>From the bleachers -- I agree with Brian Moura's thoughts on the draft League State/Local Fiscal Reform Proposal. Sometimes though, I have to wonder why we are going through this exercise. Whatever happened to that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality? Is the perceived "problem" really a fiscal reform issue or a land use issue? As long as the ability exists to grant economic incentives to businesses relocating from one area to another will communities continue to offer them? Do we really want to support legislation which will create disincentives to economic development through denying communities the benefit of the tax base afforded by those businesses to support the need for additional services? Does anyone really believe that these changes will spur new residential development? Recently, an article was circulated from the Sacramento Bee which outlined some comments from Council members regarding the loss of available land for industrial land uses to commercial land uses. Is this really a problem? Hasn't most economists projected that our economy is moving away from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy? Doesn't it stand to reason that this economic shift would occur in California first? Companies will always pit City vs. City, State vs. State, and even Country vs. Country to extract the maximum benefit for their business purpose. Will the proposed legislation really solve this conundrum? I certainly don't have the answers but it sure will be an interesting year! Marc Puckett Costa Mesa Brian Moura wrote: > Some quick questions/comments on the draft League State/Local Fiscal Reform > Proposal: > > 1. I assume that the "constitutional protection of all local revenue > sources" includes replacing the continuing funding language we have now on > VLF with a constitutional guarantee. I also assume it would include revenue > sources such as Franchise Fees on Cable, Gas, Electric, Cable > Modems/Internet Services, local Utility User Taxes and TOT/Hotel Taxes. > True? > > 2. I don't see how swapping a portion of sales tax for property tax > constitutes "diversification of local revenues". To diversify means > obtaining/returning different types of revenue. Not changing the share of > existing revenue types. (Here I'd suggest the Mike > Garvey "Got Revenue" concept of returning the 10 revenue types taken from > the cities in prior years and obtaining a share of the > State Income Tax for cities as is done in Arizona. That would be a real > "diversification"). > > 3. "Retaining the allocation of local sales taxes based on the situs of > sales" sounds good. > > 4. "Exchanging part or all of the local sales tax derived from new retail > developments for an increased percentage of the property tax from such > projects". This sounds like a more desirable proposal on sales and use tax > than the Connell I & II proposal to move > all such revenues to a per capita basis. > > I assume this proposal means that sales and use tax revenue from non-retail > firms would not be subject to this shift. > > Is the shift strictly covering "retail developments" (i.e. shopping centers, > multiple retailers, etc.) or all retail firms (individually) ? > > Also, when we talk about exchanging revenue, have we considered trading this > "retail development" Sales Tax revenue for Income Tax revenue instead of > Property Tax (hence getting some real diversification)? Or perhaps trading > VLF (which the State seems intent on eliminating) for Income Tax (hence > handing the shrinking VLF revenue to them) ! > > 5. "Reform the unfunded mandates reimbursement process". Sounds good, but > how? Also, shouldn't we be looking even more broadly at unfunded mandates > themselves? > > -- Brian Moura, San Carlos
