The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2008 0820 CC SPC ITEM 05AMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager BY: Maureen Benson, Assistant Ci Xyerkfp-� DATE: August 19, 2008 (Special Meeting of 08/20/08) rmm ® CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting ACTION,,. aa =:`o . by. SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Opposing State Budget Decision that Would "Borrow" Local Government, Redevelopment, and Transportation Funds DISCUSSION The Channel Counties Division of the League of California Cities sent the attached email on August 19, 2008, requesting the Council adopt a resolution opposing state government "borrowing" local funds and that this resolution be communicated to the State legislature. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2008 - Attachments: Exhibit A - Email from Channel Counties Division Exhibit B - Draft Resolution J()G01. EXHIBIT A Maureen Benson From: channel_ division- bounces@lists.cacities.org on behalf of David Mullinax [dmullinax@cacities.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: [Channel division] State Budget Update - Aug 19 W1 71 Prop1A42RDA_Cha SAMPLE BUDGET ATT281913.bct nnel.pdf (26 KB... IESOLUTION 7 -22 -.. (684 B) To Channel Counties Officials: As most of you probably know, a budget vote in the Assembly failed Sunday night that went mostly along party lines. 45 - 30 (needed 54 votes to move out of the Assembly) The only drama was that Speaker Bass booted Assemblywoman Parra out of her office in the Capitol and exiled her to an office across the street from the Capitol for not voting for the budget. This budget package consisted mainly of tax increases on corporations and wealthy Californians. This package did not include a one -cent statewide sales tax increase that has been rumored. It is now Day 50 of the new fiscal year without a budget. With the failed budget vote in the Assembly yesterday, legislators are looking for options, and we have a continuing obligation to make "borrowing" or seizing local funds, transportation funds and redevelopment funds as unattractive as possible until other legislative leaders join the Governor and Senator Perata in rejecting the notion. Locally we are still putting the pressure on our elected officials to not balance the budget on the backs of local government. (I have again attached the local impacts if the legislature pulls the Prop 1A trigger). Since our "call to arms" last week city officials have been contacting their legislators and the governor, mobilizing community opinion leaders, briefing editors and reporters, and using their city council meetings to voice principled opposition to any state raid on local government funds. We are approaching the 100 mark on city resolutions against raids of local funds. "Rebellion" by the Numbers. Here is a taste of what we know about that allow us to partially measure that has happened due to your leadership since our campaign began in earnest recently: * 77 Resolutions Opposing Raids on Local Funds and growing daily (Help Us Reach 100!) * 105+ letters to the Governor and Legislators and growing daily * 11 Editorials Against Raids on Local Funds (See the 3 most recent attached) * 11 News Article on the passage of local resolutions opposing the state raid * 16 News Articles on the Risk of Raids 1 ICJ IJ ti NEXT STEPS: The next budget the legislature votes on could depend on borrowing or taking local funds UNLESS WE OBJECT!!!. Please continue to keep up the heat on the legislature and to continue thanking the Governor and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata for their opposition to borrowing. Also: * Let me know specifically what could happen in your city if you lost the funding we have estimated you could lose. * Ask your local community leaders to call or write and keep your news media briefed. * I have attached the resolution for your city to pass to communicate to our legislators to leave local funds alone * Continue to contact our legislators - have your friends and constituents do the same. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Dave Mullinax Regional Public Affairs Manager League of CA Cities, Channel Counties (805) 797 -3530 Visit www.cutupthecard.com <file: / /www.cutupthecard.com /> to calculate the cumulative impacts of past state takeaways on YOUR city, and then send a 'PAST DUE' bill to your legislators. It's time for the state to cut up its local government credit card once and for all! The state should balance its budget with state revenues. Cities are facing many of the same budget challenges as the state and borrowing is a fiscally irresponsible way to solve their problem. California voters believe it is wrong for the state to seize local government and transportation funds - remind your representatives today. The state has the tools to balance their budget and they need to get to it! 2 :J�.Pj3 Local Funds at Risk in the FY08 -09 State Budget Standoff Estimated maximum exposure assuming property tax shifts allocated proportionate to ERAF III Redevelopment #s from Calif Redevelopement Assn assume flat % of gross tax increment. SANTA MARIA -1,810,465 -830,432 -48,167 -2,689,063 Property Tax * Proposition 42 RedevelopmentTI 221,935 City /County CALIFORNIA Borrowine Borrowing Shift / Take Total CITIES * - - --- ------------------------------------- -5,050,050 - 286,000,000 - 986,000,000 _0'''_0'0---- - 700,000,000 - - - - -- '0'_''0'0,0 666 NTI ES - 700,000,000 - 286,000,000 -1,984,314 - - ---- -- - 986,000,000 SPECIAL DISTRICTS - 700,000,000 286,022 _-- _---- 607,186 --,-__ 700,000,000 - ----- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -332,327 -269,510 --------- 200,000,000 ------------------- - 200,000,000 -------------- -REDEVELOPMENTAGENCIES - ---------------- STATE TOTAL - 2,100,000,000 - 572,000,000 - 200,000,000 - 2,872,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 736,334 6, --- -- 6 - - - - -- LUIS OBISPO COUNTY -SAN ARROYO GRANDE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -486,624 -154,066 -51,849 -692,538 ATASCADERO -653,279 -255,363 -159,900 -1,068,542 - ------ - -- - ----------------------------•--------------------------------------.....-----------------------------....--•-------- EL PASO DE ROBLES -730,837 - - - - -- -271,322 ---------------- --------- - 149,323 - -• - -- ----- - - - - -• ----.....-•-------- - 1,151,482 --------------- - - - - -- ---------- - -- ----------------- GROVER BEACH 272,296 - - - - -- ---- - -- -121,881 - - -------- -------------------- 44,679 ------ -- - 438,856 --- ---- •------ - - - - -• - -- --- ----- - - - -- - - ------- --------- M0RR0 BAY --------- 456,778 96,729 - .................................................................................................................................. County of VENTURA -T -- -- ---6 PISMO BEACH - 361,745 -- � .,.------- -80,126 �-- - -- -� - �-- -- - - -41,294 -- ��_. - - - -- _ - 483,165 -- - - -- -- _�- - - - - -- -- -�_� �. -__ __ -__ -- �-_ - -- -� -- SAN LUIS OBISPO - - - - - 1,360,308 -410,127 -1,770,435 County of SAN LUIS OBISPO-------- - -- - - ------- -------------------- -- -- - - - -- -- 4,700,578 -----• _.- :3.386,537_ -_.....-•------- -------- _ -_ -.= 8,087,115 - Special Districts in SAN LUIS OBISPO County -5,712,450 -5,712,450 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BUELLTON - 154,534 -42,867 -22,282 -219,683 CARPINTERIA -261,375 -134,089 -395,465 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOLETA -327,574 -277,344 -95,646 -700,563 GUADALUPE -66,434 -59,047 -42,458 -167,939 LOMPOC --- ---- -- - --- -- ------------------------------------- -699,230 - ----- -------- -389,048 - - - - -- -- --------------- -112,632 - - -- -- - ------- -1,200,909 - - - - -- --_7_,2_9_7__'___* - --- SANTA BARBARA - 2,477,138 - 86sssa - 71a,6o1 - a,os SANTA MARIA -1,810,465 -830,432 -48,167 -2,689,063 Notes: o Assumes $2.1 B max proptax shift. o Prop1 A does not specify allocation. These #s assume allocation proportionate to ERAF III. Actuals may be higher /lower. ; 'j o fl y to 4 me Aug08 californiacityfinance.com page 1 of 1 171,420 - 50,516 221,935 -SOLVANG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- County of SANTA BARBARA -7,788,714 -3,536,802 -205,722 - 11,531,238 Special Districts in SANTA BARBARA County ....--•-----------------------------•-••------...--------....---------•--------••-••--------------••-------------------....--------- -5,050,050 -5,00,050 VENTURA COUNTY CAMARILLO --- - - - - - -1,175,455 - - -------- -603,070 - -- --- -205,789 - - ---- -1,984,314 - - ---- -- - - - FILLMORE ---- ---- -- - -- ----- - 180,998 - - --- ------------_----------------- 140,166 286,022 _-- _---- 607,186 --,-__ ----- _- __---------- ---- -- MOORPARK -- - - - -517,420 - - -• --------------------------------------------------------- -332,327 -269,510 --------- -1,119,257 - ...- - - • - - - -- - - ---- - - - - -- - -• OJAI - -- -- - 185,385 - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -74,978 ------------------ - - - - -65,055 -- ----- - - - -•• - - -- -325,418 ----------- ...._. -- -- - - -- --- - - - - -- • -- -- - - - -- O)(N/aRD 3,742,580 1,774,222 736,334 6, --- -- 6 PORT HUENEME - 275,443 -------- •-------- - 206,337 -... -- ........ --•----•-........ - 258,653 ---------- - 740,433 •......... ... - -- ---------------- ... SAN BUENAVENTURA 2,869,363 988,156 126,895 ...... 3,984,413 --••------...-- - -- - - ----- --- - - - - -- - - - - -• - - - - - - -- - - -...- - - SANTA PAULA - - - -- .....--- .....- ....----- 466,453 ...... 269,383 120,122 855,958 SIMI VALLEY - --•--- - 2,236,577 .....-- •--......--••• ------ 1,144,749 -- --...----------- -804,377 -•--..... ...... -4,185,703 -- --......... - - --••-• -- ----••- -- ------ -----• THOUSAND OAKS 3,081,278 1,174,305 803,255 5,058,838 - .................................................................................................................................. County of VENTURA -T -- X14,171,112 -_ -- _5,756,754 _r - 24,704 19,952,570 Special Districts in VENTURA County ----------------------•--- -----•----------------••----••- 20,976,636• - - -- - --••-----------• _ - -_ -- -- _47,062 ---- ....... 21,023,698- - Notes: o Assumes $2.1 B max proptax shift. o Prop1 A does not specify allocation. These #s assume allocation proportionate to ERAF III. Actuals may be higher /lower. ; 'j o fl y to 4 me Aug08 californiacityfinance.com page 1 of 1 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE STATE BUDGET DECISIONS THAT WOULD `BORROW" LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008 the State Legislature missed its Constitutional budget deadline; and WHEREAS, both the Governor and the Legislative Budget Conference Committee have recommended balanced budgets without resorting to "loans" or seizures of local government property tax, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds; and WHEREAS, in 1952 the voters of California approved n 1952 the voters approved Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, providing for tax increment financing for community revitalization —not balancing the state budget, and the voters never authorized the legislature to take or "borrow" community redevelopment funds for state programs; and WHEREAS, in 2004 by an 84% margin of approval the voters of California approved Proposition 1A and sent a loud and unambiguous message to state leaders that they should stop the destructive and irresponsible practice of taking local government funds to finance the state budget and paper over the state deficit; and WHEREAS, in 2006 by a 77% margin of approval the voters of California also approved Proposition 1A, providing similar protections to transportation funding for state and local transportation projects, including important street maintenance and public transit programs; and WHEREAS, both ballot measures allow the Governor to declare a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and "borrow" these funds if they are repaid in three years with interest, but the Governor believes it would be irresponsible to "borrow" such funds because it would deepen the state's structural deficit and cripple local government and transportation services; and WHEREAS, refusal by the Legislature to carryout its constitutional obligation to compromise on a balanced budget is not a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and would not justify reductions in critical local services, community revitalization programs and infrastructure maintenance at a time when cities are struggling to balance their own budgets during this economic down turn; and WHEREAS, city investments in infrastructure, affordable housing and basic public safety and other community services will create needed jobs and speed our economic recovery; and WHEREAS, the Legislature should balance the state budget with state revenues and respect the overwhelming support of voters for not using local property taxes, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds to fund the day -to -day operating cost of state programs; and WHEREAS, it would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility to paper over the state structural deficit with more borrowing, and Californians deserve state leaders who will tell them honestly what needs to be done to produce a balanced budget; and WHEREAS, it is time for the state of California to cut up its local government credit cards and deal with the budget deficit in a straightforward way. Balance the state budget with state funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of hereby opposes any and all efforts by state government to "borrow" or seize local tax funds, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds by the state government to finance state operations. Such a move would be fiscally irresponsible for the state and hamper effective local services and infrastructure investments. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Mayor /City Manager is hereby directed to send this resolution and communicate this Council's strong and unswerving opposition on this matter to our Legislators and the Governor along with an expression of our continued appreciation for the Governor's and any supportive legislators' steadfast opposition to further borrowing or seizure of these funds. APPROVED this day of , 2008. _3'i 4j b EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING STATE BUDGET DECISIONS THAT WOULD "BORROW" LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008 the State Legislature missed its Constitutional budget deadline; and WHEREAS, both the Governor and the Legislative Budget Conference Committee have recommended balanced budgets without resorting to "loans" or seizures of local government property tax, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds; and WHEREAS, in 1952 the voters of California approved Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, providing for tax increment financing for community revitalization —not balancing the state budget, and the voters never authorized the legislature to take or "borrow" community redevelopment funds for state programs; and WHEREAS, in 2004 by an 84% margin of approval the voters of California approved Proposition 1A and sent a loud and unambiguous message to state leaders that they should stop the destructive and irresponsible practice of taking local government funds to finance the state budget and paper over the state deficit; and WHEREAS, in 2006 by a 77% margin of approval the voters of California also approved Proposition 1 A, providing similar protections to transportation funding for state and local transportation projects, including important street maintenance and public transit programs; and WHEREAS, both ballot measures allow the Governor to declare a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and "borrow" these funds if they are repaid in three years with interest, but the Governor believes it would be irresponsible to "borrow" such funds because it would deepen the state's structural deficit and cripple local government and transportation services; and WHEREAS, refusal by the Legislature to carryout its constitutional obligation to compromise on a balanced budget is not a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and would not justify reductions in critical local services, community revitalization programs and infrastructure maintenance at a time when cities are struggling to balance their own budgets during this economic down turn; and WHEREAS, city investments in infrastructure, affordable housing and basic public safety and other community services will create needed jobs and speed our economic recovery; and '_r dr (� C, 7 Resolution No. 2008 - Page 2 WHEREAS, the Legislature should balance the state budget with state revenues and respect the overwhelming support of voters for not using local property taxes, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds to fund the day -to -day operating cost of state programs; and WHEREAS, it would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility to paper over the state structural deficit with more borrowing, and Californians expect its state leaders to do what needs to be done to produce a balanced budget without "borrowing" from cities; and WHEREAS, it is time for the state of California to cut up its local government credit cards and deal with the budget deficit in a straightforward way. Balance the state budget with state funds. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Moorpark hereby opposes any and all efforts by state government to "borrow" or seize local tax funds, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds by the state government to finance state operations. Such a move would be fiscally irresponsible for the state and hamper effective local services and infrastructure investments. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to send this resolution and communicate this Council's strong and unswerving opposition on this matter to State Legislators and the Governor along with an expression of our continued appreciation for the Governor's and any supportive legislators' steadfast opposition to further borrowing or seizure of these funds. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2008. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk )`:f�1r,