CCP 11-12-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I ~ 1 the state and to local governments. 2 Response: The state should not reduce aids or increase fees to local governments as a I 3 means for dealing with cutbacks in federal revenues. The state should take responsibility 4 for reductions in federal revenues rather than placing the burden on citics and their I 5 property taxpayers. I I 6 FF-13. Local Performance Aid 7 Issue:: When the 1996 Legislature created the local performance aid program. the legislation I 8 was vague and the program was partially funded by cuts in HACA. In the future the I 9 requirements for applying for the aid could become an onerous mandate on cities and undermine ..10 local decision-making. 11 Response: The League strongly supports efforts by cities to improve the efficiency and I 12 effectiveness of thcir operations, including exercises such as performance measurement I 13 systems, However, these efforts should be local initiatives rather than state mandated 14 actions. Therefore, the League opposes LPA, If local performance aid is to be continued: I 15 . The law must be clarified and the qualification requirements must be attainable by all I 16 cities regardless of city size or staffing levels. 17 . All additional funding must come from new revenue sources rather than shifts of aid I 18 from other programs such as LGA and HACA. I 19 . The program must not become an onerous mandate requiring additional city resources I 20 . Any information on individual cities that is collected from the program must not be .. 21 used to simplistically compare cities. I 1997 City Policies 9 J