Are we going to jump up and support the first plan, no matter how bad it is
in the long term, just because the majority (?) are appeased for awhile.
The Plan will only take pressure off the state to return our property taxes,
and that is a fight we should not give up.
If we are going to restructure revenue to guarantee Local governments a
fair, equitable and RELIABLE source of funding, we need to do it right.
Any allocation of sales tax that doesn't at least contain some component
related to situs ignores the service impacts retail puts on cities. If
sales tax is allocated purely on population, what City would ever want
another retailer? Of course, with the Feds help, we will all be shopping
online and paying no sales taxes anyway. Hopefully none of us have citizens
who rely on retail jobs for their livelihood.
We need to be looking for long term solutions, not quick fixes that simply
take the heat off the State.
Sue Rossi
Director of Finance
City of Pleasanton
-----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
