AgdaPkt 2002-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BUDGET from page1 · · · · · ·. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · otherwise would have been, This is because the state Action by League, After review of the ballot title would have limited ability_ to decrease subventions or and summary and consideration of the impact of the I~1 ~ reven~." (Emphasis Added). references in the fiscal analysis to higher local resources and spending cuts and/or tax increases, the Executive The prediction of spending cuts and/or higher state Committee and leadership of ABC simply concluded it was taxes is explained in the analysis this way: "The con- not sufficient to justify the considerable expense of straints on the state% ability_ to lower local resources gathering signatures at this time. would have a commensurate impact on the state. (Em- phasis added). In response, the state would have two Commenting on the decision, John Russo, League basic choices: (1) decrease spending on all other state First Vice President and chair of its Fiscal Reform Task programs (that is, non-local government subventions) Force, said: "Frankly, I am very disappointed. I'm sure and/or (2) raise state taxes." other local officials are too, but we all knew a lot of stars would have to line up to make it possible for us to put our Flow the Fiscal Impact Anal}sis Compares measure on the ballot in Novemberofthisyear. ~faras to Other Measures. When a ballot measure affects I am concerned, this simply means we need to look sueciflc revenues or expenditures, it has a direct cost that carefully at the opportunities at the Mamh '04 election. can be estimated. For example, the fiscal analysis of theIn the meantime, we need to use our Grassroots Netw~k recently-approved Proposition 42 states: "Starting in to engage the state legislature and governor on these 2008-09, about $1.4 billion in gasoline sales tax revenues, important issues." increasing annually thereafter, would continue to be used for state and local transportation purposes." While the Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, agreed, saying: passage of Proposition 42 will clearly affect the ability of "There should be no doubt that we are continuing the future legislatures to spend the $1.4 billion on non- fight to protect funding for local sewices, but we are transportation priorities, the fiscal analysis made no focused on the state budget process while wa lay the mention of reduced spending on non-transportation groundwork for possible action in March 2004. The prog_rams and/or hi_~her state taxes if the measure investment we have made to date in research, drafting, passed. What could account for this difference in the building understanding and support among our sister prediction of futura consequences in the fiscal analysis of local govemment organizations, building a grassroots the two measures? We are not sure, nebNork and educating ourselves about the necessa~ elements for a successful campaign, will all pay dividends When a ballot measure limits the future actions of over the next 24 months." government (like the LCC's measure), the fiscal effect of the measure is speculative. In such cases, the indirect or Budget Campaign Already Underway. League future fiscal impacts have often been describad In the staff are now actively working with steff of CSAC (coun- most general terms. For example: Proposition 37--2000 ties) and CSDA (special districts) to implement an ("The amount of future revenues potentially reduced due aggressive campaign to protect funding for local police, to the mom difficult apprbval requirement cannot be fire, EMS, street and road repair, park improvements, and estimated..."); Proposition 218--1996 ("...revenues in the other sewices. The League will support the efforts of future would be lower than they would ba othe~vise."); Governor Gray Davis and key state legislators who have Proposition 158, 159--1992 ("The net impact ofthese committed to protecting local funding and not balancing effects is unknown, but probably not significant."); and the state budget on the backs of local govemments. Proposition 98--1988 ("There would be unknown in- creases in General Fund costs in the future to maintain school funding at the minimum level." PAGE 2/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org