CC - Item 4B - Resolution 2004-09 - Supporting the local taxpayers and public safety protection actTO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEME ITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL CRO E, CITY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004
RE: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-09 - ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUPPORTING
THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION
ACT
At the annual conference of the League of California Cities, the General Assembly of
Voting Delegates voted unanimously to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to empower
the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund
state government. The League has requested that each city council adopt a resolution in
support of League-sponsored initiative to let the voters have the final say on State
Legislature actions that would further reduce local tax revenue sources.
For more than a decade, the State Legislature has been taking away increasing amounts
of local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like police
and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, and libraries. In fact,
through good times and bad, the State has been taking away billions in local tax dollars
each year - forcing local governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain
services, or cut back on critically needed services.
The League of Cities has joined forces with the California State Association of Counties
and California Special Districts Association to sponsor a ballot initiative in November
2004, entitled The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act. This measure
would protect the vital local services that California residents rely on each and every day
by requiring voter approval before the State could reduce funding for local services or
shift more costs to local governments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-09 supporting The Local Tar
Protection Act.
payers ano runic
COUNIICIL
FEB 2 4 2004
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
SUPPORTING THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION
ACT
WHEREAS, the State of California annually seizes over 5800 million in city property tax funds
(ERAF) statewide, costing cities over $6.9 billion in lost revenues over the past 12
years and seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other
services; and
WHEREAS, in adopting the state budget this year the Legislature and Governor appropriated
local vehicle license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are
needed to finance critical city services such as public safety, parks, street
maintenance, housing and economic development; and
WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the state budget depends on a local property and sales
tax swap that leaves city services vulnerable if the state's economic condition fails
to improve; and
WHEREAS, the adopted state budget assumes an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least S8
billion, putting city resources and services at risk in future years to additional state
revenue raids; and
WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that state leaders will continue to use local tax funds to
balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and
Governor to do so; and
WHEREAS, the voters of California are the best judges of whether local tax funds should be
diverted, confiscated, shifted or otherwise taken to finance an ever-expanding state
government; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities at its
September 10, 2003 meeting voted to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to
empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax
funds to fund state government; and
WHEREAS, the League has requested that cities offer support for a November 2004 ballot
initiative that will allow voters to decide whether state government may appropriate
local tax funds to fund state government operations and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD:
SECTION 1: The City hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to
allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be taken, confiscated, shifted,
diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and
responsibilities.
SECTION 2: The Rosemead City Council and staff are authorized to provide impartial
informational materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided by the city's
representatives. No public funds shall be used to campaign for or against the
initiative.
SECTION 3: The residents of the City are encouraged to become well informed on the initiative
and its possible impacts on the critical local services on which they rely.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State. Senator Gloria Romero,
Assemblymember Judy Chu, the Executive Director of the League of California
Cities, California Contract Cities Association, and Joe A. Gonsalves & Son.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD THIS 24"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2004.
11 1
MAYOR
Attest:
CITY CLERK
LEAGUE 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
OF CALIFORNIA Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
.org
CITIES
LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT-AN OVERVIEW
November 2004 Election
State-Local Fiscal System Broken. There is widespread agreement that the state-local fiscal relationship is broken. One
of the reasons is because state leaders no longer respect the difference between state and local tax revenues. In recent
years, the state legislature and governor have approved laws that divert, use or delay the payment of local tax revenues
to local governments that finance public safety, public health, park, library, street maintenance and other vital community
services. This has caused pressure for higher local fees that can increase the cost of housing.
Local Funds Drained for Higher State Spending. Since 1991 more than $30 billion of local property taxes have been
drained from cities, counties and special districts-posting cities alone $800 million in FY 2003-04 and 6.9 billion the last
12 years. Even in years of state budget surpluses, the state has used these funds to finance its constitutional funding
obligation to public education, allowing it to increase state general fund spending for other state programs. This has come
at the expense of vital local public safety and other services.
State Shifts Costs to Local Governments. In recent years the state also has shifted costs for state-sponsored
programs and delayed constitutionally required reimbursements to local governments for state mandated programs and
services. In the last two fiscal years, the state has "deferred" over $1 billion in constitutionally required reimbursements to
local governments for mandated services and programs. This cost burden is then paid with local taxes that should be
used for important local services
Constitutional Protection Needed Now. The League has joined forces with the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) to sponsor a ballot initiative in November 2004, entitled
the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act, to put the voters in charge of whether local tax dollars should be
used to fund state services. It will not raise taxes. It will not repeal laws the state has already passed. It will not require the
return of property taxes already taken nor affect funding of schools. It will not prevent structural reform of the fiscal
system--simply require that structural changes be planned collaboratively by state and local leaders and approved by the
voters. The initiative will do two simple things:
Public Vote Required. Require approval by a majority of the electorate before a proposed state law may
take effect that reduces the sales, property and VLF funds of cities, counties and Epecial districts.
Flexibility is provided to reduce the VLF and replace it with substitute revenues (i.e., a "backfilP) without
voter approval; and
Reimburse for Mandated Costs. Clarify the state's duty to reimburse in a timely way for a new
mandated program or higher level of service, protecting local governments from hidden cost shifts.
Allows local governments to opt-out of certain non-workplace safety and employee procedural rights
mandates if the state fails to pay in a timely way.
For More Information. Contact Chris McKenzie, Executive Director (916-658-8275); Mike Madrid, Public Affairs Director
(916-658-8272); or Dwight Stenbakken, Deputy. Executive Director (916858213).
How to Make A Contribution. The League has established a political action committee (CITIPAC--ID # 1254399) for
contributions to this initiative. For more information, contact 916-658-8273, email info(q)citipac.org or go to
www.citipac.orq
Revised Dc tober 30, 2003
C I T I P A C
www.citipac.org
Date: February 4, 2004
File No.: SA2003RF0067
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed measure:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND REVENUES. STATE MANDATES. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires voter approval for any legislation that provides
for any reduction, based on January 1, 2003 levels, of local governments' vehicle license fee
revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues.
Permits local government to suspend performance of state mandate if State fails to reimburse
local government within 180 days of final determination of state-mandated obligation; except
mandates requiring local government to provide/modify: any protection, benefit or employment
status to employee/retiree, or any procedural/substantive employment right for employee or
employee organization. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments: This initiative would have the following fiscal
effects, the magnitude of which would depend on future actions by the Legislature and state
voters: Higher and more stable local government revenues than otherwise would have been the
case, potentially several billion dollars annually. Significant changes to state finance, potentially
including higher state taxes or lower spending on state programs than otherwise would have been
the case. The state fiscal effect would be commensurate with the measure's impact on local
governments.
THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT
SECTION ONE. Short Title.
These amendments to the California Constitution shall be known and may be
cited as the LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT.
SECTION TWO. Findings and Purposes
(a) The People of the State of California find that restoring local control over local
tax dollars is vital to insure that local tax dollars are used to provide critical local services
including, but not limited to, police, fire, emergency and trauma care, public health,
libraries, criminal justice, and road and street maintenance. Reliable funding for these
services is essential for the security, well-being and quality of life of all Californians.
(b) For many years, the Legislature has taken away local tax dollars used by local
governments so that the State could control those local tax dollars. In fact, the Legislature
has been taking away billions of local tax dollars each year, forcing local governments to
either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, or cut back on critically needed local
services.
(c) The Legislature's diversion of local tax dollars from local governments harms
local governments' ability to provide such specific services as police, fire, emergency and
trauma care, public health, libraries, criminal justice, and road and street maintenance.
(d) In recognition of the harm caused by diversion of local tax dollars and the
importance placed on voter control of major decisions concerning government finance,
and consistent with existing provisions of the California Constitution that give the people
the right to vote on fiscal changes, the People of the State of California want the right to
vote upon actions by the State government that take local tax dollars from local
governments.
(e) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act is designed to insure
that the People of the State of California shall have the right to approve or reject the
actions of state government to take away local revenues that fund vitally needed local
services.
(f) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act strengthens the
requirement that if the State mandates local governments to implement new or expanded
programs, then the State shall reimburse local governments for the cost of those
programs.
(g) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act does not amend or
modify the School Funding Initiative, Proposition 98 (Article XVI, section 8 of the
California Constitution).
(h) Therefore, the People declare that the purposes of this Act are to:
(1) require voter approval before the Legislature removes local tax dollars
from the control of Local Government, as described in this measure;
(2) insure that local tax dollars are dedicated to local governments to fund
local public services;
(3) insure that the Legislature reimburses local governments when the
State mandates local governments to assume more financial responsibility
for new or existing programs; and
(4) prohibit the Legislature from deferring or delaying annual
reimbursement to local governments for state-mandated programs.
SECTION THREE. Article XIIIE is hereby added to the California Constitution to read
as follows:
ARTICLE XIIIE Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
Section 1. State-wide Voter Approval Required.
(a) Approval by a majority vote of the electorate, as provided for in this section,
shall be required before any act of the Legislature takes effect that removes the following
funding sources, or portions thereof, from the control of any Local Government as
follows:
(1) Reduces, or suspends or delays the receipt of, any Local Government's
proportionate share of the Local Property Tax when the Legislature
exercises its power to apportion the Local Property Tax; or requires
any Local Government to remit Local Property Taxes to the State, a
state-created fund, or, without the consent of the affected Local
Governments, to another Local Government;
(2) Reduces, or delays or suspends the receipt of, the Local Government
Base Year Fund to anv Local Government, without appropriating
funds to offset the reduction, delay or suspension in an equal amount;
(3) Restricts the authority to impose, or changes the method of
,distributing, the Local Sales Tax;
(4) Reduces, or suspends or delays the receipt of, the 2003 Local
Government Payment Deferral; or
(5) Fails to reinstate the suspended Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales Tax
Rate in accordance with Section 97.68 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code added by Chapter 162 of 2003 Statutes; or reduces any Local
Government's allocation of the Property Tax required by Section
97.68 while the Sales.Tax Rate is suspended.
(b) Prior to its submission to the electorate, an act subject to voter approval under
this section most be approved by the same vote of the Legislature as is required to enact a
budget bill and shall not take effect until approved by a majority of those voting on the
measure at the next statewide election in accordance with subdivision (c).
(c) When an election is required by this section, the Secretary of State shall
present the following question to the electorate: "Shall that action taken by the
Legislature in [Chapter- of the Statutes of which affects local revenues, be
approved?
Section 2. Definitions
(a) "Local Government" means any city, county, city and county, or special
district.
(b) "Local Government Base Year Fund" means the amount of revenue
appropriated in the 2002-2003 fiscal year in accordance with Chapters I through 5,
commencing with section 10701 of Part 5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, adjusted annually based upon the change in assessed valuation of vehicles that are
subject to those provisions of law. In the event that the fees imposed by those provisions
of law are repealed, then the Fund shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by an amount not
less than the percentage change in per capita personal income and the change in
population, as calculated pursuant to Article XIIIB.
(c) "2003 Local Government Payment Deferral" means the amount of revenues
required to be transferred to Local Government from the General Fund specified in
subparagraph D of paragraph 3 of subdivision (a) of section 10754 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code in effect on August 11, 2003.
(d) "Local Property Tax" means any Local Government's January 1, 2003
proportionate share of ad valorem taxes on real property, and tangible personal property
apportioned pursuant to the Legislature's exercise of its power to apportion property
taxes as specified in Article XIIIA, section 1. "Local Property Tax" also means any
Local Government's allocation of the ad valorem tax on real property and tangible
personal property pursuant to Article XVI, section 16.
(e) "Local Sales Tax" means any sales and use tax imposed by any city, county,
or city and county pursuant to the terms of the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax
(Chapter 1 of Part 1.5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) in accordance
with the law in effect on January 1, 2003.
(f) "Special District" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general
law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions
with limited geographic boundaries, including redevelopment agencies, but not including
school districts, community college districts, or county offices of education.
(g) "State" means the State of California.
Section 3. Interim Measures
(ay The operation and effect of any statute, or portion thereof, enacted between
November 1, 2003 and the effective date of this Act, that would have required voter
approval pursuant to Section 1 if enacted on or after the effective date of this Act (the
"Interim Statute"), shall be suspended on that date and shall have no further force and
effect until the date the Interim Statute is approved by the voters at the first statewide
If
election following the effective date of this Act in the manner specified in Section I .
the Interim Statute is not approved by the voters, it shall have no further force and effect.
(b) If the Interim Statute is approved by the voters, it shall nonetheless have no
further force and effect during the period of suspension; provided, however, that the
statute shall have force and effect during the period of suspension if the Interim Statute or
separate act of the Legislature appropriates funds to affected local governments in an
amount which is not less than the revenues affected by the Interim Statute.
(c) A statute or other measure that is enacted by the Legislature and approved by
the voters between November 1, 2003 and the effective date of this Act is not an Interim
Statute within the meaning of this section.
SECTION FOUR. Article XIIIB Section Six (6) is hereby amended as follows:
SEC. 6. (a) Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or
higher level of service on any local government, the State shall annually provide a
subvention of funds to reimburse such local government for the costs of such program or
increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide such
subvention of funds for the following mandates:
(a) (1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected;
N (2) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a
crime; or
(e) (3) Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975, or executive orders
or regulations initially implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1975.
(b) The annual subvention offunds required by this section shall be transmitted to the
local government within 180 days of the effective date of the statute or regulation or
order by a State officer or agency that mandates a new program or higher level of
service, or within 180 days of a final adjudication that a subvention offends is required
pursuant to this section. For purposes of this section, the Legislature or any State
agency or officer mandates a new program or higher level of service when it creates a
new program, requires services not previously required to be provided, increases the
frequency a- duration of required services, increases the number ofpersons eligible far
services, or transfers to local government complete or partial financial responsibility for
a program for which the State previously had complete or partial financial responsibility.
(c) If during 'the fiscal year in which a claim for reimbursement is filed for a subvention
offunds, the Legislature does not appropriate a subvention offunds that provides full
reimbursement as required by subdivision (a), or does not appropriate a subvention of
funds that provides full reimbursement as part of the state budget act in the fiscal year
immediately following the filing of that claim for reimbursement, then a local government
may elect one of the following options:
(1) Continue to perform the mandate. The local government shall receive
reimbursement for its costs to perform the mandate through a subsequent appropriation
and subvention offunds; or
(2) Suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of the fiscal year
in which the election permitted by this subdivision is made. The local government
may continue to suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of
subsequent fiscal years until the fiscal year in which the Legislature appropriates
the subvention offunds to provide full reimbursement as required by subdivision
(a). A local government shall receive reimbursement for its costs for that portion
of the fiscal year during which it perfornned the mandate through a subsequent
appropriation and subvention offunds.
The terms of this subdivision do not apply to, and a local government may not make the
election provided for in this subdivision, for a mandate that either requires a local
government to provide or nnodify any form ofprotection, right, benefit or employment
status for any local government employee or retiree, or provides or modifies any
procedural or substantive right for any local government enployee or employee
organization, arising from, affecting, or directly relating to future, current, or past local
government employment.
(d) For puposes of this section, "mandate" means a statute, or action or order of any
state agency, which has been determined by the Legislature, any court, or the
Commission on State Mandates or its designated successor, to require reimbursement
pursuant to this section.
SECTION FIVE. Construction.
(a) This measure shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, which include
providing adequate funds to Local Government for local services including, but not
limited to, such services as police, fire, emergency and trauma care, public health,
libraries, criminal justice, and road and street maintenance.
(b) This measure shall not be construed either to alter the apportionment of the ad
valorem tax on real property pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIIIA by any statute in
effect prior to January 1, 2003 or to prevent the Legislature from altering that
apportionment in compliance with the terms of this measure.
(c) Except as provided in Section 3 of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act,
the provisions of Section I of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act apply to
all statutes adopted on or after the effective date of this Act.
SECTION SIX. If any part of this measure or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications that reasonably can be given effect without the -
invalid provision or application.
The Local Taxpayers and Public
Safety Protection Act
Ensuring Voter Control Over Local Tax Dollars
for Public Health, Safety and Other Essential Local Services
The Problem:
For more than a decade, the California State Legislature has been taking away increasing
amounts of local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like
police and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, libraries and water
delivery. In fact, through good times and bad, the State has been taking away billions in local
tax dollars each year - forcing local governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain
services, or cut back on critically needed services.
The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local services by protecting local
revenues from being taken by the State.
The Solution:
The 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act would increase local control over
our local tax dollars. This measure would let the voters have the final say on proposed actions
by the State Legislature that would further reduce local government funding. It would protect
the vital local services that California residents rely on each and every day - such as public
safety and emergency care, roads, libraries, parks and transportation - by requiring voter
approval before the State could reduce funding for local services or shift more costs to local
governments.
What this measure does:
O Requires voter approval before the Legislature can reduce local government revenues or
take them for state, rather than local, purposes.
O Ensures that local tax dollars are available to fund local services like police and fire,
emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries and water delivery.
O Makes it absolutely clear that if the State Legislature mandates that local governments
provide new or expanded programs or services, then the State would have to reimburse
local governments for the cost of those programs.
O Provides flexibility for state budgeting decisions, but requires voter-approval on any future
State Legislative actions that would reduce funding for essential local services.
What this measure DOES NOT do:
O Does not raise taxes. In fact, this measure will help decrease pressures for local fees and
taxes by protecting local revenue sources from State raids.
O Does not increase funding to local governments. Simply prevents the State Legislature
from raiding future local government funding.
O Does not reduce funding that schools receive from local property taxes or funding that
schools receive from the State.
0 Does not reduce funding for other state programs like schools or highways.
2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
Q&A
What would this measure do?
The 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act would increase local control over
our local tax dollars. This measure would let the voters have the final say on proposed actions
by the State Legislature that would further reduce local government funding. It would protect the
vital local services that California residents rely on each and every day - such as public safety
and emergency care, roads, libraries, parks and transportation -by requiring voter approval
before the State could reduce funding for local services or shift more costs for state programs to
local. governments.
Why is your measure needed?
For more than a decade, the California State Legislature has been taking away increasing
amounts of local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like police
and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, libraries and water delivery.
In fact, through good times and bad, the State has been taking away billions in local tax dollars
each year forcing local governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, or
cut back on critically needed services.
The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local services by protecting local
revenues from being taken by the State.
When do you plan to put this on the ballot? How many signatures do you need to
qualify?
Officially, we need 598,105 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2004
ballot. We plan to collect a far greater number of signatures to ensure it qualifies and that the
voters are given the opportunity to protect their local tax dollars and protect funding for local
public safety, health and other essential local services.
Who supports this measure?
The principal sponsors of the 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act are the
League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Special
Districts Association. Now that we have filed the initiative, we expect to grow a broad and
diverse coalition of public safety and health advocates, taxpayer and business groups, seniors,
community leaders and others who all have an interest in supporting the voters' right to protect
their local tax dollars and their local services.
Will this measure prevent state fiscal reform efforts?
No. In fact, a key element of State fiscal reform is drawing a clear line in the sand that prevents
the State Legislature from using local revenues to solve its problems or as a means of
increasing state spending at the expense of local services.
Will this measure raise taxes?
No. In fact, this measure will help decrease pressures for local fees and taxes by protecting
local revenue sources from state legislative raids.
Does this measure increase revenues to local governments?
No. It simply prevents the State Legislature from further taking local government revenues
without a vote of the people.
How will the new Governor respond to this? Don't you think you should first give him a
chance to correct the fiscal problems of the state?
First, we would like to thank the Governor-elect for his positive statements in the media and
during his campaign and his pledge to protect local services. We look forward to working with
Governor Schwarzenegger to achieve his stated goal of protecting local governments and
allowing local governments to provide the services that CA residents rely on every day.
The fact is, however, the voters deserve to have the final say on state actions that will erode
their local tax dollars and local services- no matter who is the governor and what the
composition of the legislature.
Why didn't you attempt to recollect lost ERAF property tax dollars?
This measure was intentionally drafted to draw a line in the sand and prevent future state
legislative raids of local government funding. While local governments and services are still
suffering from the continual state raid of property taxes, given the state of California's fiscal
health, we believe a more responsible approach at this time is to "stop the bleeding" at current
levels.
Will this measure erode funding for education?
No. This measure does not reduce state funding to schools and does not reduce funding that
schools receive from local property taxes.
What about other state programs? Will your measure reduce funding -for State programs
like roads and prisons?
Again, our initiative simply prevents the State from taking LOCAL revenues without a vote of the
people. The state still has flexibility over its own revenues.
Will this measure tie legislature's hands in passing a budget?
No. Our initiative does not tell the state how to spend its own revenues. It simply prevents the
State from taking funds that are designated for local governments and local services, or
shifting/imposing costs to locals-- unless first approved by a vote of the people.
Aren't we just adding to the state's fiscal woes by initiating further "ballot-box-
budgeting" that puts restrictions on how they can spend their revenues?
No. The initiative does not tell the state how to spend the state's own revenues (as some
propositions have done). What it does do is prevent the state from taking local revenues for
state purposes without a vote of the people. It essentially confirms that local tax revenues are
for local government services unless the voters decide otherwise.
Does this measure prevent the new Governor or Legislature from rolling back the car
tax?
No. It simply ensures that local governments will be kept "whole" through a backfill or some
other means. If the legislature and/or Governor want to roll back the car tax without providing
backfill to local governments, they are free to do so but must get the approval of the electorate.
Californians ! ~`rvtecat
I.c~caB T:uxOomyarx orLd T rE1131ic; sat-4!cy
Key Dates for The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
February 18, 2004 Petition Pick-Up - Normandie Casino, 1045 W. Rosecrans Ave. (110
Freeway @ Rosecrans), Gardena, CA 11:30 a.m. -1:30 p.m.
Signature Training & Petition Pick-Up - House of Blues, 8430 Sunset
Blvd. (Cross street is Olive Dr., adjacent to the Mondrian Hotel)
4:30 - 5:30 p.m. Free self-parking on-site. Enter lot behind House of
Blues off of Olive. If attendant is on site let them know what meeting you
are there for.
February 26, 2004 Signature Training & Petition Pick-Up - Redondo Beach Historic Library,
Veteran's Park-309 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, 2:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Signature Training & Petition Pick-Up - Malibu Chamber of Commerce
and City Hall Business Park, 23815 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
March 11, 2004 Los Angeles Countywide evening reception fundraiser at the California
Club in Downtown Los Angeles, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
March 31, 2004 South Bay evening reception fundraiser, Redondo Beach Historical
Library, Veteran's Park, 309 Esplanade, Redondo Beach
April 15, 2004 End date for volunteer signature gathering efforts
May 15, 2004 Palos Verdes Estates May Day Barbecue, 4:00 - 8:00 p.m.
May-June Certification by the Secretary of State
For more information on all of the above contact Ann Marie Wallace at (562) 572-7468,
Jennifer Quan at (626) 786-5142, or Patricia Alvarez-SahagOn at (562) 572-7470.
Paid for By Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, Sponsored by a coalition of local
government organizations, California State Associations of Counties (non-public funds account), League
of California Cities (non-public funds account) and the California Special Districts Association (non-public
funds account)
1121 L Street, Suite 803 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone (916) 443-0872 Fax (916) 442-3510