Senate Majority Leader Steinberg, your proposal to shift $3-4 billion a year in ongoing programs AND costs to counties as a way to solve the state budget deficit is a whole new way to play the shell game.

Do you think we’re stupid? Do you think the public is?

[Read about it here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/06/senate-democrats-outline-plan.html]

Puhleez!

So while the media and sages are mulling this one over, let me point out  just a few teensy weensy problems I have with your plan to realign programs and costs:

1. Been here, done that. The state likes to transfer its responsibility to local governments. Sometimes you give us money to pay for new or existing responsibilities, but after a few years guess who is left holding the bag?
2. Get some guts. The Legislature has spent years creating huge behemoth programs. You want to cut your costs by inflating our costs with programs we didn’t create and don’t want?
3. Look us in the eyes and promise on your honor that once you divest the state of responsibility for these programs, you won’t create new ones as soon as  you have a smaller deficit. Yeah, right.
4. Do you think you’ve got public support to raise taxes on things like oil production, permanently extend the higher vehicle license fee rate, and delay corporate tax breaks? You must be pretty confident you can do that and get your majority re-elected. Good luck with that one.
5. You want to give counties  ”greater authority to seek local tax hikes from voters”? Are you proposing to erode Prop 13 and the required 2/3 majority vote required to raise taxes? Seriously, dude. I mean, Senator Dude.
6. If you cut the deficit by offloading state costs, you’re not erasing the deficit. You’re just pushing it downhill to us. Don’t want it, Senator.

I sure hope the minority party doesn’t think duty stops with  a vigorous fight against tax hikes. They’d better fight just as hard to insure you take care of the problems you created.

I’m not buying this plan to “plant the flag next to a long-term plan to restructure government in California”  and sure I hope my colleagues in local government aren’t either. We’re not stupid. Neither is the public.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that. Today.

I’m running for the 25^th Assembly District. I talk to many who are tired of the status quo in Sacramento. Many of you tell me you are glad I am running. You say unless and until we send people who have fought in the trenches of county government to restore common sense and fiscal discipline to Sacramento, we’ll just get more of the same. None of us wants that.

There is a fundamental disconnect between we the people and the majority in the California State Legislature. We know what they fail to understand: when income falls, spending must follow. We don’t want more expensive programs or new taxes. We don’t want many of the ones we’ve already got. We want fixes that encourage investment in the economy, not penalties that drive more businesses from the state. We want the unemployment rate to drop. We want jobs. We want to eat, drink clean water, and keep our homes. We want to feel safe. We want legislators that serve us, not special interests.

For the last 3 ½ years you have observed my work ethic and dedication to the people I serve. You have seen my first concern as a county supervisor has been to make your government as transparent and accessible as possible. You have seen that I am unafraid to stand up for you and go against the flow. I work for you, not for “the government,” the way we’ve always done things,” or special interests.

With your encouragement, I have chosen to forego another term as a county supervisor because I’m not content to collect a county paycheck while I cut law enforcement, roads, libraries, recreation, and fire services.  I want more for you and I want more for my own family. I plan to be part of a team of fiscal conservatives that reins in and turns this state around. Last Friday was the deadline to file for county supervisor, but I didn’t. I’m running for the Assembly and I’m in this race to win.  

Here’s where the miracle comes in. Weds. is the deadline to report to the state all financial contributions and expenditures since January. Many people look at how much a candidate has raised and decide who to support based on their bank account vs. personal qualifications and experience. That’s the way the system works. And while I’ve raised enough to bring a great team on board, the significant financial support I need to fund this race and show folks I’m a contender hasn’t arrived yet.  I need a miracle.

I need you to commit to me and donate to my campaign. It doesn’t matter if you can only contribute $10, $100, $500, or if you can give the maximum of $3,900 – everything adds up. If you believe I should be in Sacramento to fight for you, I need you to demonstrate that in a very real way. Your financial contribution or lack thereof sends a strong message to people and groups in the District who don’t know me but might vote for me. Please give as much as you can afford.

Here’s how:

• Donate Online: Click here or go to my website at www.TeriMurrison.com/ (this is the quickest way to make sure help me meet the Weds. deadline).
• By mail: Make a check payable to “Teri Murrison – Assembly 2010” and send it today with your name, address, phone, email, occupation, and employer’s name to:

Teri Murrison – Assembly 2010
FPPC ID# 1323866
c/o David Bauer
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95833

State law allows political contributions via check or online in amounts up to $3,900 per election ($7,800 total for primary and general) from individuals, partnerships, corporations, and PACs. For by-mail donations, we need your name, address, phone number, occupation, and employer’s name to comply with elections law. Unfortunately, donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Thank you for your support and thank you from the bottom of my heart for being part of my miracle. If you can’t give right away, no worries. I’ll need help later too. There will be other ways to help too including posting signs, hosting meet and greets, attending fund raisers, walking precincts, and more. For more information on any of those, contact Julia or Amber at  (209) 532-8100 or (866) 532-6166.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=353AnezgADQ 

Take Our Poll

In the last month, on the verge of my reelection campaign for Tuolumne County Supervisor I’ve felt it again, only I’m not on a high dive this time. This leap is into an opportunity to run for the California State Assembly. Tom Berryhill’s 25th Assembly District seat will be open.

He and Senator Cogdill have represented us faithfully and are taking on new challenges. There are several candidates running for Assemblyman Berryhill’s seat, but none of them have the same perspective, unique experience, and passion to bring about change up there. And what happens in Sacramento doesn’t stay in Sacramento, unfortunately. To help bring about change, I need to be there.

As you know from my work on the Board of Supervisors, I listen carefully to you, spend your money wisely, have a broad range of qualifications, and do my homework. I’ve worked to increase transparency, accountability, make sound decisions, and be your champion on the Board. I’m well-prepared to serve in the Assembly. But I had planned to run for another term as your supervisor.

There are good reasons I was hesitant to change my plan. I love my work here, we’re making headway on some important issues, and I am appreciated. Running for the Assembly is a large, daunting, and mostly thankless task. Stepping away from what’s comfortable and relatively certain toward what is unknown is risky. But Sacramento is the place where change must happen.

So you see, Tom Berryhill’s decision to run for Senator Cogdill’s seat created a high dive decision for me. Rich, Megan, and I have prayed about it and it’s clear it’s time to commit to the prerequisite first step. So, here it is.

I’m leaping into the race to represent you in the 25th District of the California State Assembly. Are you with me?

We’ll have online forms for endorsements and donations within a few days. In the meantime, you can send them to us at PO Box 802, Tuolumne, CA 95379. Visit www.TeriMurrison.com for more details as they are available. Thank you!

Great. Just what we need – more laws.

We’ve already got a plethora of laws coming from the Legislature and now we get a plethora of wannabe laws coming from we the people. Who’s gonna be a grownup and say no – stop it? It can only be us.

How about we send different representatives to Sacramento in 2010? How about they enact laws that don’t worsen the economy, don’t take property and other tax revenues from local government, and don’t penalize we the people? How about we limit the number of bills they can propose every year? How about we set a limit on the number of voter initiatives too?

Yeah, that’s it! There oughta be a law against having so many laws.

Of course, we are being somewhat tongue in cheek, but something’s gotta change. You already know about Sacramento’s incredibly dysfunctional system and the legislators who make it that way, but wait ’til you hear what the legislature, some citizens and special interest groups are cooking for us now. It’s a very long list. Read it and weep.

There really oughta be a law…

Thanks to Paul McIntosh of the County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) for providing the following list (as of December 16, 2009) of initiatives. More information on each (including title and summary when available and the measures’ language) is available at www.sos.ca.gov/  (general info) and at www.lao.ca.gov/ (full fiscal analyses).

Qualified for June 8, 2010, Primary Election Ballot

• Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.
• Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.
• Elections: open primaries.

Qualified for November 2, 2010 Primary Election Ballot

• Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 Pending Signature Verification (placed on the ballot by the Legislature – thanks to Sam for your sharp eyes and close reading!)
• New Two‐Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.

Pending Raw Count of Signatures

• Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiatives and Referenda in Circulation as of Dec. 16 (substantially similar duplicate measures not listed)
• Part‐Time Legislature.
• Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing for Members of the Legislature.
• Requirement for Legislators to Certify That They Understand Legislation and Have Not Accepted a Bribe or Engaged in Illegal Vote Swapping.
• Changes the Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget or Raise Taxes From Two‐Thirds to Three‐Fifths.
• Allows Insurance Companies to Increase or Decrease the Cost of Auto Insurance Based on a Driver’s Coverage History.
• Changes Constitution to Allow Voter to Call a Constitutional Convention with an Initiative.
• Calls a Convention to Draft New State Constitution.
• Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana.
• Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales‐Based Income Calculation.
• Wealth Tax.
• Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
• Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana.
• Eliminates the Law Allowing Married Couples to Divorce. (Annulment still OK)
• Redistricting of Congressional Districts.
• Reduces Legislative Session and Pay by at Least 50%.
• Requires Public Schools to Offer Christmas Music.
• Limits on Certain Insurance Practices and Costs.
• Reinstates Right of Same‐Sex Couples to Marry.
• Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget or Raise Taxes from Two‐Thirds to a Simple Majority.
• Creates Special Constitutional Rule for Speech Based on the Bible.
• Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Release Non‐Violent Marijuana Offenders from Jail.
• Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office.
• Eliminates State Income and Property Taxes for All Residents 55 Years Old and Older.
• Prohibits Public Funding of Schools Through Taxes.
• Prohibits Public Schools from Establishing Educational Curriculum.
• Changes Laws Governing Ballot Measures.
• Criminalizes False Statements About Legislative Acts, Elections, or Government Employees.
• Changes Constitutional Definition of a Person to Include Fertilized Human Eggs.
• Limits on Insurance Company Practices.
• Changes Voter Approval Requirement for Local Bonds and Taxes to 55% from Two‐Thirds so Long as Accountability Requirements are Met.
• Makes Illegal the Use of Public Employee Wage Deductions for Political Activities.
• Imposes Political Contribution Restrictions on Public Employee Labor Organizations.
• Denial of Public Benefits for Persons Who Cannot Verify Lawful Presence. Eliminates Benefits for Certain Children in CalWORKS Program.
• Prohibits Voting By Those Who Fail to Provide Government‐Issued Identification. Adds Additional Absentee Voting Requirements.
• Requires Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Terminating Pregnancy of Female Under 18.
• Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two‐Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two‐Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes.
• Requires Parental Notification Before Terminating Pregnancy of Female Under 18.
• Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales‐Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income.
• Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services. Changes California’s Income and Property Tax Laws.

Initiatives Pending at AG’s Office as of Dec. 16 (substantially similar duplicate measures not listed)

• California Cancer Research Act – Increases tobacco tax to pay for cancer research.
• Local Control of Local Classrooms Funding Act ‐ 55% vote for local education revenue if accountability measures are also adopted, maximum of $250/parcel, allows exemption of property owned by someone 65+.
• Legislative Integrity and Recusal ‐ Legislators can’t cast committee or floor votes for legislation that would financially benefit anyone who has donated to them in the previous 12 months.
• The Best Practices Budget Accountability Act ‐ California Forward’s measure to change state budget practices.
• State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act ‐ (Joe Caves) Adds $18 charge to vehicle registration for the trust fund; grants free state park day use to all such registered vehciles.
• Community Hospital Taxes ‐ Prohibits tax on hospitals to pull down federal funds (reimbursement of community hospitals for caring for low‐income patients) unless the money is put into a trust fund for those purposes.
• New Public Employees Benefits Reform Act ‐ New public pension reform initiative.
• Education and Taxpayer Fairness Act ‐ Unclear; exempts first $1 million of tangible property from taxes and double homeowner’s exemption; imposes additional 0.55% rate on nonresidential, non‐ag, non‐exempt property, the revenues of which are to be used for K‐14.
• Foster Child Opportunity Scholarship Act – Provides some money to foster kids for private schools; includes accountability measures.
• California Against Slavery Act to Strengthen Human Trafficking Law – Self‐explanatory; increases civil and criminal penalties, changes evidence rules, etc.
• Corporate Political Accountability Act – Requires shareholder approval prior to making political expenditures.
• Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010 – Requires voter approval of state tax increases and changes definitions of fees and special taxes.
• Government Spending Limit Act of 2010 – Strengthens spending limit based on Gann initiative and requires funds over that limit to pay down debt, increase the reserve, spend on education, or refund to taxpayers.
• California Jobs Initiative – Would prohibit implementation of AB 32 until state unemployment falls below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.
• The McCauley‐Rosen Wealth Tax and Oceans Preservation Act – Imposes new taxes on the most wealth and uses the money to buy controlling shares in specific major oil, finance, and car corporations, and to restore Hetch Hetchy.
• Increased Lottery Funding for Schools and Lottery Public Accountability Act of 2010 – Attempts to increase revenue generated for schools by the lottery.

County Supervisors frustrated, angry

The last few days we’ve been in Sacramento at the Cities Counties Schools Partnership Summit, Rebuilding California from the Ground Up. Along with about 500 other local electeds and administrators, we worked to identify and flesh out potential options to address the dysfunction at the state level. Obviously, dysfunction is manifested via the failure to solve our budget crisis, but that is actually a symptom of some more serious systemic problems. 

Friday night at about midnight, I put out a call for opinions on a range of options for reforming California’s broken governance system. To date, 46 of you have completed the survey and although I wouldn’t say the survey was random or scientific, the results are interesting. If 46 doesn’t sound like many, hey, we’re a small county!

 Q.1 The state should not be able to divert or borrow local tax revenues to fund state programs or state mandated services.  Of 46 responses, 78.3% agree, 15.2%  disagree, and 6.5% depends.

Q.2 Budgets should be multi-year, performance based, and establish prudent reserves to achieve measurable outcomes and improved stability during periods of financial turmoil. Of 46 responses, 91.3% agree, 6.5% depends, and  2.2% disagree.     

Q.3 New programs or mandated funding obligations should be approved only if the budget authorizes a new, dedicated, reliable, and adequate funding source or explicitly provides for measurable offsetting in state or local operations. Of 46 responses, 93.5% agree, 6.5% depends, and 0% disagree 

Q.4 Change requirements for legislative approval of state budget and tax increases (currently 2/3 vote requirement). Updated results appear in blue. Of 46 responses:

Q.5 Require new funding sources for statewide ballot measures that impose new obligations. Of 46 responses,  84.8% agree,   6.5% disagree, and 8.7% depends.

Q.6 Require periodic legislative reauthorization of existing programs (every 10 years) – especially those that have increased in cost faster than state revenue growth. Upon completion of evaluation with Legislative Analyst’s office, continuation of programs should be contingent on reauthorization and funding by the legislature. Of 46 responses,  78.3% agree,   2.2% disagree, and 19.6% depends. 

Q.7 Reform term limits: either eliminate or extend the length of service for legislators to achieve greater effectiveness and responsiveness to priorities of the people, including changes on how they are elected, limits on the length of their terms, duration of legislative session, and the way in which the legislature operates.  Of 46 responses,  60.9% agree,  23.9% disagree, and  15.2% depends. 

Q.8 Institute open primaries to eliminate ideological extremes (nonpartisan open primaries wherein voters could vote for any state or congressional candidate, regardless of voter’s party registration). The two top voter getters, regardless of party, would compete in the general election. Of 46 responses,  78.3% agree,  15.2% disagree, and  6.5% depends. 

Q.9 Increase legislative transparency (legislature should not operate in secret but should function under same open meetings and open records requirements as local governments and no legislation should be enacted without being publicly available and published for 24 hours prior to action). Of 46 responses,  84.8% agree,  13% depends, and 2.2% disagree. 

Q.10 Shorten legislative sessions, financially reward time in district (90-180 days in session per year and rest of time, legislators attend to business with constituents, not in Sacramento). Of 46 responses,  69.6% agree,  19.6% depends, and 10.9% disagree.

One person felt so passionately about what’s happening in California that he didn’t confine himself to answering multiple choice questions. You may disagree or agree with him, but you can’t ignore that his comments represent the feelings of a growing segment of society in California. Here’s what my friend Ted wrote:

The Summit, put  on by the Cities Counties Schools (CCS) Partnership  (which represents California’s 7,930 local elected officials), is being presided over by our friend CCS Chair/San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon. We are meeting to identify potential solutions to the state’s chronic problems, including deficits, late budgets, and an inability to deal with critical issues such as water, energy, education, and health services.

Local governments, still waiting for the Governor and legislative leadership to announce a budget deal, are extremely concerned about that deal’s impacts on services and local people. We’re hearing that they plan an unprecedented raid on local folk’s revenues – Prop 1A funds, transportation $$, and other “creative” funding responsibility shifts - to partially close the very large budget deficit. That’s not right. So the Summit is about creating a framework for change in the state/local relationship and in how governance and finance work. Reform!

California is ripe for reform. I’d like to know what you think about some of the options we’re debating. None of these have been adopted or embraced by the CCS Partnership yet – they’re all on the table. Tomorrow we’ll get into work groups and see if we can’t prioritize and agree on these and other options. This is by no means a complete list of everything under consideration – but we don’t want to wear you out. Please tell us. What do you think?

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/129390363DD2B784/

Before I go into bad news, I have to say that you are amazing! I’ve been working with leaders of the local safety net programs to make sure that critically important basic needs programs continue to feed, clothe, and house the increasing number of people impacted by the depressed economy. The Sonora Area Foundation came to one of our meetings and based on what they heard, put together half a million dollars (including $250,000 in matching funds). These went directly to some key providers to supplement their strained budgets. Now that’s more like it!

Back to ballet slippers. As I write, ATCAA is scrambling to put together a grant application for major stimulus bucks to provide computers, training, and jobs in our county. A major broadband grant was awarded to a local internet service provider. In addition, a project I have been trying to get funded since elected is on the ATCAA list likely to be funded by the federal government: live streaming video of Board of Supervisors meetings AND software that will make it possible for you to download staff memos and attachments to Board agenda items. Before meetings you will be able to read everything the Board has in front of them and afterwards, you will be able to listen and replay exactly what is said and done by every supervisor and every staff member. This will be a great advance of transparency in county government.

Meanwhile back in the soup kitchen, we approved a draft budget in June – that was good, but it wasn’t all good. In order to do that, significant cuts were made in some existing services. As the economy fell, we reduced the budget accordingly. By the end of June, we had cut over 100 positions (in the last year, both vacant and filled, including privatized services like Visiting Nurse Association and Hospice). That’s a lot of local jobs and services and we’re still not down to where we will have to be to maintain a balanced budget when the state passes its budget. After we learn the extent to which the state will take local revenues, we’ll be able to adjust again and adopt a final budget. The news from Sacramento is not good. We anticipate a raid on your tax dollars that now go to Roads and other general fund departments, not to mention reductions in all the Health and Human Services departments.

The Library Department in District 3 alone took a huge hit. The Pinecrest and Mi-Wuk Village library branches have closed and it is only due to the commitment and generosity of community members that Mi-Wuk will re-open their building on a limited basis as a community center/private lending library for the next year. For now, the Tuolumne and Twain Harte libraries are safe. The WOW bookmobile’s time on the road has been cut and its regular driver’s position eliminated. We are looking into reinstating her ½ time as a result of interest from several service clubs in keeping that service going. Amazing! Our draft budget keeps Recreation programs functioning until the end of September. We’re figuring out how to keep youth centers open beyond then and reopen pools next summer. Talks are proceeding in Tuolumne and Twain Harte with community members and groups who are interested in helping that happen. That’s amazing too.

The Board is mindful of the priorities many of you expressed in my Listening Sessions: Public Safety and Roads. We haven’t cut a single filled Sheriff’s Deputy position and hopefully will not. Fire services are intact at last year’s level now, but as you know that isn’t saying a whole lot. Solving the Fire coverage issue is on our list of serious issues to address when we get the budget approved. Public Works’ Road budget is at risk to be raided by the state, perhaps by as much as $1.5 million a year. If that happens, the funds the state takes are the ones available to fix potholes and do snow plowing. Not good.

On the bright side, as the state is taking away money, the federal government made stimulus funds available (no matching dollar requirements) for us to purchase two new transit buses. These trolley buses, purchased with the federal government’s money, were looked at by some as a very frivolous expenditure in the present economy, but they were actually a better deal than regular buses. They cost slightly less than regular buses, cost the same to maintain, and will replace two of our aging fleet that needed to be retired. All that and tourists are supposed to like them better too! Ballet slippers again.

Incredibly, the state government at the time of writing, has not approved a budget. We’ve reduced the county budget significantly in anticipation, cutting whatever we can in advance and steeling ourselves for what is inevitably to come. From everything I have heard, “local government” will bear the burden of most of the cuts. I beg to differ. Local government will survive – it’s real people who will suffer. And that’s a pity.

Please call if you have questions or comments about the necessary budget cuts we will be making. You can contact me at 533-5525. I may not have a lot of good news for you, but if you’d like to meet with me in your community, my District Office Hours are:

August

• Weds., Aug. 5, 2009, 10:00 – 11:30, Tuolumne Museum, Carter Street, Tuolumne
• Weds., Aug. 12, 2009, 10:00 – 11:30, Twain Harte Community Service District, Twain Harte Drive, Twain Harte
• Weds., Aug. 19, 2009, 1:00 – 2:30, Mi-Wuk Village Community Center and Private Lending Library, next to the Post Office

September

• Weds., Sept. 2, 2009, 10: 00 – 11:30, Tuolumne Museum, Carter Street, Tuolumne
• Weds., Sept. 9, 2009, 10:00 – 11:30, Twain Harte Community Service District, Twain Harte Drive, Twain Harte
• Weds., Sept. 16, 2009, 1:00 – 2:30, Mi-Wuk Village Community Center and Private Lending Library, next to the Post Office

Like you the county is dancing in new ballet slippers, but still hungry. That’s just wrong.

The recent frenzied cadence of political drum-beating cannot have escaped your attention. California finally has a budget. A VERY controversial budget.

Amid partisan and special interest outcry that oxen are being permanently crippled and worse, both the Senate and Assembly narrowly passed the proposed budget at the last possible moment. Not only is the budget untenable to many, it relies on very shaky and unpopular ”fixes” that may not pass muster in a special election in May.

But it is a budget. And it passed.

Tuolumne County considered and approved our own mid-year budget revisions yesterday based on previous projections - not on the approved state budget. Why? Because first of all, no one is yet sure how state programs will pass on revenues and cuts to local governments. We’re all making our best guesses and waiting for things to be worked out.

For now, our projections that revenues would further drop have been borne out, but we’ve made the necessary reductions to live within our means. Two people were laid off yesterday and an already low contingency fund is now gone. Further cuts will follow and without any contingency fund to fall back on, the next round will be more painful. But if you can believe it, we’re fortunate. Other local jurisdictions? Not so much – just watch the news.

The only “good” thing about the state budget is that it means money will once again start flowing to cities, counties, schools, and special districts. The California State Association of Counties said last week:

“California counties appreciate the action taken by the Legislature today to approve a budget that has a balanced approach. We know that there is much to dislike in this budget, including significant cuts in services. However, a budget resolution allows the state’s economy to begin to recover and eases the cash crisis that has crippled counties’ ability to provide vital federal- and state-mandated health and human services to people who desperately need them.

Like the state, California counties are in a fiscal crisis. Counties across the state are taking dramatic steps to resolve their budget shortfalls, while experiencing declining revenues and skyrocketing caseload increases. In addition, counties are not receiving nearly $270 million this month for social services due to payment delays by the state controller because of the state’s cash crisis. California counties appreciate the Legislature’s recognition that counties cannot sustain the demand for safety net services alone and that further delay in finding a budget resolution would drastically affect the people we serve.”

Learn more on what California counties are facing at: http://www.csac.counties.org/.

The budget adopted under duress by the Legislature is almost universally disliked by Republicans and Democrats. As proper analysis is done, we’ll find much more to dislike. Here in Tuolumne County and elsewhere in the state, we’ll readjust in April and readjust again in May after the election. More cuts are sure to come.

Unbelievably and as if none of this had happened, some members of the Legislature are already putting forward new bills to regulate lives, industries, and spend our money. Business as usual.

Something’s gotta change and if this keeps up, it very well may. We can only hope and pray.

The beat goes on…

Buchanan Road update

A project team from the Federal Highway Administration gave the Board an update on the timeline for improvements to Buchanan Road, a forest highway that winds from Tuolumne down into the Tuolumne River Canyon and beyond.

Why Buchanan Road? It’s been on the USFS’ list of forest roads for improvement for years. The list of problems includes too-narrow, poor drainage from road and ditches, steep grades, sharp curves, no guardrails in dicey spots, crumbling pavement, substandard sight distances, roadside hazards, landslide and slope stability issues, and a bridge they classify as functionally obsolete. Is that all?

The Federal Highway Administration team will consider a range of alternatives including no action. The project is being split into segments: the “urban” (through Tuolumne, canyon, Buchanan Mine Road bridge, and Fish Hatchery Road sections. They heard significant concern from local residents and this supervisor about plans to widen the road in Tuolumne. Consequently, they have revised the width in that section to “two 10-foot travel lanes, 2-foot shoulders, and concrete curbs.”

The team is in the process of completing the environmental analysis (expected to be released in late spring 2009). To keep current on what is being proposed and comment, visit the project website at www.cflhd.gov/buchanan  or call Wendy Longley at (720)963-3394

Teri’s website and blog are published at no expense to the the public.  Teri Murrison for Supervisor, FPPC#1314234