Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 9A <br /> NEED FISCAL INFORMATION STATE SUPREME COURT RULES ON Page 2 <br /> ABOUT CITIES? VISIT AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITY TO <br /> CALlFORN IACITYFINANCE.COM MITIGATE CEQA IMPACTS <br />The League's fiscal consultant, Michael The California Supreme Court has held that a <br />Coleman, maintains a very useful website state agency that proposes a project that will have <br />(www.califomiacil;yfinance.com) packed with impacts outside that agency's jurisdiction must still <br />information about how cities are financed. Recent identify mitigation measures to address those <br />updates to the site include the following: impacts. <br /> This case involved the California State Univer- <br />. Revenue Histories of Cities. Updated sity, Monterey Bay, and its expansion plan adopted <br />with the recently released FY 2003-04 figures from in anticipation of increased student enrollment. <br />the State Controller. You'll find summaries of The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for <br />general revenues, sales tax, property tax, property this plan identified environmental impacts on <br />transfer tax, transit occupancy tax (TOT), busi- surrounding public agencies. But the EIR did not <br />ness license tax (BLT), and more. For examples impose mitigation measures to address these <br />visit www.californiacitvfinance.com. impacts. Instead the CSU Trustees found that (1) <br /> the improvements needed were the responsibility of <br />. Transportation Funding. A new section other agencies, (2) the Trustees could not legally <br />with tutorials on the various sources of funding contribute to these improvements, and as such, <br />and "where your gas tax goes," explanation of the mitigation was infeasible, and (3) the expansion <br />"spillover, n etc. Also, estimated allocations by city had overriding benefits that outweighed any unmiti- <br />for Prop. 42, Prop. 1 B, etc. gated environmental impacts. <br />. Votes. Local tax results frOm the June The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that <br /> the Trustees must identify mitigation measures in <br />2006 election and other recent elections. Also, a the EIR for environmental impacts outside of its <br />new summary of popular local add-on sales tax jurisdiction. Further, the court held that payment of <br />(transactions and use tax) votes that also explains a pro rata fee to the agency responsible for con- <br />what this tax is and how it differs from the basic structing an improvement to mitigate an identified <br />sales tax - and a piece on countywide Transporta- impact may be an appropriate and feasible mitiga- <br />tion Sales taxes. tion measure. <br />. State Budget. Updated comparisons of The case is City of Marina st aJ. v. Board of <br />state & local government employment and Trustees of the California State University, 2006 WL <br />finances, Top Myths about cities, the state budget 2099943. The League would like to thank Manuela <br />and links to key documents. Albuquerque, City Attorney and Zach Cowan, <br /> Assistant City Attorney for the City of Berkeley for <br />. Coming Soon: Data on police staffing by drafting the friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of <br />city (numbers, per capita, etc.) and spending the League. <br />histories (police, fire. parks, streets, etc.) ItC LAUNCHES WEBstrrE ~)lBWSW1RS; <br />Michael welcomes comments and feedback. fie' lh.${iMe fQt L()~ Government (ItG1 <br />If you would like to provide him input on the site, ba$ jij$t: launched. an~ W,ebs,te:J~~g~ tha~ wi <br />you can reach him at coleman@cal.net. ftlak& it a IQt ea$ier to' keep, up With l1ew {:f~veJ:' <br /> oprnerlt$; To' Che'C~ out IlG'.s latestatUV':lti;e:Si <br /> Please V{sft'~;tadlo;,orQ/newswire by cb_ng <br /> Oft till. . 6" k 0=:-> . tin the address to. yQ\tf <br /> _ IS. fI r pas _ 9 . . .... ... ..' .. <br /> bt~i . <br />PAGE 2 . PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Website-www.cacities.org <br />August 4, 2006 . Issue #31 <br />