My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-06-27
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-06-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2005 3:45:38 PM
Creation date
6/23/2005 4:04:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
6/27/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
250
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />;7'A-~ <br /> <br />BUDGET UPDATE from page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />Democrats portrayed SB 77 as "the governor's Mandates for reconsideration. , <br />budgee suggesting that it is only 2 percent different Open Meetings Act mandate. Makes <br />than his May revision proposal. Republicans changes to elements of the law to allow any stat- <br />countered by suggesting that the increased spend- utes of law that are defined as necessary to 8imple- <br />ing above the May revise has just added more to ment" a voter-approved proposition to be exempt <br />the state's ongoing, operating deficit. from " state reimbursement as a mandate, and <br />subsequently makes changes to the procedures <br />under the Open Meetings Act that are currently a <br />reimbursable mandate that define them as neces- <br />sary to implement Proposition 59 as passed by the <br />voters last November. The state indicates that this <br />removes future obligations of the state to reimburse <br />locals for these procedures (language and full <br />details on mandate actions is not yet available. We <br />will provide updates to members on these items in <br />the future). <br />. Mandates. Fully fund many reimbursable <br />mandates for 04-05 claims (exact list is not yet <br />available). Provides 05-06 funding for some man- <br />dates and based funding on estimated claims less <br />25 percent to account for an increase in audits and <br />subsequent savings. Defers funding on other <br />reimbursable mandates. The full list of mandates <br />and funding levels are available on the League's <br />website. <br /> <br />Republican Assembly members also expressed <br />concerns about the budget conference committee's <br />decision to eliminate the early repayment of one- <br />half of the VLF gap loan to local governments. <br />They talked about the impact the action would have <br />on front line public safety, how it adds to the oper- <br />ating budget next year, and how it "turns our back" <br />on local governments. Instead of the early repay- <br />ment of close to $600 million, the conference <br />committee set-aside $25 million that could be used <br />to help out cities and counties who have a 8hard- <br />ship" without the early repayment of the VLF gap <br />loan, as well as cities and special districts experi- <br />encing 8hardship" due to the lack of booking fee <br />subventions. The Department of Finance is <br />charged with determining what 8hardship" means <br />and who qualifies. That process has not yet begun <br />- we will inform members when details become <br />available, <br /> <br />Following the budget vote, Assembly members <br />discussed AB 6 - a bill that would raise the tax rates <br />on upper income taxpayers and which, Democrats <br />hoped, would help fund education into the future <br />(although it is currently written to benefit the state <br />general fund), <br /> <br />The Assembly remains on the call of the chair <br />through the weekend with their next session sched- <br />uled for noon Monday. The Senate will be ready to <br />meet upon the call of the chair on Monday. <br /> <br />Other items contained in the currently proposed <br />budget include: <br />Proposition 42. Full funding of Proposition <br />42 (transportation) in the 2005-06 fiscal year, <br />including $254 million for local streets and roads. <br />ERAF shift. $1.3 billion ERAF shift from <br />cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment <br />associations to the state as agreed to in the Propo- <br />sition 1 A agreement. <br />Police Officer's Bill of Rights (POBAR) <br />mandate. Removes recommended funding of the <br />Police Officer's Bill of Rights mandate and refers <br />the mandate back to the Commission on State <br /> <br />THE LEAGUE'S POSITION <br /> <br />The League appreciates and supports the <br />Legislature's commitment to fully fund Prop. <br />42, providing sorely needed help for locals for <br />street and road maintenance. <br /> <br />While the League supports the Budget Confer- <br />ence Committee's recommendation to allocate <br />$25 million for VLF and booking fee hardship <br />cases, we oppose the committee's elimination <br />of the early repayment of half of the 2003 VLF <br />gap loan. These funds would help pay for <br />much-needed services in cities that are still <br />recovering from the recent economic downturn <br />- and which in both the current fiscal year and <br />next year will contribute a portion of the $350 <br />million ($700 million total) that all California <br />cities will contribute to help the state resolve its <br />budget problems. <br /> <br />The state is obligated by statute to repay the <br />full $1.1 billion amount of the VLF gap loan in <br />August 2006. The League will continue to work <br />for this repayment. <br /> <br />PAGE 2IPRIORITY FOCUS <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Websiteuwww.cacities.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.