HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 SALES TAX PROP 01-07-80DATE:
TO:
FRO~:
SU3JECT:
DECE~,~ER ~.7, 1979
OLD BUSINESS
NO. 1
]-7-R0
HONORABLE ~YOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DAN BLANKENS~.{IP, CITY ADMINIS'~RATOR
APPROVAL OF ARGUMENT REGARDING SALES TAX PROPOSITION
Attached is a draft of the argument in favor of the City receiving a
greater portion of the existing sales tax revenues.
Please review and submit your comments before or at the January 7, 1980,
Council meeting so that a final draft can be approved.
RECO>~4ENDED ACTION
Review, Revise and Approve Argument.
Respectfully submitted,
· Dan Blankenship
City Administrator
Attachments
Tentative Argument Proposed for Tustln
"ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION B"
DRAFT FOR ~EVIEW
"Want to send a message to Sacramento? Then Vote Yes on Proposition B!"
Ask yourself, what public services are of the greatest importance to you?
Police protection?
Fire protection? ·
Libraries?
Parks and Recreation?
Street Lighting?
Ail these services are provided by local government and essential to a good
quality of life. Certainly they are of far greater value than those championed
by overstaffed state and federal bureaucracies, which produce questionable bene-
fits to the public while unquestionably devouring Your tax dollars.
Did you know that the state collects locally a 6% sales tax, yet returns only
slightly more than 1% to local government? The rest stays in Sacramento ~ere
a massive,budget surplus has proven to be an irresistible temptation for Sacra-
mento politicians to underwrite their pet projects. Yet local government is faced
with having to reduce.or hold the line on these most important public services.
It simply does not make sense!
Proposition B proposes that some of that money that now goes to and is spent in
Sacramento be returned to local governmen~ so that city and county government
does not have to be concerned with adequate funds in providing you With the kind
of police and fire protection or other critical services you need and deserve.
Remember that the spending limit enacted by Proppsition 4, the 'Spirit of 13'
initiative, requires that any extra revenue would have to be returned to you in
the form of reduced other taxes. No wonder that Paul Gann, coauthor of Proposition
13 and the new spending limit, has supported Proposition B's approach.
To assure essential local services, to reduce that massive
surplus in Sacramento, vote for local control and for
Proposition ~.
Stephen L. Schuster
Mayor
City of Tustin
Donat~ J. ~altarelli
Mayor Pro-Tem
City of Tustin
Ursula E. Kennedy
Councilwoman
James B. Sharp
Councilman
Ralph Welsh, Jr.
Councilman
Text of Annual Conference Resolution No. 62 (Adopted at the 1979 Annual Conference,
San Fr~ancisco, September 25, 1979)
"RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL ADVISORY PROPOSITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF STATE SALES
TAX REVENUE
"WHEREAS, local governments in California provide many essential public serv-
ices such as police protection, fire protection, and parks and recreation; and
%~EREAS, of the 6% sales tax collected in California, only 1% is levied by
local agencies, the remainder being levied by the state for state distribution or
placement in state reserves; and
"~tEREAS, by adopting this resolution, the League of California Cities has no
intention of supporting a change in the distribution of the existing 1~ local sales
tax; and
"%~5{EREAS, it is the position of the League of California Cities that of the
sales qax, 1~ of the 4-3/4~. retained by the state should be distributed to local
agencies; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled
in Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 25, 1979, that the Leag~e encourage
all cities at an election prior to July 1, 1980, to include an advisory proposition
on the ballot requesting an expression of the public will, which advisory proposition
wo~ld read substantially as follows:
'Should the Governor and Legislature of the State of California
be advsied that:
'It is the will of the people of the City of that
the Governor and Legislature apportion the existing six cents sales
and use tax so that two cents rather than the present one cent be
allocated to be used by cities and counties and special districts
for priority local services rather than by the state for state dis-
tribution or state reserves.
'It is understood that if the Governor and Legislature so act, any
funds resulting therefrom which would cause the city to exceed a
spending limit imposed by a vote of the people of the City of
or the State of California shall, in accordance with
the provisions of the limitation, be returned to the people.
'Further, it is the will of the people that the Governor and Legis-
lature enact such allocation into law no later than July 1, 1980,
to avoid enactment of this proposal through the initiative process
to cure legislative default.'"
- 2 -