CC - 1972 - 72 - Allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds Among Units of Local Goverment • 41410•
RESOLUTION NO . 72-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REQUESTING THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY LAW PROVIDE FOR
THE ALLOCATION OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS AMONG UNITS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON AN OPTIONAL FORMULA BASIS AS AUTHORIZED
UNDER THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS , the original House formula and the amended formula
agreed to by the House and Senate Conferees for the Revenue Sharing
program results in approximately the allocations to the various
cities of Los Angeles County as shown on the attached Exhibit "A";
and
WHEREAS, the original House formula gave weight to population
and relative per capita income and resulted in per capita allocations
to Los Angeles County cities ranging from a low of $7 .65 (Beverly
Hills) to a high of $13 .90 (Compton) , with an average County-wide
allocation of approximately $10 .50 ; and
WHEREAS, this was a reasonable and fair method of allocating
Revenue Sharing Funds , giving due weight to the "ability to pay" or
"relative need concept ; and
WHEREAS, the amended allocation method agreed to by the House
and Senate Conferees minimizes the population factor and gives undue
weight to general tax effort and relative per capita income factors ,
thereby resulting to per capita allocations to Los Angeles County
cities ranging from a low of $2 .74 (Cerritos) to a high of $26 .94
(Commerce) , with an average per capita County-wide allocation of
approximately $10 .00, and furthermore;
WHEREAS, in the determination of a municipality' s general tax
effort , the actual taxes paid by its citizens were ignored in favor
of the actual taxes levied by the community, since apparently excluded
in the general tax effort factor are all special district taxes paid;
and
WHEREAS, serious inequities result from these deficiencies in the
amended formula, and are readily apparent , and reflected by the fact
that a city with a population of only $5, 588 receives a higher alloca-
tion, $122,885, than a city with a population of 24,825, $92,230, and
also by the fact that the highest per capita allocation, $26 .94, is
made to a city which is generally recognized in the area as being the
community which can best afford services to its citizens without the
benefit of Revenue Sharing assistance .
NOW, THEREFORE , the City Council of the City of Rosemead does
resolve as follows :
That the State of California avail itself of the special allo-
cation rules of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972
and provide by law for an optional formula for distribution of future
Revenue Sharing Funds among units of local government on a basis
which gives more weight to population and relative per capita income,
and less weight to the general tax effort factor , thereby minimizing
the effects of thedeficiencies in the allocation method finally
adopted .
r , r
41011 - 41411
•
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the League of California Cities
and the legislative bodies of every city in California be requested
to consider and adopt a similar resolution urging enactment of
legislation by the State of California as recommended above .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk forward copies of
this Resolution to Governor Ronald Reagan, Senator Alfred H. Song
and. Assemblymen Harvey Johnson and Walter Karabian.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF November , 1972 .
/7/ Ar
MAYOR, City of Rosemead
ATTEST:
CITY CLE- K, City of Ro .emead
-2-
Resolution No. 41410 - II, .
i Exhibit "I1"
REVENUE SHARING ALLOCATIONS
Cities o{ Los Ans1i.csCOunt .
Original Per
Amended Per
Pspu tion Formula_ Capita Fori�t ula2 Capita
City 1 2
- 10. 37 $ 527 , 535 $ 8.49
Alhambra 62, 125 $ 644, 400 $ 3. 94
Arcadia 45, 138 391 , 121 8.67 177 , 825 12.77 58, 376 . 3096
14, 757 188, 450
� :sia
Avalon 1, 520 Unknown
12 m 23 350 , 639 13 0 91
Azusa 25, 217 308, 511 293 , 001 6 20
47 , 285 612, 154 12. 95
Baldwin Park 11. 35 169, 905 7 . 78
Bell 21, 836 247, 867 191, 161 3e72
51, 454 572, 127 11,12
Bellflower 13. 54 10; 2 4.81
?_9, 308 396, 702 482
144, 822 3 . 72
BellGardens
Beverly Hills • 33, 416 255, 534 7. 65
Bradbury 1, 098 Unknown 886, 160 . 9097
Burbank
88, 871 904, 095 . 10. 17
72, 358 Unknown 58, 908 2.74
Carson 168, 909 7086
Cerritos 21, 500
24, 400 238, 34026. 944
Claremont
rce - 10, 536 9. 77 108,449 4.45
Comm136, 794 12. 98 283, 788
78, 661 1,093, 628 13. 90 1, 358, 66017 . 27
Covina
na 31, 332 332, 930
Compton 10.63 354, 888 11033
1342 63, 151 3072 .
Cudahy 16 , 998 228, 093
36 , 050 309, 233
8. 58 440,472 • 12 . 22
Culver City 1Ca10 436,401 4. 93
Downey 88, 445 ' ' . 893, 122
Duarte 14, 981
182, 367 12017 55 , 657 3.72
70, 0`12 859, 800 12628 714, 930
1Os21
El Monte 157, 673 10009 303 , 663 19. 44
P1 Segundo 15, 620 8 .72 � 354, 171 7. 84
Jena 45, 191 439, 371 6.19
1, 323, 32.5 9 . 98 821, 657
Glendale - 132, 664 10 . 59 201, 167 6. 21
Hawaiian Gardens 9, 850
32, 374 342, 7536 .63
Glendora 135, 749 13. 78 65 , 349
377, 152 7008
53 , 304 - 572, 449 10074
Hawtizorne 9. 86 - 96, 566 5. 55 ,
Hermosa Beach 17 , 412 171, 624
Hidden Hills 2, 050 Unknown
I3untington. Park 33 , 744
• 378, 204 11. 21 416, 918 12. 36
Industry 712 Unknown
89, 985 � 929 , 162 . 10. 33 667,004 7 .41
Inglewood
Irwindale 784 Unknown 4034
83, 025 911, 753 10.98 . 359, 935
Lakewood ��'
32 , 464 336 , 632 10. 37 114, 457 353
La Mirada 415 , 728 13037 181, 017 5;8?_
La Puente 31, 092 0 147, 889 10.72 • 85, 689 6021
13 , 80
La Verne 297 , 298 11. 98 92 , 230 3. 72
Lawndale 24, 825
19 , 784 217 ,860 11. 01 73, 601 3. 72
Lomita 10 .47 3, 746, 725 10037
Long Beach 361, 321 3, 781, 603 10E48 35, 442, 819 12. 50
LOSAn geles 2, 835 , 600 29, 715, 295
1 1971 population for motor Vehicle License Fee Apportionments to cities
As published in the LOS ANGELES TIMES
EXHIBIT
m2®
;:' ' Resolution NO. 41Mip 4141/
i Exhibit "A" (Cont. .
Original Per Amended Per
ity Population Formula Capita Formula Capita
ynwood 43, 354 489, 895 11. 30 229, 823 5. 30
anhattan Beach 35, 352 337, 200 9. 54 160, 150 4.53
aywocd 16 , 996 203, 170 11. 97 130, 934 7. 70
onrovia 30, .A.5 337, 749 11. 25 375, 512 12 . 51
ontobello 42, 807 461, 745 10. 79 437, 724 10. 23
onterey Park 49 , 166 514, 468 ' 10.46 301, 682 6. 14
o lk 91,827 1, 128, 927 12. 29 362, 375 3. 95
a_..._a1e 8, 511 95, 721 11. 25 35, 834 4. 21
ales Verdes Estates 13, 631 114, 029 8. 37 50, 679 3. 72
aramount 34, 734 428, 235 12. 33 203, 748 5.87
asadena ' 112, 951 1, 125, 486 9. 96 1, 088, 116 9.63
ico Rivera . 54, 170 668, 498 12. 34 272 , 003 5 ,02
omona 87, 384 ` 1, 047, 232 • 11. 98 1, 367, 975 15.66
:edondo Beach 57 , 451 613, 771 10. 68 649, 765 11. 31
_olling Hills 1, 52.9 Unknown .
:oiling Hills Estates 6 ,735 . 59, 57.2 8, 85 25, 022 3. 72
.osemead 40, 972 502, 926 . 12. 28 152, 219 3.72
an Dimas 16, 000 180, 670 . 11. 29 58, 299 3. 64
an Fernando 16 , 571 198, 970 12. 01 298, 550 18.02
,an Gabriel . 29, 336 308, 763 10. 53 212, 058 7. 23
an Marino 14, 177 111,, 268 - 7. 85 ' 53,670 3. 79
anta Fe Springs -15, 350 179, 190 11.67 397, 293 25. 88
.anta Monica 88, 349 874, 039 9. 89 746, 774 8.45
Tierra Madre 12, 140 119, 672 9. 86 45, 102 3. 72 .
signal Hill - 5, 588 58, 671 10. 50 122 , 885 21. 99
outh El Monte 16 , 115 • . 179, 420 11. 13 204, 394 12.68
outh Gate 56 , 909 • 624, 130 10. 97 408, 468 7. 18
outh Pasadena ' ' 23, 250 213, 244 9. 17 85, 371 3.67
7E Le City 31, 000 320, 836 10. 35 • 110, 241 3. 56
7oL.ance 134, 968 . 1, 375, 975 10. 20 . 1`.014,095 • . 7.51
Ternon 261 Unknown
7alnut 5, 992 64, 464 - 10. 76 22, 261 3. 72
zest Covina . 68, 400 735, 298 10. 75 421, 649 • 6'; 16
ihittier - 72, 863 732, 474 . 10.05 430, 052 5.90