Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10A <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />AS 1254 from page 1 .. .. e '" .. '" '" .. . .. .. co .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. <I; .. .. .. .. .. .. "' !If .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. '" .. <br /> <br />A common complaint among local offlciafs is that <br />the revenue derived from housing often fails to match <br />local service costs. One area where this situation is <br />particularly acute is when local governments approve <br />affordable units operated by nonprofifs. These units <br />typically pay no property taxes, because the state <br />grants a "welfare exemption" for these units pursuant <br />to subdivision (t) or (g) of Section 214 Revenue and <br />Taxation Code. <br /> <br />Sponsored by the League of California Cities, AB <br />1254 provides a solution. The bill would reward <br />"good actor" communities by offsetting what they <br />lose on property tax on any new affordable units <br />approved after January 1, 2008. <br /> <br />VVhile the property tax exemption provided to <br />nonprofit operators of affordable housing develop- <br />ments promotes affordable housing policy byassist- <br />ing in maintaining units at affordable rents, local <br />governments are left with no property tax revenue to <br />provide police, fire, park, recreation, library and other <br />services to residents of these units. <br /> <br />For local governments, this loss of revenue can <br />operate as a disincentive to approve affordable units. <br />But even when these units are approved, it can <br />produce undesirable effects: agencies are faced <br />with reducing community services, transferring <br />revenues from other public priorities, or chasing retail <br />tax dollars. <br /> <br />AS 1254 reduces the required local transfers of <br />property tax for (ERAF) education purposes by an <br />identical amount. This would allow these corrmunj.. <br />ties to retain more property tax at the local level to <br />provide services to the residents of affordable <br />housing. <br /> <br />This measure is patterned after SB 1509 (Dunn) <br />of 2001 , which received significant bipartisan sup- <br />port, but was vetoed by Gov. Gray Davis. A sunset <br />date is also included in AB 1254 so that the State <br />Legislature may property evaluate the effectiveness <br />of this law in rewarding communities approving <br />affordable units. <br /> <br />VYhile AS 1254 has taken one step forward by <br />passing through the Assembly Local Government <br /> <br />Committee, the real work to have it appear on Gov. <br />Schwarzenegger's desk is just beginning. Cities are <br />encouraged to send letters supporting this bill. To <br />look up more infonnation on the measure and <br />access a sample letter, visit www.cacities.orgl <br />billsearch. <br /> <br />. . e # . . 0 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . . . <br /> <br />AB 1654 from page 1 <br /> <br />Voting by mail has increased steadily in Califor- <br />nia for more than 40 years. Providing a proper <br />addition to the institutionalized "Ballot Casting at <br />the Polls. for general law cities is a way to increase <br />voter turnout and to cut costs of elections for cities <br />and counties. <br /> <br />This is one of the major reasons that local <br />government entities such as the League, the <br />California state Association of Counties (CSAC), <br />the California Association of County Election <br />Officers (CACEO) and the City Clerks Association <br />of California (CCAC) all support AS 1654. <br /> <br />The league has met with labor, community <br />based organizations, civil rights groups and mem- <br />bers on both sides of the aisle to gather input and <br />continue to educate on how cities are losing money <br />on the current ballot system. The larger the voting <br />pool, the more diverse the opinion. Does it really <br />matter if a vote comes from the voting booth or via <br />mail? <br /> <br />States such as Oregon have benefited from all- <br />mail ballots. Oregon's voter turnout in 2002 was <br />the fifth-highest in the nation and by 2004 they <br />were the fourth-highest - a savings of 30 percent <br />in election related costs. AS 1654 is good public <br />policy that is in need of local government support. <br /> <br />Letters of support for AS 1654 can be sent to <br />Assemblyman Huffman at: <br /> <br />The Honorable Jared Huffman <br />State Capitol Building, Room 4139 <br />Sacramento, CA 95814 <br />RE: Support AS 1654 (Huffman) <br /> <br />Please remember to copy League Legislative <br />Representative P. Anthony Thomas and your Iocaf <br />assembly member on the letter. Thomas can be <br />reached at athomas@cacities.org. <br /> <br />PAGE 4 . PRIORITY FOCUS <br />April 13, 2007 . Issue #14 <br /> <br />Visit the League's OffIdal Webslte-www.cacitles.org <br />