City officials from throughout California will once again be present along with the League to testify in opposition to numerous harmful provisions that seek to reverse recent appellate court decisions favoring local agencies retroactively reverse incentives and conditions affecting loan repayment, undercut opportunities for local agencies to protect their legal rights, and limit the transparency of the DOF decision-making process.
While the League recognizes that several provisions, in isolation, could be helpful to local agencies, the major elements of the proposal are so harmful the League is asking the committee to reject the entire proposal if they are not removed. This reflects the position
taken by the League’s board of directors at its February meeting.
A copy of the League’s most recent letter
opposing the matter and a detailed analysis
of the problematic provisions were delivered this week.
The harmful approach of this proposal stands at odds with recent legislative efforts to try to help, not hurt, local agencies with the dissolution process. Last year five helpful bills were advanced, of which two were signed; this year more than 10 bills have been introduced oriented toward assisting local agencies.
This proposal was last heard on March 3 in the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration. At that hearing
, several legislators and dozens of city officials joined the League to testify about the adverse impacts the proposal would have on their cities. The committee took no action following testimony.
City officials are encouraged to join the League in Sacramento on April 9 to testify before the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 4. It is important for committee members to hear firsthand from cities about how the proposal would affect their communities and dissolution process. For more information on how to participate in the hearing, please contact your League regional public affairs manager
All cities should remain united in opposition until the harmful provisions are removed. Let’s not forget the state severely harmed all cities by dissolving redevelopment and with prior financial raids — that harm will linger for many years. If a final proposal cannot be developed that cause no further harm to cities, then it should be rejected.