AgdaPkt 2002-07-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

STEINBERG LOCAL SALES TAX MEASURE PUT OVER UNTIL JULY 3 In a marathon Senate Local Government hearing AB 680 becomes inoperative if eLI cities in the Sacra- on Wednesday, the Committee, amon9 other actions, mento region enter into e tax revenue sbarin9 agree- debated the merits and demerits of AB §80 by Darrell merit. Steiober9 (Sacramento). This bill proposes to redistrib- ute the local sales tax in the Sacramento region and There was a flood of testimony at the hearing dedicate the amount redistributed to regional priorities,from both proponents and opponents. In the end, there It is a very high profile bill with implications for local were insufficient votes to secure passage. Both sales collections in all cities throughout the state. Senators Machado and Soto expressed reservations about the bill and were unable to support it. Senators Recent amendments to the bill do the following: Margett and Ackermanjoined them. 1. Require the State Board of Equalization to allocate There was no vote taken on the bill and it has the growth in local sales tax revenues to the qualified been scheduled for another hearing on July 3~d. Prior to counties and qualified cities as follows: the hearing on Wednesday, there was considerable negotiating between the author and Sacramento area a. One-third based on the standard situs method, local governments. Negotiations may resume now that the bill does not appear to have the votes for passage. b. One-third based on the counties and cities' relative populations. Please stay yigilant on this bill. It is still very much alive and capable of moving in the Senate. c. One-third based on the standard "situs" method Thanks to all the city officials that came to Sacra- (the city or county in which the sale occurs), except formento to testify on Wednesday! counties and cities that are "not housing eligible." 2. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) would receive the funds from local jurisdic- tions that are "not housing eli~lible"and could allocate those revenues to qualified cities and counties AR 680 CORRECTION to fund regional projects that include: regional transpor- Please note that the current version of ration projects, transit oriented development, infill AB 680 differs from a description sent out by development, jobs-housing balance development, the League through a FAX to all cities on mixed-use development, quality of lice projects, open Tuesday, June 18% The FAX described the bill as space acquisition, housing development, redevelopment it was analyzed by the Senate Local Government projects and other land use projects. Committee and was proposed to be amended by the author. The amendments contained a corn- 3, A '1bolls#lo_ elio_ible" city or county is defined as pletely different definition of "not housing any local entity that is in compliance with the housing eligible"than the one outlined above. The author element in its general plan. changed the amendments just before the hearing due to last minute negotiations with some of the 4. AB 680 is inoperative between 2001-02 and 2009-10 local government entities in the Sacramento region. if the Legislature either 1) shifts more property tax The now in the bill requires compliance with state revenue from cities and counties in the greater Sacra- mento region to ERAF, or 2) decreases the amount of housing element law to be "housing eligible." VLF revenue to cities and counties in the greater Sacramento region. Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3