Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2004, C10 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A - CALIFORNI council hiun D= '11-71oy j acenaa uepoin C/O CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney Prepared By: Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A - CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution supporting Proposition 1A, protecting local taxpayers and public safety services. DISCUSSION For more than a dozen years, the state legislature has been taking local tax dollars that local governments use to provide vital services like fire protection, paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare, parks and libraries. The State has taken more than $40 billion from cities, counties and special districts in the last 12 years. To prevent these "raids from continuing, this past spring, a coalition of local government officials placed Proposition 65 — Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act on the November 2004 ballot to stop the State from taking local government funding. In fact, citizens from the City of San Luis Obispo submitted nearly 2000 signatures to assist with the ballot measure qualification efforts. However, since Prop 65 was placed on the ballot, intense negotiations between Governor Schwarzenneger, local governments, State legislators, public safety officials, healthcare advocates, taxpayers and community leaders have resulted in the passage of a historical bipartisan agreement that places an alternative measure on the ballot. Proposition IA — Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Services is a better, more flexible approach to protecting local services and local tax dollars and, therefore, all the official proponents of Prop 65 are now supporting Prop 1A and withdrawing their support for Prop 65. In addition, this proposition has the support of the Governor, which is a significant advantage in terms of its passage. (See Attachment 1 for Frequently Asked Questions about Prop 1A) The League of California Cities, a key player in the development of both propositions, has requested that cities take a position on Prop lA by passing a resolution indicating their support. The attached resolution expresses support for Prop 1A and withdraws the City's support for Prop 65. CONCURRENCES A list of current supporters is attached. (Attachment 2) CAR-Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 A Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no specific fiscal impact associated with the approval of the resolution, although if Prop 1A passes, the City's financial resources, including existing sales taxes, property taxes and Vehicle License Fee revenues, will be constitutionally protected from further State take-aways. ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the resolution. Because the City passed a resolution in support of Prop 65, it is recommended that the new resolution be approved because it 1) withdraws support of Prop 65, as recommended by the League of California Cities, 2) provides our citizens a clear message with regard to the two propositions and 3) allows the City to be recognized as part of the coalition of local government organizations striving to protect local resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Frequently Asked Questions 2. List of Prop 1A Supporters 3. Resolution AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Prop 1A Bill Text IALegislalion Support-Opposition Letters\2004 L.ettersTAR-Support for Prop I-82304.DOC L' (0 'zi aTTaMENT 9 YIES 0 Ilan PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS Frequently Asked Questions 717—MMMMMM www.YesonProp1Acom About Proposition 1A Q: What would Prop 1A do? A: Proposition 1A would prevent the state legislature from taking and using local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries, transportation and more. Specifically, Prop 1A prohibits the State Legislature's ability to lower the existing city, county and special district's existing share of sales taxes, property taxes and VLF revenues. Proposition 1A also requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of programs and services it forces cities, counties and special districts to provide. If the state fails to provide reimbursement to local governments for state-mandated local programs, the mandate must be suspended, except for specked employee rights and benefits. Q: Why is Prop 1A needed? A: For more than a dozen years, in both good fiscal times and bad, the state legislature has been raiding local tax dollars to pay for state responsibilities — more than $40 billion over the past 12 years. This practice has starved local communities of the funds needed to pay for vital services like fire protection, paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare, parks and libraries. If these funding raids continue, it could mean fewer firefighters, fewer law enforcement officers and longer waits at emergency rooms — or higher local taxes and fees. The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local revenues for local services from being taken by the State. Q: Who supports Prop 1A? A: Proposition 1A is a historic, bipartisan accord reached among local government leaders, public safety representatives, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican state legislators, healthcare advocates, taxpayer groups, business and labor leaders, and many more. The coalition in support of Prop 1A is growing daily. Q: Will Prop 1A raise taxes? A: NO. Proposition 1A will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local services. In fact, Prop 1A helps ensure local governments aren't forced to raise taxes or fees to make up for revenue raided by the State. Paid for By Yes on 1A Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, Sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations, League of California Cities(non-public funds.account), California State Association of Counties (non-public funds account), and the California Special Districts Association (non-public funds account) 1121 L Street,Suite 803-Sacramento,CA 95814-Phone(800)827-9086-Fax(916)442-3510 Cl 0-3 ATTACHMENT 1 Q: What happens in the event of a fiscal emergency?Will this measure tie the legislature's hands in passing a budget or create more problems during the next state fiscal crisis? A: Prop 1A was intentionally written to allow flexibility and provide the Governor and legislature with options — but only in the event of a "significant state fiscal hardship". Under the provisions of Prop 1A, beginning in 2008-09, if the Governor proclaims a "significant state fiscal hardship", the Legislature may suspend the constitutional protection and may borrow local property taxes only under following conditions: ■ A separate urgency bill must be passed by a 2/3 vote of Legislature; ■ The Legislature must pass a law to fully repay the loan with interest within 3 fiscal years; ■ New loans are prohibited until prior loans have been repaid; ■ No more than two loans may occur during any ten-year period; • The loan amount is capped at 8% of local government property tax amount (equivalent of approximately$1.3 billion in today's property tax dollars); While Prop 1A contains flexibility in a state fiscal hardship, it also prevents the state from using local government funds any time legislators choose. It also requires that future state reductions be repaid in full. Q: Will Prop 1A erode state funding for schools or education? A: No. Prop 1A was carefully written to ensure that it does not reduce funding for education or schools by one dime. Under Proposition 98, schools are guaranteed a level of funding from the state—and Prop 1A does not change that. Q: Does Prop 1A give more protection to local government than schools currently receive? A: NO. Under Proposition 98, schools are guaranteed a minimum amount of funding out of the state general fund and Proposition 1A does not impact those protections at all. Further, comparing the funding guarantees for schools with Prop 1A is an apples-to-oranges protection. Proposition 98 guarantees schools a specific amount of State General fund revenues. Proposition 1A simply protects revenues that are LOCAL GOVERNMENT revenues, but that the state has been taking for more than 12 years. Q: What about other state programs?Will this measure reduce funding for state programs like roads and prisons? A: Prop 1A simply prevents the state from raiding local revenues. The state still has flexibility over its own revenues. Q: Doesn't Prop 1A just add to the state's fiscal woes by initiating further"ballot-box- budgeting"that puts restrictions on how it can spend its revenues? A: No. The initiative does not tell the state how to spend the state's own revenues (as some propositions have done). What it does is prevent the state from raiding local government revenues for state purposes. This will mean that, for the first time in many years, local communities will have the certainty and predictability they need to plan and provide for current and future service needs. CIL) -�f ATTAMMENT 1 Q: Will this measure prevent state fiscal reform efforts? A: No. The first and most important step in reforming the troubled State-Local fiscal relationship is to protect local government funding from continual state raids. Prop 1A would accomplish this important first step, while also leaving the door open for more comprehensive fiscal reform in the future. Specifically, Prop 1A would retain authority for the Legislature to approve the exchange of local sales tax for an equal amount of property tax when requested by local agreements. Any type of voluntary revenue exchange agreement must be revenue-neutral for the impacted local governments. Q: Does this measure increase revenues to local governments? A. No. Prop 1A simply prevents the state Legislature from further reducing existing levels of local government revenues. Q: Why doesn't Prop 1A attempt to recollect lost ERAF property tax dollars? A: Prop 1A was intentionally drafted to draw a line in the sand and prevent future state legislative raids of local government funding. While local governments and services are still deprived by the ongoing state raid of property taxes, given the state of California's fiscal health, we believe a more responsible approach at this time is to "stop the bleeding" at current levels. Q: What happened to Proposition 65, which is also on the November ballot and attempts to protect city, county and special district revenues from state raids? A: Our coalition placed Proposition 65 on the ballot earlier this year, prior to the historic, bipartisan July agreement that placed Prop 1A on the November ballot. After Prop 65 qualified for the ballot, Governor Schwarzenegger approached our coalition and asked that we work with him on an alternative local government protection measure. We agreed to provide the state with short-term contributions from local governments to help the state out of its immense budget problems, and the Governor agreed to work with the legislature to place Prop 1A on the ballot and to actively campaign for passage of Prop 1A this Fall. Proposition 65 will continue to be on the ballot, but all of the official sponsors of Prop 65 are now opposing 65 and supporting Prop 1A as a better, more flexible approach to protect funding for local governments and local services. Q: What happens if both Proposition 65 and Prop 1A pass? A: Proposition 1A was written so that if it gains more votes than Proposition 65, it supersedes Prop 65 in its entirety. Prop 1A contains language that specifically says that Prop 1A is a "comprehensive and competing alternative"to Prop 65, and that"it is the intent of the people that this measure supersedes in its entirety Prop 65", if Prop 1A gets more votes. U o -S ATTACHMENT PROPIA SUPPORTERS from page • • • • • • •O • • • • • • • • • • o • • • Goo • • • • • • • • • • • • Cities that have not yet taken a position on the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs measure can download a sample resolution from Grover Beach Police Department the campaign website (www.YesonP_rop1A.com). Healdsburg Police Department The site also provides a "toolkit" of information: Kings County Sheriffs Department talking points, fact sheets, "Q&A", sample letters Newark Police Department to the editor, sample opeds, and other materials. San Bernardino Police Department Those interested in making a financial contribution Signal Hill Police Department can also do so online. Companies Supporters Careers in Government, Inc. Governor Arnold Schwarzene gger Major or Inc. Farms, Inc. Controller Steve Westly Quick Book Queen Software Troubleshooter Senator Tom Torlakson Waste Management Fire and Emergency Services Local Governments California Fire Chiefs Association East Valley Resource Conservation District California Professional Firefighters County of Los Angeles California State Firefighters' Association City of Dorris Alameda County Fire Department City of EI Cajon Corona Fire Department City of Taft Statewide Local Government Orgs. Public Safety Individuals California Special Districts Association Virginia Black, Yuba County Sheriff California State Association of Counties Thomas Bullard, City of Rohnert Park Chief of Police/ League of California Cities Fire Chief California Association of Sanitation Agencies Dennis Cassidy, Paso Robles Chief of Police California Public Parking Association Jim Denney, Sutter County Sheriff Karl Diekman, Woodland Fire Chief Business Organizations Robert T. Doyle, Marin County Sheriff California Business Properties Association California Retailers Association Public Safety Individuals (Cont) Bell Gardens Association of Merchants and Com- John Dyer, Fresno Chief of Police merce Barry D. Garfield, Kensington Chief of Police Emeryville Chamber of Commerce Don Horsley, San Mateo County Sheriff Gateway Chambers Alliance William Kolender, San Diego County Sheriff Kern Economic Development Corp. Lonald Lott, City of Turlock Chief of Police Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Bill McCammon,Alameda County Fire Chief Signal Hill Chamber of Commerce George Nielsen, Placerville Chief of Police South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Clay Parker, Tehama County Sheriff Health Care Organizations Peter A. Peterson, Clayton Chief of Police California Association of Public Hospitals and E.G. Prieto, Yolo County SheriffPerry Reniff, Butte County Sheriff Health Systems Kenneth Rulon, Colton Chief of Police Labor Organizations Craig T. Steckler, Fremont Chief of Police Rick TerBorch, Arroyo Grande Chief of Police California Association of Professional Employees Lary J. Todd, Novato Chief of Police LIUA Local 777 NJames Trimble, Benicia Chief of Police Public Employees Union, Local One Paul M. Walters, Santa Ana Chief of Police Teamsters Local 911 Michael Warren, Corona Fire Chief Law Enforcement Thomas Whiteside, Selma Chief of Police California Police Chiefs Association John D. Williams, Ukiah Chief of Police California State Sheriffs' Association Dean Wilson, Del Norte County Sheriff Peace Officers Research Association of California Garrett W. Zimmon, San Bernardino Chief of Police PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site—www.cacities.org C i v�Cv RTTACHMER 3 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A WHEREAS, state government currently seizes more than $5.2 billion annually in local property tax funds statewide from cities, counties and special districts, costing local governments more than $40 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years; and WHEREAS, these ongoing shifts and raids by the state of local property tax funds and other funding dedicated to local governments have seriously reduced resources available for local fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, public health and emergency medical care, roads, parks, libraries, transportation and other essential local services; and WHEREAS, these funding raids also add pressure for local governments to increase fees and taxes to maintain basic local service levels;and WHEREAS, this drain of local resources has continued even during periods when the state's budget has been overflowing with surpluses; and WHEREAS, Proposition IA is a historic measure that will appear on the November 2004 statewide ballot that would limit the State's ability to take and use local government funding; and WHEREAS, by protecting local government funding, Prop 1A would protect local public safety, healthcare and other essential local services; and WHEREAS, Prop 1A will not raise taxes and, in fact, will help reduce pressure for local fee and tax increases by limiting state raids of local government funding; and WHEREAS, Prop 1A does not reduce funding for schools or any other state program or service, and Prop lA was carefully written to allow flexibility in the event of a state budget emergency; and WHEREAS, Prop 1A is supported by a bipartisan, diverse coalition including Governor Schwaraenegger, Democrat and Republican legislative leaders, local government officials, public safety representatives, healthcare, business, labor and community leaders; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that we hereby express strong support for Proposition IA, the statewide ballot initiative that will prevent the state from further taking local government revenues; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Proposition IA will render Proposition 65 unnecessary and therefore the City Council hereby withdraws its support for Proposition 65; and Cao—� MACHMEW3 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Clerk shall send a copy of this resolution to Yes on 1A - Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety. Fax: 916-442-3510 or 1121 L Street, #803, Sacramento, CA 95814 Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona Lowell City Attorney G:\Agenda-Ordinances-Resol\PropositionlA-Reso supporting.doc C/o -s'