Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts property‑tax administration cost‑recovery resolution for FY 2024‑25
Summary
Contra Costa supervisors adopted resolution 2026‑101 to implement state cost‑recovery for property‑tax administration, approving charges based on an auditor's report that allocates about $21 million in administration costs with roughly $8.7 million recoverable from local jurisdictions.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on March 31 adopted resolution number 2026‑101 to implement the property‑tax administration cost‑recovery provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code section 95.3 for fiscal year 2024‑25.
Laura Strobel of the County Administrator's Office presented the auditor's report summary, saying the report allocates "over $21,000,000 in cost to each city and jurisdiction receiving property tax," representing an 11% increase in net cost over the prior year. The staff presentation said roughly $8,700,000 of those costs are recoverable from local jurisdictions, while the county general fund will absorb $12,800,000, including an estimated $10,300,000 school share.
Auditor‑Controller Joanne Boren joined staff to answer questions and confirmed there had been no written objections to the auditors' report to date. After the public hearing, and with no comments, the board adopted the resolution as recommended.
Supervisors used the discussion period to press the Auditor‑Controller's office on finance‑system limitations that affect the county health department's reporting; Joanne Boren said a new consultant, Guidehouse, had been contracted to work on Workday enhancements. The board agreed to refer follow‑up on Workday and reporting improvements to the Finance committee, and asked for a plan and roadmap that staff and the consultant can present to the board and the incoming auditor‑controller.
The resolution adoption implements the statutorily authorized recovery of certain administrative costs from non‑school local jurisdictions for the stated fiscal year; the board did not change the statutory framework, only the local implementation for the year covered by the auditors' calculations.
