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



Reply via email to