Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutitem 5.1 CityPalmdaleProp172 (2) . . !to " CITY OF roBLIS AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 27, 1994 SUBJECT: Wri tten communication From The city of Palmdale ~ll . Regarding The Distribution of Proposition 172 Funds W"'" (Prepared by: Paul S.. Rankin Assistant City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: ILetter Dated June 14, 1994 from Mayor James Ledford, Jr.. of the city of Palmdale RECOMMENDATION~Review Request and determine whether the city should take further action.. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The impact of any_ legiSlative amendment is unknown .. DESCRIPTION: The city received a request from the city of Palmdale to support a revision to the existing legislation regarding the distribution of Proposition 172 funds.. At the request of councilmember Burton this item was placed on the agenda for city council discussion and consideration.. As part of the 1993 State Budget actions, the legislature adopted SB 509. This legiSlation provided for an extension of a statewide one-half cent sales tax.. The imposition of the tax was subject to several special caveats.. For example, it could be used only for Public Safety expenditures and its continuation after January 1994, was Subject to voter approval in the form of Proposition 172.. The funds were to be distributed to cities and counties which lost property tax as part of the 1993/94 State Budget.. It is important to note that the 1993/94 State Budget shifted $288 million in property taxes from specified cities.. Proposition 172 is only anticipated to make up $90 million of the shift.. The legiSlation implementing the 1993/94 Property Tax Shift was designed by the state Legislature to eliminate monies historically allocated to local governments, following the enactment of Proposition 13 in 1978.. In 1979, the State changed the allocation of certain funds to help make up the loss to local government by Proposition 13.. This is sometimes referred to as AS 8 Funds. When the 1993/94 nTax Shiftn legislation was written it excluded. cities, which were inCOrPOrated after 1979.. The basis for this was a recognition that these cities presumably did not benefit fram AS 8 monies.. There are also a small number of cities in the State, which never levied. a local property tax, prior to the enactment of Proposition 13.. It is Staff's understanding that the city of Palmdale falls into this category.. The City of Palmdale position suggests that even though their city did not lose ~roperty tax in Fiscal Year 1993/94, it should share in the Propos1tion 172 funds.. As explained above, these funds were designed to make up a portion of the 1993/94 property tax revenue shift.. The League policy Commi ttee was scheduled to consider the request from palmdale on June 23, 1994. It is doubtful that there will be support since, the cities which would be helped by palmdale's proposal already fared better than other agencies during the 1993/94 state Budget.. In Alameda County, to the extent that Proposition 172 allowed the Sheriff to maintain services such as prisoner custody and transportation, the ci ty of Dublin has also benefited. During the Proposition 172 campaign it was indicated that ci ties may incur addi tional costs for these and other criminal justice services had the measure failed.. staff recommends that the City council determine whether they wish to take any action on the request from the city of Palmdale.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. Ij .1 COPIES TO: C I T V .C L E R K FILE ~ ., , ""...) . \ ,. r.: 0 .... r: , r;.V'" jU" 2, \) '994 r:: oU~\.\N ~.....,( ('':' \.,' ~ , . fItu c ?' City of Polmdale ~ .:,~g;~l'i$~;. ",.,;\;:;;;:;iJ~~c:, CITY OF : '.,1:;;;~'''Kf.''PALMDA LE ' . "', ~~ ~ /"- ,.~..~_.~ '"'Yt J-:..\.,~ ~ ',.' .l\,'1 l'\:.;~./j""" INCORPORATED '-- AUGUST 24. 1962 FIRST, -: CITY OF ANTELOPE VALLEY . , JAMES C. LEDFORD. JR Mayor DAVID J. MYERS Mayor Pro Tem June 14, 1994 JOSEPH P. DAVIES COunCilmember HONORABLE MAYOR HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Open Letter to Other California Cities California TERENCE P. JUDGE Councilmember JAMES A. ROOT Councilmember Re: SEEKING COOPERATIVE SUPPORT FROM ALL CALIFORNIA CITIES in AMENDING SB 509(Prop. 172) to INCLUDE "LOW TAX" CITIES in LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE SAFETY FUND ALLOCATION and REIMBURSEMENT HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: I am writing this letter to all other California Cities, their respective mayors, city councils and constituents to request cooperative support and participation for an Amendment to SB 509(Prop. 172) providing that all local governmental(public safety service) agencies will receive their share of the allocation/reimbursement scheme promoted and mandated by SB 509(prop. 172). Please review the attached letter to the Chairpersons and Chief Consultant of the respective Revenue and Taxation Committees. This letter spells out what negative effects small(er) California Cities are experiencing by not sharing in the distribution of the proceeds of the newly created 1/2% "sales and use" tax. This measure, adopted by the California legislature last N ovember( 1994), was designed to enhance, supplement and increase the local level of spending on public safety and related issues. SB 509(Prop. 172) was enacted to meet the ever increasing burdens placed upon local public safety agencies(primarily police services) by imposing the 1/2% "sales and use" tax with the proceeds being returned to the local public service agencies according to the formula enunciated in SB 509(Prop. 172). Unfortunately. "low tax" Cities such as PALMDALE and (yours) are excluded from this plan. The funds raised by the tax locally revert to the County General Fund(per the formula provided in SB 509) to be used at their discretion. Some of these funds may make to the local public service level; but CLEARL Y THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF SB 509 IS lliIT BEING FURTHERED BY THIS EXCLUSION EFFECT. PLEASE JOIN THE CITY OF P ALMDALE IN OUR EFFORT TO AMEND SB 509. Please also note that I have requested the assistance and support of the LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES regarding the Amendment, its proposal, support and ultimately passage. 38300 NORTH SIERRA HIGHWAY. PALMDALE. CALIFORNIA 93550-4798 . 805/267-5100 . FAX 805/267.5122 prlnled on recyCled poper ~ . . Coordination of these efforts will hopefully be administered through the LEAGUE and initially I suggest every City do what they can to assist in AMENDING SB 509. Please contact your local State representatives and support this effort as public safety agencies all over the State are adversely affected by the unintended results of this Bill. The faster we move today, the sooner your local public safety service agencies will derive the direct benefits of the intended purpose of SB 509(Prop. 172). In some cases, the revenue raised and to be distributed by way of SB 509(Prop. 172) may make the critical difference in the ability of some of your local agencies to provide these most basic services. SO ACT FAST and hopefully there will be a measure to amend SB 509 within the next few months. I am in receipt of the proposed "clean-up" legislation which will attempt to re-align SB 509 and a copy is included for your review. This letter will reach the Revenue and Taxation Committee before its meeting in Oakland later this month so hopefully this matter will be an agenda item. If you have any questions or comments, please contact your local League of Cities representative and/or the Governor's Legislative Secretary's office. Thank you for your attention and anticipated cooperation regarding this most critical matter. rlve~trulYY:urs~,/ . j, . ,~<-"~ / 9!< \ J MES C. LEO(O , JR. _ -Ylonorable Mayor City of Palmdale encl. cc: . . (" . '. . ~ -~,; :. . !:"-:: p .'. .:.-~,':::". CITY OF ','::"~":::." PALMDALE ~,..""\ " l ,,~... 'NCORPORATED '"'---"'. AUGUST 2..1. ;962 FIRST, , CiTY OF ANTELOPE VALLEY City of Palmdale JAMES C. LEDFOf\D. m. Mayor DAVID J, MYEf\S Mayor Pro Tem June ]0, ]994 JOSEPH P. DAVIES COUnCllmember TEf\ENCE P. JUDGE (ounC,lmember Carolyn Ratto Board Member - Chairperson REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE League of California Cities State Capitol Bui]ding, Rm 2013 Sacramento, CA 958] 4 Andrew Myers Chief Consultant REVENUE & TAXATION COMMITTEE League of California Cities State Capitol Building, Rm. 20] 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 JAMES A. f\OOT Cauncilmemoer Yon Klehs Chairman of the REVENUE AND TAXATION STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSEMBLY State Capito] Building, Rm 2013 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION 172 Re: Senate Bill 509 - Local Public Safety Fund (LPSF) Revenue Allocation L.A. County Loca] Safety Augmentation Fund(LSAF) Allocation Per Special Sales and Use Tax( 1/2 %)IAMENDI Re: AB 2788 - Public Safetv Funding at 1992-1993 Levels Despite III Effects of S8 50910PPOSEl Honorable Chairpersons Ratto, Klehs and Mr. Myers: PLEASE BE ADVISED that this letter embodies a growing effort at the local level which seeks an AMENDMENT to Senate BilI(SB) 509 because of local disappointment with its operative effect of not passing on to local agencies the proceeds/revenue raised by SB 509. ALSO. in conjunction with amending SB 509, this letter requests cooperative support OPPOSING PASSAGE of Assembly BiII(AB) 2788 which will require funding the local public safety agencies at the 1992-1993 level despite the negative effects of both SB 509 and the prevailing economic conditions. The City of Palmdale, in a cooperative partnership with other Cities throughout the State, is requesting that the League of California Cities move for an amendment to S8 509 requesting that Palmdale and other California "low tax" [cities with populations under 100,000] cities be direct recipients of the revenue rajsed by the special tax proceeds generated by SB 509. 38300 NORTH SIERRA HIGHWAY. PALMDALE. CALIFORNIA 93550-4798 . 805/267-5100 . FAX 805/267-5122 prlntea on reCYCleO cocer @ .' . . These Cities are presently denied the opportunity to apply the benefits of SB 509 as there presently is no reimbursement to the local public safety services agencies from the County Local Safety Augmentation Fund(s). These smaller "low tax" cities are inherently aware of their overburdened public safety services and are in the best position to apply these funds. These 'Funds' find their source in the newly imposed 1/2% "sales and use" tax voted upon and approved by the State Legislature and the citizens of this State last November(1993). The legislatures intent on passing SB 509 with the approval of the voters(Prop. 172) is to reimburse. enhance and supplement the presently over-burdened local public safety services with the proceeds of the 1/2% "sales and use" tax collected and received as "interim basis revenue" support. In effect. the very intent of the legislature is not being honored. Because of the increased need for these services and the ability or non-ability of these "low tax" cities to cover these expenses. an amendment to SB 509 is mandated, necessary and exigent. The incentive for City support of SB 509 was directly related to the fact that the local agencies ~ be receiving a reimbursement from the County(in our case Los Angeles County) Local Safety Augmentation Fund according to the formulas provided in SB 509 and augmented by California Government Code. Section(s) 30051 et seq. entitled 'Local Public Safety Fund', The smaller "low tax" cities are effectively excluded from the benefits/revenue of said Fund. In these cases. the County receives the reimbursement allocation that the "low tax cities" should be receiving. The County then determines how and where this special revenue is applied. This means that the State and counties are unjustly enriched at the expense of the local public safety agencies all contrary to the intent of the SB 509. SB 509 is to provide substantial revenue enhancement keeping our local public safety services at a "sufficient level" to "promote a more orderly transition to the restructured state and local fiscal relationship."(Section I of Stats. 1993. c. 73(SB 509)] 5B 509 as it is presently written. enacted. enforced and collected upon does not guarantee nor mandate that Counties pass on the revenue raised by SB 509. Revenue is raised and collected from all "sales and use" taxes and then is to be reimbursed to keep the levels of service commensurate to the need for such. In Palmdale. the Los Angeles County Local Safety Fund receives said proceeds and is not under any present mandate of 5B509 to redistribute the proceeds to our local level. Also. AB 2788 is presently being pushed through the legislature which will require funding of these local public service safety agencies at the 1992-1993 levels despite the absence of State assistance because of unintended effect of 5B 509. The present local economic hardship in providing safety services at a sufficient. responsive and competent level requires the reimbursement scheme under 5B 509 be amended to provide for direct reimbursement to the local entities. . . Also. please review your position and oppose passage of AB 2788 until SB 509 is amended to reflect the intention of supplementing local public safety agencies. The City of Palmdale. with the support of other local agencies from around the State. formally requests that the League of California Cities and other local governmental agencies join them in a partnership/cooperative effort to amend SB 509 so that the original intent of SB 509 is advanced directly reimbursing the local agencies that need these funds so desperately. The health. safety and welfare of our constituents is paramount. The revenue from SB 509 must get to the local level. The need to amend SB 509 with the appropriate language directing, mandating and guaranteeing that the local public safety service agencies receive their formulated share of the 1/2 % "sales and use" tax revenues is exigent. The City of Palmdale respectfully requests that this requested amendment be placed on the next available a~enda. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to the Mayors. their respective councils and others throughout the State seeking support to amend SB 509 and oppose AB 2788.. I am in receipt of the proposed 'clean-up' legislation from the Governor's Legislative Secretary's office. I am not sure whether this clean-up legislation will achieve what this letter requests and further what need to be done in terms of the proper allocation of the herein mentioned funds. Thank you and I look forward to your response. Respectfully submitted. I ~ -' ;' ~ - ( ,tAAfiCt' . JAMES C. LEDFiRD I-t6norable Mayor '--City of Palmdale cc: (list)