Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />(PA - 3 <br />RESOLUTION No. <br />RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PLACEMENT OF THE <br />"LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY <br />PROTECTION ACT" INITIATIVE ON THE NOVEMBER 2, <br />2004 STATEWIDE BALLOT, REQUIRING VOTER <br />APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY <br />CONFISCATE LOCAL TAX FUNDS <br />WHEREAS, the State of California annually seizes $824 million of city <br />property tax funds (ERAF), seriously reducing resources available for vital local <br />services such as public safety; and <br />WHEREAS, in adopting the FY 2003 -04 state budget the Legislature and <br />Governor confiscated a portion of the local vehicle license fee "backfill" and <br />redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance critical city services <br />such as public safety, housing and economic development; and <br />WHEREAS, the FY 2003 -04 budget also relies on a deficit bond financing <br />program, opposed by the League of California Cities, that is predicated on a local <br />property and sales tax "swap" that leaves cities vulnerable to future losses if the <br />state's economic condition fails to improve; and <br />WHEREAS, the adopted budget assumes the state will continue to face <br />an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least $8 billion, putting local government <br />financial resources at severe risk in future years; and <br />WHEREAS, the State has repeatedly shifted costs for State - sponsored <br />programs, and over the last two years has "deferred" over $1 billion in <br />constitutionally - required reimbursements to local governments for State - <br />mandated programs and services; and <br />WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that State leaders will continue to use <br />local tax funds to balance the State budget unless the voters limit the power of <br />the Legislature and Governor to do so; and <br />WHEREAS, research conducted by the League of California Cities in <br />recent years indicates that an initiative that would require voter approval before <br />the State government can confiscate local tax funds would likely be supported by <br />an overwhelming number of voters; and <br />