 |
 |
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Democrats in the California Legislature on Tuesday night pushed through a state budget that relies on billions of dollars in unexpected income, an additional $300 million in cuts to higher education and other reductions in state services that could be deepened if higher revenue projections don’t hold.
Gov. Jerry Brown, who helped craft the budget, is expected to sign it.
Local and state officials were preparing to deal with the fundamental uncertainty in the state’s fiscal plan even as the last package of bills was being prepared to close what had been a $26.6 billion deficit.
The budget is expected to impact a broad range of public services, officials said, with sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, funding diversions from local redevelopment projects, state park closures and reductions and shifts in state welfare programs to counties that affect hundreds of needy families and individuals in Sonoma County.
If half of the $4 billion in newly projected tax income doesn’t materialize by early next year, K-12 schools statewide would face a cut of nearly $2 billion, and $200 million would be cut from higher education and programs serving the sick, disabled and poor.
“This is not a great budget for schools if (that) trigger is kicked in,” said Steve Herrington, Superintendent of Schools in Sonoma County. Many districts already have cut their 2011-2012 budgets, and Herrington said he is telling them to proceed with caution, knowing further reductions could be on the way.
Other county leaders echoed those comments, noting that funding preserved or promised by the state this year may not be available next year.
“We may not be done with the changes that are going to occur and the impacts that are going to hit us,” said Chris Thomas, a deputy Sonoma County administrator.
A shift to county jurisdiction of newly-convicted criminals and state parolees with nonviolent and nonsexual offenses is widely seen as the “biggest change to the California criminal justice system” in at least a generation, said Bob Ochs, Sonoma County’s chief probation officer.
The shift, effective Oct. 1, over time would add about 230 offenders to the Sonoma County jail and probation system and transfer up to 160 state parolees to county supervision.
Jail space likely won’t be a concern. The county has enough beds to safely accommodate 300 inmates above its current population of about 950, sheriff’s officials said.
But the $460 million in state funding set aside in the coming fiscal year to support the shift in justice services — for Sonoma County the prorated share is about $3.2 million — may not be sufficient to cover new expenses, county officials said.
For the new inmates expected, the funding will support only about six months of jail time and 18 months of alternative detention such as work-release programs, county officials said.
“It’s going to be incumbent on each county to really change the system. That’s what the governor expected,” said Ochs, the chief probation officer. “Come up with a better way of handling these offenders so that it doesn’t cost as much and so that we reduce recidivism.”
Another challenge: the four affected county justice departments just shed 77 positions and lost a total of 12 workers in county budget reductions, according to revised figures provided by county personnel officials. The state plan will force a pivot, with the same divisions either ramping their numbers back up or trying to handle the new duties with reduced staffing.
“It’s a rollercoaster ride,” said Sheriff Steve Freitas, who said he will have to begin hiring immediately to deal with the plan. Ochs said he would have to do the same at the probation department.
District Attorney Jill Ravitch said that so far she has not planned to add staff to her office, which along with the Public Defender’s office is expected to handle an increased number of court appearances for parole violations and other cases because of the shift.
“It’s a new workload for us,” said John Abrahams, the Sonoma County public defender, who also said he was not planning to add staff.
A state plan to take up to $1 billion in early childhood education and health funds overseen by local First 5 commissions was not part of the final budget package.
The county, which joined others in a lawsuit challenging the initial move, stood to lose about $15.5 million in the 2011-2012 fiscal year from the shift. The outcome of the lawsuit likely will determine if the plan returns next year.
“I don’t believe the state is backing away from their interest in those resources,” said Rita Scardaci, the county Health Services director and a First 5 commission member.
Other state budget provisions affecting local government services include:
– A single-year state taking of $1.7 billion in redevelopment project money, transferring it to schools, fire, transit and other special districts in the affected redevelopment areas. The shift would take $5.2 million from the city of Petaluma, $3 million from Sonoma County, $2.7 million from Santa Rosa, $2.4 million from Healdsburg, and a combined $4.1 million from redevelopment agencies in Sonoma, Windsor, Sebastopol and Cotati, according to estimates by the California Redevelopment Association, an advocacy group that opposes the shift and has vowed to challenge it in court.
Smaller takeaways are proposed in the future, provided redevelopment agencies consent to the shift. If they don’t, budget legislation that appeared to be part of the final package calls for their elimination.
– An 8 percent reduction in monthly CalWorks cash assistance payments and a cap on eligibility for adults and families at 48 months, down from 60 months. The county recently agreed to fund an extended grace period of six months for up to 160 local families affected by the cap.
– Elimination of the Cal-Learn program, which helps teenagers who are pregnant or parents complete high school, affecting about 60 local teens.
– The shift this year of child welfare, foster care, adoption and adult protective services to counties, with supporting revenue from a state sales tax swap.
– The planned closure next year of 70 state parks. Five in Sonoma County are on the list, including, Annadel and Sugarloaf Ridge, Jack London and Petaluma Adobe state historic parks, and Austin Creek State Recreation Area.
The Parks Alliance of Sonoma County, a newly formed group, is working on a plan to keep the local state parks open. Donations are being accepted through the Sonoma County Regional Parks Foundation.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
STATE BUDGET EXPECTED TO HIT COUNTY HARD!
NO GOOD NEWS IN BUDGET STALEMATE!
LAWMAKERS SEE MORE CUTS ON THE HORIZON!
WORLD TO END TOMORROW,ELDERLY AND DISABLED HARDEST HIT!
Put whatever headline you want on it,this is the new norm.
Remember how long it took to build this House O’ Cards? We’re gonna spend a while watching it fall.
@all of you
“I” as a fiscal conservative will agree to WHATEVER tax increases are necessary only after our DEMOCRAT controlled GOVERNMENT has spent several years proving to me that they “get it”!
Not some nice promise of future sanity, I want to see a track record worth investing my hard earned money.
Raising taxes at this point accomplishes nothing more than rewarding these thieves for their thievery.
You can’t raise enough taxes to make up for the ONGOING incessant waste, state OR local. …well you CAN but good luck collecting it!
We all want the same thing… a strong economy with safety nets for those who find themselves in hard times.
We only disagree on the size & scope of the safety net.
But we are WAY BEYOND that conversation.
This earlier post applies here too….
You like to point to the big bad unions and scream, unfunded liability. Pensions are 7% of the State budget. You don’t have the guts to point at welfare programs, over 50% of the State budget, and cry fowl. As long as you and your children can collect your money every month, the highest in the nation, you are happy to point at something else. Will children starve? Heck no, their parents will move to the next highest welfare state. Welfare moms collecting over $60,000 a year, you are ok with that. But God help you if you get a 30 year pension because you ar ethe devil. The pension system is being revamped, even though you are not in the email loop. Dance around the issue, but don’t even address the real problem, tens of billions a year to welfare, fully funded, with no income to fund it but your taxes.
The sad thing from my perspective is that the biggest contributor to our current budget difficulties just got swept under the rug. As public employee pensions continue to demand ever greater shares of our available dollars, the Democrats and Gov. Brown seem to have no will to stand up against their union supporters and rein in these runaway costs. While the union activists and media have portrayed the Republicans as petulant and unpatriotic for not caving in to Brown’s demands for tax extensions, scant attention has been given to the GOP demands for pension reform. I don’t pretend the GOP proposals were the answer. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. We’ll likely never know since the media was more interested in painting the Republicans as loyal only to the anti-tax movement than exploring the merit (or lack of merit) of their pension reform proposals. Contrary to GOP claims that they “won” the budget debate by successfully (for the moment anyway) thwarting Brown’s tax increases, the real winners here are the unions and the public employees who successfully pushed pension reform off the table. An opportunity to debate the most pressing financial issue before us has been lost and for that we all lose.
@GAJ – “Right now, for every dollar that the city spends on payroll, it’s spending an additional 15 to 30 cents on retirement benefits.” This is saying it a bit differently than the prior article (percent of total salary dollars). To convert the 30 cents it would be 30 / 130 = 24% This would be for Police and Fire. They are higher than the non-safety employees because the City picked up safety’s employee portion instead of giving them a raise.
@LBR:
My bad…but this was in today’s paper about the City of Santa Rosa:
“Right now, for every dollar that the city spends on payroll, it’s spending an additional 15 to 30 cents on retirement benefits. Within 10 years, that’s expected to climb to more than 50 cents — which means an ever-shrinking pot of funds for taking care of parks, streetlights and community centers. ”
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110701/OPINION/110639925/1043/opinion?p=2&tc=pg
@Bear
Republicans took a no tax increase position early on and stood by it. That’s not shocking or news.
The fact is that the state democrats and the state democratic leaders all got behind the new budget propositions that passed last election. And, they now must work within those results. Their pet programs, which are mostly entitlement programs budgeted via the health and human services budget or through the education budget, still receive the vast majority of budget money. So, they have by no means been gutted. They did have to reduce expenditures, and I suspect they will have to again when their “projected” revenue falls short. Your statement focuses on the purely partisan political issues, which in a vaslty blue state, don’t really mean much. My focus will be on exactly how the money is being spent and on determining why every year we seem to need to increase expenditures under the guise that it will solve our issues, yet every year our issues continue to multiply like rabbits, not enough for the elderly, sick, young, education, etc….????
@RC – Yes, presidents of both parties tend to get us into wars. And yes, throughout history attitudes have shifted between parties. I was refering to the here and now. If you were to poll on Afghanistan a year ago, Republicans would have been more in favor of our role their when compared to the Democrats. Obama’s position had been closer to the Republican view on Afghanistan. I believe that congressional votes at the time would back that up; if you look at the percent of each party supporting the war. And let’s not forget about Iraq – that had VERY little Democratic support. And would you have us not support our NATO allies, who support us in Iraq and Afghanistan? They feel it is in their national security interests to stop the slaughter of civilians.
@GAJ – yes, my wife was amused… The article you quote is for the County, not the City. I did some research, and if my math is correct, it looks like in the City, for public safety the City is paying around 20% of all salary dollars to retirement, and the rest of the employees are more in the 13-15% range. And non safety also gave up 8% of their salary to get a better retirement, so when you add the 8% that they are contributing to their own retirement, they are really paying closer to 16% – which is more than the City is paying.
@LBR,
Was I dreaming, then, when Obama doubled the troops in Afghanistan and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress passed the budget increase to pay for it? On Libya, Democrats are more supportive than Republicans. Or is that not a war since we only kill from 20K ft?
And who escalated us into Vietnam big time? You must be very young to think Democrats are antiwar.
Yep, Republicans are also selectively antiwar when it suits their political agenda.
Here you go LBR:
From June 21st of this year.
“For example, the board presentation showed the escalating cost of pensions as a percent of the county’s payroll. From 2000 to 2010, that rate tripled, to 30 percent of payroll or about $92 million. That means for every dollar the county pays toward salaries, it now pays about 30 cents into its retirement system and toward pension debt to support the current level of benefits.”
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2011/06/county/new-pension-report-hightlights-alarming-trend/
Also, please accept my apology for the “bong” comment in one of my prior posts.
That was not very civil of me.
@GAJ – where did it say 30% is going to retirement in Santa Rosa? Non-public safety is nowhere near that high, and it would be a lot lower, except that the City did not contribute ANYTHING to retirement for a number of years when the stock market was doing so well. In addition, non-public safety employees in SR pay 8% towards their own retirement.
.
@RC – you’ve got to be kidding! – Dems are usually anti-war, and Obama has had to deal with that since he got elected. In the past, the single best indicator about whether a person was a Democrat or a Republican was how they felt about using troups abroad. It is some of the Republicans who have been sounding like doves recently…they must think that will help them in 2012.
@BuddyBear.
I for one would be happy to pay more taxes to help the Country and community but only after it has been proven to me that true reforms are going to be made in HOW that money is to be spent.
For example, in Santa Rosa it was recently reported that taxpayers are putting in 30cents for every payroll dollar for retirement.
That is obscene.
In the private sector it is the LAW that the most a company can put into an employee’s 401k is 5% of pay.
In my case I put in 15% and the company put in 4%.
As soon as things change in government to address this type of inequity then I’ll be happy to pay more in taxes.
I also support a far higher tax on gasoline specifically directed at road improvement.
@bear,
1. Yes. A spending cut of any amount is viewed by some Democrats a “serious sacrifice.”
2. Yes. But that’s a rather low bar to clear, no?
3. Also, yes. Both parties share that failing. Democrats, for example, are antiwar only so long as a Republican is in the White House.
@RC – before the crash, we were having a hard time recruiting qualified people for our non-public safety positions, especially management and technical positions.
.
@GAJ – stock options and bonuses were common for the kinds of positions I was looking at. My brother and his wife both had some of each. It may not be as common now, but both options and bonuses are still standard in some professions.
.
All I’m saying, is public employees used to be looked down upon. “If you can’t do, teach” etc. Benefits and security were some of the reasons folks took government jobs. Salary was certainly not one of the reasons. Now that the private sector salaries have dropped (at least on the medium and low end), public sector salaries look better by comparison.
@LetsBeReasonable.
You and others in government defending current salaries and benefits always point to “stock options and bonuses” when discussing the private sector.
Please name private employers in the County that routinely offer such rare benefits usually reserved for those working for the largest of Corporations and only in the upper tiers of management.
If you think stock options and bonuses are a “normal” thing for most employees in the private sector then, really, you need to step away from the bong once in a while!
So after having read the article I was really shocked to see exactly how many you seem to be ignoring the fact that the republicans refused to help in the budget process. No taxes were raised and Democrats gutted programs they hold dear, isn’t that sacrifice?
You all sit here and complain about the Democrats “kicking the can down the road” which is absolute bull, they closed a 26 billion dollar budget deficit WITHOUT raising taxes yet you guys are upset, HOW IS THAT?!?!?!?!? They cut spending!!!! All conservatives do is complain about cutting spending and reducing deficits, its time to wake up and recognize the democrats for doing exactly that.
Just as a side note, there was a 1 cent sales tax decrease in the budget, TAX CUT.
Maybe you guys can answer some questions for me:
1.) Can you admit the Democrats made serious sacrafices to their ideals?
2.) Can you admit that Brown has been way more serious about closing the gap than the last republican Governor?
3.) Can you admit that if the republicans passed the same budget it would have been called “fiscal responsibility”?
@LBR,
//I’m one of those anonymous government people . . . who were laughed at . . . for taking such a low paying job.//
Whoa! We all make career choices and live with the choices we make. However, since most job openings in government result in a large number of applicants, and employee turnover is generally quite low, your tale of woe is a little hard to buy.
When a city is unable to attract qualified applicants (or keep them) then I’ll start to believe pay and benefits need to be raised. We’ve a ways to go before that day arrives, I suspect.
Just a little less smoke and a few more mirrors that the budget Brown vetoed.
Ya know, it didn’t work for President Obama to keep blaming President Bush for all the problems. And it sure as heck isn’t going to work for the Democrats to keep pointing the finger at the Republicans. At least President Obama was smart, he quit!
If the state wants to cut real stuff they should have looked at the inflated big public pensions public safety receives along with city managers, and department heads receiving pensions over $60,000 per year and in cases over $100,000 per year.
They should cut the enviromental regulatory agencies that hurt businesses in this state and have driven too many jobs to China.
Also in the line of fire, the general size of all regulatory bureaucratic agencies in the state. Cut, cut and cut again. How did we survive for so long in this state without worrying about possible lead in everything?
Republicans are terrible and Democrats are worthless, Californians, get ready to open a vein. One way or the other we are about to be bled.
The State has NO CHOICE but to pass this buck on down to the locals. The State can’t file for bankruptcy, the municipalities can.
It stinks but it’s really the only solution.
But in the end we will have much stronger, smaller local GOVERNMENT. Free of these rediculouse retirement benefits & bloated payrolls.
Or they’ll just raise fees & taxes until the only people who can afford to live here anymore are people wealthy enough to pay the illegals to water their lawns.
That’s it! Rich people & illegals.
The future of Kahlifoania!
@DavidB – Oh, and I forgot to mention, I’m one of those anonymous government people. One of those people who were laughed at by my friends and family for taking such a low paying job. No huge bonuses for me. No stock options. Just a job that I thought worth doing.
@DavidB – Over funded!? Local and State government has been cut repeatedly over the last few years. You may enjoy having more money in your pocket now that the temp fees and taxes have ended, but there have been painful cuts in a number of areas, most effecting the poorest among us. And the State’s school system is having to cut the number school days, even as jobs are demanding a higher educated workforce. What’s the condition of your roads these days? Are the street lights on? Over funded? Give me a break.
Budget to hit county “hard” is also a relative statement.
If a government program is over funded to begin with, then cutting that program 15% or 20% isn’t really a cut. Yet we all know that the government always attempts to paint the picture of gloom over the smallest of cuts.
One reason that voters can’t vote well is because of generic terms like “big spenders.”
You need to actually point fingers so everyone can focus on the problems you see and so the guilty politicos feel the additional scrutiny.
And you need to be really vocal on the phone to those people when they express a desire to spend money we don’t have.
And, beware of the government people posting right here on this board with comments designed to defend their turf anonymously.
Given what they had to work with, this seems the best they could’ve done. The additional revenue is based on the recent increase in income tax coming into the state. They are expecting that to continue. If it doesn’t, then there are additional cuts set to take place. This is as close to a balanced budget as I can remember – certainly better than the gimmicks done by the last govinator. It would have been nicer if we could’ve kept the existing taxes/fees in place, so the cuts wouldn’t have had to be as deep, but Rebublicans don’t seem to think that the Public should get to vote on that…
Wow, so we went from a budget of questionable gimmicks to one of wishful thinking. This is beyond pathetic. Money and resources aren’t unlimited and it’s time for government to learn that lesson. Borrowing is fine to a point, but then it will bury you if you are irresponsible. These are basic and fundamental rules. People learn these rules either the easy or the hard way, but they learn them. It appears government is determined to learn it the hard way. I noticed this budget still increases the expenditures from the prior years budget, although not as much as the last budget did….anyone find that a little lacking in basic logic…I know I do??? We used to be a country of go getters and can do people, but now I’m hearing more of a victim and entitlement mentality, very sad, but guess what, one may feel entitled, but money and resources will always be limited, so once it’s all gone, what you will be entitled to is a lot of nothing.
I find it interesting that there are thumbs down votes for each of the posts so far BUT no supporting posted point of view.
I think the local elected officials have their staffers do on these forums and plug the numbers.
@John T.
The Tea Party was formed from people just like you who are outraged at the arrogance and hubris of our elected employees.
Had enough yet?
Welcome, fellow taxpayer.
The only way to solve this state and national problem is to vote out the big spenders and replace them with responsible legislators. But in Sonoma County, for example, the local yokels keep voting for the wrong people. The whole mess is absurd.
Time to cut up the credit card! A Federal balanced budget amendment could help get the ball rolling in the right direction, but even today we see huge resistance from the White House even when the country is on the verge of fiscal destruction. The myopia and lack of leadership is pathetic.
It’s criminal fiscal malfeasance to artificially inflate income projections to achieve a “balanced” budget.
According to the Dept of Finance, the expired Sales Tax will cost $4.5billion and the loss of Vehicle taxes $1.3Billion.
A sane, responsible person, knowing his/her income is going to be reduced, wouldn’t ignore the income reduction. They would make further adjustments to bring expenses in line with income.
On the other hand, Evans and the other irresponsible “leaders” in Sacramento, pull $6Billion in anticipated income out of thin air and call the budget “balanced.”
Today I am ashamed to be a Democrat.
I thought we elected officials to solve problems not create problems for others.
So this is the way our State Democratic leadership resolves their problem, by passing it on to the counties.
This is not “leadership” it is “abandon ship”. Truly despicable and they all should be voted out. Start with the local cry baby Evans.