HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 13.A 02/03/2003FEB 2003 1 3 A
Resolution No.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SRIFT OF LOCAL VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (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, Ili 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, Imown as the "offset," grew in future years to a 67.5 percent offset
against the amount owed. The amotutpaid 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 fields are available to be transferred from the General Fund to frilly 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; and
Resolution No. N.C.S.
WHEREAS, revenues derived from the VLF and bacicfill 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 `governmetit 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 back
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 Californiaxesident; 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, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of`Petalunia,
California, that if the state General Fund can no longer afford the expense of part or all of the
VLF "bacicfill 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 tim- es and to restore the VLF in an amount necessary to reduce- the VLF bacicfill; and
BE, IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Petaluma hereby expresses its °profound
appreciation to the legislators who support such VLF restoration legislation.
Under the.power and authority�conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said .City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was :introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a ' (Re ular Adjourned (Special) meeting form.
g )( (Adjourned) ) g
on, "the....... .................... day of ............................... ... 20...... by the
following vote: .... :...................................
City Attorney
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
ATTEST: .................................................:.................. ............................... ......................................................... ...............................
City Clerk' Mayor
Council File .... ...............................
Res. No ............ N.C.S.