1997 AGN APR 15 I17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

03/27/1957 15;4a 818-858-5556 ENV. SACS, P96E 05/05 ate Revenue and Taxation Com:mitwe SB 131G—Sales Tax Voter Cotion—Set Conon—SetAp. 36,199 March i 1995 page 2 These changes over Ohe last Several years have resulted m difficulties for cities, the government entities closest to the people, to fund basic services,, and have forced many cines to enpge in revenue raising practices w%ich are not beneficial to econo=c grow-th, e.g., cities avoid, housing development and fight with one anomer for auto agenc%es and retailers, cities adopt utility users taxes or increase business bcerise or development fees, and some cities even develop carni clubs or gambling hicilities m order to fund basic essential services. Cities need a permanent and dependable revenue soume Several vrts have beetx made to reatruucture the public financo system. They have .all failed. And whUe a couple proposed bills exist with respect to the prop" tax takeaways (e -g. AB 1 & AB 95) they (1) will provide a $1.5 billion windfall to counties and shrill not replace all the revenue taken fr= cities; t2) +rill not provide any benefit to z"- and law -property tax cities; (3) will not provide an adequate incentive for cities to develop housing; and {4) do nothing to mitigate the competition amongst cities for retailer's. S6 1310 addresses each gar' these prablesis. 5B 1310 will cost:- the state less money than the property tax proposals, is more equitable, and focuses dollars where of the state's populatic resides --in Mies. The bill provides revenues to ca=nes, and when combined with other offsets counties received in recen - years, SB 1310 will make counties nearly whole with respect to their prop" tax talmaways In terns of a revenue option fw lel goverment, SB 3316 makes sense. it is a revenue option that voters ran understand. And unlike a constitutional amendment put on the ballot through signature gathering, state legislators will have some flexibility fur this revenue option and chm lake some cruet for it. Nearly 300 cites supported a similar bd1.last year and .suppart is building now for SB 1310. The League of Cahkwp ,e Cities, California Contra Cities Association, and Independent Cities Associatiort are ail getting behind SB 1310. We urge a "yes" vote on 5131310 at your April 16, 1 ' hearing. If you .have any technical qui or concerns feel free to call pram Delach at: (818) 856-7212 tzr Carry Kalsdwtwr at (818) 858-7254. Thank you for your eonsidearatiom cc. California Cities MOR -27-1597 16:34 818 858 5,1556