HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 98-128 06/29/1998 1 .Resolution No. ss-lzs N.C.S.
~ of the City of Petaluma, California
3
4 12ESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY REDUCTION INTHE VEHICLE IN-LIEU FEES
5
6
7 WHEREAS, Vehicle License Fees have been collected by the State and allocated to cities
8 and counties since 1935; and
9
10 WHEREAS, the highest rate for the Vehicle License Fee has been 2% of purchase price,
11 thereafter diminishing, since 1947; and
12
13 WHEREAS, in response to State takebacles of Vehicle License Fecs in the 1980's, the
14 people of California in 1986 passed Proposition 47, which guarantees the distribution (though
I S not the amount) of Veliicle License Pees to cities and counties; and
16
17 WHEREAS, Vehicle License Fees have become more important to cities and cowities
18 since State takebacks of property taxes in the early 1990's; and
]9
20 WHEREAS, cities and counties remain vulnerable to dre loss ofnon-guaranteed funding;
21 and
22
23 WHEREAS, an amendment to the State Constitution would be required to make any
24 replacement of Vehicle License Pees equally secure as a fimdiag souroe; and
25
Resolution No: 98-128 N.c.s. Page 1 of 3
26 WHEREAS, any such amendment' would need to be placed on the ballot either by the
27 State Legislattiu~e or through the Initiative process; and
28
29 WHEREAS, the State Legislature is unlikely to place such a measure on the ballot since
30 this would conslituCe a potential loss of general fiord revenues and would therefore be opposed
31 by such groups as leachers' organizations, K-14 education, the California State University and
32 University of California systems, and employees of the State Department of Corrections; and
33
34 WHEREt1S, no credible attempt to qualify such a measure for the ballot by petition is
35 foreseeable: and
36
37 WHEREAS, even if such an amendment were to be placed on the ballot, it would face
38 opposition in an election from the same groups drat would oppose its appearance on the ballot;
39 and
40
41 WHEREAS, a Governor in his last year of office, and whose Party does not control either
42 House of the State Legislature. cannot guarantee future replacement of lost Vehicle License Fecs;
43 and
44
45 WHEREAS, in the absence of a guarantee in the State Constitution, which for the
46 aforesaid reasons' is extremely unlikely, reliance on die institutional memory of politicians in
47 Sacramento is delusional; and
48
Reso. 98-128 NCS Page 2 of 3
49 WHEREAS, Vehicle License Fces in California are not excessive (compare California's
50 top rate of 2% as opposed to the fonncr top rate of R% iu Virginia) and are Constitutionally
51 guaranteed to cities and counties.
52
53 WHEREAS, the proposed reduction would result in over a IO% loss of revenue (over $2
54 million dollars) to the City's General Fund, and require reduction of basic mandated services
55 including direct personnel reductions.
56
57 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City oi'Petaluma opposes any
5& reduction in the Vehicle License Fees since any such reduction would reduce the total alnount of
59 funding available to meet the needs of California's citizens at the local and/or the State level, alid
60 would further jeopardize the fiscal stability of cities and counties.
61
62
~3 rcw979ft/Ac
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council bythe Charter of said City.
REFEr2ENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the APProved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) pB~353@i meeting form
on the ....29.th.-----.... day of ........--J.llI12 19..9.x., by the ~ ~ !L~._..
following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Keller, Torliatt, Read,. Vice Mayor .Maguire, .Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
i /
~j i
ABSENT: H mil tORlp2 y~1/_
j~p~ 4. '
ATTEST: _....~.._...L"..
;2 . _ / `.."..~ZGCGr~ j` ~L.L:L. ~h:~/._...
City Clerk Mayor
Council Fil
cn io.ns a~~~ N~, .9. ~.-.128......... N,cs. Page 3 Of 3