HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003-01-15CC_sp..
This Agenda contains a brief genera! description of each item fo be considered. Copies of the
Staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the
Agenda are on file in the Office of the Cify Clerk and are available for public inspection. A person
who has a question concerning any of the agenda items may call the Cify Manager at (310) 603-
0220, ext. 200.
Procedures for Addressing the Council
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL
PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM
PROVIDED AT THE DOOR, AND TO TURN IT IN TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR
TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FAILURE TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM
WILL PROHIBIT YOU FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
AGENDA -
ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION
AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL
TO BE HELD ON
JANUARY 15, 2003
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11330 BULLIS ROAD, LYNWOOD, CA 90262
6:30 P.M.
FERNANDO PEDROZA
MAYOR
RAMON RODRIGUEZ
MAYOR PRO-TEM
ARTURO REYES
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY MANAGER
FAUSTIN GONZALES
CITY CLERK
ANDREA L. HOOPER
OPENING CEREMONIES"
CALL TO ORDER
CITY TREASURER
IRIS PYGATT
CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY CITY CLERK
ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
LOUIS BYRD
ARTURO REYES
PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
RAMON RODRIGUEZ
FERNANDO PEDROZA
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO
SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE COUNCIL, BUT IT IS
ALL RIGHT FOR COUNCIL TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR
SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION FOR A FUTURE MEETING. (The
Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54962, Part III,
Paragraph 5.)
v.~~
aITY OF I.YNWOOp
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
.JAN 1 4 2aa i
7i8-y~ww1!~~112~3~4~5 6
LOUIS BYRD
COUNCILMEMBER
PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY ATTORNEY
MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY
DISCUSSION
5. FOUR-WAY STOP INTERSECTION AT FERNWOOD AVENUE AND GERTRUDE
AVENUE
Comments:
Staff received a request from the Mayor to review the traffic safety for the Fernwood
Avenue and Gertrude Avenue intersection. After reviewing the accident history of this
intersection, staff found that it meets the warrant to be designated as a four-way stop
intersection.
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the attached. resolution entitled:" A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF
FERNWOOD AVENUE AND GERTRUDE AVENUE INTERSECTION AS A FOUR-WAY
STOP INTERSECTION".
CLOSED SESSION
6. CLOSED SESSION ITEM
A. With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54956.8:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Excess CalTrans Parcels (Imperial Highway and
Alameda) and Air Space under I-105 Freeway
Negotiating parties: City of Lynwood and CalTrans
Under negotiation: price and terms
B. With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54956.8:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 11555 Wright Road (Ham Park)
Negotiating parties: City of Lynwood and Lynwood Unified School District
Under negotiation: price and terms
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JANUARY 21, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 11330 BULLIS ROAD, CITY OF LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA
,.ten '..i~+:
DATE: January 15, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Faustin Gonzales, City Manager
BY: Joseph Y. Wang, P.E., Director of Environmental Services/Cit r
Paul Nguyen, Civil Engineering Associate
SUBJECT: Four-Way Stop Intersection at
Fernwood Avenue and Gertrude Avenue
PURPOSE:
To recommend the City Council approve the designation of Fernwood Avenue
and Gertrude Avenue intersection as a four-way stop intersection.
BACKGROUND:
The Lynwood City Council has recently requested staff to review the traffic safety
of the Fernwood Avenue and Gertrude Avenue intersection.
At the present time, this intersection is a two-way stop control intersection with
existing stop signs on Gertrude Avenue. Following are factual data pertaining to
the intersection of Fernwood Avenue and Gertrude Avenue:
Accidents:
Roadway widths
Five reported from 7/01 to 9/02
Fernwood Avenue
Gertrude Avenue
32 feet
30 feet
Visibility:
Unusual Conditions:None
Fernwood Avenue
Gertrude Avenue
W/B Good E/B Good
N/B Good S/B Good
Type of Intersection:Four-way intersection
Type of Street:
Fernwood Avenue
Gertrude Avenue
Collector Street
Local Street
Speed Limit:
ANALYSIS:
Fernwood Avenue
Gertrude Avenue
30 mph posted
25 mph prima facie
After reviewing relevant facts about this intersection and following guidelines set
forth by the State of California Department of Transportation and the Traffic
Engineering Practices for Smaller Municipalities Manual (see Attachment "A"),
staff has determined that this intersection met the warrant to be designated as a
four-way stop intersection. This warrant was based on the accident rate of the
type of accident that are susceptible of correction by multiple stop signs.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled:" A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE
DESIGNATION OF FERNWOOD AVENUE AND GERTRUDE AVENUE
INTERSECTION AS A FOUR-WAY STOP INTERSECTION".
Cou03002.doc8
~w
I ~~'"~ +
~:
~• ...,.rs ~.•,•
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE
DESIGNATION OF FERNWOOD AVENUE AND
GERTRUDE AVENUE INTERSECTION AS A FOUR-
WAY STOP INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has requested staff to review the
traffic safety at the intersection of Fernwood Avenue and Gertrude Avenue; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed relevant data relative to this
intersection; and
WHEREAS, this intersection is warranted to be designated as a
four-way stop intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lynwood as follows:
Section 1. That City Council approves the designation of Fernwood
Avenue and Gertrude Avenue intersection as a four-way stop intersection.
Section2. That the City Traffic Engineer is authorized to erect the
necessary stop signs.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
2003.
ATTEST:
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood Y
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
day of
FERNANDO PEDROZA, Mayor
City of Lynwood
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
FAUSTIN GONZALES
City Manager
JOSEPH Y. WANG, P.E.
Director of Environmental
Services/City Engineer
Cou03002
Cou03002.doc8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
§~
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby
certify that the above and foregoing resolution and duly adopted by the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held in the City Hall of the City
on the day of , 2003, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
§~
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that
said resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated. Dated
this day of , 2003.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
Cou03002.doc8
.~ ~
MULTI • WAY STOP SIGNS
PURPOS E
A fully-justified, properly installed multi-way atop can effectively assign right-of-
way, reduce vehicle delay and decrease accidents. Generally, afour-way s#op
is reserved for use at the intersection of two through-highways, and only as an
interim traffic control measure prior to signalization.
GENERAL
The posting of an intersection for four-way stop control should be based on factual
data. Included are: Through street conditions, accident records, traffic and
pedestrian volumes, and unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire
stations, etc .
An intersection controlled by multi-way stop signs requires all approaching traffic to
stop. Once stopped, the traffic proceeds by following the normal right-of-way rule.
Multi-way stop sign installations result in slower speeds through the intersection, thus
reducing the frequency and severity of right-angle collisions. Studies have shown,
however, that if the vehicular volumes on the intersecting streets are low, or traffic
from one street is significantly greater than the traffic on the other street, the effective-
ness of the multi-way stop is greatly reduced. The most commonly used multi-way stop
is a four-way stop. !t works best when traffic volumes on the intersecting roads are
about equal.
A four way stop sign installation is a useful traffic contro{ measure when other
available means of control are not adequate, although it is not desirable for use at
low volume intersections and should not be considered a permanent alternative to a
traffic signal installation. When STOP signs are placed on ail entering legs of an
intersection, each STOP sign may be supplemented by a separate plate mouGted
below it with the message "3-WAY, "4-WAY", etc. to help clarify right-of-way.
The California Division of Highways have developed the following warrants to deter-
mine when such an installation may be required.
12
WARRANTS FOR MULTf-WAY STOP SfGNS
Any one of the following conditions may warrant cMulti-Way STOP sign
installation:
1 . Where traffic signals are warranted cnd the need
is urgent, the four-way stop is an interim measure
that can be installed quickly to control traffic
while arrangements are being made for the signal
installation .
2. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or
more reported accidents of a type susceptible of
correction by a four-way stop installation in a 12-
month period. Types of accidents susceptible of
correction include right angle and left turn col-
lisions.
3. Minimum volume warrant:
a. The total vehicular volume entering the inter-
section from all approaches must overage at
Least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight (8)
hours of an average day, and .
b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume
from the minor street or highway must average
at (east 200 units per hour for the same eight
($} hours with an average delay to minor street
vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the maximum hour.
c. When the 85-percentile approach speed of the
major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour,
the minimum veliicuiar volume warrant is 70
percent of the above requirements.
Based on the experience of various agencies in using Multi-Way stops, the following
generalizations regarding their usage were developed.
s Multi-way stops should not be used specifically as an aid to pedestrian
crossings .
Such installations may totally disregard the important
traffic characteristics of volume, sight distance, speed
and geometries and consequently could actua{ly
increase pedestrians hazards.
13
~-
-~..
• Multi-way stops should not be used as a speed control measure.
When stop signs are placed for speed control, typically
regular warrants are not met. The result are .signs
that may appear to be useless or a nuisance to drivers
who rarely see cross traffic at the stops. Most drivers
have the tendency to adjust their driving to fit the
situation and may get into the habit of "rolling"
through STOP signs or even not seeing them because
they see no obvious need. There also may be a ten-
dency to increase the noise level generated by vehicles
by requiring more stopping and acceleration along the
route .
• Three-way stops at four-legged intersections should be avoided.
Persons could mistake such installations for one where
all approaches are controlled. Therefore, they might
enter the intersection and conflict with a vehicle
they thought was supposed to stop.
The following data items are necessary to help the engineer decide if the installation
of amulti-way STOP sign is warranted at a particular intersection.
1 . Traffic counts on all approaches to the intersection, recorded in at least
hourly increments fora 24 hour period.
2. Spot speed survey on all approaches to the intersection.
3. Accident history of the intersection should be noted on a collision
diagram .
4. Pedestrian counts recorded during the 8 heaviest hours of the day.
5. Intersection inspection and noting of features such as geometric
configuration, locations of obstructions to motorists' views, and
the nature of special problems.
Although minimum volume warrants are specified by the California Division of High-
ways, there are variations in use by other communities. These are illustrated in Table
3 in the Appendix. Past experience and engineering judgment are useful when analyz-
ing the warrant data sheets, if a four-way stop is recommended it is highly desirable
to publicize the details thlrough the radio and press. This is especially true when the
recommendation involves changing the location of existing STOPS.
~l4
PRIORITY RANKING
Ranking of intersections which meet the necessary warrants for multi-way stop control
can be done by assigning points to a variety of factors such as accidents, visibility,
volume and ,unusual conditions. The suggested priority ranking system has 50 points
with the installation of four-way stop control being justified with a total of 28 points,
THROUGH HIGHWAY
One of the streets at an intersection must be a through highway before the inter-
section can be considered for four-way stop control.
A. If the street is a through highway - o points.
B. if both streets are through highways - S points.
ACCIDENTS
Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by four-way
stop control during one full year prior to the investigation. Maximum 20 points.
UNUSUAL COND{TIONS
Where unusual conditions exist, such as a school, fire station, playground, steep
hill, etc., paints are assigned on the basis of engineering judgment. A school 5 ,l
location in itself, is not sufficient justification for afour-way stop installation. -''
Maximum 5 points.
VOLUME
A: Total entering vehicle volume must equal 2,000 vehicles for four highest hours
in average day .
B. Minimum side street volume must equal 600 vehicles during some four-hour
period.
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
T5
Major Approach
4-hour Vo ume Points
0 - 1400 0
1401 - 1700 1
1701 - 2000 2
2001 - 2300 3
2301 - 2600 4
2601 - 2900 5
2901 - 3200 4
3201 -3500 3
3501 - 3800 2
3801 - 4100 1
4101 -over 0
Minor Approach
4-Hour Volume Points
600 - 800 1
8 Ol - 1000 2
1001 - 1200 3
1201 - 1400 4
1401 - 1600 5
1601 - 1800 b
1801 - 2000 7
2001 - 2200 8
2201 - 2400 9
2401 -over 10
VOLUME SPLIT
Four-way stops operate best where the minor approach volume and the major
approach volume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with
the foi (owing table:
Major Less Minor
Approach Leg
Volume
Difference Points
0 - 300 5
301 - 600 4
601 - 900 3
901 - 1200 2
1201 - 1500 1
1501 -over 0
16
11er2oo3 .
Date Range Reported: 111199 - 118103
Total Number of Collisions: 12
City of Lynwood
Traffic Engineering Department
Collision Report Summary
Page 1
Reporl# Date Time Location Dis t. Dir Type of Motor Veh. Dir. of Movement Dir, of Movement
. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 PCF Inl• Kil. Ver.
3125199 08:30 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding West Proceeding Unknown 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight
100-07151-
2114-471 4/14/00 07:50 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding West Proceeding Auto RM1 1 0
Vehicle Straight Straight Violation
100-11454-
2114-472 6115100 10:00 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding East Proceeding Auto RIW 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight Violation
100-23454-
2117-201 12110100 02:05 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 12' East Hit Object Fixed Object West Backing Not Stat Unsafe Starting 0 0
or Backing
101-00694-
2114-471 1112101 15:30 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 2114 ' North Broadside Other Motor North West Proceeding Auto RIW 3 0
Vehicle Straight violation
101-02895-
2117-412 2115101 08:15 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Ini. Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding East Proceeding Auto RNV 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight Violation
101-07059-
2114-072 4118101 18:15 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 11' West Sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding West Proceeding Auto RNV 1 0
Vehicle
Straight
Straight
Violation
101-14636-
2114-472 7128101 18:00 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Auto RN11 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight Violation
101-00555-
2114-250 118102 1020 Fernwood Avenue 8
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight and Signs
102-04528-
2114-472 311/02 09:46 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Auto RM! 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight Violation
102-08032-
2114-242 4/14102 15:35 Fernwood Avenue &
Gertrude Drive 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0
Vehicle Straight Straight and Signs
102-18216-
2114-471 9112!02 07:00 Gertrude Drive &
Fernwood Avenue 0' In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Traffic Signals 1 0
Vehicle Straight Straight and Signs
Settings Used For Query
Parameter Settin>7
Street Name FERNWOOD AVENUE
Cross Street CERTRUDE DRIVE
Starting Date 1/1/1999
Ending Date 1/8/2003
Distance from Intersection >= 0' for non rear-end collisions
>= 0' for rear-end collisions
a
SUBSEG
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 15, 2003
. ns,
The Honorable Mayor and fv~embers of the City Council
Faustin Gonzales, City Manager
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES AND
TO HONOR THE 1998 COMMITMENT TO RESTORE THE VLF
PURPOSE:
To have the City Council adopt the attached resolution and direct the City Manager to
send the resolution to key State Government Officials
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, the Governor released a plan for addressing his projected $34.6 billion
General Fund budget shortfall. The budget proposes a number of major tax increases
in the State Income Tax and Sales Tax. With respect to cities the three most critical
budget proposals are the (1) deletion of the VLF backfill, (2) the transportation cuts, and
(3) the December one-time $500 million redevelopment transfer to the general fund plus
the January on-going and increasing $250 million transfer to education.
Staff received a fax from the League of California Cities urging cities to take the
following actions:
^ Ask legislators to keep the 1998 vow to support restoration of the VLF if the state
can no longer afford the VLF backfill, and oppose the devastating redevelopment
reductions.
^ Contact League Regional Representative and offer to help.
^ Brief colleagues, city staff and community groups on the consequences of the
proposed cuts, particularly the VLF backfill and redevelopment funding.
^ Send a letter to the editor
^ Participate in the Save Our Services fund to fight state raids of local funds
The League is requesting the City's assistance by January 22"d to contact the City's
legislators for the restoration of the VLF. Because of the timing, staff is requesting
immediate consideration of this item.
ANALYSIS:
Initial estimates from the League shows the immediate impact of the Governor's
proposed budget on Lynwood relative to the VLF would be $1.3 million for FY 02-03 and
$2.9 million for FY03-04. The City anticipates receiving $3.8 million from vehicle license
fees for FY 02-03. The loss of funds as the Governor proposes would significantly
impact City services and/or deplete our reserves.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends for the City Council to adopt the attached resolution and direct the
City Manager to send the resolution to key State Government Officials and coordinate
with the League on implementing its proposed strategies.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES AND
TO HONOR THE 1998 COMMITMENT TO RESTORE THE VLF
WHEREAS, prior to 1935, cities and counties collected property taxes on motor
vehicles to fund essential local public health and safety services; and
WHEREAS, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted the Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
Act, replacing the property tax on vehicles with a 1.75 percent fee charged against the
value of the motor vehicle; and
WHEREAS, in 1948, the rate of the VLF was increased to 2 percent of the value
of the vehicle; and
WHEREAS, in 1986, the voters voted overwhelmingly to constitutionally dedicate
the proceeds of the VLF to fund city and county services; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, a period of strong economic growth, the Legislature
approved the use of a portion of the rapidly growing state General Fund to reduce the
VLF payments of vehicle owners. This amount, known as the "offset", grew in future
years to a 67.5 percent offset against the amount owed. The amount paid to local
governments in lieu of the reduced VLF payment is known as the "VLF backfill"; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 legislation and subsequent enactments contain clear
provisions that when insufficient funds are available to be transferred from the General
Fund to fully fund the offsets and backfill amount that the VLF offset shall be reduced
and VLF payments increased; and
WHEREAS, VLF and backfill revenues constitute 15 to 25 percent of typical city
and county general purpose revenues. On average, more than 60 percent of city
general fund spending and more than half of county general funds go to front line law
enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and health care programs.
WHEREAS, revenues derived from the VLF and backfill are of critical importance
in funding vital local public health and safety services; and
WHEREAS, any failure by the Legislature to maintain the VLF backfill or restore
the VLF will cause widespread disruption in local government services essential to the
well-being of California citizens and their cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, Governor Davis' proposal to divert $4 billion in local VLF backfill
payments over the next 17 months fails to honor the 1998 commitment and is a direct
assault on local services that will be felt by every California resident; and
WHEREAS, shifting $4.2 billion in locally controlled revenues for local services is
neither equitable nor fair. No state program or department has been asked to shoulder
such a disproportionate share of the budget pain. These cuts come on top of the nearly
$5 billion each year that is transferred from local services to fund state obligations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES
HEREBY FIND, PROCLAIM, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That if the state General Fund can no longer afford the expense of
part or all of the VLF "backfill" that the Legislature and Governor of California are hereby
respectfully urged to implement the provisions of current law providing for the reduction
of the VLF offset in bad economic times and to restore the VLF in an amount necessary
to reduce the VLF backfill.
Section 2: That the City of Lynwood hereby expresses its profound appreciation
to the legislators who support such VLF restoration legislation.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES }
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of
said City at a special meeting thereof held in the City Hall of said City on the day
2003 and passed by the following
Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office
and that said resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of , 2Q03
VLF Losses Under Governor's Proposed Budget Jan 2003
;FY02-03 estimated FY03-04 estimated
Cut
HAWTHORNE ; $ 4 796 451 ; $ (1,618,803)
HERMOSA BEACH ; $ 1:173.383 ,_ $ (396:017)
_HIDDEN HILLS--------------- ---~-$-- _---125,746 -$ -_----(42,440)
_ HUNTINGTON PARK ; $ 3,801,144 $ (1,282,886)
___INDUSTRY------------------- ---- $- - -42,093_,-$_-----(14,207)
INGLEWOOD ---------------- -----$-- --7,392.729 _ $- - (2,495:046)
--- IRWINDALE ------------------- -- '-$-- ----- 63,605 ;- $ - -----(21,467)
_ LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE ; $ 1,307,178 ; $ (441,173)
_LA HABRA HE_IGHTS_ _ .__ _._$ _ __._410,895 _$_ (138,677)
LAKEWOOD ; $ 4,752,420 ;_ $ _ (1,603,942)
_ LA MIRADA ---
- ------------------------------ -- ;-$--
- --2,940,420 ,_ $ _ _-- (992,392)'
LANCASTER ~ $ 8,260,711 _ $ (2,787,990)
___LA PUENTE ------------------- --y-$ _ ._2,515,581_ ,_ $- _-- (849,009)
LA VERNE ------------------
------------------- ----$-_ --2.049,830 -;- $ - --- (691,818)
LAWNDALE ~ $ 1,919,323 ; $ __ (647,772)
LOMITA ; $ 1,301,494 $ (439,254)
___LONG BEACH----------------- ----$-- 33,565,267-, $- (11,328,278)
---LOS ANGELS ~~___ ____ __ $ 228,690,927 ; $ (77.183.1881
VLF Total Governor's
ncl backfill) ; Prouosed Cut
- _ _ _r $ _ _ - 5,156,185 ~ $ ~3,480,425~;
$ 1,261,387. $ 851,436
---'-$__-__ 135,177 ~ $...-..~91,245~;
-~--
,__-r $___ 4:086,229 ~ $-__(2,758,205~~
_ _ _; $ _ _ 45,250 ; _$_ (30, 544:
$ 7,947,184_;_$_ _ 5_,364,349 ;
~$~---~--68,376 ~ $ ~ -(46,154~~
-- --•
___~ $___ 1,405,217_ $-----(948,521~~
___~ $_____ 441,712 ~ $. (298,155:
----
$ _ _ _ 5,108,852_ ~ $ (3,448,475);
_ _ _L $ _ _ 3,160,952 ~ $ (2,133,643):
$ 8,880,265 ; $ 5,994,179);
__.r ........ .. ....r.. _:.~___.. _. _...
_ r $___ 2,704,249 ~ $ (1,825,368;
_ 2,203,567 ~ $ (1,487,408;
_ _ _L $ _ _ _ 2,063,272_ ~.$_ _ _(1,392,7091
$ 1,399,106 ; $ (944,396
...~ ................. r.. .. .
___r $__36,082,662 ; $ (24,355,7971;
~,,,~„~?~ 4 746.,; $(165.943.8541;
ivinuov ._.._..---;-~---~-'~---'-- -- ' SI~,263)
_MANHATTAN_BEACH ; $ 2,137,086 ,_ $ _ (721,267) ~ $ 1,653,948 ;~ ~1Z,~151'
~ $ 2,297,367 ; $
~1,550,723~;
MAYWOOD
------- --------------- -------- _ -; $ 1,484,317 _ $ _ (500,957) _ - ` $ -
1,595,641
, $ ~1,077,0581~
_ _MONROVIA------------------
MONTEBELLO
____________________________________ -----$-
___ti_$__ --2,378,137 _$--_-(802,622)
__3,884,762 ; $-- (1,311 107) $
'"~"'-
~ $ _
_
2,556,498 ~ $
'""'"' --""`-"
4 176 119 ; $ ~1,725,636~~
'-
(2 818 881);
__ MONTEREY PARK
NORWALK - $ 4,012,088 ~ $ (1,354,080) ; $
--~--- 4,312,994 ; $
--------------~ - (2,911,271;
.... .. . . .................... . ...:.$ _ .-6,114,554:_ $-- (2,063;662) - -•i $- --6.573:146 ~ $ (4:436,873;
_ PALMDALE
_ PALOS VEF2DES
ESTATES ; $
; $ 7,507:993 ;_$ (2,533:948)
869 854
$
(293
576) _ _~ _$_
- -
' $ -
___8_,071,092 ~ $
--~~------`---
935
093 ; $ _-
(5,447,987~~
-'
631
188
_
_
PARAMOUNT _
_~ $
3,373,174 ; $ _
,
(1,138:447) ,
} $ 3,626,162: $ ~
,
~
(2,447,660
PASADENA
PICO $ 8,609.751: $
' (2,905,791) ~ $ 9,255,483 ` $_ _.(6,247,451;
RIVE_RA
POMONA
_______________________________ ; $ 3,646,030
$
- -
-_~-$____8,760,332:-$- (1,230:536)
_(2,956,612}
- ' $ 3,919,483 ~ $ (2,645,b51~~
'----------- ------~--
; $ 9,417,357 ; $ (6,356,716
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
_ ___ __ _____________
_____$__
__2:673,357 ,_$-
_.-(902,258) -
_ ~-r"-'---"'"'-"'--'r-'-"
_ T$.--2,873,858: $ (1,939,8541:
_-_REDONDO BEACH
_ __ ______
ROLLI ; $ 4,025,027 ~ $
_ ___ __ ___ _____ __ _____
_ (1,358,447)
_t $__
• 4,326,904 ; $-- -
_~2,920,660~;
_
NG HILLS _ _ $ _ 128,182_; $
__ROLLING HILLS ES_ TATE_ S ; $ 479,601 , $
__-~__________ ______ (43,262)
(161:866) ; _$____ 13.7_,796 ~ $ (93,012 '
- ~.- ~---~-`~--'-'""' ~'
$
515,572 ; $ (348
011);
______
ROSEMEAD
-------;-$---.3,529,596 ; $ ___
(1,191,239) --.r
-
'
} $ ,
--' -----------------
3,794,316 ; $ (2,561,163)'
SAN DIMAS
___________ __ _ _ _ ________________
SAN FE ____$_- _2,443,473 ,_$- ---(824,673) ._ -`$._ -2,626,734 ~ $_- ~1,773,045)~
RNANDO ; $ 1:615,423 ; $ (545,205) ~ $ 1,736,579 ~ $ (1,172,191~~
SAN GABRIEL ~ $ 2,459,884: $ (830,211) r $ 2,644,376 ; $ (1 784,954)
'
SAN MARINO
-------•-----------------------------
SANTA CLARITA ----$.._ .._849,303 -$----X286:640) "
...;$-- -"--""----r--••
-•-913:001: $.. •
.. (616,276):
SANTA FE $ 9,476,940 ; $ (3,198,468) L $ 10,187,711 ` $ (6,876,705;
_
SPRINGS _ _
_ SANTA MONICA ; $
~ $ 1,025:612 $ {346,144)
5,698
443 $ (1
923
225) ' $
; $ 1,102,533 ~ $
6
125
826 ; $ (744,2101
4
134
93
;
SIERRA MADRE-- -------- -
__ _ _-.__._ --------
$_ ,
,
,
----- -
694,502 ; $ (234:395) -
, $ ,
,
----- -- -r----
-- ---
746 590 ; $ ,
,
3)
-~--------•--.
503 948
o rc :State Controller Annual reports & VLF allocation tables. Computations by Coleman
--------------------------------------•-------------- Advisory Services ;
-------- 9
LF is amon4 the lamest sources of genera! revenue for cities Most cifv enera! revenue is spent on police and frre.
VLF Total Governor's
10Jan03 GaliforniaGityFinance.com page 5 of 15
Jan•15 2883 19:54:89 Via Fax '~"
-> +3197644998 Ra1pI, _avis, III
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 40D • Sernemento, California 95814
Phone: (918) 858-8200 Fax: (918) 658-8240
www.cecities.org
Page 1 of 7
January 15, 2002
Page 981 Of 987
L.~ ~'r
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers and- Other City Officials
FROM: Executive Committee, League Board of Directors
John Russo, President and City Attorney, Oakland
Ron Loveridge, First Vice President and Mayor, Riverside
Pat Eklund, Second Vice President and Mayor Pro Tem, Novato
Beverly O'Neill, Past President and Mayor, Long Beach
Chris McKenzie, Executive Director
Subject: Letters and Resolutions Needed to Support Restoration of VLF
ACTION REQUESTED
Act now to protect VLF funding by sending letters, resolutions and emails
and phoning Assembly Members to support partial restoration of the VLF
to offset the reduction in the VLF backfill proposed by Governor Davis
Things are moving quickly here in Sacramento. As you know, last Friday the Governor
recommended the shift of over $4 billion in VLF backfill funds away from cities and
counties over the next 18 months to fund other priorities. Yesterday we sent you a packet
of information on proposed budget cuts, and asked you to carry out a series of near- and
long-term actions relating to local government impacts in the Governor's budget proposal.
Today we have a new and more urgent mission that really supersedes our memo of
January 14. Yesterday afternoon Speaker Herb- Wesson announced that he plans to move
swiftly to introduce legislation to allow for restoration of the VLF funding for cities and
counties. He said, "We're prepared to clarify the law to operate as intended -and restore
the VLF to its normal level."
The Speaker has specifically asked that cities and counties take action to support this
effort. After conferring today by conference call with the League board of directors, we
are writing to ask that your city use whatever internal processes you have in place to
authorize the immediate transmittal of a letter to your legislators urging them to keep
the promise legislators made to local government in 1998, and vote to restore the
~s
Jan 15 2883 19:54:27 Via Fax '~` -> +3187644988 llalp,. ~auis, III Page 882 Of 887
VLF. We further ask that you act immediately to adopt a resolution urging the legislature
to reject the Governor's budget proposal to eliminate the VLF backfill, and instead to vote
to honor the 1998 commitment to restore the VLF; and that you transmit that resolution to
your legislators.
Copies of a sample letter, draft resolution and specific talking points aze attached. You can
also access these materials online by visiting the League's Advocacy Center at
www.cacities.ora/advocacyicenter. Please be sure to send us copies of any letters or
resolutions you send to legislators. They should be addressed to: Jean Korinke, League
Lobbyist, 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95514, email: jkorinke(a,cacities.org; fax
916.658.8240. (Please be advised that, because of the urgency of generating this visible
support for restoration of the VLF, we are removing from our website Advocacy Center the
materials we posted there yesterday relating to the VLF and cuts to redevelopment
agencies. We will update and repost materials relating to other budget impacts in the near
future.)
The League will also work through the LOCAL coalition (Leave Our Community Assets
Local) to encourage similar actions by our coalition partners among counties, special
districts, unions, chambers of commerce, seniors' groups .and other organizations that
understand the importance of preserving local services.
We believe that a vote on'restoring the ti'I,F will likely come in the ~next'two weeks. Our
failure to support this legislation (we have no bill number yet) could mean the end of VLF
backfill payments to cities of over $1 billion each year. This could very well be our .one
and only chance to get this issue off the budget table, and we need to act now. 'We
urge you to contact your legislators immediately to ask for their vote in favor of the
partial VLF restoration, and to follow- up with a letter and resolution as quickly as
possible.
Attachments:. VLF Restoration Resolution
Draft Legislative Letter
VLF Restoration Talking Pwints
2
,.~
Jan•15 2883 19:54:49 Via Fax '~` -> +3187644988 Ralp, ravis, III Page 883 Of B87
A RESOLUTION URGING THE CALIFORNI-~l LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES AND TO HONOR
THE 1998 COMMITMENT TO RESTORE THE VLF
WHEREAS, prior to 1935, cities and counties collected property taxes on motor vehicles
to fund essential local public health and safety services; and
WHEREAS', in 1935, the Legislature fast enacted the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Act,
replacing the property tax on vehicles with a 1.75 percent fee charged against the value of
the motor vehicle; and
WHEREAS, in 1948, the rate of the VLF was increased to 2 percent of the value of the
vehicle; and
WHEREAS, in 1986, the voters voted overwhelmingly to constitutionally dedicate the
proceeds of the VLF to fund city and county services; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, a period of strong economic growth, the Legislature approved the
use of a portion of the rapidly growing state General Fund to reduce_the VLF payments of
vehicle owners. This amount, known as the "offset", grew in future years to a 67.5 percent
offset against the amount owed. The amount paid to local governments in lieu of the
reduced VLF payment is known as the "VLF backfill"; and
WHEREAS, the 19981egislation and subsequent enactments contain clear provisions that
when insufficient funds are available to be transferred from the General Fund to fully fund
the offsets and backfill amount that the VLF offset shall be reduced and VLF payments
increased; and
WHEREAS, VLF and backfill revenues constitute 15 to 25 percent of typical city and
county general purpose revenues. On average, more than 60 percent of city general fund
spending and more than half of county general funds go to front line law enforcement,
fire, emergency medical services, and health care programs.
WHEREAS, revenues derived from the VLF and backfill are of critical importance in
funding vital local public health and safety services; and
WHEREAS, any failure by the Legislature to maintain the VLF backfill or restore the VLF
will cause widespread disruption in local government services essential to the well-being of
California citizens and their cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, Governor Davis' proposal to divert $'4 billion in local VLF backfill payments
over the next 17 months fails to honor the 1998 commitment and is a direct assault on local
services that will be felt by every California resident; and
WHEREAS, shifting $4.2 billion in locally controlled revenues for local services is neither
equitable nor fair. No state program or department has been asked to shoulder such a
disproportionate share of the budget pain. These cuts come on top of the nearly $5 billion
each year that is transferred from local services to fund state obligations.
3
,....
Jan 15 2883 19:55;15 Via Fa~,^ -> +3187644988 Ralp~~ Dauis, III Page 8B4 Of QB7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
OF CALIFORNIA, that if the state General
Fund can no longer afford the expense of part or all of the VLF "backfill" that the
Legislature and Governor of California are hereby respectfully urged to implement the
provisions of current law providing for the reduction of the VLF offset in bad economic
times and to restore the VLF in an amount necessary to reduce the VLF backfill; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City/County of hereby expresses
its profound appreciation to the legislators who support such VLF restoration legislation.
APPROVED on this
day of ' , 2003.
4
Jan' 15 2883 19:55:31 Via Fax" -> +3187644988 Ralp.. Jauis, III Page B85 0f 887
SAMPLE LETTER
«DATE»
Honorable «Name of Legislator»
California State «Senate or Assembly»
State Capitol Building «Room #»
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Reject Proposed Vehicle License Fee Raid; Keep VLF Promise
Dear «(Senator/ Assembly Member) Last Name »:
I am writing to urge you to keep apromise---one the legislature made to the people of
California and its cities and counties five years ago. It was made in 1998 when the VLF
reduction was enacted during better economic times. The promise was simple: if the state
could no longer afford to fund the VLF reduction, the VLF would .be restored so vital city
and county public health and safety services would not be threatened.
Since 1935 cities and counties have received the VLF in lieu of locally collected property
taxes on vehicles. VLF revenues constitute an average of 15-25% of city and county
general purpose revenues. On average, more than 60 percent of city general fund spending
and more than half of county general funds go to police, fire, emergency medical and
health care programs. The VLF, therefore, is a critical component of funding these vital
services.
In 1986 the voters by an 81.8% margin passed Proposition 47, pledging the proceeds of the
VLF to funding local government services. The 19981aw that created the VLF tax holiday
did not change this policy; it simply committed the state general fund to financing an offset
against the VLF payment obligation of a vehicle owner. The same law provides for the
restoration of the VLF if insufficient funds are available in the state general fund to afford
the VLF "offset. By all indications, that time has come.
In the near future, you will have the chance to keep the promise made by the 1995
legislature and found in state law. I strongly urge you to reject the Governor's proposed
raid of more than $4 billion in Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill payments to cities and
counties and to support legislation to restore the VLF if the state general fund can no
longer afford the VLF tax holiday.
We recognize that during these dit~icult times, sacrifices are necessary. But raiding more
than $4 billion in VLF backfill funds would disproportionately shift the state's fiscal
problems onto our local governments and would jeopardize essential locally delivered
public health and safety programs and services. Clearly, a state grab of VLF funds will
leave many localities with no option but to take police officers and firefighters offthe street
or reduce public health and safety programs, services and equipment. In our city or
county, it could mean (insert examples).
5
---,
Jan' 15 2883 19:55:55 Via Fax ~ -> +3167644988 Ralpy..~a~is, III Page 666 Of 667
In the five years of state budget surpluses, local governments did not receive a
proportionate benefit or any significant funding increases. Instead, local governments and
our local services continued providing more than $4 billion each year to fund state
obligations. Raiding an additional $4 billion in VLF backfill payments over the next 18
months is neither equitable nor fair. No state program or department has been asked to
shoulder such a disproportionate share of the budget pain.
In light of the state's current economic climmate, I urge you to support legislation to restore
the VLF. It's the right thing to do, and it keeps the promise made in 1998.
Sincerely,
Name and Title
6
Jays 15 2883 19.5b :11 Via Fax ~" -> +3187644989 Ra 1~ Jau is, III Page 887 Of 887
Talking Points Concerning Restoring the VLF
January 15, 2003
It's time to end the VLF holiday.
• When the VLF offset was authorized in the 1990's, legislators from both parties
agreed to language specifically providing that the fee would return to higher levels
whenever "insufficient moneys are available" in the General Fund. Certainly, that day
has arrived.
• Increasing the VLF is consistent with existing law and the right thing to do to protect
critical local services.
Promises made should be promises kept.
• A deal is a deal -and restoring the VLF when "insufficient moneys are available" was
the deal on which all legislators agreed -Senate and Assembly, Republicans and
Democrats.
• The Governor and legislature should do the right thing and keep their commitments,
by acting now to restore the VLF.
The VLF is deductible against federal tax obligations.
No one likes to pay taxes -but at least consumers can deduct the VLF against their
federal taxes.
Local public services are at risk.
The VLF is a critical component of funding vital local services. VLF payments constitute
as much as 25°rb of local governments general-purppse revenues. On average, more
than 60°/b of city general fund spending and more than half of county general funds go to
police, fire, emergency medical and health care programs.
The exact amount of the deficit is not the issue. The issue is the
vulnerability of critical local services.
Disagreements over the size of the state deficit simply underscore our key issue: local
services are vulnerable, and will remain so unless and until the state keeps its promise
to fully fund the Vehicle License Fees.
Keep the promise. End the vulnerability of Local services.
Vote to restore the VLF
7
LUYr~
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916} 658-8200 Fax: (916} 658-8240
v~nfrw.cavities.orQ
Page 1 of 8
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers and Other City Officials
FROM: Executive Committee, League Board of Directors
John Russo, President and City Attorney, Oakland
Ron Loveridge, First Vice President and Mayor, Riverside
Pat Eklund, Second Vice President and Mayor Pro Tern, Novato
Beverly O'Neill, Past President and Mayor, Long Beach
Chris McKenzie, Executive Director
DATE: January 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Requested Actions to Fight Budget; League Budget Action Strategy
REQUESTED ACTIONS
• Contact your legislators and ask them to keep the 1998 vow to support restoration of the YLF if
the state can no longer a,,Q'ord the YLF back, fill and to oppose redevelopment cuts .
• Contact your League Regional Representative to get involved with the LOCAL e,,(j'or~ The impact
ofyour message is strengthened when joined by the voices of our coalition partners
• Brief your colleagues, city sta,,Q''and community groups on the consequences of the proposed cuts,
particularly the vLF backfill and redevelopmentfunding.
• Send a letter to the editor ofyour local newspaper (sample enclosed).
• Participate in the S.O.S. ("Save Our Services') fund to fight state raids of local funds.
They want another bailout, and it is up to all of us to stop it. Last Friday Governor Davis reminded us
that the state's budget crisis can again devastate local services if we allow the state to fool the public
into thinking local governments shared in the state's f scal good times and should pay
disproportionately to solve its fiscal problems. We need great public schools, and the state should meet
or exceed its obligations to fund schools. But California also needs public safety and health services,
safe streets, clean parks and open libraries. The Governor's budget recommendations would deprive
them of the latter in order to keep a bigger state government.
The fact is that cities did not share in the state's revenue boom of the late 1990s. At that time the state
was awash in unexpected income tax revenues, but it continued to seize billions of local property taxes
that grew every single year. Let's set the record straight: for the last ten years cities have subsidized the
state-not the other way around. After state payments to cities are deducted, cities today are forced to
annually "donate" $635 million in property taxes to the state.
This budget places an unfair burden on local governments and is bad for California and its economy.
While the Governor and Legislature need to face the state's budget problems squarely, we believe his
recommeandations place a disproportionate burden on local governments and will harm the recovery of
the state's struggling economy.
ACTIONS WE ARE REQUESTING OF CITY OFFICIALS
Ask your legislators to keep the 1998 vow to support restoration of the VLF if the state can no
longer afford the VLF backfilt, and oppose the devastating redevelopment reductions. When
the VLF was reduced in 1998 the legislature and governor agreed to provisions that would "trigger"
restoration of the VLF if the state general fund could no longer afford the "offset" or backfill from
the general fund to pay for the VLF holiday. Unfortunately, clarifying legislation may be necessary
to do so. If the state's financial situation is so dire, the legislature and governor should keep that
vow and restore the VLF. Similarly, tell your legislators about the local housing and jobs impacts of
the seizure of your city's redevelopment funds. Go the League's Advocacy Center
www.cacities.ore/advocacyicenter for sample letters to your Legislators and tools to let you create
personalized messages right there.
• Contact your League Regional Representative and offer to help. As you work to protect city
revenues and services from the state budget axe, we strongly urge you to contact your League
Regional Representative and ask how you can get involved and complement the. efforts of other
local officials and community partners. For information on how to reach your Regional
Representative, go to www.cacities.or~/grassrootsadvocacy and connect to your divisian's page.
Brief your colleagues, city staff and community groups on the consequences of the proposed
cuts, particularly the VLF backfill and redevelopment funding. The most compelling way to
fight cuts like those proposed by the Governor (see attached briefing paper) is to put it into a local
perspective. How will the VLF cut affect your city? How will the redevelopment grab affect
housing production, jobs, etc.? Discuss it at council meetings on the community access channel.
Brief community and civic groups. Work with your Regional Representative to engage these groups
in the fight.
• Send a letter to the editor (sample enclosed). Following is a sample letter to the editor that makes
all the key arguments. Use it in your communications with local newspapers, shaze it ~uvith unions
and other groups that have newsletters, and generally tell the city story. You can access an
electronic version of this letter, and send it directly to the major media outlets, at
www. rarities. or~!advocacyicenter.
Participate in the S.O.S. fund to fight state raids of local funds. We are pleased to report that
over the last year more than 50 city councils have passed resolutions authorizing cit~r leaders and
staff to contribute voluntarily to a fund known as the Save Our Services (SOS) Fund . if your city
isn't one of them or you are not contributing, please correct that situation. This fund will be vital in
our efforts to stop state budget raids and to erect firewalls in the constitution to prevent it from
happening again.
LEAGUE' S BUDGET ACTION STRATEGY
Now that we have told you what you can do, here are the steps we have taken and will take- in the next
few weeks and months:
1 For more information on the S.O.S. fund, contact your Regional Representative or call Mike Madriai at Action
for Better Cities, the League's political action arm, at 916-658-8272 or 658-8273.
2
Offer Budget Suggestions. The League and our L.O.C.A.L. Coalition partners (CSAC and CSDA)
met with the Department of Finance in December to suggest how additional revenues could be
collected to help balance the state budget. Some of these ideas (e.g., pension obligation bonds and
increased fees) found their way into the budget recommendations. One major idea, reinstating the
VLF, was not included for reasons that are still uncleaz. We have shared these suggestions with key
legislators and will continue to urge consideration of these ideas. If the legislature passes a bill
reinstating the VLF (which can be done by majority vote), we are hopeful the Governor will sign it.
2. Work Through The L.O.C.A.L. Campaign (Leave Our Community Assets Local). Again this
year our local government, public safety, labor and business coalition, L.O.C.A.L., will be the focus
of our efforts to help you tell the story of how the budget affects your residents. The League's
Regional Representatives will be working with our partners to coordinate media efforts, meetings
with legislators, and the enlistment of other community partners. We will use some of the same
strategies this year while employing new ones as well.
3. Focus Our Total Lobbying Effort. Since preservatipn of local revenues and services is the number
one strategic priority of the League board and cities, all of the legislative and regional staff of the
League will be focused on this goal. We will continue to cover hundreds of other bills, but don't be
surprised if every League lobbyist is just as engaged in our campaign to preserve local revenues and
services as they are other issues.
4. Prepare for the 2004 Ballot. Three days ago (Saturday, January 11) League staff met with their
L.O.C.A.L. colleagues and agreed to recommend the immediate drafting, polling and focus group
research to refine a variety of proposals to prevent the state from ever doing what the Governor has
recommended. These revenue and service protection proposals could be used in either a separate
initiative campaign in 2004 or offered and considered as part of the "structural fiscal reform"
discussions the Governor has called for this year. We will participate actively in those discussions,
but we intend to be ready to place a measure on the ballot in 2004by initiative if necessary. In each
step of the way we will be considering our options along with our L.O.C.A.L. partners.
We pledge to you that the League board and staff will work diligently in the weeks and months ahead to
minimize the financial damage any state budget may cause to your city. We need you to get involved
now in this fight, however, to keep state leaders from solving state budget problems by crippling local
services. With our support they can and will do the right thing, even if in the final analysis it requires
cutting the state budget further or restoring the VLF. Remember the old saying: "Fool me once, shame
on you; fool me twice, shame on me."Let's not let them do it again.
We look forwazd to working with you in the weeks and months ahead. The fight has just begun For
further information on the League's efforts and how you can play a part, call (916)658-8200. If you
want to speak with Chris McKenzie directly; call (916) 658-8275 or email him at
mckenzie ,cacities.orQ.
Budget Proposals Impacting Cities
Governor Davis has made two separate announcements of proposals to close an estimated $34.68
budget gap. The first, referred to as his "Mid-Year Proposal" were announced on December 6, 2002
totaling $10.28 which the Governor wants acted on by end of January, 2003. Secondly, Governor
Davis announced his forrna12003-04 budget package, which provided solutions for the remaining
$24.48 budget gap.
Governor Davis' Mid-Year Bud.Qet Proposals
1. Local Street and Road Maintenance Funding in the Traffic Congestion Relief Act: The
elimination of the second, third and fourth quarter 2002-03 apportionments to Local agencies for
street and road maintenance. $90m total cut. $45m impact on cities.
2. Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds: Immediate transfer (to the
State General Fund) any balances in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of a
Redevelopment Agency that were unencumbered on December 1, 2002. Estimated $SOOm transfer.
[Appazently converted to ERAF shift in Jan. 10 budget]
3. Local Flood Control Subventions: Reversion of $58.1m from this. program (out of $128.3m
appropriated in the past three years) to the General Fund. Total city impact unknown.
4. Public Library Foundation: Reduction in the Public Library Foundation per capita formula grants
to local libraries totaling $I5.8m.
5. State-Funded Mandates: Continue the deferral of payment for various budget yeaz and prior
year reimbursable non-Proposition 98 mandates. $769.4m impact to local governments.
Governor's BudPet Summary - 2003-04
i. Reduction in Vehicle License Fee Backfill: Reducing the vehicle license fee backfill to cities and
counties by $1.265 B in 2002-03, and $2.929 B in 2003-04. This reflects an elimination of all
bacl~'ill amounts to cities beginning in February, 2003 and going forward. Total impact on cities:
$553m 02-03; $1.28 03-04.
2. Redevelopment Agency Shitt: For 2003-04, Redevelopment Agencies would be required to pass
through, to schools, $250m in property tax increment revenues. This "shift" would continue and
increase in subsequent fiscal years to the reach the full amount of the school district share of
property taxes over time. Impact: $250m immediate; over $ib potential future annual impact.
3. Elimination of Booking Fees Reimbursements: $38m
4. Public Library Foundation: Extends the $15.8m reduction.
Proposed "Structural Fiscal" Reforms (see boldface items)
1. Allow mid-year budget adjustments and suspension of statues -- restore the Executive Branch
authority to make mid-year budget adjustments when revenues fall significantly below anticipated
levels.
2. Create a State budget reserve to mitigate the volatility of the State's revenues, and re-evaluate
current spending limit requirements.
3. Require sunset review of all "automatic" spending laws.
4. Request that the legislature revise its appropriations process to require the identification of future
year costs on legislation, and to identify the funds available to pay those costs.
5. Rebalance the portfolio of state revenue to achieve a more stable mix of major revenue sources.
6. Rebalance the portfolio of local government revenue to achieve a better mix of major revenue
sources, and encourage "rations! growth" decisions,
7. Restore local community control of programs and revenue raising -Included in this item is a
complete review of statutory mandates on local governments after which, those mandates
determined to be unnecessary should be repealed.
4
LOCAL Tall~ng Points
Governor Davis' Budget Proposal
The Governor's proposal amounts to a local government bailout of a state budget
problem with devastating impacts on public health and safety. It is unacceptable to the
residents of California.
• This proposal is a direct assault on local services and threatens our quality of life and our economy.
Raiding more than $4 billion in local vehicle license fees over the next eighteen months --which
are constitutionallyguaranteed local revenues -- will result in draconian cuts to local services that
will be felt by every California resident.
• VLF payments contribute significantly to city and county budgets. Locally provided services like
emergency medical and health care, police and fire, parks, libraries, affordable housing, water
delivery and transportation are all at risk.
• The proposal would cut VLF monies akeady budgeted by cities in the current budget year ($550
million) and for next year's budget ($1.2 billion). Counties will lose losing $700 million this year,
and $1.7 billion in the next fiscal year. ,
This is no time to put public safety at risk.
• The Governor's proposal flies in the face of his promise to protect public safety. The extent of the
public safety cuts will vary from city to city, but public safety is such a big part of the city's budget
that cuts to that area of service are probably inevitable. For example:
/ In a typical city, as much as 60% or more of local government general fund budgets are used to
fund public safety services, and VLF funds 16% of the city's general fund. For more than 70
cities, the VLF is a quarter (25%) or more of their general fund.revenue.
/ The $1.2 billion cities would lose in FY 2003-04 is the equivalent of 12,000 police officers or
15,000 firefighters.
• Taking away critical VLF funding could leave many local governments with no option but to take
police officers and firefighters off the street or reduce public safety programs, services and
equipment. .
• Moreover, the Governor proposes cutting $38 million in booking fee reimbursements that the
California Police Chiefs Association says will cause the loss of about 200 police officers a year.
Keep the promise.
• Five years ago the Legislature promised to protect local services by providing funds to backfill
cities and counties for the cuts in vehicle license fees. The Governor breaks that promise by cutting
over $4 billion from city and county services.
• Paradoxically, he also proposes that counties take on over $8 billion in new responsibilities and
"promises" new revenue to pay for them.
This is no time to kill jobs.
• The Governor says he wants to create jobs. Sut this proposal raids an additional $500 million in
local redevelopment funds the current fiscal year, and includes an ongoing annual shift of $250
million beginning in 2003-04 which increases annually to as much as $1 billion per year in future
years.
• Raiding these funds that are designated for local affordable housing and redevelopment projects will
cost construction jobs, kill much-needed affordable housing projects and stifle a key source of
economic activity.
• The governor also proposes cutting funding for transportation infrastructure projects, cutting $90
million in current and budget year funds ($45 million each for cities and counties) from the sales tax
on gasoline, which the voters authorized for repair of local streets and roads. This full year cut in FY
2003-04 will amount to $89 million each for cities and counties.
It's wrong, it's not equitable, and it disproportionately impacts local services.
• Raiding billions in locally controlled revenues and funding for local services is neither equitable nor
fair. These cuts come on top of the nearly $5 billion each year that is already transferred from local
services to fund state obligations. No state program or departrnent has been asked to shoulder such a
disproportionate share of the budget pain. Out of a $35 billion budget deficit, local government is
responsible for a third of the solution.
The Governor and legislature should do the right thing and keep their commitments, by acting now
to restore the VLF. Promises made should be promises kept.
• When the VLF offset was authorized in the 1990's, legislators from both parties agreed to language
specifically providing that the fee would return to higher levels whenever "insufficient moneys are
available" in the General Fund. Certainly, that day has arrived and increasing the VLF is consistent
with existing law and the right thing to do to protect critical local services."
6
Sample Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
It's wrong. It's simply wrong.
In announcing his spending plan, Governor Davis is once again forcing California's cities and counties
- and the residents that need local services - to bail out the state from its fiscal mess. While tough times
certainly warrant tough measures, the Governor's proposal to raid more than $4 billion of local vehicle
license fee reimbursements cuts at the heart of the essential community services that all California
residents need.
As much as 60% or more of city general fund budgets go to fund police and fire services. VLF funds
constitute 10 to 25% of this general fund revenue for 61% of California cities, and 16% of the average
city's general fund. On a statewide basis the $1.2 billion cut in 2003-04 could pay for 12,000 police
officer or 15,000 firefighters.
In our city, [provide local percent and dollars if possible - go to www.cacities.or~/budget for a
breakout of impact by city]
The Governor also says promoting jobs is a key priority, but he.proposes to raid half a billion dollars up
front and as much as one billion dollars annually in local redevelopment funds. This is local money
dedicated to affordable housing and economic development (insert- local examples). Raiding
redevelopment funds will cost construction jobs, kill much-needed affordable housing projects, and
stifle a key source of economic activity in California.
Cities and counties are already contributing nearly $5 billion each year that is transferred from local
services to fund state obligations. No state program or department has been asked to shoulder such a
disproportionate share of the budget pain.
The Governor and legislature should act now to protect local public health and safety by restoring the
vehicle license fees, either by raising the fees to previous levels or continuing the bacldll. It's the right
and honorable thing to do.
Sincerely,
(City Official)
7