
Item 11.6 – CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.6
SECTION 11: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: June 28, 2022
Subject: A Resolution Approving a Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement between the City of Riverbank and Stanislaus County and Authorizing the City Manager to Finalize and Execute Said Agreement From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution approving a Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement with Stanislaus County and authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute this agreement.
SUMMARY
Over the course of the past several years Stanislaus County Staff and the City Managers from all 9 cities have been negotiating an update to the 1996 Property Tax Agreement, and subsequent 2006 Amendment. After much discussion, a Tentative Agreement was reached and ratified by Stanislaus County at their June 14, 2022 Board of Supervisors meeting. Tonight, we are requesting approval of said Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Property Tax Allocation
The current distribution process for property tax dollars in the State of California is the result of tax reform (Proposition 13 in 1978) and legislation (AB 8 in 1979) required to rebalance revenue streams between the State and local governments. Proposition 13 and AB 8 established significant changes in how property tax rates are set and distributed to cities, counties, special districts, schools, and community colleges. The County AuditorController is responsible for allocating property tax revenue to these entities according to state law.
Stanislaus County receives approximately 12% of total property tax allocations and, on average, Stanislaus County cities receive 5.7% of total property tax allocations. This is net of a revenue shift sent to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
ERAF is redirected property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to schools and colleges. The redirected revenue is deposited into a countywide account
Item 11.6 – CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
known as ERAF and is allocated to schools and community colleges to offset the funding these entities otherwise would receive from the State General Fund.
AB 8 established an uneven allocation of property tax between counties and cities in the State of California. Stanislaus ranks 45 out of 58 counties when comparing the percentage of property tax retained by the County, and Stanislaus County cities rank 26 out of 58 counties on average. While Stanislaus retains 12% in property tax, Merced receives 22% and San Joaquin 18%. The unequal distribution of property tax revenue resulting from the implementation of AB 8 has created a significant disadvantage to the County and all local cities for over 40 years.
Property Tax Sharing
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires a fiscal impact analysis and a property tax sharing agreement allocating property taxes upon annexation for all annexation applications submitted to LAFCO in order to ensure the continuation of existing levels of service. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 99, authorizes counties, cities and special districts to enter into standing master property tax sharing agreements. In the absence of a master tax revenue sharing agreement, the sharing of property tax is negotiated on an individual basis after a city files an annexation application with LAFCO.
Master tax sharing agreements are beneficial in that they provide consistency and efficiency in the annexation process.
Initial tax sharing agreements in Stanislaus County executed between 1980 and 1990 followed two sharing templates. In most agreements, the County received 66% of the tax increment and a city received 34%. All agreements divided up both the base property tax value (property tax value in the tax year immediately preceding annexation) and the increment (total increase or decrease in assessed valuation after annexation and development).
Current Master Property Tax Agreement
In 1996, Stanislaus County entered into a Master Property Tax Agreement (“1996 Agreement”) with each of the nine cities, with a subsequent amendment occurring in 2006. The 2006 Amendment clarified technical issues and the intent of the agreement.
Many separate agreements have also occurred since the 1996 Agreement, but Riverbank continues to operate under the original agreement.
In the 1996 Agreement, the County retained all base funding, and tax increment was split 70% to the County and 30% to the City. This amount reflects the distribution of increment prior to reductions for the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”). ERAF is a mechanism enacted in 1992 by State Legislature which shifts a portion of local property tax revenues from cities, counties, and special districts to be allocated by the State to schools to help meet minimum funding requirements. While the County is required to deposit 55% of property tax into ERAF, Riverbank is required to shift 27.6% of its property tax revenues. On average, for every $1,000,000 in assessed value growth under the current agreement, Riverbank nets an average of $869 in revenue while the County nets $864. When combining net growth for the City and County under the current agreement, the City receives an average of 50.1% of the total and the County receives 49.9%.
Item 11.6 – CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
Since the execution of the 1996 Agreement, 9 individual Tax Rate Areas (TRA) have been developed after annexations by Riverbank. The combined base value of all properties calculated at the time of annexation under the 1996 agreement is $14.7 million. The combined value of those properties as of Fiscal Year 2021-2022 has grown to $858 million.
Proposed Agreement
A subcommittee of City Managers, including our former City Manager Sean Scully, worked with the County Chief Executive Officer, Jody Hayes, to evaluate various concepts for an updated property tax sharing agreement. Through this work the proposed Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement (“Proposed Agreement”) was developed. The essential components of the agreement are as follows:
• The agreement is effective with the 2022 Assessment Roll (property values as of January 1, 2022, delivered by the Assessor to the Auditor-Controller by July 1, 2022).
• Once the agreement commences, it will continue until one of the parties terminates the agreement. Any party may terminate the agreement by formal action upon no less than 60 days’ notice and termination will be effective on the first day of July following service of the notice of termination.
• The agreement generally applies to properties annexed following the effective date of the 1996 Agreement and future annexations, with several exceptions. Affected properties will be specifically identified by the parties. • Consistent with the current agreement, the County will retain all base property tax revenue.
• Revenue growth for those specifically identified properties will be shared evenly between City and County: 50% to City and 50% to County. • Revenue growth for properties annexed in the future will be shared evenly between City and County: 50% to City and 50% to County, unless otherwise negotiated by the parties. Annexations that include a County Island would require a separate agreement.
• Consistent with the current agreement, the County’s Increment Property Tax Revenue sharing is calculated prior to any property tax revenue shift for ERAF.
Net of ERAF, the division of total increment is anticipated to be approximately
67.2% City and 32.8% County. The County and cities will continue to discuss alternative models of property tax distribution to lessen the impact of ERAF. • Consistent with the current agreement, exceptions to the agreement are included for territories for which the allocation of property tax revenue shall be negotiated independently from the agreement. Currently there are no territories in Riverbank that are slated for separate negotiations.
Implementation Timeline
The County has established a timeline for approval of the agreement which will expire on July 20, 2022. Should the City Council approve the Proposed Agreement tonight, implementation would be effective as of Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The agreement will become effective upon city approval, and will cancel the 1996 Agreement. If the city
Item 11.6 – CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
decides not to take action to approve the Proposed Agreement, the 1996 Agreement will continue to be effective for that city, until terminated by either party. Staff will continue conversations with the City if we do not meet the July 20, 2022 deadline for potential future implementation in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The Proposed Agreement is provided as Attachment 1 to this agenda item. Completion of exhibits will be done over the next 2-3 weeks. Authority for the City Manager to execute Proposed Agreements recognizes that minor potential edits may still be made upon the advice of legal counsel for the County and cities.
STRATEGIC PLAN
This report is in alignment with the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal to “Ensure Financial Stability.”
FINANCIAL IMPACT
City property tax revenues to increase by approximately $200,000-$300,000.
ATTACHMENT
1. Draft City Council Resolution 2022-
2. Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement - DRAFT
CC/LRA – 06/28/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A MASTER PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RIVERBANK AND STANISLAUS COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO FINALIZE AND EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:
WHEREAS, a Master Property Tax Agreement between the County and the City was formalized in 1996; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 Amendment #1 to the Agreement was approved in order to change the language of the original Agreement to ensure that the original intent was maintained; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to continue to work towards ensuring that property tax revenues stay within our County to allow us to serve our communities, the nine cities collaborated towards a new Property Tax Revenue Agreement; and WHEREAS, after negotiations the cities and the county have reached an agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to enter into this Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank hereby approves the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement with Stanislaus County and authorizes the City Manager to finalize and execute said agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June 2022; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ATTACHMENT 1
CC/LRA –06/28/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Kathy L. Teixeira Richard D. O’Brien
Interim City Clerk Mayor
Attachment: Master Property Tax Revenue Agreement
{CW112700.6} Page 1 of 12
MASTER PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS AND THE CITY OF RIVERBANK This MASTER PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and executed on this ___ day of _____________, 2022 (“Effective Date”), by and between the County of Stanislaus, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Riverbank, a municipal corporation of the State of California (the "City"). County and City may each be referred to as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
A. Section 99 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code authorizes local agencies, such as City and County, to enter into master property tax sharing agreements to provide adjustments to the allocation of property taxes upon annexation.
B. It is the purpose of this Agreement to adjust the allocation of property tax revenue between City and County and address the requirements under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 and adjustment of the appropriation limits of the affected governmental agencies pursuant to Section 3(b) of Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California.
C. City and County recognize the importance of maintaining consistent property tax sharing arrangements across similarly situated jurisdictions and the importance of a standing master property tax revenue sharing agreement to facilitate sound planning for development and the continued provision of services as a result of development, and it is the intent and purpose of the Parties to accomplish this goal to the greatest extent possible.
D. City and County previously entered into an agreement, known as the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement, effective April 8, 1996, for the purpose of adjusting the allocation of property tax revenue pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code upon a change of organization (“1996 Agreement”).
E. Under the 1996 Agreement, which was entered into by the County and all nine cities, the County agreed to share future increases in real property tax revenue above the base amount with 70% of the tax growth going to the County and 30% to the Cities.
F. In 2006 the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 of the 1996 Agreement to clarify technical issues and the intent of that agreement.
G. City and County have worked together to develop a revised approach to property tax sharing, improving locally available revenues.
ATTACHMENT 2
{CW112700.6} Page 2 of 12
H. City and County seek to align the interests of their respective jurisdictions in a way that promotes and financially encourages future economic development and the provision of housing.
I. As provided for in this Agreement, City and County intend to ensure the timeliest, most efficient, and most cost-effective delivery of services provided to the public.
J. It is the intent of City and County to identify and include all annexations which were subject to the 1996 agreement; to identify any annexations after 1996 that were separately negotiated and include those in this Agreement where applicable; and to identify unincorporated areas which will be specifically excluded from this Agreement.
K. The annexation areas identified in Exhibit A comprise only those tax rate areas for which the parties intend to modify the sharing of future annual property tax increment.
L. The annexations and unincorporated areas identified in Exhibit B, comprise those areas which are specifically excluded from this Agreement.
M. The parties intend by this Agreement, that beginning with the 2022 Assessment Roll, for all tax rate areas identified in Exhibit A, the parties will share equally the County’s future annual tax increment, as that term is defined in Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
N. The parties intend to share equally the annual tax increment, for all future annexations which are not specifically excluded by this Agreement, that occur after the effective date of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, the City and County hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals above (“Recitals”) are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the Recitals and Sections 1 through 12 of this Agreement, Sections 1 through 12 shall prevail.
Section 2. Definitions.
(a) “1996 Agreement” shall mean the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement entered into between the City and the County effective April 8, 1996, for the purpose of adjusting the allocation of property tax revenue pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code upon a change of organization and its Amendment No. 1 of 2006. {CW112700.6} Page 3 of 12
(b) “Annexation” shall mean the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to the City pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. (c) “Ad Valorem Property Tax” shall mean the tax imposed on real and tangible personal property based upon the value of the property. (d) “Base Property Tax Year” shall mean the tax year immediately preceding the year in which the State Board of Equalization recognized and notifies the County Auditor-Controller of the Annexation.
(e) “Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund” or “ERAF” shall mean a requirement of the County Auditor-Controller to shift a certain percentage of annual allocations of local property tax revenues from counties, cities, and special districts to a specified fund which is utilized by the State of California to reduce its financial obligation to public schools and help meet its minimum state funding requirements pursuant to Proposition 98. (f) “Incremental Property Tax Revenue” shall mean the total amount of property tax revenue increase or decrease computed from the assessed valuation over the Base Property Tax Year. [reference Revenue and Taxation Code Section 96.5] (g) “Tax Rate Area” shall have the same meaning as defined in Revenue and Taxation Code section 95(g)(1).
Section 3. Reporting. From and after the first fiscal year following the effective date of each Annexation, County Auditor-Controller will report, as part of the regular AB 8 report process, to the City Manager and to the County Executive Office the calculation and the actual amount of the Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue available for allocation and distribution pursuant to this Agreement. After provision of this report, either party may request to meet and confer with the other party to review the annual report.
Section 4. Allocation of Ad Valorem Property Tax Revenue for New Annexations.
When a jurisdictional change occurs, the Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue attributable to the territory Annexed to the City, for all land use types, shall be adjusted in the following manner:
(a) For Annexations other than County unincorporated islands or properties identified in Exhibit B, County shall retain its one hundred percent (100%) share of the Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue attributable to the Base Property Tax Year amount. After Annexation, the annexing City shall receive a fifty percent (50%) share of the County’s Incremental Property Tax Revenue.
County shall retain the remaining fifty percent (50%) share of the County’s Incremental Property Tax Revenue.
(b) Where an Annexation includes land served by a special district, City shall receive the entire amount of the Ad Valorem Property Tax allocated to the special district upon the detachment of the annexed territory from the special district or the dissolution of the special district.
{CW112700.6} Page 4 of 12
(c) Except as set forth in subsection (d) below, for any Annexation effecting an unincorporated County island or listed in Exhibit B, the annexing City shall meet and confer with County to determine the allocation of the Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue of the unincorporated County island when each such island is considered for Annexation. (d) For an Annexation requested or initiated by County or required by state or federal law pertaining to, in whole or part, any unincorporated County island or disadvantaged community, the annexing City shall meet and confer with County to determine the allocation of the Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue of the unincorporated County area considered for Annexation.
The provisions of this Section 4 shall survive and remain in effect following any termination of this Agreement, i.e., there will be no reversion back to the 1996 Agreement tax sharing rates.
Section 5. Allocation of Incremental Property Tax Revenue. Beginning with the property assessments included in the 2022 Assessment Roll based on property values established as of January 1, 2022, and delivered by the County Assessor to the County Auditor-Controller by July 1, 2022, the County’s Incremental Property Tax Revenue for all Tax Rate Areas identified in Exhibit A, shall be shared evenly between City and County: fifty percent (50%) to City and fifty percent (50%) to County. The County’s Incremental Property Tax Revenue sharing established under this Section 5 is calculated prior to any property tax revenue shift for ERAF. This Section 5 is prospective only and shall begin being applied by the County Auditor-Controller when property tax revenues are distributed during Fiscal Year 2022/2023. An example of the calculation performed by the Auditor-Controller to implement this agreement is attached as Exhibit C.
The provisions of this Section 5 shall survive and remain in effect following any termination of this Agreement, i.e., there will be no reversion back to the 1996 Agreement tax sharing rates.
Section 6. Adjustment of Appropriation Limit. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, City shall increase its appropriation limit by the amount of Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue received after the adjustment provided for in Section 4 is completed. County shall decrease its appropriation limit by the amount of Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue that is transferred to City. It is also expected that any special district will decrease its appropriation limit by the amount of Ad Valorem Property Tax revenue it has had transferred to City upon detachment or dissolution.
Section 7. Additional Property Tax Agreement Discussions. County agrees to continue to meet and confer with City to address alternatives models of Ad Valorem Property Tax distribution to lessen the impact of ERAF.
Section 8. Term of This Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and continue thereafter until one of the parties terminates this Agreement.
Any party may terminate this Agreement by formal action upon no less than 60 days’ notice and termination shall be effective on the first day of July following service of the notice of termination. {CW112700.6} Page 5 of 12
Section 9. Modification This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties hereto. To be effective, any amendment, modification, or revision of this Agreement must be a writing duly authorized and signed by both Parties.
Section 10. Entire Agreement With respect to the subject matter hereof only, this Agreement replaces and supersedes the 1996 Agreement, as well as any and all previous negotiations, proposals, commitments, writings, and understanding of any nature whatsoever between County and City.
Section 11. Notices Any notice or communication required hereunder between the parties must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by electronic mail (“email”) (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail), by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given by email transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received upon actual receipt of the entire document by the receiving party's email server. Notices transmitted by email after 5:00 p.m. on a normal business day, or on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next normal business day; if given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:
County of Stanislaus City of Riverbank
Chief Executive Officer City Manager
County Counsel City Attorney
County of Stanislaus City of Riverbank
1010 Tenth Street, Suite 6800 6707 Third Street
Modesto, CA 95354 Riverbank, CA 95367
Section 12. General Provisions
(a) Governing Law. The validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. (b) Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus.
{CW112700.6} Page 6 of 12
(c) Severability. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if this Agreement, in its entirety, is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable. If any discrete provision of this Agreement shall be determined by such court to be invalid and unenforceable, or if any discrete provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any federal or state statute, which becomes effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect and shall be construed to give effect to the intent of this Agreement. (d) Waiver. A waiver by any Party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein contained or a waiver of any right or remedy of such Party available hereunder at law or in equity shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition herein contained or of any continued or subsequent right to the same right or remedy. No Party shall be deemed to have made any such waiver unless it is in writing and signed by the Party so waiving.
(e) Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. (f) Mandatory and Permissive. “Shall” and “will” and “agrees” are mandatory. “May” or “can” are permissive.
(g) Successors and Assigns. All representations, covenants and warranties specifically set forth in this Agreement, by or on behalf of or for the benefit of any or all of the Parties hereto, shall be binding upon an inure to the benefit of such Party, its successors, and assigns. The Parties warrant and represent that they have the right and authority to execute this Agreement and that they have not assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer, to any person or entity this Agreement or any portion thereof. The Parties shall not assign or transfer this Agreement without the written consent of the other Party.
(h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously and in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
(i) Other Documents. The Parties agree that they shall cooperate in good faith to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement and, to that end, agree to execute and deliver such other instruments or documents as may be necessary and convenient to the fulfill the purposes and intentions of this Agreement.
(j) Authority. The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party, and all formal requirements necessary or required to enter into this Agreement have been fulfilled. {CW112700.6} Page 7 of 12
(k) Document Preparation. This Agreement will not be construed against the Party preparing it, but will be construed as if prepared by all Parties. (l) Advice of Legal Counsel. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement with its own legal counsel and, based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into this Agreement.
(m) No Joint Venture. Neither this Agreement, nor payment, shall constitute or create any form of association, joint venture, partnership, or cooperative activity, of any nature whatever, for any purpose between the City and the County.
[Signatures on following page]
{CW112700.6} Page 8 of 12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth above.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
By: ____________________
Jody L. Hayes
Chief Executive Officer
“County"
CITY OF RIVERBANK
By: ____________________
Marisela Garcia
City Manager
"City"
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel
By: ____________________
Thomas E. Boze
County Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ____________________
Tom Hallinan
Riverbank City Attorney
Authorized by Resolution No.2022-0298
Adopted June 14, 2022, by the
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Authorized by Resolution No.
Adopted ,2022, by the
Riverbank City Council
{CW112700.6} Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Tax Rate Area Annexation Board of Equalization
Year Roll Year
1. 006-071 Crossroads Change of Org. 1998/1999
2. 006-072 Crossroads Change of Org. 1998/1999
3. 006-073 Adams Reorganization 2001/2002
4. 006-075 Santa Fe & Eighth Street Reorg 2005/2006
5. 006-096 California-Claus Reorg. 2006/2007
6. 006-097 California-Claus Reorg. 2006/2007
7. 006-098 California-Claus Reorg. 2006/2007
8. 006-105 Crossroads West Change of Org. 2020/2021
9. 006-099**
**Redevelopment Areas as Identified by State Board of Equalization {CW112700.6} Page 10 of 12
{CW112700.6} Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT B
THERE ARE NO AREAS EXCEPTED FROM THIS AGREEMENT
{CW112700.6} Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT C