Our objection is that cities who in good faith approved sales tax
generating land uses (and are paying for the law enforcement and
other costs associated with such uses) lose under the Controller
proposal.
While cities that prohibit businesses in their communities
(such as gated cities) suddenly get rewarded for this stance.
A strange State policy to be sure!
Putting that issue aside, there is much more to dislike here as well.
The notion that we are "protected" from unfunded mandates by letting cities
go to court and get a court order before not carrying such mandates
isn't helpful. What we really need here is a flat out reimburse
or drop provision.
So I agree with the folks in Costa Mesa who say Thumbs Down on the
Controller I & II proposals.
-- Brian Moura, San Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:51 PM
To: 'Brian Moura'; 'Karen Jackson'
Cc: CSMFO Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [CSMFO Members] The Controller's "Smarter" report ?
Many cities would disagree with a position of objecting to the 100% per
capita allocation of sales tax as offered in the Smarter Plan. Moreno Valley
sees the Smarter Plan as the modern day Robin Hood.
Initially, it provides us with an additional $800,000 per year. I
understand the drafters guarantee that nobody loses revenue, and we no
longer need to fight with each other over malls and discount outlets, that
erode our quality of life.
Of cities over 100,000 population (140,000), we probably have the lowest per
capita sales tax in the state. We say "YES" to the Smarter Plan.
Steve Chapman
Finance Director
City of Moreno Valley
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Moura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:32 PM
To: 'Karen Jackson'
Cc: CSMFO Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [CSMFO Members] The Controller's "Smarter" report ?
We haven't prepared a detailed analysis of the "Smarter" report. But we
have the same objections to it that we had to the original. Some of the key
points:
* PLACE A CAP ON ERAF PROPERTY TAX SHIFT - Yes
* RETURN A PORTION OF ERAF TO CITIES & COUNTIES - Yes; would like to
see a larger return
* APPORTION FUTURE SALES TAX GROWTH ON PER CAPITA BASIS - No
* CONVERT ALL SALES TAX REVENUES OVER 20 YEAR PERIOD TO PER CAPITA -
No
* ELIMINATE UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES TO CITIES - Yes; need for court
order is impractical
* PROPOSAL SHIFTS MORE REVENUE TO COUNTIES; REDUCES FUNDS TO CITIES
- No
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: SMARTER report
I have a question regarding Ms. Connell's SMARTER report. I have seen the
League's analysis on the SMART report. However, I have not seen an
analysis on the SMARTER report. I was wondering if you or any of your
colleagues have an opinion on this report? Thank you for your help.
Karen Jackson
City of Fremont
(510) 494-4763
