HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-Budget Review
JUtl l'?
. 92 15: 24 LCC-916","444-::::671
~.l
CSlifornia e,l/sS
Work Toget"ef
".~'~.
........
V
III.
I I
.
'I. .
I...
......
'...Ii
League of California Cities
I .- ~ .. 11 I ,.' a " . I' , ( . as.' , h. I i \ .. ,- I III II I .. d i " I .. I .\
June 19, 1992
TO:
FROM:
City MlUlaiers
Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
RE:
Budget Crisis
We need to gain as much. public attention as possible to the "semi-secretive" proposals to
balance the budget. Please give careful consideration to participating in one or more of
the following suggestions from individual city managers.
Lowering your flag to half.mast or jumping on the back of a turnip truck might not be
what any of us thought we would be doing when enrolled in our public administration
classes. However, such efforts are all designed to expose the proposed actions so that
when the public is faced with more city imposed taxes or further cutbacks in emergency
services they "will understand."
If any of the following suggestions offend you, don't participate. If they do not offend,
join with your colleagues. Thank you for your continued support.
IN YOUR FACE. Monday. June 22 . Wednesday. June 24
If you have not had a face to face meeting with your legislators, please try to do it. If
you have, send another message. One idea, the cities in Riverside County met at a city
hall and have a pre-arranged conference call with all of their legislators - media was
present -- good result, fast, effective and relatively inexpensive.
WWER FLAGS TO HALF.MAST . Tuesday. June 23
At noon on Tues., June 23, a number of cities will be lowering their flags to half-mast to
signify their concerns about the state balancing its budget at the expense of local
services. All cities are invited to participate in this ceremonious occasion. Ask the
mayor to do the honors and include the police chief and fire chief. Invite the press and
make a media event out of it. Ask community organizations to participate. The flags
can then be left at half-mast until the budget is passed. For more information, contact
Ron Gould, City Manager, Monrovia at 818/359.3231.
CONFlRENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE
6CX 7005. LAFAVETTE. CA 9'549
(51 OI2a~.2" 3
HEADQUARTERS
1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 444-5790
SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA OFFIce
e02 EAST HUNTINGTON D~.. SUITE C
MONROVIA. CA 910'6
(818: 305-'3' S
I
JU~.l 19"~2 1~:25 ~':C-91E,,/444-:=:671
,-,
'I",.i
F'.~
.--
':...J
OPERATION TIJRNIP TRUCK. Wednesday, June 24
Over 100 city officials from throughout California will caravan by bus from Los Angeles
to Sacramento on Wed., June 24 to voice their anger about the State's proposal to take
$1 billion from cities to balance the state budget. Traveling with the bus will be a truck
filled with turnips - to be delivered to each of the members of the Legislature and the
Governor.
Press conferences will be held thro\Jahout tho trip at the following times and locations:
News conference and additional pickups in Bakersfield
at the Government Center, 141S Troxton Avenue.
News conference and additional pickups in Fresno at
Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street.
New conference in Stoc:kton.
State Capitol in Sacramento (West Side. Main Entrance).
News conference, display of truc:kload of turnips. Partlcipanu
will then hand deliver turnips to Legislators.
For more information, contact Sandi Webb, Council Member, Simi Valley at 80S/S83.
6701 or 80S/S26.09S8.
9 a.m.
June 24
11:30 a.m.
2:30 p.m.
4 p.m.
CIn' PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES TELL THEIR MESSAGE. Wednesday, June 24
Several cities are intending to send public works employees .. in uniform -- to
Sacramento to talk with Legislators about the state budget nesotiatlons and iu impact on
city services. It is suggested that they arrive at the Capitol between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
and plan to see their Legislators. This may be yet another way to communicate cities'
message. For more information, contact Orant Brimhall, City Manager, Thousand Oaks,
805/497-8611.
86/15/92 18:55:18 ->CITY CLERK
'. Jut! l5 '92 l5: 42 LCC-9l6/f""'c-867l
~
San Bernardino
Page 1
P.l
California Citl8s
Work Together
League of California Cities
REC'O. - ADMIH. OFf.
/99Z JUN I B A,lf 10: 22
iillJ
'. l
,I.
'...
Sacramento, CA
June IS, 1992
FROM:
RE:
All City Managers
Please Delivcr Immcdiately to Person Named in Top Right Comer
Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
Budget Crisis
TO:
First, let me thank all of you collectively and individually for your efforts these last days in
providing an extraordinary leadership role. You have been extremely effective in: 1)
evaluating the impacts; 2) involving elected officials, police chiefs, fire chiefs, association and
union representativcs; 3) coordinating press conferences and editorial board meetings; and
4) assisting with continuous marches on the Capitol go mcet face.to-face with lcgislators.
The impact has been trcmcndous. For example, this mornina some 23 concurrent press
conferences are bcing held. In addition, the police chiefs and fire chiefs associations have
conducted their own press conferences and have also dcsipted participants in each of the
19 city manager regions, and the impact is bcing strongly felt by legislators.
Let me summarize the situation from my perspective. There was agreement among the
State Legislators, from both partics, and the Governor's office that there would bc no
agreements, tentative or otherwise, on rcsolving the $10+ billion deficit prior to the June
primary. This was articulated through face-to-face meetings of a League delegation of
officials and mayors with the Governor and legislativc leaders just three wceks ago. The
same message was delivered to schools, countics, state employees, etc. The first indication
of any state legislative action was by the workins committees, appointed by the budget
committee meeting last week. As a result of thcse committce mcetings, a list was produced
with a variety of options under the titles of "Reductions," "Reforms," and ''Revenues."
The two principal revenues involving cities continues to be VLF and/or AB 8 Property Tax
Allocation with a target of approximately $1 billion. Redistribution of sales tax does not
seem to be viable because it cannot be reallocated without an "impairment of contract,"
under thc Bradley.Burns Sales Tax Act. The Bradley-Bums Sales Tax Act could be
repealcd and a sales tax reenacted as a state tax, but that does not seem to be politically
likely.
The deadline for enactment continues to be July 1 or sooner. Such action by that date is
legally required in order to prevent an overpayment of $1+ billion to K.12.
CONFeRINOI "BQIBTAA"ON Of!'ItICE
BOX 7005, I.AFA YlITT.. CA 94549
(510) :il83-2"3
HEADQUARTERS
1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
19161 444.5790
SOUTHeRN CALIFORNIA OFFICI
e02 .A.T MUNTINQTON OR.. SUIT. C
MONROVIA, CA 91016 /
la,I1II:l05.1315
BG/15/92 18:5G:4B ->CITY CLERK
. Jun l5 '92 l':.; 44 LCC-9lE"C-867l
San Bernardino
Page 3
P.3
'-
[NOTE: Please use this informatlon to combat.. arguments that the state has bailed out
cities with the AD 8 Property Tax Formula, and elttes have not assistec1 the state with tts
budget problems.]
LOSS OF CITY REVENUE AS A RESULT OF STATE BUDGET ACTIONS
1981-1991
CONTINUING LOSSES 1981-1991
Liquor Li_ F;es (SD 102, Chapt;r 101, 1981)
Highway Carricra UDiform Buaincas Tax (58 102, Cbaptot 101, 1981)
Financial Aid to Loca1 Agclll:ies (58 102, Chapter 101, 1981)
BusinesslnWlntory Property TlIlC Relief Reduction (AB 223,
Chapter 323, 1983)
Business Il1WllItory Property TlIlC Relief Repeal (SB 794,
Chapter 447,1984)
Cigarette tlllC shift to state (SB 899, Chapter 467, 1990)
Drinking Water Regulation Fees (SD 1806, Cbapler 462, 1990)
Bookhls Feel aDd Property Tax Cbarges (5B 2357, Chapter 466, 1990)
No/Low Cities Property TlIlC Cut (SD 2557, Chapter 466, 1990)
Trial Courl FImdilIg: 50% Fines &. Forfeitar;s
(AB U97. Chaptet 90, 1991)
Trial Court l'uIldiDg: RcmOYCd 12/31/92 SUllIet and Diverts All Growth in
F'1llCI to 30 CouDties (AB 1297, Chapler 90, 1991)
Trial Court Funding: shift of 47% Cigarette TlIlC 10 Slale
(5821, Chapter 331, 1991)
SupplemCDtal Subvelllions for Red;velopmenl
(AB 222, Chapler 118, 1991)
Total Continuing Annual LoaaH
Total or Camulal'_ LoII_. 1911.1991
ONE.TlME Ul!l.llES 1981.1991
Cut in VLF for 81.82 (SD 102, Chapter 101, 1981)
CuI ill VLP for 82-83 (5B 1326. Chapler 3r7, 1982)
CUt ill VLF for 113-84 (SD 223, Chapter 323, 1983)
CUi in Supplcmental SubvenliOIll (AB 160, Chapler 449, 1990)
Total of 0De.'Il.... I.tII.... 1911-1991
· Amounls have been adjusted 10 reflect 91 dollars.
# CUls made perman;1lI ill 1991.
H: \pub\il\polrcsearc:b \bdgt3x
Cnntlnuln. Annual LoI. CI1mulatlw! Total
'($ 18.0 million) · ($ 160.5million)
.($ 6.5 million) '($ 57.6 million)
.($ 49.2 million) .($ 439,OmiUion)
.($ 50.5 miI1ion) .($ 382.3 million)
.($ 61.5 miI1ion) .($ 422.4million)
.($ 5.9 million) :($ l1.6million)
'($ 3.7 million) ($ 7.4 million)
'($ 99.0 million) :($ 194.0 million)
'($ 7.3 million) (S 14.3million)
($ 77.0 miI1ion) ($ 77.0 millioII)
($ 37.7 millloll) ($ 37.7million)
($ 22.0 million) ($ 22.0 million)
($ 35.0 million) ($ 35.0 million)
(, 473.3 mllUon\
($ 1.9 blllloo\
($ 145.0 million)
($ 220.0 million)
;$ 278.0 million)
($ 31.5 million)
($ 1"4.5 mlJlloa\
~b/l~/~Z l~:~(:ZZ -)~lTY ~L~HK
. JUN l5 '92 l5: 44 LCC-9l6/08671
"e:MBER5 <CalifDrnta lLtglllaturt
~all HerllardillD
fage "i
P.4
'";"'AIIt..~;; \4 CALDI;:~O'"
/>t1L.I..',f.,M A CRI,\lE~
-;iC;L.o,RIiE"-
~li"'NI( JotILL,
':;Li,NTIN I(C"'~
',EWTON l!:! ""\JSI!,-,-
""1(1. T,"O!\ol1l'101\,j
~enate Committee
on
'locaL ~obernment
'::ON5U~TAN'"
~!'fIiR M. Oi:TWrt.!"
::;"'111;:1"'.1(1"
I:OMMITTEE 1II1C:IUTAI!l!Y
iH,t,M)N JINNINGi
"'OOM 2085
iTATE ~ITOL
11'0, lex 114248
SAClltA"'INTO 04....0001
~n&. 44...7.8
'.;H!\os AVAL4
:t:;w",
MARIAN BERGESON
CHAIRMAN
June 15, 1992
Hen. Alfred E. Alquist, Chair
Sena~e Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
Sta~e Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Hon.'John Vasconcellos, Chair
Assembly Ways and Means Committee
State Capitol, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Gentlemen:
Last week the Budget Conference committee extended your
earlier charge to the Local Government Budget Working Group.
IOU directed us to specifically describe more than $1 billion
in cuts in local government funding to help meet the State
General Fund shortfall.
we offer a list of options to you only to fultill your di-
reotion. None of us reoommends it. NOhe of UI endorses it.
Nevertheless, the attached description may help you frame the
issues. The first page includes options to reduoe state sup-
port of lOCAl governments by more than $1 billion. To bal-
ance that .eve~e reduction, it is important to note and act
on reform options listed on the second page. Listed on the
third page are ways to replaoe revenues.
It is our desire that the Budget Conference Committee, the
legislative leadership, and Governor Wilson keep this balance
in mind as you approach the unenviable decisions before you.
We also need to point out that several of the items in the
lists will require the detailed attention of policy experts
in health, welfare, labor relations, and justice programs.
There are a number of alternatives for changes in worker com-
pensation which ought to go te these experts. We urge you~to
consult with them.
8~/15/92 18:58:81 ,->CITY CLERK
. . JUN l5 '92 l5:45 LCC-9l6,O-867l
San Bernardino
Page 5
P.5
REDUCE
REPEAL THE AS 8 BAILOUT
The current value of the A5 8 bailout is:
Cities
Count.ies
Speoial Dist.ricts
TOTAL
S80SM
1,145M
720M
S2,670M
TRAN~~R TO S~OOLS: Repeal the AB e state bailout. to cities, counties, and
spec1.a diltr cts. Shift up to $2.7B of the former bailout money to schools
without encountering the PropOSition 98 testSI up to Sl.75 in 1992-93. This
option requires either school slippage legislation or $200M in new State Gen-
eral Fund tax revenues.
1~Sl;TION ~I Place the remaining bailout money in1::Q a new "trall..l.t.l.oD
." Allow ocal official. to annually allocate the tranl1t1on fund to
cities, counti.., and special districts to minimize the local effects of
losing the bailout money; at lea.t 51 billion in 1992-93. The transition
fund could cushion the fiscal effects on citi.s coping with the closure of
military ba.es (e.g., Marina and Seaside). The tranaition fund phases-out
over a relatively short period (e.g., three years), assuming schools could
absorb the money wit.h a corresponding benefit to the State General Fund.
ALTERNAT:l:VI!:S
Al~ernatively (04 in addition), redistribute the AS 8 bailout funds to offset
other budget actions:
. ENT!RPR:l:SE SPECIAL DISTRICTS: Shift en~erprise sp.cial districts'
property taxes to schools: up to $347M (subject to recalculation by the
Department of Finance). Anether appreach would protect the nonen~erpri..
.pecial di.tric~s that have few other revenue sources and shift the enter-
prise special district.' property taxe. to the nonenterprise districts.
. REO!VELOPMENT AGENCIES: Reserve an additional portion of redev.lop~
mant's tax inCrement for schools and/or ot.her agenoies: $3S0M.
. NO ANO LOW PROPERTY TAX CITIES: Shift the no- and low~property tax
cities' property tax to schools and/or other agencies: S40M.
. WILLIAMSON ACT: Repeal or suspend the subvention to counties; 5l4M.
VEHICLE LICENSE FEES
The current dist4ibution 0: the non-Realignment VLF is:
Counties
Citi.s
TOTAL
Sl,295M
~
$~
. TRANSFER: Shift some of the citie.' VLF to counties: up to $S94M.
. REIMBURSE: Clarify that the current VLF payments alraady con.ti~ute
4eimburs.ment for th~ homeowners' property tax exemptions: $165M savings.
. REPEAL: Retain the portion of the VLF that comes from trailer COAches
in the State General Fund, $lSM saving..
66/15/92 18:58:51 -)CITY CLERK
. JUN l5 '92 l5: 46 LCC-9l6J()-SE,7l
Sdn Berndrdino
Pdge 6
P.6
REFORM
"A" LIS~ - LESS CON':rROVERSIAl..
A1 suspen~ or repeal daea reporting requirements for in~igent health,
meneal health, and a~cohol and drug programs. CO~IE5.
A2 - Requ.re local gov'ts to pay the full cose of state crime labs. S~A~E
A3 - Establish actuarial responsibility (either appoint actuary Or use PERS
rate) for re~ucing PERS employer rates eo the 1992-93 aceuarial
assumption levals. STA~e, COUNTIES, CI~IES, DIS~RIC~S **
"8" I..IS~ - CONTROVERSIAl..
81 - Repeal the erial court blOCK grane. Allow counties eo retain recently
enacted revenue to offset ehe loss of block granes. S~A~E ...
B2 - Allow general law couneies eo contract oue any county funotion.
co~n:s ..
83 - Limie county fisoal responsibility un~er Welfare an~ Institutions Co~e
517000 to~ gene~al assistance and in~igent health care. COVRrImS.
B~ - Repeal or modify Beilensen Act hearing requirements. CO~ImS .
B5 - Modify Proposition 99 and Realignment MOE requirements. COUNTIES .
B6 - Modify the Proposition 111 MOE requirements. COUNTIES, CI~III
a7 - Require arresting agencies to share in the cost of operating county
; ails. COUN'I':n:s
B8 - prospeceively repeal the 2\-at-55 retirement option for local government
miscellaneous employ..s. COUNT%ES, CI~IBS, ntS~RIcrS ..
S9 - Delay implementation dates for newly mandated prog~ams (SB 198, Aa 939,
Correction Treatment Centers) COUNTImS, C%~IES
810- Allow local governmene to implement 2-tier PERS program for new
employee.. C~IES, CI~IES ..
8U- AlJthorize "contribution" plans (rather than "benefit" plans) as PEU
.econd tier. CO~IES, CI~IES, DISTR%~. ..
812- Amend extended leave provisione for public safety officers w/job related
injuries to ~emove "windfall" income f~om tax sheltered seatus of
benefits. COUNTIES, CI~IES, DISTR%C~S ..
813- Re~~ire that all annexations and inco~poration. are revenue nelJt~al
(services. revenues). COUNTIIS
a1~- Clean-up SB 2557 to reflect Maddy leteer. COUNTIES ...
815- Revise housing elements every 7 years, not 5. COUNTImS. CI~IES.
816- Share fines between cities and oOlJneies ba..d on Penal Code 51463 split
for slJrnmary probation. CITIES
B17- Repeal Penal Code 51463.28 to eliminate the ability of 31 counties to
keep growth in fines when bail schedlJles are increase~. CI~Iml ...
a18- Require courts to collect and remit to counties the booking fee for all
convicts. CI~IES ...
B19- Require oou~s to allow cities to collect fines and forfeiture.. CITIES
820- Protect local governmenes from liability when lawsuit. challenge
development approval.. CI~IES, COUN'I'IEI
B21- Resto~e cities' land use regulation over alcoholic beverages. CI~IEI
B22- Suspend survey req. re: unreinforoed masonry bldgs. COUN'I'IES, CI~IES
B23- Amend laws on port districts and cities' oosts. CI~IES
B24- Limit the amount of lan~ a Jurisdiction can re~evelop. COUNTIES
B25- Allow the seate, couneie., and schools to sign off on expansion or
futlJre redevelopment projects. S~A~E, COUNTIES, DISTRIC~S
826- Limit CRAs to their hiseoric purposes (houeing & infra.) - S~A~,
COUNTIES. DISTRIC~S
827- Defer AS 2448 (landfill closures) for 3 yrs. COUNTIES, CI~IES
B28- Enace workers' oomp reform for local qovernment employees. CO~IES,
CITIES, DIITRICTS
B29- Restrict disability retirement benefits to disabled person unable to
perform any employment; increase truly disabled benefit from 50\ to
60\. S~A~I, COUNTIES, CITIES. DIS~RIcrS
a30- Give oounties more flexibility to consolidate ~epartments. COUNrIES
B31- Ensure that all counties and cities have used local general tax
authority. COUNTIES, CI~IES
832- Allow LAFCOs to initiate ~onsoli~atign proce.~ings.
"C" L:J:S~ - MORE COH'rROVERSlloL
C1 - Exempt publi~ agency self-insured health plans from provisions of
Knox-Keene requirements. COUNTIES .
02 - Prevene state departmant bu~qet cuts from baing backf.lled by local fee
impositigns. COUNTI~S (loss to STATE)
03 - S~.pen~ housing element requiremen~. for 5 yrS.' COUNTIES, CI~IZS ,
C4 . Eliminate requiremene that LG's hold liability ~n.uranoe for lan4filL
operators. CI~IES, COUNTIES (poeential loss to STAt!) .
es - Repeal requirement that ~itie. enfor~e worker'S comp .nsurance req. .n
~onnection w/issuance of business license.. CI~IES (loss to STATE) ..
C6 - Eliminate workers' comp presumpeions to industrial ~i~ability. .
retirements in PERS. Use sed. requiring signif.cant Job oausat.on w.th
total and permanent disabilitv. COUNTIES. CI~IES ..
e? - Repeal Fish and Game fees (AS-31S8). CITIES (loss to STATE)
CS - Limit local government employees to civil service etat~: or collective
oarqaininq, but not ooth. COUNTIES. CI~IES, DISTR%C~S
C9 - Limit school employeas to tenlJre or collective bargaininq, but
not boeh. nIITRIC~S **
KEY I
aO~D = Describes agencies that benefit from reform
. = CONSULT HEALTH AND WELFARE WORXING GROUP
.w . Conault labor relations axperts
, a6/~5/92 19:88:88 ,->CITY CLERK
. TUl",j -1~ ,,~.::' l=,:4'" Ln.-'-q.1F.,,-....4-86?1 .n....c.r.....,.,\,ol:l
- "'_' _'- __ I _"_' __..._~ '
SAUS Am) USI: 'rU
Sl - Impose pos....ory use tax on purchases br defense contractors to offset
tax loss from ~erosoac.. ($30M local ga n [80\ cities) 20\ counties])
S144M SGF, 2/3 vote statute).
52 - Majority vote for local transactions and use taxes (ACA 1] - ($800M @
1/4 cent rate for 1993-94, AMEND).
53 - State-imposed increa.. of the local sales and use tax rate beyond 1.25\
(1/4 cent = $744M, STATUTE).
S4 - Local-option increase of local sale. and use tax rate beyond 1.25\
(1/4 cent = S744M, STATUTE).
San Bernardino
Page
P.?
7
PROPERTY 'rU
Pi - Reasses. corporate property in single transaction change. of ownership.
($10M+, MAJ VOTE STATUTE).
P2 - Reasse.. corporate property when cumulatively 50\ or more shares change
hands (SB 62) - ($lB - $2B in 1993-94, MAJ VOTE STATUTE)
P3 - Ext.nd the definition of pre-197S debt to include pre-existinq pension.
77 jurisdictions have plans that would qualifr (S ,MAJ VOTE STATUTE).
P4 - Limit the maximum base year transf.r to prine pal-ri.idences for
parent/child transfers ($ ,AMINO)
PS - Limit thl maximum base y.~transfer for senior citizen to the median
home pric. in the stat. ($ ,STATUTE).
P6 - Impo.. possessory u.e tax on-Eon-defense use of federal prQperty.
($ ,2/3 VOTE STATUTE).
P7 ~ En~ split roll for property tax ratas (1\ - $8.28, AMEND).
PB - Increase the inflation factor for property tax asseslments from 2\ to
CPI (1\ . $167M, AMEND).
VEHICLE LICENSB FBES
Vi - End exempt~on for vehicles owned by local iovernment (COUNTIES = S10M to
$20M, CITIES. up to SSM [LOSS], DISTRICTS - up to SlSM [LOSS], 2/3 VOTE
STATUTE)
V2 - Extend VLF 2.2\ surcharge beyond July 30, 1992. ($65M, STATUTE)
V3 - Revise ~r d.preciation schedull (UP to $300M, STATUTE)
INCOME ~U
11 - Repeal the Bank In Lieu Tax (Loss to SGF = $65 M, Gain to locals · $lS0N
to $200M. Gain increases if more juri'dictions enact bu.ine.s license
taxes, MAJORITY VOTE STATUTE).
12 Local option income tax surcharge (1' - S170M, STATUTE).
EleI11Ii 'rUBS
El - Ext.nd local-option ciiar.tte tax authority to counties and/or cities
($O.OS/pack - S90M, STATUTE)
E2 - Extend local-option alcoholic beveraqa tax authority to LG's.
(1 cent - SSM, STATUTE)
E3 - Enact "tippler tax" on drinks sold br r.staurants & bars (S , STATUTE)
14 - Impol' local gas tax at distributor ev.l for general fund purpo...
($_, MAY ALREADY HAVE AUTHORITY).
LOCAL UVl:HUJ:S
Ll - Extend counties' franchise fee. [SS 19B9, Vuich] - ($ ,STATUTE).
L2 - Allow counties to levy property transfer taxes (may have PropolitiOn 62
problem) ($ I STATUTE).
L3 - Allow bus. !!eense tax on insurance aq.nt. & corporation. ($ , AMINO)
L4 - Allow countywide parcel tax authority ($ ,STATUTE). --
L5 - R.peal telephone co. exemption from locar-lranchi.e fees ($ ,AMINO)
L6 - Allow County Service Areas (CSAS) to charge f.es for services-tAB 1505,
Farr] - ($ , STATUTE).
L7 - Authoriae ~nties to charqe actual co.t. for ..rvic.. of proce.. in
civil suits made by sheriffs or mar.hals ($7.SM, STATUTE).
L8 - Raise civil filing fees in municipal and .uperior cou~. ($30M to $40M,
S'l'ATUTE) .
L9 - Allow local qovernm.nts with .olid waste facilities to char;a "host"
f... to offset negative impacts (S ,STATUTE).
L10- R.stor. local =ond pooling. for revenue generation ($___, STATUTE).
UDEVELOPMZH'1' AHJ) DICVILOPMl!lN'.r
Rl - Require CRAs to reimburse cities and count i.. for .ervices provided.
R2 - Limit tax ~ncrem.nt to actual annual debt obligation.
R3 - Allow counti.. to impose countywide developer fees.
R4 - Shift CRAs' unreserved funds to State G.neral Fund ($l.lB. AMEND).
l"toEZIBILI!1!Y
FXl - AllOW local GO bonds with majority vot.r approval [ACA 61 - (AMEND).
FX2 - Allgw counties to levy utility user and busine.. license taxes
countywide (STATUTE).
F%3 - Reduce statutory barriers to voluntary tax sharing (STATUTE).
FX4 - Make it more difficult for protests to trigger elections for fire
supre.sion ......ments (STATUTE).
'rBUATS
~l - Sills that enact new sales and use tax exemptions - SB 177 (.nacks), 58
267 (periodicals); AS 2276 (i~brary purchases of periodicals) I AB 2396
(fuel sales to common carrlerS); AS 3724 (&&les by non-profits). LOSS
TO CITIES AND COUNTIES - S49.5M, LOSS TO REALIGNMENT = S19.5M, LOSS TO
STATE GENERAL FUND - $202 M.
T2 - 8ills that require additional net ice for local revenue incr.....
[ACA 39, SB 1977].
trII!V I IItILD
. De.erib.s it.ms on "short li.t"
86/19/92 28:14:26 ->CITY CLERK
JUII 10'92 16:56 LCC-9l6~-867l
""'"
San Bernardino
Page 1
F'. 1
CalifornlB. Citie~ ..
WOrl< TOlIetner
League of California Cities
REC'O.-AOMllt OFf.
HI...... ':Ie:
IS'32 JUli \ \ ffi'l Iv- ..N
lili
"11..
I a
I .....
l' ,':.!l' II I I'.., - I'I..a..,(' D('li,(', 111I11I('lIi..'('"
June 10, 1992
FROM:
Mayors and City Managers
(please deliver a copy asap to the Mayor and City Manager)
Hal Conklin, League President
Don Benninghoven. League Executive Director
Grass Roots Campaign To Fiiht State Budget
TO:
RE:
As we hope you are well aware by now, the State is seriously proposing to take city
revenues from property taxes and/or vehicle license fees to help balance the budget
deficit. We have been advised that they have targeted cities for '1 bl1llon. To fiiht this
effort, cities must unite in a way as never before. To coordinate this effort, the League
has sent an action plan to the President of each of the 19 City Managers Area Groups.
. We have asked them to call an urgency meeting of their local city managers this week to
coordinate local efforts. Sample media materials have been sent to each Area City
Manager President and specific actions include:
_ Urgency meetings of all city managers by region to coordinate efforts
. Press conferences which will include elected officials and police/tire
_ Editorial board meetings with daily and weekly newspapers
- Placement of op.ed stories
v:: A letters-to.the-editor campaign
Yo ~tters to area Legislators
Y': Involving local employee associations/unions
- Coordination of delegation visits to Sacramento
~ Cable programming (including showing the League's fiscal video)
. Town Hall meetings with area Legislators
In addition, a technical task force of managers, finance directors and city attorneys will
review positive legislation to increase revenue flCX1bility and eliminate state mandates.
Several key arguments have been developed which are the basis of our opposition to the
State's proposals. These include:
1
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICi
90X 7005, "AFAvmi. CA 94549
(510i 283.:i!11;3
HEADQUARTEAS
1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
IR1 RI 444.5790
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
602 iAST HUNTINI3TON DR.. SUITi C /
MON~OVIA. OA 9'019
la~a\'3n._~'H;'
86/18/92 28:15:18 ->CITY CLERK
. JUN l0 '92 l6: 56 LCC-9l60-S67l
San Bernardino ~,;J! Page 2
o , P.2 -
~it/~~#
Votcrs told govcrnment to cut and cities did. Right after Prop. 13 passed, CIties
statewide cut 10,000 employecs (during the same period, the State added 10,000
employees). Ubrary hours wcrc slashed, rccreation programs became dependent on fees
and street maintenance was defcrred. Cities tried to maintain their police and fire
~artments and were succcssful. ~r
1WP.1Y9_~jiQ~wlieji'llieState:passeQ~SB..2SS7.: .llie recessiQii"'Decame~il' rp.lllitY_Io~
Cit!es,ifurth~r~'cUts~wete::'mlUl~'.In-fa~;:Cifies:now"~nfributc 'difeC11y.;:br:mairealY:S24g
ttlill1o~.of.lOCil~dOllars'",;to:uie;State's-:-generB1'fund" SB:2SS ee ff1a1
','0" . -In ,1;(1;0 u .
1. CIties Have Been Cutting Since Prop. 13
: "II -~.:.. :
. ..
~
l
- - J
J.'lL_._._.~
~
, ..;More than-haIf..or.:.
~@~~g~il~]C~!~..p~!;Jht~~W~e1mlIv:w.anxrc.wcr..'POl{al''/
O~m;l!!!;pur.st'tCe!!7S1ia~l\.~t.tl!~l!.~SaI wlll dY
3. Cities Are Not A Part or State Government
4:: J Iftl Only;jlte~e;S8~cou~gjmp'lemefimlli:.tiusmCSS:r'
:ii~l!Wm'j;p~~ntl6.,J!Ii;;1C,yy;tffi1:~:' ~-e;ma!Q!lty~~ii@c~;.
rl1.~~iJ..8X:~t.~.tQlnlY:!2.ur:.~untie.r.~..Y!}!!~~:tax,"'In'fllc.tr~yen~~r~e!!!~?!r .
c.~.~81:~=~~~t.Y~-ito;~~~~..!~tr~1g~/
2
~
Page 3
P.3
B6/19/92 2B:16:B4 ->CITY CLERK
JUN 10 '92 l6: 57 LCC-9l6<,;.l4-867l
-
San Bernardino
5, It's Time To Stick ToJllther
While some citics feel sales taxes should be shared and othcrs aren't as reliant on
property taxes, this is a critical time for cities to work tOiethcr in a common bond to
fend off the State. By dividing cities, the State will surely conquer us.
6. Give Local Examples Ol Budget Cuts
Provide specific local examples of cuts made last year to balance this year's budaet, cuts
made during the year to keep the budaet in balance and cuts anticipated should the
property tax and VLF proposals be enacted. While using scare tactics is not our
intention, publicly explaining reality to the public, media and Legislature is critical.
The next step in the budget adoption process is a meeting of the budget conference
committee tomorrow, June 11 in Sacramento. They've not announced if they will take
testimony, however, it's unlikely. It might be a good day to bring delcgations to
Sacramento to lobby your Legislators on behalf of cities.
There are three main activities that we need all city managers and elected officials to
participate in, including:
1. Participate In Local Lobbying Efrorts
Each city manager can help organj,~ local activities and be part of the Area Managers
Group activities. The list of activities above can be duplicated by individual cities, too.
2. BrIel The City Council In Public About State Proposals
As soon as possible, city councils should be briefed publicly about the impact of losing
property taxes and/or VLF income. This will hopefully generate additional news stories,
encourage editorials and therefore gct the attention of Legislators.
3. Tell Us What You Do ADd What You Hear
Please send copies of your letters to the League so that we can include your individual
stories and anecdotes in statewide materials. In addition, please let us know what
feedback you hear, good or bad, from Legislators. This is a critical aspect to our
lobbying efforts.
Finally, the attached letter from the Local Government Working Group Is receiving
considerable play in the media and is the subject of much discussion among local.
government officials. The memo suggests, presumably to the Budgct Conference
Committee, six criteria to be considered when the Budget Conference Committee begins
its examination of state and local fiscal relationships. Usted below is each of the six
"criteria" along with a suggested response from the perspective of a city official:
1. Revi.~ the post-Pronosition 13 bailout of local llovcmments. reCQiJlizlni that the State
Genera] Fund can nn lonaer afford bailout.
3
86/18/92 28:16:53 ->CITY CLERK
JUN 10 '92 l6: 58 LCC-9l6/1""4-867l
""
San Bernardino
Page 4;
F'.4
Relij)Qnse: There is no more "bailout". This is a term which has been conveniently coined
by the State to help justify its potential grab of city property tax revenues. The property
tax monies going to local government after passage of Proposition 13 were established in
AB 8 13 years ago as the pennan~nt. stable and Jnn,-term solution to local "nllnce. It
was not, as now being depicted by the Legislature, a temporary one-time gift to local
government which would be subject to take-back in the future.
Second, cities have often helped the state financially during the decade of the 1980's and
into the early 90's. When the State has failed to make hard decisions about its budget
and its inconsistent revenue stream, they have turned to local government and grabbed
local revenue sources to support the state budget. This consistent pattern is evident in
such state take.aways as Liquor Ucense Fees, Highway Carriers Uniform Business Tax,
Business Inventory Property Tax Relief, Cigarette Tax, Drinking Water Regulation Fees,
Booking Fees, Property Tax Administration Charges and Fines and Forfeitures. This
should not be a one.way street with the State reaping all the benefit from the state and
local fiscal relationship. Cities have also "bailed out" the state. This should count for
something in the budget deliberations. The factual situation surrounding the property tax
allocation system established in AD 8 certainly raises serious credibility problems for the
State's claim that it has some "right" to now reclaim this money.
2. Remove the r~lated sta.te ma.ndates if the hailnut end~.
Relij)onse: The League would fully support the removal of mandates place on local
government by the State, whether they are "related" to any budget cuts or not. This
should not be considered as a direct trade-off for taking the "bailout" money from local
government, but should be provided to local government as a recognition of the
desperate financial conditions in which local governments now find themselves. There is
a long list of state mandates being offered by the League which should be removed.
State.mandates are not only expensive, but seriously distort local priorities and services.
3. Allnw lncal offieiall to manaRe their own affairl and determine their nwn rev~"nes.
Resnnnse: The League has long supported a greater revenue base for local governments.
This not only allows greater flexibility when setting local service levels, but also
establishes an accountability between local governments and their citizens. Prosrams and
the revenues to support those programs 11\111 be subject to citizen scrutiny. These new
revenue sources must, however, be protected from state take-over. It is unacceptable and
unaccountable for the state to rely on local revenue raising authority to close gaps in the
state budget, which happens frequently under the current system.
Second, this "criteria" is in direct contradiction to criteria 1,4,5 and perhaps 6.
4
86/1~/92 28:17:47 ->CITY CLERK
JUH lO'92 l6:59 LCC-9l6j"04A-867l
-
San Bernardino
Page 5
P.5
'''"0''
4. Modl(y the situs allocation of sales tax.
Response: This criteria has no dircct or logical link to the state budget or state budget
deficit. As we understand the proposal from its limited description, the proposal would
be to reallocate sales tax revenues based on some criteria other than aiWL presumably
population or some yet undefined "needs" formula. There is no direct state general fund
gain from this proposal. It appears to only move sales tax revenues around among local
governments. Thereforc it deserves no serious consideration in the State budget process.
The second problem with this proposal is the detrimental impact it will have on
economic development. Among the favorable results of encouraging a diverse
commcrcial base in a community is the development of a strong tax base for a
community. Without this incentive, which this proposal removes, communities will lack
the tax base and therefore the infrastructure and services to support commerdal and
industrial development. Without this incentive, commercial development will be less
likely to occur and it will have a direct and negative impact on economic development.
This is thc wrong direction to be taking in the midst of a failing California economy.
5. &ittict redevelopment activi~ to its historic pUlJ)ose of financin~ infrsutnlcture and
housit~.
Re~onse: This criteria borders on deception because of its simplicity. Conceptually, it is
difficult to disagree with the proposal, yet, the specific recommendations offered by the
Local Government WorkinS Group go far beyond the limitation of redevelopment to its
"historic purpose". We reservc any final judgement about this proposal until the details
arc discusscd and furnished to the parties of interest.
6. Sirnpli(Y the taxoralsinF and -allocation IIYstems.
Re$ponse: This criteria, as the proposal to restrict redevelopment activity to its "historic
purpose", is overly simplistic in its goal and until more substance is unveiled to elaborate
on its purpose, it is impossible to comment. Many city revenues over the history of
California have been lost to the state under the guise of "simplicity". We could not
support this criteria If it led once again to a State grab of local revenues.
Thank you for your efforts. It's everyone workinS together that will hopefully negate, or
at least minimize, any impact of the budget on cities. Please don't hesitate to contact the
League at 916/444-5790 or via fax, 916/444-8671, if you have any needs.
P.S. Attacbed is a cartoon which might be helpful in telling our story. Feel free to use
it in city publications and try to get your local newspaper to use it, tool
5
B6/18/92 2B:18:38 ->CITY CLERH
JUN l0'92 l7:00 LCC-916,~-867l
........
San Bernardino
Page 6
" P.6
..... '
-.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
SiAiE CAPITOL.
SACRAMENTO, CAUFORNIA
1I!5S14
June 8, 1992
Hon. Alfred E. Alquist, Chair
Senate BUdqet and Fiscal Review Committee
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Hon. John Vasconcellos, Chair
Assembly Ways and Means Committee "
State capitcl, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Gentlemen:
With this letter, the Local Government Budqet Workinq Group
completes your charqe.
In addition to reviewinq the tour issues cited in your May 26 .
letter, our Workinq Group examined the'state/local ana lp-
cal/local fiscal relationship. We met twice and held a pub-
lic meetinq last week to invite cOlllll1ents. Local ofticiab ..
and other interest qroups reviewed our options for retorminq
local finance. . ",
The workinq Group sUiqests six criteria to examine the
state/local fiscal relationship:
"
1. Revise the pest-Proposition 13 bailout of local
qovernments, recoqnizinq that the state General
Fund can no lonqer afford the bailout.
2. Remove the related state mandates if the bailout
encl..
3. Allow local officials tomana;e their own affairs
and determine ~heir own revenue sources.
4. Modify the situs allocation of sales tax.
5. Restrict redevelopment activity to its historic
purpose of financinq infrastructure and houainq.
6. Simplify the tax-raisinq ana -allocation system.
B6/1B/92 2B:19:16 ->CITY CLERK
JU~l~i~~ 1 r ~a;~C;~~5~a~6?l
June 8, 1992
Page 2
Taken together, our Working Group believes that these crite.
ria could develop options that could save the State General
Fund up to $5 billion in 1992.93.
1
San Bernardino
Page 7
.. P.?
-,
The Working Group looked at more nearly 80 options Qut.we are
not yet recommending specific options. Our Working Group has
not reached consensus (or even majority agreement) on any
option; many remain highly controversial.
The Working Group emphasizes that any restruoturing ~ Qa1.
ance competing state and local needs. We have not had any
information from your other Working Groups, sO it is impos.
sible to advise you on how our suggested criteria may affect
their work. We would need to know more about their work be.
fore offering specific recommendations. We recommend that
you consult with the appropriate policy experts before you
finally settle on any reforms.
It 1s our intention to begin a detailed examination of how
the criteria might apply to the options.
Very truly yours,
..A <3.-. ~ '-
ROBiN S. AYAa '" ASSEMBLYHAN SAM
ES M. CALDERON
1L~
A.
s~
ASSEMBLYMAN RICHARD L. .MOUNTJOY .
B6/1fl/92 2B:19:57 ->CITY CLERH
JUN l0 '92 l7:0l LCC-9l6"~-867l
~
~
~
~ "
\
\a..
g
'"
San Bernardino Page 8
- ' P.8
.....;'
;.:,i!~~
~1"1-1'1
~,,~~
Crn 1'1
~O~i:!
m;2><CA
......1'11'1
.. I.' en
~~go
o
::I.
..
;;.
!..
i
~
i:
'"
".
...
l'
1"\
1"\
~\~~
~~
:-Irrl
0 /;:(
\J) r-'
l{) 0 l{)
r--
--9 'J --
#' ...... )
--
~ --
. ~
~) ...
I[;'~ J
r ,
",
--
~
0~~8R-{;)'~,o ~
c V) 0 \.t; \- r( {') ;
\- t1) 1/1_0_ -- ~ ~ 0 ~
- -... ~", '/, - - -, " ~-'
I ') ~~
~ r-...-.."
I r - I I\) V""-' '
, -- .. ~ ~
Ji-
G
~
~ c
<::
~ r-.
-::::: "-.l
~ ~
~ ~
~ '<.. . ""-\9-'
"'2-H
, ~
,) ~ V1
.. r- _~
U .~-:::
, t-_ - '-
- , 0
"... - ~~
-:: 13 Y) ~~
~(n g-)--.l-
\.)") - 4'
u~
'8 ~ ~
VI ~ \\
& 6:~
cf: \;~ I
I
I -~
~ N
\S'..
,
~
~ L ~
~ J
...
... I I
"::. -I. -
-
- '- -
-- " - -
. . --- --
~' \II . l , { ,,- -
~ . ( l
- -.:::.:{ , '
~ Q) - Ci
.... -"
~ ---
~ C c
c: -
C' ()O
~ V U
~ )> 0_ ----- <
----
~ ~ . 0
~
U
U
. ~...?~ ~ -z;Y-fz:.
'.. 0<1'" II "I .-'.... '-'
.- { &." ~
f ".-.,----...,."..}- _ .J.!-!\)fllnl!ln.,...... : It' ,.,- ']
. eyq!.~',;;..~I":
1tli,.,.:'~:ill,J I.~ .....!..'.." 1V..!"1',f,es~I.I"t<~J:..~
:"..:: ::I';. !' . . hra; -~rl~: ~'i ~
3'" . I . II ...,' , .
~ ;flt.AI..lfl'lloo~n ."iv'..~"'!"t... .... ;.~... ":"'1 . j.~ ~Ji ....
'" zsupa:J"":)'"~0It t181bnuh.ut)1.tlt110~i)t~r~rlfnUl"l;l"1\tJ'ttS.'~A.C~ 1(...." A:'
;=gi1esfioliili' .1
1 "'')::- ,,' .:--;-~ - '"'...."I>""n1&.,""""".':nh~l",.,,,.,,,.~!-r '. ~
~.. ;.~~)TWf~u'tty grand.Jury 1s..,...nPOuncs .,..1>11<.>10 \>,)'Id." ,
i ,.,aSked,tiY.the San Bernardlno"J"""Th' 'I"tt .., II" d' ~""t'! I
.. .. ..' . ". . 'h' " e e er'a u t:U 0 several
, ., city1attor!1ey to look Into OW""sithatioits iri'whlch'rlig,\iests' for
costs went up on twolfi t>,<hllO'1<lriew'work' canui"ft'om'imt'of the
construction projects. . blue. .' <":..~
,- ... .,---- -----' ---~"We.re not at the poiiitwnere I
By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY ~ we can say with certainty ~t.~'..:'..
~ttS~.Brn;~ltt!IJ_l~iT.t:Px~ef1~~(,;f~ ~~ .
Attorney James Penman.\lSJ!.ilq requirements..are .being~irc,!~.
the county grand jury MOndaY.to vented or not. .~ UJ.<> . .
investlgat~ w~ether-Mayor:Bob ~,,!'~/1e \ettlir.w~"atest'volley in ' I
~ol~ol'A,b 8 ~Irectives violated a flurry .of disagreements. among I
blddihlr J'!l'lu!rements on ,CIty ~on- the.mayor.,cauncil. ",embers and
~~~r~.~~~~.1_11~..;~.Jfir~_o/r:i~~ J. PFnman. ~.jll'}i)f-uri",f'n '~..n'.JlhJ
...\.;f.il~IE\tter,~~t'jiwd tw.o.~!,"~s ~:.;Earller this month;~oters ap~
mwhlch p~ojectS we?~\,~ j~ld proved a measure that gives
WIthout specIficatIOns. council members. .the power ta
'l: 'Th~';i"arie~ loV;' bids \Z~~~. ac- override Holcomb's executive de-
cepted,specificationswereadded cisions. .,.~., .("?T;~"r' .,....'q.
at higher cost, Penman said. , ') ,""'. Penman's' office drafted' the
.-'u' ...,~~. .J. '.' r. ortIiharice""",!,...,,t ........I1".,r..-...J...,.,.:J,.
"'~" The Inte~t or.~he lette~ 1~ to C'" .", ,...."tJ:.~ f'i'~'<\ .
see that pubhc fuillls are beIng In a meeting last week. Pen.
spent,:;V.is~ly.an~ ,eJf\<;~",AYy,':, man .snggest"? the ~ayor.co,!ld.
PeRrr'}~nsCl!,~ JII.~ J~tJ ':~liJ '1&"; re~!late by '~f'fluencm~ ~n uP-:
ba~rm nat accusing any individ- cqmH,g audit. of ~e cIty at~ar.
_ ." . nAU's office f HI1.,H Jr.. .bk I ,,-.
ualofanycflme. rl...h "HfT" "".1 . 1"1111 '.'''~H lJ-4i,
. 'Holco~b was' at a ;"ayors' When Penman told council
conference .in .Haustanon Mon- members ab?Ul: the le~t~r Man-
day and couldn'tbe'reached. day. the noh?n of I?ohhcal mo-
____. __tiYes came upunmedlately. -
--"enman S81i11lie gra.nil1ury IS Sixth Ward Cauncilwoman
b~m~ asked to 'investIgate' the ValeriePoi>e-Ltidliimsaid:'OIJ'1
bIdding process because requests' ...
for expensive changes happen so ()'Isn't alE ~i!!S lJ r~lt pf;Jim
frequently. ., b,-..,j'" J <I,,,,",, askmg far an Increase m hIS bud.
I th" I get and us asking for an audit?"
.' R one case, e.orlgma con- " ". '/C 'r' fin'"
tract Jar storm dr81ns anda.re-. .Penmanrephed. !,'
tentian basin at Meechum Can- "It has'nothirlg'to"do'Wibi'\ny
yon called for concrete and, rip,. budget." ,,,
ra~att.~e~~e::: ~-.; ,;;;:,:~,~, The Jetter does request'that
An amended contracttook out the grand jury canduct an inde.
those specifications. pendent. audit of'the city attor-
But afler"fu~'~~;t!r~~rli.~ ney'somce, Penman said. . "Jr!
awarded to .Riverside. Construc- "':1 wauld exiiresSconcern'Q\iI!~.
tion. the 'couricil"i-eceivM:a'r~) whether a management stud:i.Qr.
quest to add the concrete and r;p~' the city attorney's office con~
rap at an additianal. cost of ducted'by the'inayot'sofficen$20.000. .,,, ..." l." ..... would be fair." ~.
..~fl __ t....... "'_0..-. .,~\ff"") nt'tI'fl~'In.U:) l<t.l\}il'(t~t-,-__
I
I
o
o
,; :~
!
;'1
<'
.
.,,'
-'
.-
.
)
.
t
,
'I
{
o
o
1
~~ ?-Z5'72.
._..........--U!':.JVl'!.t.J t~J. IUJ'i,u""U '(.lIlm'.J1J .... .It....;~ :;.......~'-'-.. ....:-. ",' ~(!?JJi\() 9al:t91(( 'W':;'1f.J G m.'111jlDZ~
Eoliee". rheadguai1ers\:~sola;:~~~j
to'''help~~ce tti~~'budgel
iltfll}t.H,,_ . ,;o-J..,I ,('> HE'.. ,o.q '(I"$vw l\ ,'. .;ii . ,
. The San Bernardino City Council also FISCAL CRISIS ""
takes two other actions to help close the" ___''"'.' '~"_ _ _.._ _ _ . _. . _
~'.~,1'1i}I!~n gap,.~ ".,..~.,. "'::i:r:\'A'~i;./ "C\~:'I'.:,~;~V~~t~~~;~t!?~g~~eg~~~:::,~:,te ~~~/~~erve fund
B, REBECCA FAlRIn.!IANEY /j/."';;~'f- ~~,;.! ,:;?" 'T!i!ls~]e 'of tl)~.Fourth St~eet pOlice,station to
~,.n ~ !,:.riter ,', .i;~.."..l,~';'t:l' ,.'"',;;' '1'>-",'~- ~ '..;'t,.':'1.!,'';'ff.~}2..,the clty's Econ, O!,!IC De~elop, me. ~t Agenc~. h!ls be"n
r, "~;#~~'; ~, ...::. '-, c,. ",\~~"."J~-~~~ ~~~~. wt 'J'.l :.:: i~~{~~.:.planned f<!r se~ral months. It Will. be de~ohshed In
.~.)'SANBERNARDlNO - T~e. Ci~y C"linciI,sold,\rthe ~ext year.to.!'lak!,.~~y for,llI\ ?~ce complex.
police headquarters for $2.3 mllhon Monday to bal- . Th~.. new pohce ~tahon, fi~ance~ wIth redevel-
ancethebudge,t; "JIl.. ,:,..:~;1t' "L,....,,},\'.~~ *",.,."ppm, .ent..!!','o,!:y, .WII,I. ~.e,.,.~.!lllt~.t",s,eV.j;nth ,and. ,E
'. ..~~ ..t'...., -'tt;\:~~~.1",{~kf ."I':~~ ~.'f-. '~: ..~. '.(..-~,' streets..~, ",~:~!:,~~~,_ ~; ;.!:\..~'~~'ii.;r-(. o{i'4~ ,to ~'-~ )
, ,Two other measures also helped close the;$3.3. i-~t.7."'..:.,.~l!>I~'''''''<<i.Jfll,~\.-~~..-1t'~''''''''~;;'j':''' ~':rI '-;,'4il ';"
million gap' paying city "employees one fewer time '. .. '. The -council also; approved adjustmg the pay-
'd.t ~ . $28 '11i r. r't' _ m.ent schedule for city em,ployees-a measure that
per year an rans.errmg . ml ~~ ,rom e l.re Will save $160.000. A survey showed that most em-
ment funds to the general fund. ,," . J. ,,:". .;.;, ,..,. ployees do not favor the change, which ,will elimi-
, With these actions. the city will nOlo~ly start th.,"" nate one paycheck- Ii year,~llirk said that:paycheck
fiscal year with a balanced budget. butalso wilIholdwas extra.::-;.:,' ~, :;::"'. ,'- "-I .
$484,400 in r'!serve:'. ,.^,' .. '-' \'<{;l~ ";~;; ."A stat~~;d; ~ut ih the Public Employee Retire-
. "This would for ;~t.e" 'moment 'g";~e' us: ~6m;,':F menC Syste,.m "provided '. the, final. ,s, um.lthe city
: bre;thing::room/' City Adl1linistrabir Jhat~lUi~~ark'~~~~~'~, ':;p~.~: ':~!p~.l.ir ;~:~~I._.~tt_~lJ~1 ( .. "
.'~said. fr:~\-: "~kt"""";':'~f ,-;,..,,,,,~ ~~;..:'i..-.<t~~~<~:".'~:~' ~istoricallr,.the:retirement fund received ~uto-
. .'.' . ,." -- '.' . .,. -'.' mabc cost-of-hvmg mcreases. But Gov. Pete Wilson
, .The .CltY, n~s !hat .room now that legislators.. slashed the annual increas,es ':-' while keeping the
ar,et,a1~mg,l1J:lout skimmmg local prope':1Y Jax rev!:;:'''base paYments intact, ", to provide more money for
nues to balance the state ~udge~:The latest pr~po- localgovernment.'~ "'f;'f ,'~:' -.<i ;' '.. .
salcouldco;;t San Bernardmo more than $1 milhon. .., 'ii' ,"" ,......,'...,;._ c", ",,/,,). '\, ~a I. ""
ClarkSaid;',.t: .'::.;,; , ,,;....:;~ ~ '. ,c,' i-" ",:..,:';. :,,'~ .....:t.1h!! state.Sup,remeCourt recently let stand the
"9:""13" ~~ po, iit,f.,,,,,,,--,,_ \ ,.,j,"t;J,: ,o1;.;,r. '; "fr~e~As .the case contmued. San Bernardmo om-
~'., Wore tlie'council took action Monday;,the city.' ..clals.tucked the, accruing cash into a reserve fund.
had only $67 million in expected reveriue'.to_cove~, 'Nbwthat the court case is'settled, the fund will pro-
$71,.1Dl. 'lIion in' corning expenses. Cou. nCIr:mernb~ers, ' vide$2.8millionfor:.SanBernardino_ . "~ t." ":.
~.~':'-~~h~,"~._..(,r~~c.c ". ."""-,,.~"":..,:t' '... .-)t~,.J~,~)e~:;:.~;,,~~,i.. $.-r..- ,1td("~'1' ,'." '
.,.......;-'!.. ~_""~<t;;, ~....~, ~-x ~"!~ -'-.,,-.....::;.-~ltr:.:: ,); _ ",:.,,;,.,"~ !:-;-=::" :_' _~~, ~,.,,';,