Laserfiche WebLink
A-7 <br />FLIP - FLOP from page 8 . .. ... .... ... .. .. ... .... ... . ... . .. . ... ... . . .. . <br />suggest the plan would hold cities and counties <br />harmless from any financial impact if property tax <br />revenues do not keep up with the growth of sales <br />tax revenues. Veteran lobbyists and experience <br />suggest the legislature could do the swap without <br />any compensation. <br />While it is difficult to react to such a concep- <br />tual proposal without any details, the League's <br />concerns about the idea are based on the follow- <br />ing: <br />The Trust Issue. Past experience with <br />the state gives city officials every reason to be <br />dubious and concerned. In another so-called <br />"temporary" shift in the early 1990s known as the <br />ERAF "shift", state officials began the process of <br />"borrowing" funds that have never been paid back. <br />Cities have lost over $6 billion in property tax <br />funds since the raid started. Each year cities <br />contribute over $800 million to this account —and <br />it grows every year. It will total about $6.9 billion at <br />the end of FY 2003 -04. <br />It's More Complicated Than They <br />Think. The League's opposition to a similar idea <br />this session in AB 1221 (Steinberg - Campbell) was <br />based on the absence of a constitutional amend- <br />ment protecting local revenues and the long list of <br />unintended consequences from the bill that <br />needed careful study. The work of the League's <br />technical study committee on this bill over the last <br />month underscores further just how difficult <br />properly drafting such a measure would be if it is <br />jammed in at the last minute as part of a budget <br />deal. Serious mistakes could be made in the <br />process, putting future city revenues at risk. <br />Constitutional Protection Essential. <br />This measure underscores the importance of <br />constitutional protection of local revenues. <br />natural inclination will be to reject any plan that <br />uses local revenues to finance state government <br />operations. The state has never faced tougher <br />fiscal times, however, and legislators need to know <br />they are doing a good job representing community <br />interests when they fight to keep local tax funds <br />local. <br />ACTION: Thank your legislators for their <br />strong support of cities in the past, and tell them <br />you are seriously concerned about this type of <br />proposal because of past experience with ERAF. <br />Cities have put their budgets to bed and each <br />dollar is critical to paying for local services. <br />SB 440 from page 3 ............ • .. . <br />ment on economic issues with city or county <br />negotiators. SB 402 required that the arbitrator's <br />decision would be binding on the local govern- <br />ment. The Supreme Court said that this require- <br />ment was unconstitutional, because it delegated <br />decisions about a city's finances to a private parry <br />and interfered with counties' (and, by implication, <br />charter cities') plenary authority over employee <br />compensation. <br />SB 440 attempts to address these flaws by <br />making the arbitrators' award subject to reversal <br />by a unanimous vote of the governing body. There <br />is a narrow exception for charter cities and coun- <br />ties with contrary language "with respect to rejec- <br />tion of an arbitration award." <br />City officials should vigorously oppose this bill <br />as yet one more outrageous effort by the state to <br />undermine the fiscal independence of California <br />cities and counties. The state's sluggish economy <br />means that most California cities are struggling <br />now to maintain public safety and other essential <br />services. The governor's and several legislative <br />budget proposals would slash funding for local <br />programs, and raid local revenues to balance the <br />state's budget. <br />Contact Your Legislatorsl <br />We urge city officials to contact their state <br />legislators with these messages and express <br />similar concerns. Many state legislators have <br />roots in city or county governments, and their <br />No legislator who professes to care about <br />protection of public safety and other local services <br />should vote for this bill. Urge a NO vote on this <br />bill. (Visit the League's Advocacy Center at <br />www.cacities.ora /advocacvicenter for talking points <br />that you can use in a letter or in a discussion with <br />your legislator.) <br />PAGE 10 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org <br />