AgdaPkt 2002-02-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Public Comment: Rudy Luca asked if the procedure had been revised recently. City Attorney Yamamoto stated that the outlined procedure follow State Law and is not a matter of local law. B. Legislation - This sub-section involves possible discussion of City Position on Proposed Legislation Described in the League of California Cities Priority Focus Bulletin No. 04-2002. Council may direct staff to act on positions taken by Council. (Copies of League of California Cities Priority Focus available in City Clerk's Department). i) Support for Proposition 42 City Manager Everett explained that Proposition 42 is a redistribution of current sales taxes on gasoline. The distribution would be 20% to the Cities, 20% to Counties, 20% to public transit agencies and 40% to the State for the STIP (Capital Projects). The League of California Cities endorses the Proposition and it clearly defines where the money should be directed. Council Member Jordan clarified that this assures gas tax dollars are applied to transportation purposes only. M/S HarmeWRuskin to RESOLUTION 14413 OF SUPPORT FOR CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION 42, THE TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT ACT, ON THE MARCH 5, 2002 STATEWIDE BALLOT The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote. ii) Opposition to Assembly Bill 680 City Manager Everett stated that Assembly Bill 680 is legislation that pertains to a very limited area, the greater Sacramento area. In this particular instance, if it were to pass the State Senate and the Governor signs it, the State Legislature would have enormous authority over the distribution of sales tax. M/S Howard/Pierce to adopt RESOLUTION 14414 OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 680- REALLOCATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX REVENUES The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote. iil) Assembly Bill 1823 (Council Member Howard) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2002 MINUTES PAGE 4