The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - February 15, 1984 (23)CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1984 LOCAL (MON- City Clerk Reim. -he presentee) is letter from Dominic L. NIFW 1 NG -TOW Wr t Fuse . Cha i train . Assenb l yman Local Covecvrment Comi t t ee re F I NANCY: PACKA(E - local Bove amen t long-term finance package, indicating that A5.S11 BLYMAN he believes this package not only provides local g+ovennient s Ct MISF, with it predictable and stable revenue source, but it Loo! s one !:tep further. 'Reis package enhances local governments; it strengthens their financial base and provides local governments greater flexibility and responsibility in establishing and meeting local priorities. No formal action was taken by the Council on this matter. ✓y '7 3fi :ter+ . Af ;iaY �.` �et S• .. �:• t�Ti>r �- err. �;� 'f�T i �t � t T � ,s�.�. j�- ti'- Vis.. s�.. �45�t� zQ 4etf#ip o�J .'�TiTC, �'J tt: • -� � .-if' .e � , it _ trz�e .., J� j � `: > J: i r Y r '• a x A. 't • {� x y ,,. �i,, v 4 f F 4 r '• a x r '• a %it vT ctutf VtCt 01A1RWA•! Bit L BFIA(X F %AM FARR Wit. t •1A4 f &AP*t ROBERT C fRA2EE DAN HAUbL P UK-, Kr. LVA 0(^' SF BAs TiAN1 1 atifurnia AUghitu'rure February 1, 1984 Dear Friend: AsscinbtU Lnlnmittec an ;Kacal (6overninent DOMINiC L. CORTESE CHAIRMAN FAf:MHt-RC)i THE ACSf MHLV Twf NTY F'OUR1H 015TRICT 5TCATE CAPITOL SACRAAAERTO CALIrORMA 95814 P+• •� 19t6• A45 6034 AA -L CASTEL4/ NANMAN At+•t, MC Mott A% PAATO10 C•••- .11 sFCM I My Assembly Bill 895 enacted in 1983 not only restored $607 million in subventions for local governments, but more importantly,.it committed this Legislature and the Governor to develop a stable and predictable source of revenue for local governments. Toward this end, a series of public hearings was held in an effort to develop a solution. These hearings brought together concerned members of the Legislature, representatives like yourself, from individual cities, counties and special districts, the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, California Special Districts Association California Board of Realtors, California Chamber of Commerce, the business community, organized labor, as well as participation from the Governor's New Partnership Task Force on Local Government. The result of these hearings has been the development of a local government long-term finance package. The package contains the following: Assembly 2468 (Cortese) • Repeals the AB R deflator. • Repeals the "bail-out" language in existing law. • Repeals the Business inventory Exemption (BIE) and replaces that revenue with K-12 schools' share of the property tax for that same amount ($320 million). , • Allocates the supplemental property tax roll to all local governments in proportion to their share of the property tax allocation for fiscal vear 1984-85, and each year thereafter. (Upwards to $400 million). • Would make unfunded mandates permissive. Assemb11 Bill 2469 lCortese) • Authorizes countywide, 1/4d local sales tax imposed by majority vote of the board of supervisors. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 54 • Constitutionally guarantees the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) to local governments (5818 million). Allocates $210 million of the State's share of VLF to counties, minus S2.2 million to hold the no -property tax cities harmless. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 55 • Restores county general obligation bond authority, requiring 2/3 voter approval. Asse_ mbly Constitutional Amendment 56 o County charter authority. I believe this package not only provides local governments with a predictable and stable revenue source, but it goes one step further. This package enhances local governments: it strengthens their financial base and provides local governments greater flexibility and responsibility in establishing and meeting local priorities. In an effort to reach an early resolution to this very important issue, I have called a special hearing of the Assembly Local Government Committee on Tuesday, February 7, at 1:30 p.m. Enclosed is a comparison of the fiscal impact of ny proposal with that of the Governor's. I repectfully request your review, comparison and consideration of this package. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your favorable response. Sincerely, DOMINIC L. CORTESE, Chairman Assembly Local Government Committee DLC:po Attachment COMPARISON OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL WITH THE GOVERNOR'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL Fiscal Effect on Local Governments (in millions) Assembly Proposal (AB 2468 Cortese) 1984-85 1985-86 Counties Business Inventory -181 Property tax shift +181 Excess VLF +208 Supplemental Roll +165 Net Effect +373 Cities Business Inventory -72 Property tax shift +72 Supplemental Roll +61 No prop. tax cities +2 Net Effect +63 Special Districts Business Inventory -24 Property tax shift +24 Supplemental Roll +36 Net Effect +36 Redevelopment Aqencies Business Inventory -43 Property tax shift +43 Supplemental Roll +17 Net Effect +17 -181 +203 +225 +247 -24 +27 +3 -43 +48 +5 Governor's Proposal (SB 1300 Marks) 1984-85 1985-86 -181 -18i +208 +225 +165 - +192 + 44 -72 -72 +61 - +2 +2 -9 -70 -24 -24 - +36 +12 -24 -43 -43 +17 - -26 -43 Source for cost estimates: Department of. Finance and Legislative Analysts Office