Laserfiche WebLink
9.A/ <br />ruary 28, 2003 <br />Issue #8 -2003 <br />Page 3 BUDGET QUOTES FROM THE PRESS <br />Page 5 BUDGET UPDATE <br />Page 6 PROP. 46 HOUSING WORKSHOPS <br />Page 7 LOCAL UPDATE <br />Page 8 NEW "G.O.A.L" TO PROTECT LOCAL SERVICES <br />Page 11 LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES <br />ATTACHMENTS: CITIES ARE NET DONORS TO THE STATE <br />NLC CONGRESSIONAL CITIES CONFERENCE SCHEDULE OF <br />EVENTS <br />SENATE REPUBLICANS UNVEIL PROPOSED BUDGET PACKAGE <br />NEGOTIATIONS APPEAR OFF AND RUNNING <br />Hot Bills <br />On Wednesday evening, February 26, the Senate Republicans offered a <br />Act Now <br />budget package to resolve the deficit identified by the Governor in the release <br />• ■ • <br />of his January 10" budget proposal. The centerpiece of the Senate Republican <br />■ <br />proposal according to their press release is that the proposal "minimizes <br />There are no Hot <br />financial harm to local governments and contains no tax or fee increase. For <br />■ Bills at this time. <br />more, see page 4. <br />CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DRAWS LINE IN <br />SUBDIVISION CASE <br />Lost in the discussion of the budget and housing issues of recent weeks <br />■ <br />was an important legal victory relating to the Subdivision Map Act. A recurring <br />: <br />question was the extent to which local agencies must recognize "antiquated <br />■ <br />subdivisions" or parcels created prior the 1893, the year the Subdivision Map <br />: <br />Act was adopted. The potential for such lots wreaking havoc on local planning <br />• <br />efforts is significant. One estimate places the total number of such lots at <br />■ <br />400,000 state wide. For more, see page 2. <br />■ <br />.................. <br />AS YOU SUSPECTED: CITIES ARE NET DONORS TO THE STATE <br />■ <br />"Local government shared in the state's good times; now they have to <br />: <br />share in the pain." This assertion has been made by numerous state officials <br />since December, when the Governor issued his first proposals to cut city and <br />■ <br />county services in order to balance the state budget. But the assertion is <br />: <br />wrong. Looking at the past four years, and under generous assumptions of <br />Want more details on <br />what constituted state "gives" to local government, cities are clearly net <br />these and other bills? <br />donors to the state, providing more funding through the ongoing ERAF shift of <br />Log on to the League of <br />property taxes than they received in state funding for all programs. To view <br />California Cities web site <br />charts illustrating this point, please see the attachments at the end of this <br />at www.cacities.org and <br />issue of Priority Focus. <br />click on Legislative <br />Advocacy. <br />Page 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PANEL ON STATE BUDGET <br />GET GRANTS! <br />Page 3 BUDGET QUOTES FROM THE PRESS <br />Page 5 BUDGET UPDATE <br />Page 6 PROP. 46 HOUSING WORKSHOPS <br />Page 7 LOCAL UPDATE <br />Page 8 NEW "G.O.A.L" TO PROTECT LOCAL SERVICES <br />Page 11 LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES <br />ATTACHMENTS: CITIES ARE NET DONORS TO THE STATE <br />NLC CONGRESSIONAL CITIES CONFERENCE SCHEDULE OF <br />EVENTS <br />