Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07132010 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a position of "Oppose" on a ballot measure known as the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE from the recommended action. Should the measure qualify for the November 2010 ballot and be approved by the voters, the financial impacts on counties are potentially negative and difficult to quantify. BACKGROUND: The November 2010 ballot will include a statewide ballot measure intended to prohibit the state from any future diversions of local funds, including redevelopment funds and transportation funds. The measure, co-sponsored by the League of California Cities, California Transit Association, and the California Redevelopment Association, is known as the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. The measure has the support of many cities and other public and private organizations, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Greitzer, 335-1201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2010 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Transportation, Water and Infrasturcture Comm Date:July 13, 2010 Contra Costa County Subject:Statewide ballot measure banning local revenue diversion BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) but counties have been less inclined to support it. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) has discussed the measure but has not taken a position on it. The Urban Counties Caucus, representing 12 of the state's largest counties, has adopted a position of opposition. The measure was crafted in such a way that its benefits are clear to cities, public transit agencies, and redevelopment agencies but less clear to counties. Since counties are responsible for implementing numerous state programs, any measure that locks in a particular set of spending priorities is problematic. If approved by voters, counties and the state would lose flexibility that is needed to establish priorities in difficult economies like the present. The ballot measure was developed through input from cities and public transit operators, but there was little or no consultation with county officials when it was written. The following paragraphs, taken from a CSAC e-mail bulletin regarding the recent CSAC Legislative Conference, explain why the organization has not yet adopted an official position on the measure. "Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act of 2010: The [CSAC] Board of Directors participated in a lively and robust policy discussion regarding the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act of 2010. This initiative, sponsored primarily by city and transit interests, is expected to qualify for the November ballot. Despite significant engagement and interest in the policy implications of the initiative, the board was unable to secure the necessary 30 votes required for either an “oppose” or “neutral” position. Therefore, the CSAC Board of Directors has no position on the measure. No board member advocated for supporting the initiative during the discussion." A presentation by League of California Cities President Robin Lowe and Executive Director Chris McKenzie regarding the merits of the initiative was met with significant apprehension by CSAC board members. Concerns centered on the negative impacts that would likely result from the initiative’s effort to lock down significant additional portions of the state budget, putting at even greater risk state funding for vital county programs – especially in the human services and public safety arenas." Exhibit A is a summary of the measure, taken from its campaign website. Exhibit B is the full text of the measure. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee reviewed the measure on June 21 and recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt a position of "oppose". CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: NONE. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Ralph Hoffman, resident of Walnut Creek. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Exhibit B From campaign website for Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Proection Act of 2010: Vital Local Services and Taxpayer Dollars At Risk THE PROBLEM: STATE RAIDS AND BORROWING ARE JEOPARDIZING PUBLIC SAFETY, EMERGENCY RESPONSE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSIT AND OTHER VITAL LOCAL SERVICES. California voters have overwhelmingly passed separate ballot measures to dedicate local funding sources to essential local services and to prevent the State from shifting or raiding local government, transit and transportation funds. Despite this, the State recently passed a budget that borrows and takes approximately $5 billion in city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds this year. This year’s raids and previous, ongoing state raids and borrowing are jeopardizing the services Californians need most: ƒ Police, fire and emergency 911 services have been cut. ƒ Healthcare services for children, seniors and the disabled are being slashed. ƒ Road repair and maintenance, congestion relief and safety improvements are constantly at risk. ƒ Public transit like buses, commuter rail and shuttles are being slashed and fares are being raised. ƒ Parks and libraries are closing, and other local government services critical to protect our neighborhoods and improve our quality of life are shutting down. ƒ Vital community economic development and job creation projects are being shut down. State raids of local funds are fiscally irresponsible. The fiscally irresponsible practice of borrowing local taxpayer and transportation funds makes our budget problems worse down the line because local government and transportation funds have to be repaid, with interest. Additionally, many of the outright raids are ultimately rejected by the courts, creating even larger state budget deficits down the line. THE SOLUTION: PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM RAIDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act, scheduled for the November 2010 statewide ballot, would: Prohibit the State from taking, borrowing or redirecting local taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety, emergency response and other vital local government services. The measure would close loopholes to prevent the taking of local taxpayer funds currently dedicated to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies. It would also revoke the State’s authority to borrow local government property tax funds. Protect vital, dedicated transportation and public transit funds from state raids. The measure would prevent State borrowing, taking or redirecting of the state sales tax on gasoline (Prop 42 funds) and Highway User Tax on gasoline (HUTA) funds that are dedicated to transportation maintenance and improvements. It would also prevent the State from redirecting or taking public transit funds. Protect local taxpayers by keeping more of our local tax dollars local where there’s more accountability to voters, and by ensuring once and for all that our gas taxes go to fund road improvements. The measure also reduces pressure for local tax and fee increases that become necessary when the State redirects local funds. Reform state government and enhance fiscal accountability. This measure is a key step in reforming California’s broken budget system by restoring more local control and accountability. It also stops the irresponsible practice of the State borrowing special funds that have to be repaid with interest, which only puts our State further in debt.