My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2004-05-10
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2004
>
AgdaPkt 2004-05-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:45:31 PM
Creation date
5/6/2004 3:32:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
5/10/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
225
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
<br /> " , - , <br /> \o.A-3 <br /> A mNTION CITIES WITH WILLIAMSON ACT LAND: AS 1820 MAY AFFECT YOU... <br /> " <br /> S8 1820 (Machado) cancels the existing city good policy and should not have been terminated in <br /> protest mechanism for contracts that were 1991. It makes little sense for the county to be enter- <br /> entered into within one mile of a city'sboundary, ing into contracts to tie up a~lriculturallands on a city's <br /> prior to January 1, 1991. In addition, this mea- border, when that action impedes the timely develop- <br /> sure provides the Department of Conservation ment of that land for housing alld other needs of the <br /> with authority to determine that the current fair state's growing population. This is especially truE! for <br /> market valuations are inaccurate, as specified. cities, because they only annex land with the approval <br /> The League is on record in opposition to S8 of LAFCO in areas that are designated for future city <br /> 1820. development. <br /> Prior to 1991, the Williamson Act contained a S8 1820 was approved by the Senate Local <br /> provision that authorized a city to file a protest Government CDmmittBe and the measure is now <br /> with LAFCO when the county entered into a pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. <br /> Williamson Act contract within a mile of the city's Interested cities should go on record in opposition to <br /> boundary. Williamson Act contracts are vol un- the bill by contacting their IBgislators and the Chair of <br /> tary agreements between a local government the Senate Appropriations Committee. Visit <br /> and a landowner. In exchange for agreeing to www cacities ora/advocacvcenter to find your legislator. <br /> continue to use the land for agricultural pur- <br /> poses for ten years, the property owner pays a LOCAl LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS ARE <br /> reduced amount of property tax. The local <br /> government is reimbursed fDr a portion of its JUST TWO WEEKS AWAY! <br /> property tax losses by the state. Contracts are <br /> annually self-renewing for ten-year periods, but This year, more than eVBr, you can have a real <br /> may be "non-renewed" by either party. When a influence in shaping the ongoing budget negotia- <br /> -' contract is non-renewed, the contract winds tions with the Administration and Legislature. <br /> down over a ten-year period. Property owners LOCAL Legislative Action Days gives city <br /> may only "cancel" their contract if significant officials an opportunity to: <br /> findings can be made, and the property owner <br /> pays various penalties. . Leam about the ongoing and active discus- <br /> If a city filed a valid protest priDrto 1991, the sions with the Administration and the Legislature to <br /> affected Williamson Act contract may be can- prevent the proposed $1.3 billion raid of additional <br /> celled immediately by the city upon annexation, local govemment property taxes. <br /> without waiting for the ten-year wind down period . Carry our message and call-to-action to <br /> to occur or requiring the payment of penalties. legislative offices to help shape an equitable <br /> Agricultural land preservation groups and the budget package that ensures long-term protection <br /> Department of Conservation typically raise of local revenues. <br /> objections when cities exercise their "protest" . ParticipatB in media events and other <br /> cancellation authority. The League is concerned activities to show 10cailBaders are united in our <br /> with this legislation because it terminates the efforts to protect local services. <br /> protest authority after January 1, 2006. . Hear from key statewide electBd officials <br /> As far as the League is concerned, the LOCAL Legislative Action Days will take place <br /> Legislature should not terminate the legislative WednBsday & Thursday, May 12-13, 2004 at the <br /> options that were in place for cities that filed ShBraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento. Regis- <br /> valid protests prior to 1991. Those cities took ter online today at www.calocal.orQ or if you <br /> advantage of the laws that were in effect at the have any questions, plBase contact MBghan MeisBI <br /> time, and the state should keep its side of the at 916-443-0872 or at <br /> bargain. Furthermore, the protest process was mmeisel@'bickerassDCiates.com <br /> -' <br /> <br /> Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUSIPAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.