Laserfiche WebLink
03/27/1997 15:40 813-858-5555 ENV. <br />SVCS. P,",GE 02/05 <br />COMPARISON OF MAJOR BILLS <br />AFFSMNG LOCAL GOVERNMENT RNANCE <br />PROPOSAL <br />POSITIVES <br />CHALLENGES <br />S81310 <br />1. Skupfa maWty vote faquir'em er73. <br />1. Gvvanwr has not taken a pxosWon - <br />(.ioMgon, ,' <br />2. SUppXlaerd by t of Cities Irl the <br />2. Does not offer congNt tionai <br />merge#t, <br />stets tenet year. <br />protection of any revenues. <br />Napollta ) <br />3. Potgn" b pride $2.5 billion to <br />3. Technically does not Shift MW <br />clues wW "Ron lo ami tiffs (int <br />revenue to C -since bill eneb(w <br />1995-96 dollars). <br />titles or count to puf the measure <br />4. Could eftinate Camp~ anxwQ9 <br />before voters, votM will ultimately be <br />t1066 for fowler$. <br />the ones to st+ttt tate dollar irom epees to <br />a. Dws not sheet Srarlley43ums sales <br />cis or ao nr+ties. <br />tsx law. <br />4. Some Cities do not some vft ire <br />S. Pra4l~ W% the stale from iW dog other <br />poiiCy that SddbXW Za a= tax revere <br />city or =snly reverwes to malte up for <br />stmld be dsildx ted by a method other <br />the amount neti <br />ttmn pour! of sem, e.o., per capita. <br />7. bite In awe *Wbd*e <br />S. impels neon -school slams Caned <br />distribution of seise tax revenue *am <br />fund. <br />chystandpoint and in Ughl of <br />Proposition( 172. <br />6. Houle his itmrtr - <br />9. Provides a ftwenti a for <br />AS 1 <br />1. Similar ERAS tail (in terms of <br /># - Has 9t+e s+uppcA of the buskins <br />(Aguiar) <br />community, ht udkm California <br />dollar amuuni--AG 2M) was held in <br />Charrtw ol Conumme, Cal*wr is Read <br />committee last year - <br />Estate Ash and Cafifomia <br />2. A minor Vii= bill (AS 2797) was <br />MaMlfauturms Association as well as <br />vetoed by Goverrw tact year. <br />+cities, courwas ted special dish <br />3. Requires a t+eo-thirds, maO" for <br />2. Provides a rek&eiy stable f coding <br />passage - <br />Mums for iocw 9wMMrAw services. <br />4. Would not provide enough avenue to <br />3. Would prrovido $2.6 4iltion to <br />Ciii3es tQ nw4ate c ompe*wa a n=gsi <br />omudles, $489 rn*Wn to special <br />Cities for netefiem <br />calistricts, and $574 million to cities <br />3. Wst of the money maid go tD <br />OW bet ntwney in lbe ERAF shift in <br />agendes that, arwA&y, do not provide <br />1992-93 and I$$3-94 (int 1995-9£ <br />prop" reiaW services, e.g. counties <br />dollars), <br />and special disiriWs- <br />4. Will #aid schools harrmless (this <br />6. Does not provide a" reidef to no- <br />ameaaiment is pesdino). <br />and low-propreny tax camas. <br />7. 'VhxAd powide windfall to counties in <br />excess of 99.5 billion because of els <br />are not considered (e o. Proposi0on <br />972). <br />8. tfWouid not make up tot ail revenues <br />titles ,lost 4n past 15 years. <br />S. State could take other cq revenues <br />to maw up for slit amount. <br />ACA4 <br />1_ Sarre as AB 1. <br />#, Same as AS t <br />(Agular) <br />2. Would ptotea(prop" tax revenues <br />2. Would look in Woperty tax <br />In constitution. <br />distribution rates- <br />ates-3. <br />3.Would preclude no- and low- <br />propmail tax cities from ever seeing <br />aftticmal property lax revenues <br />wfthout consdaAkwaf amendmew. <br />Mires voter approval. <br />4. ft <br />AS 95 <br />I.Sarna as AS 1. <br />1 _ Same as A$ 1. <br />Sween <br />2. big vAl e. <br />MR -27-1997 16:33 <br />538 e5a 5556P <br />