Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 3, 1985 (70)April 10, 1985 Honorable John Garamendi State Senator State Capitol, Room 313 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Garamendi: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor DH: jj April 10, 1985 Honorable John Foran. Senator r State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Nancy Jo Plescia Dear Senator Foran: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor April 10, 1985 I- - Honorable Jim Ellis Senator State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Elizabeth Dahl Dear Senator Ellis: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution. No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985 As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor 1 DH: 7 7 April 10, 1985 Honorable Marian Bergeson Senator State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Kevin Sloat Dear Senator Bergeson: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor DH: jj April 10, 1985 Honorable Wadie Deddeh Senator P-1 V State Capitol 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Helen Jones Dear Senator Deddeh: IN Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB 290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290 - Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor DH:jj April 10, 1985 Honorable Leroy Greene Senator �4 State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Pat Blakeslee Dear Senator Greene: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor is DH:jj E n r"* s" Honorable Rebecca Morgan 3 Senator s State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Jon Glidden Dear Senator Morgan: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of 5E-290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchrnan Mayor DH: 7J a �, J April 10, 1985 Honorable Alan Robbins Senator State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Teri Burns Dear Senator Robbins: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very trui;r yours, David Hinchman Mayor DH:j) April 10, 1985 Honorable Rose Azin Vui ch Senator State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Shirley Pearson Dear Senator Vuich: Enclosed herewith please find Resolution No. 85-46 "Resolution in support of SB -290 (Foran) Transportation Finance" which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 3, 1985. As the Resolution indicates, the City of Lodi is in full: support of this bill and would urge your "AYE" vote on SB -290. Very truly yours, David Hinchman Mayor DH: jj RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SB -290 (FORAN) TRANSPORTATION FINANCE l4'HEREAS, local governments are now experiencing an annual funding shortfall from local streets and roads of between $4C0 and $800 million dollars; and - WHEREAS, local transit systems are also facing a major shortfall in funding; and WHEREAS, Congress is intending to cut Federal Revenue Sharing to local governments in California and Federal Subsidies to transit;, and WHEREAS, local street and road funding must have an immediate infusion of dollars to prevent taxpayers paying three to four times more to repair that system in the future; and WHEREAS, Senator John Foran has taken the leadership role in introducing SB -290 a comprehensive transportation finance package for state and local government; and WHEREAS, SB -290 is the most important transportation finance package to local governments in twenty years; and WHEREAS, the local transportation system is in need of a stable and predictable source of revenue; and WHEREAS, without this additional revenue the survivability of Lodi's streets, roads and alleys is questionable. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Lodi indicates its full support for Senator Foran's SB -290 Dated: I hereby certify that Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 3, 1985 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Noes: Council Members - Absent: Council Members - Alice M. Reimche City Clerk URGENT URGENT URGENT RE: Transportation Finance.. SB 290 (Foran). IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation C,.xunittee can be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support- ing the bill can change the minds of certain members of the Committee. The most immediate political problem with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290 results in several key Republican Committee members not wanting to "vote against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Republican mem- bers of the Senate Transportation Committee to search for "alternatives" to a gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general fund alternative to SB 290? T:fere are several important policy questions which must be addressed to answer this question. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus? Comment: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at this time. 2. If Lhcre is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will have the first call on the surplus? Comment: There will be many competing demands for any possible surplus. Ir:mediately, transportation interests will begi-n to compete with a list of demand, from the following organizations or programs: (a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children. (b) Unitary tax enactment which seems to be gaining support (c) Educatior, (K-12, community colleges, UC system) (d) Human resource programs (welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.) (e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues r� r rj 3 A IMMEF Al 3r.., j,5�" ? ' ..r.'. ErN°'i4 •v3 League of California cities ,�L' Caidornia lines Worx Togerner 1400 K St ee • Sacramento 95814 • (918) 444-5790 (� UTY OF LOD! Sacramento, CA i-CCL1C rXRKS DEPARTMENT #11-1985 -_ March 25, 1985 URGENT URGENT URGENT RE: Transportation Finance.. SB 290 (Foran). IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation C,.xunittee can be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support- ing the bill can change the minds of certain members of the Committee. The most immediate political problem with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290 results in several key Republican Committee members not wanting to "vote against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Republican mem- bers of the Senate Transportation Committee to search for "alternatives" to a gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general fund alternative to SB 290? T:fere are several important policy questions which must be addressed to answer this question. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus? Comment: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at this time. 2. If Lhcre is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will have the first call on the surplus? Comment: There will be many competing demands for any possible surplus. Ir:mediately, transportation interests will begi-n to compete with a list of demand, from the following organizations or programs: (a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children. (b) Unitary tax enactment which seems to be gaining support (c) Educatior, (K-12, community colleges, UC system) (d) Human resource programs (welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.) (e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues r� r ,j 3. Can the proponents of state general fund surplus secure the votes for transportation funding? Comment: With the above constituencies competing for any surplus, the priorities of proponents for transportation will have a stiff, if not impossible, battle with proponents of other interests. 4. If transportation funding can be secured from the general fund, what does that mean for future commitments? Comment: There is, and can be no, commitment of the state beyond one year on state general fund monies. As long as there is a surplus, commitments are easier to keep. When there is no surplus, there will be no commit- ments to help local government transportation problems. SB 290 is a per- manent and stable source of revenue for a problem that needs a constant and stable source of revenue. 5. Do cities want to again face the year-to-year or perhaps the month-to- month revisions and cutbacks connected with state general fund bailouts? Comment: For the first time in the six years since passage of Proposition 13, cities can plan public services because there is a stable and pre- dictable source of revenues. We should not have to subject our transpor- tation system to that same unpredictable revenue picture which plagued city general services for the past six years. IMPORTANT ISSUES The debate on SB 290 has lost its focus. The following issues are the impor- tant ones: 1. There is an overwhelming need on the local street and road system in the scale of $400 to $800 million annually. A financial solution with stability is needed now! 2. SB 290 is a user tax. What can be a more equitable means of paying for our street and road system than through a tax paid by the users of that system. 3. The state and local transportation system,: is one system. Financial responsibility is split, but the system is, of necessity, integrated to accanmodate statewide travel. It requires a statewide funding source. 4. A state gasoline tax increase is the only way to guarantee a consis- tent level of transportation services on a statewide basis. Only the Legislature and the Governor can pass a tax which distributes the revenues on an equitable, statewide basis. - 2 - _�. SB 290 is a stable and predictable revenue source which cin be used to prooarly plan and maintain the transportation system. The bill meets shortfalls in funding which extend 10 to 20 years into the future. General fund alternatives are uno_redictable at best and rion-existent to data. G. The economic health of California is directly tied to its transporta- tion system. The investment in that system is too great to play games. 7. SB 290 is introduced at a critical time in terms of the transportation system's maintenance. If adequate revenues are not put into the system now, it will cost 3 to 4 times more to repair that system in the future. Is it a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars to ignore this problem? CONCLUSION Any alternative solutions to SB 290 mentioned to date have been non -solutions. SB 290 is the most important transportation financing package in 20 years_ it is in trouble in the Legislature because of political questions which have little or nothing to do with the undeniable financial crisis in our transpor- tation system. SB 290 is ours to win our lose. Start by contacting the offices of each of the Senators on the Senate Transportation Committee. A list of their tele- phone numbers and a contact person in Sacramento is attached. May 3 is the deadline date to move SB 290 out of the Senate Transportation Committee. If we cannot make a difference before that date, the bill .is dead and the alternatives are questionable. ACP rXXII Ark Senate Transportation Committee Members for an "AYE" vote on SB 290. When contacting your Senator, point out the following: 1. The ten streets in the worst condition in your community and the dol- lars needed to bring those streets up to standard. 2. The direct effect which the ten worst street conditions have on the citizens in your community, i.e., commute, time delay, auto damage, etc. 3. The projected problems or costs if the problem is not addressed nova. 4. The effect on economic development, job creation, etc. 5. The business and media support in your community for increased transportation funding. - 3 - - ° ~ ' ' SENATE TRANSPORTATION C0}U�IITTEE Member Contact Person Sacramento Office ` Senator John Foran Nancy J« ylescia State CapitolSacramento 95814 / (Chair) 916/445-0503 � ' Senator Jim Ellis Elizabeth Dahl State Capitol 95814 (Vice Chairman) Sacramento 916/445-3952 Senator Marian Bergeson Kevin 3Ioat State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4961 ' Senator Robert Beverly Brian McMahon State Capitol. Sacramento 95814 916/445-6447 Senator gadie Deddeb 8eI�o Jnoca S�u�c Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6767 Senator Leroy Greene Pat Blakeslee s�e�o Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-7807 Senator Rebecca Morgan Jou Glidden State Capitol Sacramento 95814 ` 916/445-6747 Senator Alan Robbins Teri Doroa State Capitol Sacramento 95814 918/445-3121 Sena tor John Seymour Karen Yelncrtou State Csyicol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4264 - Senator �r� Torres --- - -- n�uoy �ercbeo State Capitol Sacramento 95814 915/445-3456 Senator Rose Ann Vuich Shirley Pearson State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4641 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SB -290 (FORAN) TRANSPORTATION FINANCE WHEREAS, local governments are now experiencing an annual funding shortfall from local streets and roads of between $400 and $800 million dollars; and WHEREAS, local transit systems are also facing a major shortfall in funding; and WHEREAS, Congress is intending to cut Federal Revenue Sharing to local governments in California and Federal Subsidies to transit; and WHEREAS, local street and road funding must have an immediate infusion of dollars to prevent taxpayers paying three to four times more to repair that system in the future; and WHEREAS, Senator John Foran has taken the leadership role in introducing SB -290 a comprehensive transportation finance package for state and local government; and WHEREAS, SB -290 is the most important transportation finance package to local governments in twenty ye4rs; and WHEREAS, the local transportation system is in need of a stab;e and predictable source of revenue; and WHEREAS, without this additional revenue the survivability of Lodi's streets, roads and alleys is questionable. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Lodi indicates its full support for Senator Foran's SB -290 Dated: I hereby certify that Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 3, 1985 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Noes: Council Members - Absent: Council Members - Alice M. Reimche City Clerk 4 rl�n Catilornia Cities Woik Together URGENT League of California Cities 1400 K Street • Sacramento 95814 • (916.) 444-5790 . . Sacramento, CA March 25, 1985 URGENT eo- ' '! t- ; V 3 i r L; C '.*,DRKSDEPAR TNT FIN T (ill -1985 URGENT RL: TI'ranspertation Finance. SB 290 (Foran). IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation Committee can be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support- ing the bill can change the minds of certain members of the Committee. The most i:mlediate political problem with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290 results in several key Republican Committee members not wanting to "vote against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Republican mem- bers of the Senate Transportation Committee to search for "alternatives" to a gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general fund alternative to SB 290? There are several important policy questions which must be addressed to answer this question. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus? Comment: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at this time. 2. If Lt.ere is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will have the first call on the surplus? Comment: There will be many competing deemands for any possible surplus. Immediately, transportation interests will begin to compete with a list of dema dl;�Irom the following organizations or programs: (a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children (b) Unitary -tax enactment which seems to be gaining support (c) Education (K-12, community colleges, UC system) (d) Human resource programs (welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.) (e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues 3. Can the proponents of state general fund surplus secure the votes for transportation funding? Comment: With the above constituencies competing for any surplus, the priorities of proponents for transportation will have a stiff, if not impossible, battle with proponents of other interests. 4. If transportation funding can be secured from the general fund, what - does that mean for future commitments? Comment: There is, and can be no, commitment of the state beyond one year on state general fund monies. As long as there is a surplus, commitments are easier to keep. When there is no surplus, there will be no commit- ments to help local government transportation problems. SB 290 is a per- manent and stable source of revenue for a problem that needs a constant and stable source of revenue. 5. Do cities want to again face the year-to-year or perhaps the month-to- month revisions and cutbacks connected with state general fund bailouts? Ca -anent: For the first time in the six years since passage.of Proposition 13, cities can plan public services because there is a stable and pre- dictable source of revenues. We should not have to subject our transpor- tation system to that same unpredictable revenue picture which plagued city general services for the past six years. IMPORTANT ISSUES The debate on SB 290 has lost its focus. The following issues are the impor- tant ones: 1. T:1ere is an overwhelming need on the local street and road system in the scale of $400 to $800 million annually. A financial solution with stability is needed now! 2. SB 290 is a user tax. What can be a more equitable means of paying for our street and road system than through a tax paid by the users of that system. 3. The state and local transportation system is one system. ,Financial responsibility is split, but the system is, of necessity, integrated to accommodate statewide travel: It requires a statewide funding source. 4. A state gasoline tax increase is the only way to guarantee a consis- tent level of transportation services on a statewide basis. Only the Legislature and the Governor can pass a tax which distributes the revenues on an equitable, statewide basis. �M 5. SB 2`30 is a stable and predictable revenue source which can be used to properly plan and maintain the transportation system. The bill meets shortfalls in funding which extend 10 to 20 years into the future. General fund alternatives are unpredictable at best and non-existent to date. 6. The economic health of California is directly tied to its transporta- tion system. The investment in that system is too great to play games. 7. SB 290 is introduced at a critical time in terms of the transportation system's maintenance. If adequate revenues are not put into the system now, it will cost 3 to 4 times more to repair that system in the future. Is it a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars to ignore this problem? Any alternative solutions to SB 290 mentioned to date have been non -solutions - SB 290 is the mist important transportation financing package in 20 years. It is in trouble in the Legislature because of political questions which have little or nothing to do with the undeniable financial crisis in our transpor- tation system. SB 290 is ours to win our lose. Start by contacting the offices of each of r=' the Senators on the Senate Transportation Committee. A list of their tele- phone numbers and a contact person in Sacramento is attached. May 3 is the deadline date to move SB 290 out of the Senate Transportation <' Committee. If we cannot make a difference before that date, the bill is dead End the alternatives are questionable. ACT NC)W! Ask Senate Transportation Committee Members for an "AYE" vote on SB 290. When contacting your Senator, point out the following: res �r 1. The ten streets in the worst condition in your community and the dol- lars needed to bring those streets up to standard. 2. The direct effect which the ten worst street conditions have on the citizens in your community, i.e., commute, time delay, auto damage, etc. 3. The projected problems or costs if the problem is not addressed now. 4. The effect on economic development, job creation, etc. 5. The business and media support in your community for increased transportation funding. - 3 - SENATE TILANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Member Contact Person Sacramento Office Senator John ForanNancy Jo Plescia State Capitol (Chair) Sacramento 95814 916/445-0503 Senator Jim Ellis Elizabeth Dahl State Capitol (Vice Chairman) Sacramento 95814 916/445-3952 i Senator Marian BergesonKevin Sloat State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4961 Senator Robert Beverly Brian McMahon State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6447 Senator Wadie Deddeh Helen Jones State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6767 Senator Leroy Greene Pat Blakeslee State Capitol s,- Sacramento 95814 z 916/445-7807 Senator Rebecca Morgan .Ton Glidden State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6747 Senator Alan Robbins Teri Burns State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-3121 Senator John Seymour Karen Yelverton State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4264 Senator Art Torres Danny Verches State Capitol Sacramento 95814 915/445-3456 Senator Rose Ann Vuich. Shirley Pearson State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916!445-4641 URGENT League ®f California Cities:..: 1400 K Street -,Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444-5790 Sacramento, CA March 25, 1985 URGENT X111-1985 !l lieltt RE: Transportation Finance. SII 290 (Foran). IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation Committee can be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support- ing the bill can change the minds of certain members of the Committee. The 1[lost immediate political problem with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290 results in several key'Republican Committee members not wanting to "vote against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Repuu .can mem- bers of the Senate Transportation Committee to search for "alternatives" to a gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general fund alternative to SB 290? There are several important policy questions which must be addressed to answer this question. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus? Comment: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at this time. 2. If there is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will have the first call on the surplus? Comment: There will be many competing demands for any possible surpius. Immediately, transportation interests will begin to compete with a list of demands from the following organizations or programs: (a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children (b) Unitary tax enactment which seems to be gaining support (c) Education (K-12, community colleges, UC system) (d) Human resource programs (welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.) (e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues Yl z f r1 �®f YiI MOD Catltornra Gates Work Together URGENT League ®f California Cities:..: 1400 K Street -,Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444-5790 Sacramento, CA March 25, 1985 URGENT X111-1985 !l lieltt RE: Transportation Finance. SII 290 (Foran). IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation Committee can be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support- ing the bill can change the minds of certain members of the Committee. The 1[lost immediate political problem with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290 results in several key'Republican Committee members not wanting to "vote against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Repuu .can mem- bers of the Senate Transportation Committee to search for "alternatives" to a gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general fund alternative to SB 290? There are several important policy questions which must be addressed to answer this question. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus? Comment: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at this time. 2. If there is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will have the first call on the surplus? Comment: There will be many competing demands for any possible surpius. Immediately, transportation interests will begin to compete with a list of demands from the following organizations or programs: (a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children (b) Unitary tax enactment which seems to be gaining support (c) Education (K-12, community colleges, UC system) (d) Human resource programs (welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.) (e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues 3. Can the proponents of state general fund surplus secure the votes for transportation funding? Comment: With the above constituencies competing for any surplus, the priorities of proponents for transportation will have a stiff, if not impossible, battle with proponents of other interests. 4. If transportation funding can be secured from the general fund, what does that mean Eor suture commitments? Comment: There is, and can be no, commitment of the state beyond one year on state general fund monies. As long as there is a surplus, commitments are easier to keep. When there is no surplus, there will be no commit- ments to help local government transportation problems. SB 290 is a per- manent and stable source of revenue for a problem that needs a constant an6 stable source of revenue. 5. Do cities want to again face the year-to-year or perhaps the month-to- month revisions and cutbacks connected with state general fund bailouts? Comment: For the first time in the six years since passage of Proposition 13, cities can plan public services becaase there is a stable and pre-, dictable source of revenues. We should not have to subject our transpor- tation system to that same unpredictable revenue picture which plagued city general services for the past six years. IMPORTANT ISSUES The debate on SB 290 has lost its focus. The following issues are the impor- tant ones: 1. There is an overwhelming need on the local street and road system in the scale of $400 to $800 million annually. A financial solution with stability is needed now! 2. SB 290 is a user tax. What can be a more equitable means of paying for our street and road system than through a tax paid by the users of that system. 3. The state and local transportation system is one system. Financial responsibility is split, but the system is, of necessity, integrated to accommodate statewide travel. It requires a statewide funding source. S 4. A state gasoline tax increa.e is the only way to guarantee a consis- tent level of transportation services on a statewide basis. Only the Legislature and the Governor can pass a tax which distributes the revenues on an equitable, statewide basis. -2-- 5. SB 290 is a stable and predictable revenue source which can be used to proper'- plan and maintain the transportati-on system. The bill meets short s in funding which extend 10 to 20 years into the future. General fund alternatives are unpredictable at best and non --existent to date. 6. The economic health of California is directly tied to its transporta- tion system. The investment in that system is too great to play games. 7. SB 290 is introduced at a critical time in terms of the transportation system's maintenance. If adequate revenues are not put into the system now, it will cost 3 to 4 times more to repair that system in the future_ Is it a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars to ignore this problem? [*f;�I�li!iT� WN Any alternative solutions to SB 290 mentioned to data have been non -solutions. SB 290 is the most important transportation financing package in 20 years. It is in trouble in the Legislature because of political questions which have little or nothing to do with the undeniable financial crisis in our transpor- tation system. SB 290 is ours to win our lose. Start by contacting the offices of each of the Senators on the Senate Transportation Committee. A list of their tele- phone numbers and a contact person in Sacramento is attached. May 3 is the deadline date to move SB 290 out of the Senate Transportation Committee. If we cannot make a difference before that date, the bill is dead and the alternatives are questionable. ACT NOW! Ask Senate Transportation Committee Members for an "AYE" vote on SB 290. When contacting your Senator, point out the following: 1. The ten streets in the worst condition in your community and the dol- lars needed to bring those streets up to standard. 2. The direct effect which the ten worst street conditions have on the citizens in your community, i.e., commute, time delay, auto damage, etc. 3. The projected problems or costs if the problem is not addressed now. 4. The effect on economic development, job creation, etc. 5. The business and media support in your community for increased transportation funding. - 3 - . It SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Member Contact Person Sacramento Office Senator John Foran Nancy Jo Plescia State Capitol (Chair) Sacramento 95814 916/445-0503 Senator Jim Ellis Elizabeth Dahl State Capitol (Vice Chairman) Sacramento 95814 916/445-3952 Senator Marian Bergeson Kevin Sloat State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4961 Senator Robert Beverly Brian McMahon State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6447 Senator Wadie Deddeh Helen Jones State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6767 Senator Leroy Greene Pat Blakeslee State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-7807 Senator Rebecca Morgan Jon Glidden State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-6747 Senator Alan Robbins Teri Burns State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-3121 Senator John Seymour Karen Yelverton State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4264 Senator Art Torres Danny Verches State Capitol Sacramento 95814 915/445-3456 Senator Rose Ann Vuich Shirley Pearson State Capitol Sacramento 95814 916/445-4641 i .mss i as E League of California Cities _ _ California Cities work Together 1400 K Street •Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444-5790 - - fir10- 985 March 22, 1985 i ******************************** LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES 1. Transportation Finance. SB 290 (Foran). Senate Transportation Cotrmittee_Vot4a Postponed to Later Date. Impressive Set of Proponents Endorse the Bill. 2. Cinemployment In State Mandated Cost. AB 216 (McAlister). Bill in Assembly Ways and Means Committee - Employment Development Department and Finance Seek to Resolve Technical Issues. 3. School Site Disposition/Naylor Bill Under Attack. a 4. Local Public Agency Employer -Employee Relations: Unfair Labor Practices — State Public Employment Relations Board. SB 1254 (Dills). 5. Redevelopment. Drastic Revisions are Proposed by Los Angeles County. SB 1039 (Montoya) 6. Mandatory Redevelopment Set -Aside for School Districts. AB 1.73 (Stirling). 7. City Reimbursement Mandated for Full Costs of County Property Tax Administration. SB 532 (Vuich) and AB 1954 (N. Waters). 2 8. Redevelopment. Reimbursement to County for Costs_ AB 117 (Frazee). 9. Restrictions on Local Investments. SB 115 (.Marks). r. 10. The Oakland Raider Bill Introduced Again. SB 717 and SCA 18 (Montoya). 11. Brown Act Amended to Include Non -Profit Organizations. SB 1356 (Keene). 12. Limitations on City Annexations and Incorporations. SB 1051 (Lockyer). 5 13. Sales and Use Taxation. Place of Sale. AB 724 (Campbell). 14. Sales Tax. Direct Payment Permits. SB 413 (Beverly) Passes Senate. Revenue and Taxation Committee. 15. Increases in Budget for the State ABC. SB 927 (Seymour)_ 16. Property Taxation: Property Transfer Exemption. ACA 62 (Hannigan) and AB 67 (Hannigan). Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee Passes Bills Exempting Property Transferred Between Parents and Children from Change of Ownership Reassessnk'nt. 17. Spaying of Dogs by Pound. AB 1663 (Campbell). 18. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. FEDERAL AFFAIRS i 19. Mandatory Retirement Age for Public Safety Officers. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES 1. SUPPORT Transportation Finance. SB 290 (Foran). Senate Transportation Committee Vote Postponed to Later Date. Impressive Set of Proponents Endorse the Bill. The Senate Transportation Conm?ittee on Tuesday, March 19, conducted an approximately four-hour hearing on SB 290. Council Member Jim Beall from San Jose, Vice Chair of the League Committee on Transportation and Public Works, testified on behalf of cities in support of SB 290. Proponents of the legislation represented not only direct beneficiaries of SB 290 such as local governments and transit districts, but also prominent members of California's business community who view this package as being important to the economic health of California. While the vote was postponed because two members of the Committee were absent, it appears from the discussion at the hearing that several members of the Committee who were present are not, prepared to vote for the bill at this time. Senator Foran will reset the bill for hearing in the near future. There are two noticeable problems which surfaced during the hearing. First, several members of the Committee are very reluctant to vote for this legislation because the Governor is opposed at this time. Local government efforts to pass the bill should focus on business leaders who recognize the need for SB 290 and the undeniable transportation funding shortfall. If the Administration can be convinced to consider the problem on its merits, there is some hope of progress. The second problem is the less -than -unified position of certain agencies which will directly benefit from the legislation including COG's and certain counties. Divisive testimony of se\,erai } witnesses focused on highly technical and non -substantive issues which can be easily accommodated. Attention should be redirected to the most important fact that SB 290 S provides about $670 million in new revenues for transportation in California. At this point, the author of SB 290 needs to rally all the support that he can get for x passage of the bill. It is more productive to solve political problems surrounding the bill than to get lost in details which can always be handled later. Attached to the Bulletin is a list of dollar amounts which individual cities can 3 expect from the increase in the gasoline tax under SB 290. The figures were developed by the Legislative Analyst's office. ki Several Senators on the Committee indicated that they have riot yet heard from city officials in their district on the specific local need for SB 290. If you have not contacted your Senator, please do so immediately. Phone calls from city officials in support of SB 290 will make a difference. The need for the revenues in SB 290 is easily documented in virtually all communities in California. When members can clearly identify the need in their own local jurisdictions, they will become more willing to vote for the bill in spite of the Governor's position. Please contact the members of the Senate Transportation Committee and urge a "yes" vote on SB 290. The members of the Committee are: Foran, Chair; Ellis, dice Chair; Bergeson, Beverly, Deddeh, L. Greene, Morgan, Robbins, Seymour, Torres, and Vuich. 2 - March 22, .1985 2. SUPPORT Unemployment Insurance: State Mandated Cost. AB 216 (McAlister). Bill in Assembly Ways and Means Committee - Lmploymer.t Development Deoar.tment and Finance Seek to Resolve Technical Issues. AB 216 has been temporarily stalled in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee for about three weeks. This bill implements the provisions of the Sacramento decision which found the state financially responsible for the state- mandaLed local costs of the unemployment insurance program. (See Legislative Bulle- tins 42-1985, #3-1385, #4-1985.) Given legislative inaction to resolve this mandated cost issue, the author of AB 216 had asked Employment Development Department to waive the payment required of cities for 60 days. The waiver was requested under the as- sumption that AB 216 could be proved quickly through the Legislature eliminating en- tirely the need to make these payments. It now appears that AB 216 will not move as quickly as first suggested. We believe that the concerns expressed by the Employment Development Department and the Department of Finance can be eliminated. However, AB 216 will not be passed before the next payment by cities is required. The League has received a number of phone calls from city officials asking for our recommendation as to whether_ cities should continue to pay for unemployment insurance benefits. Given the delay which is taking place with AB 216, we recommend that you continue to follow the course of action you chose in your jurisdiction for the last unemployment insurance payments. Most jurisdictions have continued to pay. We believe AB 216 will eventually pass, however, local governments will be faced with at least one if not two more billing periods before AB 216 finally reaches the Gover- nor's desk. EDD indicates that very few city jurisdictions have chosen not to pay the EDD billing. Continuing to make payments will permit the Legislature to act in good faith on this issue. Remember that AB 216 contains an appropriation to pay lo- cal government costs from May of 1984 to the effective date of the bill. It is far preferable to have a legislative solution to this problem than to seek another remedy in court. 3. ACT ION School Site Disposition/Naylor Bill Under Attack. Several years NEEDED ago, the Legislature enacted what is popularly. known as tire "Naylor Bill," which requires school districts to sell to cities or park districts at reduced costs the playground and open space areas of some surplus school sites. Recently, sc,iool districts have learned how to avoid these requirements by securing waivers from the provisions of the "Naylor Bill." This effectively means that cities have not been able to obtain these school sites at a reduced price. Three bills have now been introduced relating to this subject. The first is SB 887 (Seymour) which would provide that if the city or a local park district does not purchase the property pursuant to the Naylor provisions, then the city may not subsequently zone the property to open space, but must instead zone it to any zoning classification the school district requests, if that zoning classifica- tion is the same as or compatible with the uses of property adjacent to she school site. It therefore removes virtually all zoning discretion from the city and places zoning control in the school district. Clearly, this is an inappropriate and perhaps unconstitutional abridgment of municipal police powers. The second bill is AB 2198 (Felando). AB 2198 would simply repeal the Naylor provi- sions and require cities to pay full fair market value for any school district prop- erty they purchased. The third bill is AB 1978 (Naylor). AB 1978 would prevent school districts from ob- taining from the state a waiver of the school site disposition provisions of the Naylor Bill. March 22, 1985 - 3 - It is expected that AB 2198 and AB 1978 will be assigned to the Assembly Education Committee, and that SB 887 will be assigned to the Senate Education Coamittee. In- terested city officials should contact the mercers of those Committees in support of AB 1978, and in opposition to AB 2198 and SB 887. The Assembly Education Cortmittee members are: Hughes, Chair; Bader, Vice Chair; Allen, Bradley, Campbell, elute, Farr, Hayden, Johnston, Leonard, McClintock, O'Connell, and vasconcellos. Memo _'s of the Senate Education Committee are: Hart, Chair; Bergeson, Vice Chair; Carpenter, Davis, Deddeh; Dills, Morgan, Seymour, Stiern, Torres and Watson. 4. OPPOSE Local_ _Public Agency Employer -Employee Relations: Unfair.- Labor � Practices — State Public Emoloyrnt Relations Board. SB 125; introduced last session (SB 1440 - Torres) and would define unfair labor practices for the purposes of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The bill also provides that the party alleging a violation of unfair labor practices can elect to have that unfair labor practice charge resolved in either Superior Court or by the State Public Employment Relations Board. SB 1254 is another attempt by local public employee organizations to extend State Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over cities, counties and special districts. It is sponsored again by the Peace Officers Research Association of California. This bill has been defeated twice in the last two years following a very difficult fight on the floor of the Senate. The primary argument we have used successfully is that PERB jurisdiction means public employees strikes will be authorized. The State Public Employment Relations Board has already ruled for school districts that a strike by employees in response to an unfair labor practice as defined is legal. California decisional law provides unequivocally that in the absence of specific authorization, public employees do not have the right to strike. The bill has not been assigned to a Committee as of yet, however, we fully expect the bill to be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. 5. OPPOSE Redevelopment.. Drastic Revisions Are Proposed By Los Angeles County. SB 1.039 (Montoya). Sponsored by Los Angeles County, SB 1039. is a determined and misguided effort to destroy the community redevelopment law as it has been utilized so successfully in California. It represents the incredible view that California would be better off without the economic development, job creation and the removal of blighted structures from depressed neighborhoods which result from the use of the community redevelopment law. SB 1039 must be opposed immediately and vigorously by each and every redevelopment agency in the state. SB 1039 provides the following: (1) The definition of blight is narrowed to conform to the definition utilized by UDAG federal regulations. This alone would eliminate most redevelopment proposals in the future. (2) The total area included within the project areas in a city may not exceed 25% of the entire area of the city unless approved by the Board of Supervisors. _ 4 _ March 22, 1985 This, of course, is a completely arbitrary approach which ignores the extent of real and actual blight in a community, particularly a smaller city. (3) The county auditor is prohibited, unless directed by the Board of Supervisors, from allocating or paying any portion of any additional tax increment revenues which would otherwise be allocated when the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in all of the project areas in all of the cities in the county and the agency in the county exceed, in the aggregate, 7% of the total assessed valuation of all of the taxable property in the county, subject to any indebtedness incurred prior to January 1, 1986. (4) The state controller would be required to audit every redevelopment agency - whose expena?s for staff, salaries, wages and benefits and other administrative expenses exceed 10% of the tax increment revenue in any given year. (5) The term of existence of a redevelopment plan could not exceed 25 years, unless that limitation would impair the rights of holders of bonds. (6) When a redevelopment plan is adopted, the city would also be required to adopt an ordinance which contains a finding that the agency and the city council have considered and rejected the levy of benefit assessments within the project area and the rationale for rejecting the utilization of benefit assessment-__ SB 1039 (Montoya) is unjustified and unnecessary following the adoption of "reform" redevelopment legislation in each of the last two years. We strongly urge you to direct your opposition letters to the Senate Local Government Committee. The members are: Marks, Chair; Vuich, Vice Chair; Ayala, Campbell, Craven, Garamendi and Russell. 6. OPPOSE Mandatory Redevelopment Set -Aside for School Districts. AB 1473 Stirling). The only mandatory expenditure of redevelopment tax -increment funds in current law is the obligatory 20% set-aside for low and moderate income housing, unless certain fundings related to an absence of need can be made. This bill, AF. 1473, would require, upon the request of a school district, that every redevelopment plan adopted after January 1, 1986, mandatorily expend on school buildings and improvements the "amount of property tax revenues which would have been received by the school district" without any diversion of tax -increment revenues to the redevelopment agency. While appealing to educators, AB 1473 represents the "impossible dream." It amounts to spending the same money twice. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to both redevelop a blighted area, repay tax --allocation bonds, increase the area's assessed- valuation through rehabilitation and new construction and provide schools with their full share of the; growth of tax -increment revenues. AB 1473 is based on the myth that growthin redevelopment project areas would take place without redevelopment activities and that such growth is not dependent upon the expenditure of tax -increment revenues. Letters of opposition should be sent to the author and to the members c. -he Assembly Revenue and Taxat:­�:: Committee. The members are: Hannigan, Chair; Dennis Brown, Vice Chair; Cortese, Davis, Floyd, Hayden, Johnston, Klehs, Lewis, McClintock, Molina, Seastrand, and Sher. _ 5 - March 22, 1985 City Reidmbursr_ _n` � 1R'i3." O' : ')f r ` • , ; rifi`� P !Y.1°L ty Tax :iC7llnistr3tiOn. i' t / 1_ ( +r+ l.:. J' �i_r J ---�-3 ?'Y-1 3B 582 r:•? r? r.e nn r, yr 'X'i;!?C^ 3/. ?'/�•�l+:eS %:� cities, school districts, cor=- unity !:'�>i.i%'r;es 3!;ri ': fir"4=1: 'i1 stYi :iy the coum--y' s total property tax administration C . ...-.. r.Y. ,ls Jr^vV1: - cnxy wi. less than 200,00() population may wit:;hol.: vac casts of or0perty tax 3 .._3tr3:.iOn from cities, schools, corr unity XX:!cial d1strictS. he opposes these two measures vigorously tax administration clearly a courtywicje function which has historically :fen most �ca�itabl;� z�:rrtrj b;,( a count,r4ide tax. If the cost of this service is to %y * ? taxer: f"rs of the individual local agencies and school district.. /lt t:.1 the _,+:nty, t:+en thr'se taxpayers ought to receive a credit against r_hF•i r county taxes, inas nt;cn as unincorparater? area taxpayers aren't being asked to pay _or this serV;.cA_ t:,•ty!p. ,Moreover, it should be pointed out that the current percentage allocation of property tax revenues to counties follewi.ng Proposition 13 is based upon the counties' average share of the property tax actually levied and received in the last three years before Prop. 13. This allocation includes the countywide cost of property tax administration. If such a cost is to be shifted to cities and special districts, then the counties' share of the property tax ought to be reduced corresoondingiv. SB 582 and AB 1954 will be assigned to their respective Revenue and Taxaticn Cormittees in the Senate and Assembly. Letters of opposition to the authors as well as CorBmittee members are encouraged. 3. OPPOSE Redevelooment. Reimbursement to County for Costs. r?, 117 (Frazee). Current law now requires a redevelopment agency to reimburse the county for the so-called "section 33328" reoart, which provides the basic fiscal data upon which the agency's future financial costs can be estimated. AB 117, which is sponsored by San Diego County, `,could extend thy- concept of reimbursement to the county's coat for property tax administration. The League opposes AB 117 because counties may now recover their costs (and .ire) through the negotiation of a tax -sharing agreement. Many of the agency's demands on a county are in fact the result of state law and are beyond the agency's control. County administration of taxer, is an historic function which has long been included in the county's share of the property tax. Redevelopment agencies should not be singled out to'pay for these costs. Letters of opposition to AB 117 should be directed to the author and the Assembly Local Government Committee. The members are: Cortese, Chair: Lancaster, Vice Char; Bradley, Bronzan, Calderon, Eaves, Frazee, Hauser, Mountjoy, and Robinson. 0. OPPOSE Restrictions on Local Investments. sB 115 (Marks). Late last week the League's Revenue and Taxation Ccm mittee voted to oppose SB 115 both as introduced (10% limit on long-term security investment categories) and as it may be amended (5 year average maturity limitation, basad on the agency's dollar -weighted average maturity). The League is asking the author to drop SB 115 in either of there two forms because there is no statewide evidence that a need exists to adopt still additional restrictions on local government investment practices. AB 1073 (Cortese) of 1984 has just taken March 22, 1985 - 6 - . effect and its full disclosure requirements should be allowed to cpe rate. 10. OP?'USE The Oakland Raider Bill Introduced Again. SB 717 and SCA 13 (Mon- tova). These bills which resemble AB 1585 of last year prohibit a city from condemning the following properties if the purpose is to prevent relocation: theaters, hospitals, taxi companies, marinas, sports franchise, cable television companies and amusement parks. This prohibition would apply regardless of whether there is a bona fide public pur- pose in exercising eminent domain to take one of these properties. The bills should be opposed on three ground's. First, they limit cities' eminent domain powers in areas where there is no evidence of abuse, and without regard to any bona fide public purpose. Second, they increase litigation potential by introducing motive for a con- demnation into the lawsuit. Third, the application of the bill to cable television probably violates Article XI, Section 9 of the State Constitution. SB 717 has been assigned to the Senate Local Government Committee. City officials should contact members of the Committee and urge a "NO" vote on the bill. Members of the Committee are: Marks, Chair; Vuich, Vice Chair; Ayala, Campbell, Craven, Garamen- di, and Russell. 11. OPPOSE Brown Act Amended to Include Non -Profit Organizations. SB 1356ev (Keene). under current law, private non-profit organizations that receive monies under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are sub- ject to the Brown Act. SB 1356 would extend the Brown Act's' coverage to all private non-profit organizations that receive public money to be ex- pended for public purposes pursuant to any federal law. The bill could potentially make all local civic organizations subject to the Brown Act, together with all of its ; notice requirements and open meeting requirements. It would in particular restrict economic development organizations, since they could no longer negotiate privately k,{ with companies which are considering relocating. SB 1356 has been assigned to the° Senate Local Government Committee for hearing. Interested city officials should con- tact the members of that Committee in opposition to the bill. The members are: Marks, Chair; Vuich, Vice Chair; Ayala, Campbell, Craven, Garamendi, and Russell. 12. OPPOSE Limitations on City Annexa. -ions and Incorporations. S33 1051 ti (Lockyer). SB 1051 would prohibit the incorporation or annexation of property if the area involved in the incorporation or annex- §' ation is more than 50% government-owned. The prohibition is absolute without regard to the appropriateness of the incorporation or annexation. The bill arbitrarily removes all discretion from LAFCOs, without regard to the merits ` of a proposal. SB 1051 has been assigned for hearing to the Senate Local Government Committee, and interested city officials should write the members of that Committee s in opposition to the bill. The members are: darks, Chair; Vuich, Vice Chair, Ayala, Campbell, Craven, Garamendi, and Russell. - 7 - March 22, 1985 13. REVIEW AND Sales and Use Taxatio:i. Place of Sale. AB 724 (Campbell). Under C01SMENT the current state and local sales and use tax law, the incidence of the retail sale is generally considered to be the place of business of the retailer. This bill instead provides that the incidence of the retail sale will be where the tangible, personal property which is sold is physically located at the time of sale. This bill has the potential for changing sales tax allocations between cities. It is very difficult to assess the possible sales tax shift which the bill may cause. We ask for your review and comment on AB 724. Please direct your comments to Dwight Stenbakken of the League staff. 14. REVIEW AND Sales Tax. Direct Payment Pennits. SB 418 (Beverly) Passes Senate COt•MNT Revenue and Taxation Coimnittee. Under existing law, the sales and =` use tax is imposed on retailers for the privilege of selling tan - Bible, personal property. Generally, consumers pay the sales and use tax to the retailer but it is the retailer, not the consumer, who is liable 4. for the tax. This bill authorizes the Board of Equalization to establish a procedure;_ for the issuance of a direct payment permit so that consumers who are issued permits } will. pay the retailer's sales tax liability directly to the Board of Equalization.'' The Board is permitted to issue a direct sales permit if the following conditions are met: (1) The consumer agrees to pay the tax liability of the retailer directly to the Board; (2) The Board determines that a direct payment permit would ease the collection C of tax; (3) The Board determines that a direct payment permit would increase the con- venience of the Board( the consumer and the retailer. We ask finance officers to review this bill and give us any thoughts you may have as to any possible. sales tax shift between cities. Please direct your comments to Dwight Stenbakken on the League staff. 15. INFORMATION Increases in Budget for the State ABC. SB 927 (Seymour). REQUESTED SB 927, would increase funding of enforcement officers for the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. The ABC today has fewer enforcement officers than when it was first formed in the 19501s. SB 927 would place a 15% surcharge on all alcoholic beverage control licenses, and would create a special fund with the monies obtained from that surcharge, which would be used to employ: attorneys, investigators; and support staff. The staff would all be used for enforcement of the alcoholic beverage control laws. We request that city officials supply Senator Se�,mour and the League with information describing problems which they are having with alcoholic beverage licensees which could be prevented or curtailed if the A3C had a better staffed enforcement division. March 22, 1985 - 8 - 16. REVIEW Procerty Taxation: Prooerty Transfer Exemption_ ACA 62 A14D (Hannigan) and AB 6; (Hannigan). Assembly Revenue and Taxation COMMENT Commitee Passes Bills Exempting Property Transferred Between Parents and Children from Charge of Ownership Reassessment. This proposed Constitutional Amendment and accompanying implementation legislation exempts transfers of real property between parents and children from change of ownership reappraisal for tax purposes thereby preventing higher property taxes when property is transferred within "the family." This bili is in large part a response to arguments made by the proponents of Proposition 36_ They argued that the current law was unfair because parents could not transfer property to children without having the property reassessed at a higher market value. ACA 62 takes away that argument from the Jarvis supporters. The Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee staff estimates a revenue loss of between $5 and $20 million per year. The bill will be heard next in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. 17. REVIEW AND dying of Dogs by Pounds. AB 1663 (Campbell). Current law COMMENT generally requires pounds to have cats spayed or neutered before they are given away. AB 1663 would require that dogs over six months of age also be spayed or neutered before they are given away and provide that puppies under six months of age could not be given away unless a fee covering the cost of spaying or neutering was deposited with the pound. We would appreciate receiving comments from interested city officials regarding "lie merits of this bill. 18. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. (a) SB 198 (Montoya). Transient Occupancy Tax on Time -Share Estates. SB 198 was heard by the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee this week and was defeated. (See Legislative Bulletins of February 22 (#6-1985) and March 15 (49-1965) for additional details.) (b) AB 512 (Floyd). Union Veto of PERS Contract Amendments. Opposed by the League and described in Legislative Bulletins of February 22 (#6-1985) and March 15 09-1985), this bill was originally set for hearing on March 20 in the Assembly Public Employees and Retirement Committee. Because of the author's absence from Sacramento last Wednesday, the bill was held over. (c) AB 190 (Floyd) and AB 525 (W. Brown). Mandatory Peace Officers Time Bank. Originally set for hearing in the Assembly Public Employees iiild Retirement Committee on March 20, these bills were also held over this week due i-.:> the absence of their authors. 9 - March 22, 1985 19. Mandatory ?(!t1rF,r;ynt Arlo for P.)bl.lr Safety The mational Lpaque, of Cities, will be filing rin amicus curiae brief on a case F>,ndinq 1-x2for,> the f1. S. 5uprerrr- "ourt, F01timore v. Firefighters. The case affects the ?jestion of manda-1-ory retirement ages for public safety officers. Previously, the SupreTK-- Court ruler] that ,mandatory retirement ages for state germ wardens were r]iscriminatory andin 'irect violaticn of theAge Discrimination in Employment Act. The n.ilin:] did not effect federal mandatory retirement ages because the Age Discrimination in f;npIoyment Act specifically exempts federal public safety officers from the Act. in the Ba I tiTx)rp_ case, the appellate court said in effect that if Congress provided an exemption for its own public safety officers, this amounted to a bona fide occupational qualification which also applied to state and local gurernments. This r -ming was favorable to local governments in that it finally recognized the 6 --finita double standard which Congress has maintained for federal public safety officers and local public safety officers. Since the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory retirement provisions in state and local governments are subject to the ADEA, the Equal Empluyrnent Opportunity Commission has investigated many California Cities seeking large amounts of information, charging violation of federal law, and holding conciliation meetings on the issue of potential mandatory retirements which may occur for public safety officers. The EZ0C has persisted in forcing local governments to stop mandatory retirements even when most, if riot all, cities contacted are members of the State .public Employees Retirement System where mandatory retirement ages are set by the State Legislature. 'Phe National League of Cities is seeking information for the amicus curiae brief. The information needed includes the following: 1. The time and money expended by local governments to respond to EEOC letters of violation and demands for information; and the time and money to support local government claims in any conciliation hearings on this issue. 2. Any cities where direct legal action has been taken by EEOC against the city. 3. A pi ojection of the cost to local government if mandatory ace retirements are finally eliminated. This means a detailing of the cost to review each employee on a case-by-case basis to determine if that es-aPloyee is qualified to continue in a safety job. During the last three or four years, scores of cities have received letters of violation from EEOC commencing an investication, urging a conciliation conference and threatening litigation. We hope every city so contacted will bring this informaticn to Don Jones's attention. The information which you compile should be sent directly to the National Leaq e of Cities office in care of Don Jones. Don will be coordinating the efforts on this amicus brief for the National League of Cities. The address for the National League of Cities is 1301 Pennsylvania Av=,nue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004. -10- March 22, 1985 GAS TAX ALLOCATIONS Legislative Analyst 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations ALAMEDA Alameda $ 971382 S 1671179 Albany 202409 341657 Berkeley 1378811 2375605 Dublin 249081 422041 Emeryville 56016 88550 Fremont 1853099 3195628 Hayward 1278521 2202209 Livermore 675278 1159227 Newark 464245 794360 Oakland 4543064 7846459 Piedmont 140700 234966 Pleasanton 499547 855396 San Leandro 861555 1481292 Unicn City 597989 1025598 ALPINE A.MtNDOR Amador City 6250 3168 Ione 32848 54518 Jackson 35248 59181 Plymouth 12917 15778 Sutter Creek 24777 38830 BUTTE Biggs 23859 32000 Chico 399657 662962 Gridley 60464 93459 Oroville 136570 221241 Paradise 322781 533889 CALAVERAS Angels 30586 51372 COLUSA Colusa 48606 96741 Williams 22746 39633 CONTRA COSTA Antioch 576166 1039256 Brentwood 67887 114750 Clayton 59716 99886 Concord 1292674 2342510 Danville 633315 1143204 E1 Cerrito 290299 .519293 Hercules 94266 162729 Lafayette 321805 576600 Martinez 315255 564685 Moraga 189399 335767' Pinole 183007 324141 Pittsburg 478321 861286 Pleasant Hill 340135 609940 Richmond 948002 1715587 San Pablo 265000 473277 San Ramon 410560 .738035 Walnut Creek 737000 1331797 DEL NORTE Crescent City EL DORADO Placerville South Lake Tahoe FRESNO Clovis Coalinga Firebaugh Fowler Fresno Huron Kerman Kingsburg Mendota Orange Cove Parlier Reedley Sanger San Joaquin Selma GLENN Orland Willows HU14BOLDT Arcata Blue Lake Eureka Ferndale Fortuna Rio Dell Trinidad IMPERIAL Brawley Calexico Calipatria E1 Centro Holtville Imperial Westmorland INYO Bishop KERN Arvin Bakersfield California City Delano -2- 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations 51900 ?3800 109869 159672 322501 482805 447887 836137 92902 166254 52670 90334 37475 61660 3179764 5991377 46415 78530 52611 90223 73330 19322 76653 135592 56290 97164 76251 134832 157045 287297 165654 303542 29764 47109 157553 288255 53963 100111 60385 113188 188040 327242 20695 28387 312310 549173 23694 33743 104955 178863 39502 61973 9911 9128 197578 387673 187246 366896 34829 60387 301801 597266 56468 103904 46214 83284 24508 39633 51527 77549 82832 166120 1364252 2894072 36133 66703 199400 414274 -3- z.' 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations Maricopa 17295 26600 McFarland 68608 135837 Ridgecrest 237117 494568 Shafter 82676 165786 Taft 67329 133115 Tehachapi 50243 96741 Wasco 118117 241236 KINGS Avenal 55187 97611 Corcoran 84909 155186 Hanford 274696 522841 Lemoore 127865 238401 LAKE Clearlake 152447 296244 Lakeport 48377 87434 LAS S EN Susanville 88481 148490 LOS ANGELES A;oura Hills 259599 450829 Alhambra 877451 1544021 Arcadia 604527 1061125 Artesia 186812 322042 Avalon 33808 51326 Azusa 426488 746113 Baldwin Park 715632 1257708 Bell 345542 602890 Bellflower 713652 1254204 Bell Gardens 462144 809201 Beverly Hills 426325 745823 Bradbury 15546 19013 Burbank 1108324 1952515 Carson 1L071319 1887041 Cerrites 701266 1232290 Claremont 436755 764279 Commerce 154687 265203 Compton 1102660 1942496 Covina 539610 946264 Cudahy 249534 433019 Culver City 496337 869699 Downey 1058353 1864100 Duarte 251224 436009 E1 Monte 1126322 1984360 1-:1 Segundo 186005 320614 Gardena 604843 1061683 Glendale 1859491 3281591 Glendora 510816 895318 Hawaiian Gardens 149101 255237 Hawthorne 751376 1320951 Hermosa Beach 238637 413739 z.' --4- f 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations Hidden Hills 0 0 Huntington Park 621555 1091253 Industry 13717 15778 Inglewood 1247289 2198395 Irwindale 18068 23476 La Canada Flintridge 259146 450026 La Habra Heights 68090 111982 Lakewood 949532 1671558 La Mirada 522521 916028 Lancaster 683293 1200489 La Puente 406586 710898 La Verne 331137 577403 i Lawndale 319648 557075 i Lomita 249812 2 43351 3 Long Beach 4740402 8378920 j Los Angeles 39209309 .69366353 Lynwood 658383 1156415 1 Manhattan Beach 434939 761064 Ma}7aood 299644 521682 Monrovia 408238 713821 Montebello 714092 1254984 ;t Monterey Park 743670 1307317 Norwalk 1090527 1921027 Palmdale 222052 384394 Palos Verdes Estates 188779 325523 Paramount 503513 882396 Pasadena 1582166 2790907 Pico Rivera 715581 1257618 Pomona 1327657 2340592 Rancho Palos Verdes 623459 1094623 Redondo Beach 782441 1377031 Rolling Hills 0 0 Rolling Hills Estates 102485 172839 Rosemead 575014 1008906 San Dimas 341303 595391 San Fernando 242787 421081 San Gabriel 403610 705632 San Marino 176519 303831 Santa Fe Springs 192500 332107 Santa Monica 1179458 2078377 Sierra Madre 141482 241838 -Signal Hill 97440 163972 South El Monte 234021 405571 South Gate 940072 1654820 South 301523 525005 -Pasadena Temple City 390870 683091 Torrance 1703094 3004871 Vernon 5935 2009 F, Walnut 196335 338891 West Covina 1128466 1988154 f West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier MADERA Chowchilla Madera MARIN Belvedere Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur Mill Valley Novato Ross San Anselmo San Rafael Sausalito Tiburon MARIPOSA MENDOCINO Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits MERCED Atwater Dos Palos Gustine Livingston Los Banos Merced MODOC Alturas MONO Mammoth Lakes MONTEREY Carmel -By -The -Sea Del Rey Oaks Gonzales Greenfield King City Marina Monterey Pacific Grove Salinas Sane. City Seaside Soledad -5- I QRL -AS 5-IQRL-R5 868294 1.48432 892346 65477 270246 36887 118916 103574 158995 178093 601309 42233 166065 602178 106167 122993 78012 10664 171229 60172 224632 45686 44493 71908 138645 508746 40315 101342 60655 23119 43011 59641 80739 318333 343992 192394 1022108 7020 400156 75910 1--' SB290 Allocations 1527820 254135 1570376 127380 557253 53580 190556 164937 257481 289370 996074 62507 269288 997526 169267 197363 125371 10043 284998 94820 423557 78776 76477 129298 257884 970969 74401 155653 106962 35081 73175 105020 148111 611123 649552 359242 1948141 4331 831672 138693 I` 1. -6- - i' l 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations s! NAPA 55116 90357 Calistoga 674092 1201917 :. Napa 68562 114504 E St. Helena 42913 b8444 t Yountville NEVADAF 105181 181027 r m Grass Valley 36236 56638 Nevada City e-: ORANGE 3043137 5200051 Anaheim 418358 707796 '- Brea 851710 1449470 Buena Park 1128045 1922411 Costa Mesa 556950 944994 is Cypress 72299 1229166 Fountain Valley 1398853 2385893 Fullerton 1685255 2876063 £ Garden Grove 2351705 401 6679 € Huntington Beach 995896 1696240 Irvine 2+5617 412154 Laguna Beach ;,23579 1059028 La Habra 212146 354868 J. La Palma 157161 260764 Los Alamitos 865466 1473013 Newport Beach 1272152 2169047 Orange 491403 832811 Placentia 388877 657341 San Clemente 283574 477117 San Juan Capistrano 2911847 4975352 Santa Ana 348821 588786 Seal Beach. 346291 584455 Stanton 529881 898665 Tustin 98042 159581 Villa Park 949658 1617105 Westminster 444201 752026 Yorba Linda A° PLACER 108459 180580 ` Auburn 17815 22673 Colfax 67326 108924 Lincoln 110483 184108 Loomis 113776 189843 Rocklin 357973 615252 Roseville PLUMAS 25494 43850 Portola RIVERSIDE 210613 351074 Banning 103795 168865 Beaumont 103834 168932 Blythe City 202293 336882 a` Cathedral Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Vista SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco SAN JOAQUIN Escalon Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy SAN LUIS OBISPO Arroyo Grande Atascadero E1 Paso De Robles Grover City Morro Bay Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo SAN MATEO Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo So. San Francisco Woodside 5M 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations 938440 1661738 304236 532951 661936 1169602 278182 486578 69025 1219970 1097399 1944660 647217 1143405 11965173 21287654 254810 444980 754410 1334206 530712 936044 8453881 15775803 48129 76521 503610 880924 372219 648881 60311 98035 2142159 3774684 278674 483676 160735 283725 227947 401,018 147490 259625 123327 215661 122531 214212 75728 129053 451487 812749 109467 175917 331360 548861 45084 67708 360013 597021 14506 16312 2092135 1827524 361141 598916 330338 547144 104783 168196 148622 241727 382784 635293 275860 455580' 495178 824196 59862 92545 759307 1268128 475049 790365 347094 575306 1079481 1806256 687675 1147733 76592 120663 SANTA BARBARA Carpinteria Guadalupe Lompoc Santa. Barbara Santa Maria SANTA CLARA Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale SANTA CRUZ Capitola Santa Cruz Scotts Valley Watsonville SHASTA Anderson Redding SIERRA Loyalton SISKIYOU Dorris Dunsmuir Etna Fort Jones Montague Mt. Shasta Tulelake Weed Yreka SOLANO Benecia Dixon Fairfield Rio Vista Suisun -9- 1984-85 SB290 Allocations Allocations 148405 251501 60165 96963 370745 640894 988870 1723442 599608 1041711 453571 7.51089 512573 849838 345382 570018 386544 638908 107603 172036 376663 622371. 556174 922812 51015 77348 259020 425476 828808 1379107 756380 1257886 9122381 15259701 1205524 2009600 405157 670061 1496958 2497361 130437 211847 583366 975566 101836 163620 337453 560912 106452 164715 660997 1063289 15820 25038 15696 19481 32920 50277 .14399 17162 11590 12139 22324 31331 40933 64604 15309 18789 41670 65921 88988 150522 238484 426547 116189 203320 792425 1437664 45268 73867 169995 301533 -10- 1934-85 SB290 Allocations :allocations Vacaville 595014 1077326 Vallejo 1079280 1961264 = SONOMA Cloverdale 58036 95021 Cotati 54922 89464 Healdsburg 101119 171922 _ Petaluma 460330 813085 Rohnert Park 342831 603358 Santa Rosa 1153970 2051175 Sebastopol 79602 133515 Sonoma 90567 153087 STANISLAUS Ceres 212360 364063 Hughson 44164 69046 Modesto 1567860 2741631 Newman 47930 75651 _ Oakdale 121430 204570 _- Patterson 63783 1.03457 Riverbank 84140 139163 Turlock 408812 708643 Waterford 42205 65609 SUTTER Live Oak 48650 82660 Yuba City 247264 457055 -- TEHAMA 67556 114972 Corning Red Bluff 136086 240521 Tehama 9453 8524 TRINITY TULARE Dinuba 135072 f 236260 Exeter 79601 135659 Farmersville 78777 134164 Lindsay 97136 167460 - Portervilie 291148 519317 Tulare 317135 566446 Visalia 706093 1271857 Woodlake 71161 120351 TUOLUMNE 60809 92232 Sonora VENTURA Camarillo 533662 946755 Fillmore 133148 229766 Moorpark 171293 298052 Ojai 97371 165719 J. Oxnard 1513987 2701709 Port Hueneme 252371 443195 _ San Buenaventura 1050421 1871844 Santa Paula Simi Valley Thousand Oaks YOLO Davis Winters Woodland YUBA Marysville Wheatland .w.. -ll- ;l, 1984-85 SB290 Allucatiuns AllucatioiIs 282363 496887 1057763 1884988 1173970 2093019 474172 864387 42063 68622 400472 727925 149205 233159 27176 36129