Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout033-02 RESOLUTION NO. 33-2002 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN CORRESPONDENCE REPRESENTING THE TOWN COUNCIL'S POSITION ON CURRENT LEGISLATION WHEREAS, the State Legislature in recent years has significantly impacted local government revenues; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town of Danville to take a position on legislation affecting the vital interests of the Town; and WHEREAS, approval of the positions will initiate a response on behalf of the Town Council in support or opposition of specific legislation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Council authorizes the Mayor to sign correspondence representing the Town Council's position on legislation as defined in Exhibits 1 and 2. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Waldo, Arnerich, Doyle, Greenberg, Shimansky NOES: None ABSTAINED: None MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK March 19, 2002 Senator Tom Torlakson State Capitol, Room 2068 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 81 (Migden) - Equitable distribution of property tax revenues derived from power plans Senator Torlakson: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I wish to express the Town's support of AB 81 (Migden) with the Los Angeles Amendment, which would guarantee that the City of Pittsburg will receive the property tax revenues from the two new power plants within its city limit and allow Contra Costa County to recoup some of the nearly $2 million in property taxes lost for the two power plants in the unincorporated area. Incentives to site new power plants should be equitable and fair and not create a financial hardship to the long-time hosts of power plants that have served Californians for many years. AB 81 provides a solution for creating a fair and equitable distribution of property taxes to both jurisdictions. We agree with the approach AB 81 takes to resolving any inequities and urge you to support this bill. Sincerely, TOWN OF DANVILLE Richard L. Waldo Mayor RLW:rf Cci Assembly Member Carol Migden Mayor Frank Aiello, City of Pittsburg Clerk of the Board of Supervisors League of California Cities EXHIBIT 1 March 19, 2002 Senator Tom Torlakson Chairman, Senate Local Government Committee State Capitol, Room 2068 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 680 (Steinberg) - Reallocate Sales Tax Revenues & State Funds Dear Senator Torlakson: I am writing to request your opposition to AB 680 (Steinberg) when it reaches the Senate Local Government Committee. The Town of Danville opposes this legislation. AB 680 will reallocate all of the growth in a City's 1% share of Sales Tax revenue based on a formula that is set by the state rather than the provisions of the existing Bradley-Bums Sales Tax Act for agencies in the Sacramento County region. It also puts cities outside the Sacramento region at a disadvantage when competing for state transportation and housing funds. In Danville, sales tax revenue is the Town's second largest revenue source for the General Fund and it is critical to the Town's ability to respond to the service requests and desires of our residents. As the bill makes its way to the State Senate, it is urged that cities will be heard and given an opportunity to comment and discuss this matter. In terms of specific concerns, here are some additional issues, the Town of Danville would like you to consider when AB 680 reaches your desk: Reallocation of Sales Tax Revenue - With the loss of property tax revenues to the state through the ERAF process, the Town's share of sales tax revenues is the second largest revenue source for our General Fund. It represents $4 million of the Town's $17.2 operating budget. It is vitally important for the Town Council to protect sales tax revenue as a fully local and discretionary revenue source if we are to respond to the requests and interests of our residents. AB 680 Does Apply to Cities and Counties Outside the Sacramento Region - Despite claims to the contrary, AB 680 does affect all cities and counties in the state. We are troubled by the provisions in the bill that grant "bonuses and priorities" for several state sources of transportation, infrastructure and library funding to cities and counties in the Sacramento region at the expense of cities and counties in other parts of the state - including the Town of Danville. EXHIBIT 2 Senator Tom Torlakson March 19, 2002 Page 2 Punishing Smaller Communities - The population formula in AB 680 punishes smaller communities. A healthy community provides a variety of business, commercial, retail and housing land usage. Yet AB 680 awards fully 1/3 of the growth in future sales tax revenues solely on the basis of population. This will result in a substantial loss of sales tax revenue to smaller communities - even when their pattern of development is both appropriate and logical. Broader Application of AB 680 - While the sales tax sharing provisions of AB 680 only cover the cities and counties in the Sacramento County region at this time, we are well aware that there has been discussion in Sacramento about expanding the legislation's coverage. AB 680 threatens the last major revenue source that funds cities in California and should be opposed. Better Approaches - In our view there are better approaches to achieve the stated goals of this bill. We feel that the state should stop taking existing city sources of revenue and instead cap and return the ERAF portion of city property tax revenue. For all of these reasons, the Town of Danville strongly opposes AB 680. I urge you to join us in opposing AB 680. Sincerely, TOWN OF DANVILLE Richard L. Waldo Mayor RLW:ff CC.' Assembly Member Lynn Leach League of California Cities