AgdaPkt 2003-06-30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a, A1 BIPARTISAN BUDGET from page 2- • - - - - Cities oppose the elimination of either of these programs as they provide critical, necessary support to local public safety efforts. Impacts on public safety would, also result from any "unallocated" cuts to cities' general funds — 66% of which (on average) go to support public safety. Even without the potential elimination of funding for these public safety programs, or the additional impact of "unallocated" cuts, many cities have already had to curtail their public safety expenses — from layoffs, to freezing needed positions, and more. Any additional cuts impact- ing public safety would further curtail local efforts to provide adequate public safety for their citizens. BUDGET PITCH from page 3 • . • • • .. • . . trigger today (June 20) will reduce the estimated $38.8 billion budget deficit by over 10% ($4 billion). What is at risk now is the continuation of the VLF backfill during the collection of the new revenue from the restored VLF. Ask for a commitment to keep cities and counties whole during this transi- tion time. . Cuts to Cities Should Be One -Time and Proportionate. Cities are willing to work with the state, but as providers of essential services, you strongly oppose any on- going, permanent cuts, and any that are disproportionate. They are unjust, unnecessary and unacceptable. (SEE ATTACHED CHART) While we appreciate the assembly members' efforts to move the budget debate forward, we remain concerned about any permanent cuts (such as the proposed elimination of COPs and booking fees), and seemingly disproportionate nature of the $500 million in unallocated cuts. As the budget debate continues, and legisla- tors ponder potential cuts to local government, the League encourages legislators to ensure that should local government cuts be necessary, they are one -time cuts only, and that they are fair and proportionate. For details on the plan, go to www.cacities.ora/ budget. MAYORS from page 2 •- •---- • -• -••• ings with legislative leaders throughout the Capitol. The size and scope of the budget deficit has already forced many cities to eliminate jobs or stem hiring, and the threat of slashed funding weighed on all of the mayor's remarks. There remained, however, an a spirit of resolu- tion among the city leaders, as Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido concluded, "We all have to suffer as a team, but I think that as a team we can make it, and the solutions are close at hand." • A $466 Million Cut Is Grossly Dispropor- tionate By A Factor of 11. Estimated state general fund assistance to cities in FY 2003 -04 ($194m) is only .28 of 1 % of total estimated state general fund expenditures ($70.433 billion in the May Revise). Therefore, a proportionate cut to cities would be $52.85 million. A $466 million (the possible city share of a $1.16 billion cut) is 11 times higher than the proportion of the state general fund going to cities today. (SEE ATTACHED CHART). � We are not advocating that current general fund assistance programs for cities be cut or eliminated --only that the cuts should be propor- tionate to the assistance we receive from the State General Fund. . Effects of Disproportionate Cuts. Cuts of the magnitude of $1.16 billion could leave local governments with no choice but to make even more undesirable cuts to local law enforcement and fire, emergency and health services, street maintenance, parks and libraries than we have already had to do. PAGE 12/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org