HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2010-183 N.C.S. 10/04/2010Resolution No. 2010-183 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
OPPOSgNG PROPOSITION 26, 'I'HE "PROPOSEI) CONS`I'I'Y'i1'I'IONAL
AMENDIVIEN'T: S~'A'I'E ANI) LOCAL F'EES ANI) CHARGES: VO'I'E
REQITIREIVIEN'TS ANI9 LYMITATIONS"
WHEREAS, cities are the economic engine of California and the vitality of cities and the
state's economic recovery is dependent on their fiscal stability and local autonomy; and,
W~-I~REAS, the City of Petaluma supports protecting local control and funding for vital
local services; and,
WI3ER~AS, the City of Petaluma has had to significantly reduce its budget and
programs to ensure a balanced budget, and that unwarranted fiscal limitations imposed on our
community will lead to additional hardship and reduced services for our City's residents; and
W~-IEREAS, Proposition 26, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce,
California Taxpayers Association and a coalition of taxpayers, employers and small businesses,
is a statewide initiative that has qualified for the November 2010 ballot; and,
WI~EREAS, this proposed Constitutional amendment would redefine the definition of
taxes to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges, resulting in more
state and local revenue proposals requiring a two-thirds approval from local voters; and
W~IEREAS, under Proposition 26, a tax would be defined as "any levy, charge, or
exaction of any kind imposed by a local government" except as provided by the measure's
exemptions; and,
W~IE~ZEAS, by expanding the scope of what is considered a tax, the measure would
make it more difficult for state and local governments to pass new laws that raise revenues
because new laws to create, extend or increase these types of fees and charges; and,
Resolution No. 2010-183 N.C.S. Page 1
WI~EREAS, the League of California Cities opposes Proposition 26 out of concern for
the many potential negative effects this measure would have on local revenue raising authority
If passed by voters, this initiative would restrict in various ways the ability of state and local
governments to adopt fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI) THA'T the City Council of the City of
Petaluma hereby opposes Proposition 26.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City
REFEREiYCE: 1 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 4`h day of October, form:
2010, by the following vot~e:
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Barrett, Vice Mayor Glass, Healy, Rabbitt, Renee, Mayor Torliatt
NOES: F{arris
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2010-183 N.C.S. Page 2