AgdaPkt 2003-07-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Flo / v FA Ad SEEFOR YOURSELF from page 1.0 0 48600609600661166 .... 6 .............. "See for Yourself" is the message the LOCAL coalition sent out this week to the press, the legislature and the administration to underscore the extent to which the budget proposals remain unfair to local governments. Here are the facts. State funding for local government represents less than one percent (.7 %) of state general fund expenditures. The Governor's May Revision included total spending reductions of $18 billion. Based on the May Revise, we've estimated that a proportionate cut/ reduction to local government would be $130,000,000. Budget —What's Next? As mentioned above, the Senate Republicans Caucus has just finished a list of proposed amendments to the Senate Democratic proposal (AB 1769 and additional associated bills). The amendments are not yet in print, but the primary differences that seem to affect cities are a pro- posal to restore full funding to both COPS and booking fees. The "raid" of the VLF backfill and the $250 million shift from redevelopment funds to ERAF remain in the amended bills. These amend- ments are expected to be debated in the Senate early next week. To date there have been a number of different budget proposals including the Governor's May revision, the Senate Democratic plan (June), the Assembly Democratic plan (June), the Assembly bi- partisan plan (also known as the Canciamilla/ Richman plan), the Assembly Republican plan (debated and defeated July 6), and the Senate Republican plan (comprised of amendments to the newly introduced Senate Democratic plan, and expected to be debated next week). All of these plans include cuts and /or reductions to local government funding in fiscal year 2003 -04 of between $500 million and $2 billion. All of these proposals would balance the state's budget problems on the backs of local governments in a disproportionate manner —as high as 130 times on a proportional basis. The attached chart illustrates just how dispro- portionate the cuts are on local services. The League of California Cities, and our LOCAL coalition partners continue to inform legislators, press, editorial boards, and our mem- bers about the severe impact that cuts of these magnitudes would have on local services, in addition to the clear disproportionality of the proposed cuts. We encourage local officials to continue to share these messages with your legislators, and the local press by sending them a copy of the LOCAL press release (available at www.cacities.org /budget). The Assembly Republican Plan made public last week was debated in the Assembly on Sun- day, July 6. After hours of debate, it was defeated on party lines, with a few Republicans and Demo- crats either not present or not voting. There is no indication of what the next step is going to be in the Assembly. The widely reported proposal to create some sort of "swap" of local sales taxes for property taxes has not yet materialized in any formal format or printed form. While it's unclear whether this proposal will move forward as part of the debate, the League continues to express deep concerns about the rumored options. There are strong rumors that the sales tax "swap" proposal is gaining support. (See "Tough Questions You Should Ask Your Legislators. ") Another proposal under consideration. One would include eliminating the VLF back from the time the trigger was pulled, until the October 1 implementation of the full vehicle license fee (the "gap "). While details on this proposal are sketchy, the proposal under consid- eration would provide that if the "gap" revenues are not funded in the current budget year, they must be repaid by August 15, 2006 at the present value amount. There would also be a hardship provision for local government agencies that are unduly burdened. Continued on Page 11 PAGE 8 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org