My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-05-05
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-05-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:28:22 PM
Creation date
5/1/2003 1:49:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
5/5/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
q.44 <br />BUDGETfrompage6••a•• fee fee fee* 0 <br />Action Days May 14.15 <br />Stay tuned to the League for future updates, <br />and be sure to attend the LOCAL Legislative <br />Action Days in Sacramento May 14 —15. This is <br />an especially critical 2-day session due to the fact <br />that the Governor's May budget revision will be <br />announced on the 14 and that the League will <br />hold a Special Membership Meeting to discuss <br />fiscal reform options on the 15 ". To sign up, go to <br />www.cacities.org. <br />For full.details on the Assembly April package, <br />go to www.cacfties.org/budget, <br />.................... <br />CONTACT YOUR ASSEMBLY MEMBER TODAY <br />ABOUT THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET PROPOSAL <br />The legislature is faced with some very difficult budget <br />choices, but the package released by the Speaker's Office <br />again raids local revenues to balance the budget. City <br />officials are strongly urged to contact their Assembly <br />Member today and make the following points: <br />• City General Revenues Should Not Be Raided. City <br />officials recognize the Assembly budget plan is not as <br />draconian as the one submitted by the Governor, but no <br />budget plan should rely on city general tax revenues <br />(property, sales, VLF, etc.) to balance the state budget. This <br />one clearly does by taking $250 million in funds from cities <br />when the state general fund (SGF) only allocates $226 million <br />to cities in the current fiscal year. Under the Assembly plan, <br />the SGF payments to cities will shrink to $188 million next <br />fiscal year with the elimination of the booking fee <br />reimbursement. . <br />WRITING LETTERS ON BILLS <br />The League wishes to thank all of those <br />cities that send letters in response to requests <br />for letters in Priority Focus. We want to <br />remind those who write such letters of two <br />vital format rules. <br />1. Always note the bill number and your <br />city's position as a subject line, below the <br />salutation, preferably in bold, e.g. "Subject: <br />SB 123 (Author) — OPPOSE ". Do NOT bury <br />the bill number and position in the text of the <br />letter. The idea is to make it easy for the <br />recipient to see what bill the letter references <br />and what your city's position is. <br />2. One letter, one bill. Only include your <br />city's position for one bill in a letter. Don't <br />succumb to the urge to save paper and a tree <br />by combining positions on numerous bills in <br />one letter. Legislative offices file letters by bill <br />number, so your position on the second <br />through fifth bill may not get registered. <br />• Plan Increases Net City Support of State by 53% <br />in One Year. In the budget year (2003 -04), the ERAF <br />property tax shift from cities will automatically grow an <br />additional S48 trillion (totaling $827 millionlyear). After <br />factoring in this growth and offsetting it with the remaining <br />state general fund categorical and Prop. 172 sales tax <br />payments to cities, the Assembly Democrat package would <br />increase the "contribution" by cities to the SGF from $489 <br />trillion in 2002 -03 to $747 million in 2003 -04. This is a $258 <br />million (or 53 %) increase in one year. In addition, local <br />governments are being asked to continue `loaning" the state <br />over $769 million by deferring payments owed on state- <br />funded mandates. <br />• City Budgets Are Already Being Slashed Due to <br />the Economic Downturn. The economic downturn has <br />resulted in declines or no growth in many city general <br />revenues. The result has been budget cuts or freezes and <br />reductions in community services (give specific examples for <br />your city). The state should not use city property tax, VLF <br />or other general fund revenues to fund its budget. <br />• Redevelopment and Public Safety Are Critical to <br />the State. The proposed raid of $100 million in <br />redevelopment funds and reduction of $38 million in booking <br />fee funds strike at the heart of the ability of cities to create <br />jobs, build affordable housing, and protect the public. These <br />cuts should be opposed. <br />Constitutional Protection. If, after all other options <br />have been exhausted, the Legislature concludes it has no <br />choice but to raid city general revenues, it should limit these <br />to a one -time raid, and place a constitutional amendment on <br />the ballot that would seriously restrict its ability to ever do <br />so in the future. <br />Visit the League's Official Web ite " "www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.