My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-09-22
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-09-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:16:15 PM
Creation date
9/18/2003 3:06:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/22/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
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
U -1s <br />KEY BILLS from page 2 • <br />Under this proposal, presumably a city that is <br />experiencing a higher amount of property tax <br />growth than sales tax growth would get greater <br />revenues *an what the triple -flip currently offers — <br />a dollar- for - dollar replacement of sales tax with <br />property taxes. The funding source for this mea- <br />sure would come from draining funds away from <br />enterprise special districts. It also required that the <br />city or county that wanted to take advantage of this <br />provision first have an approved housing element. A <br />number of cities were very concerned that this <br />measure may set a bad precedent for future legisla- <br />tion, making this triple -flip or variations on the triple - <br />flip permanent. After many ups and downs, this <br />measure was defeated soundly. <br />Local Sales Tax Authority ( 566 — Scott). <br />One of the session highlights was the passage of <br />SB 566 which gives all cities the authority to ask <br />local voters to raise local sales taxes and raises the <br />previous sales tax cap for each county from 1 and <br />cent to 2 cents. Currently, there are a handful of <br />cities that have secured special legislation to permit <br />the enactment of a local sales tax in the city. If <br />signed by the Governor, this legislation would now <br />give that authority to all cities. The authority is, of <br />course, subject to all Propositions 218 and 13 <br />requirements. <br />Cities were instrumental in ensuring that this <br />legislation applied to all cities in California. Initially, <br />the legislation applied only to those cities whose <br />legislators added themselves as co- sponsors of the <br />bill Opposition by their legislator would have <br />excluded a city from participating in this option. <br />Thanks in large part to the persistence of cities <br />themselves, the author was asked by leadership to <br />change the legislation to apply universally, to all <br />California cities. <br />disability benefits are not taxable. Local agencies' <br />experience is that this law has worked to prolong <br />recoveries, and prevented the agencies from fillino <br />critical positions left open by officers on this 1 -year <br />disability leave. <br />Early last week AB 1362 (Wiggins) was <br />amended to extend this 1 -year benefit to 2 years. <br />This measure was defeated in the Senate. A <br />number of fire chiefs, police chiefs, finance direc- <br />tors, human resources directors and other city <br />officials attending the Annual Conference lobbied <br />heavily to defeat the measure. <br />Workers' Compensation. Perhaps the key <br />focus of the Legislature during the final month of <br />the legislative session was the development of a <br />package to cut the soaring costs of workers' com- <br />pensation coverage to both private and public <br />sector employers. Work in the last week of the <br />session focused on reducing medical treatment <br />costs through fee caps and service reductions. <br />This measure has been sent to the Governor and <br />he is expected to sign the legislation. <br />Universal Employer Health Care Coverage. <br />Coupled politically with the workers' compensation <br />package is this proposal to provide "universal <br />health care coverage" by requiring employers to <br />provide health care benefits for employees. The <br />measure applies to all large employers (defined as <br />employers with 200 or more employees) on January <br />1, 2006; and, medium employers (defined as <br />employers with 20 to 199 employees) on January 1, <br />2007. Medium employers with 20 to 49 employees <br />will be given an exemption, unless a specified tax <br />credit for those employers is passed before that <br />date. Employers with less than 20 employees would <br />not be covered by the requirements of SB 2. <br />Cities are encouraged to convey their support <br />to the Governor to sign this legislation. <br />Employee Relations/Workers' Compensation <br />Public Safety Officer Disability (4850 Time). <br />Under current law, local public safety officers can <br />receive up to 1 year of full pay in lieu of temporary <br />disability benefits if they are temporarily injured on <br />the job. This actually results in the officers receiving <br />more money off than on the fob, because the <br />For cities, the primary impact may be on part- <br />time employees who are not now covered by a <br />health insurance plan. We understand that the <br />intent is to narrow the application of the legislation <br />to only those employees who are truly without any <br />insurance coverage. This would be accomplished <br />through the adoption of regulations. <br />For strategic reasons, the League chose to <br />focus most of its efforts on the workers' compensa- <br />tion package, and to devote less effort to SB 2. <br />Continued on Page 4 <br />Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE'S <br />.... ............................... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.