“Morgan Hill [and other cities with redevelopment agencies - like Sonora] is required to make payments to the state in order to keep the Redevelopment Agency alive.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9LyjfNYHVw

Given the majority party’s reluctance to make cuts, the minority party’s reluctance to go along with any form of new, increased, or extended taxes, the resounding voter rejection of tax measures put forward in 2009, the persistence of the lousy economy, and a high unemployment rate, I have my doubts this budget will fly.

***

To: RCRC Board of Directors
From: Patricia Megason, Executive Vice President
Governmental Affairs Staff
Date: January 10, 2011

Re: Summary of the Governor’s 2011-12 Proposed State Budget

Summary

This memo details Governor Brown’s 2011-12 proposed State Budget and provides highlights of programs of interest to RCRC member counties.

Overview

Today, the Brown Administration released details of the Governor’s 2011-12 State Budget proposal.

California’s fiscal condition continues to remain bleak as the State faces a shortfall of at least $26.4 billion. Of that $26.4 billion shortfall, $8.2 billion exists in the current year and $17.2 billion for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year. Furthermore, the Governor is calling for a $1 billion reserve. To bridge that budget gap, the Governor is proposing approximately $12.5 billion in reductions in state spending, $12 billion in revenue increases (mainly from continuing the tax increases that were enacted two years ago), and nearly $2 billion in one-time solutions including internal borrowing.

Governor Brown’s Budget proposal relies on several major actions:

• Enacting statutory budget reductions for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year by mid-March that contain deep and permanent spending reductions.
• A special election in June, whereby voters would approve a variety of tax-related measures.
• A major realignment of many state services to counties.
• Elimination of redevelopment agencies and routing a significant portion of non-obligated property tax increment monies to a variety of public entities.

Of the proposed budget cuts which total $12.5 billion, the major cuts include:

• $1.7 billion to Medi-Cal
• $1.5 billion to CalWORKs
• $750 million to the Department of Developmental Services
• $580 million to state operations and employee compensation
• $1 billion to the University of California and California State University combined

Special Statewide Election for Revenues

The Governor is requesting that voters go to the polls no later than mid-June to consider several items, including:

• Extending the 1% increase in the sales tax which would be used to fund a variety of realigned programs to counties.
• Extending the 0.50% increase in the vehicle license fee to fund a variety of realigned program to counties (see Public Safety Funding).
• Maintaining the .25% increase in income tax rates with the overwhelming majority of funds used for public education.
• Maintaining the $99 limitation for claiming a dependent tax credit.

Each of these four tax increases were made in February 2009 and are set to expire on June 30, 2011 or, in the case of the income taxes/dependent tax credit, would expire in the current tax year. The Governor is requesting that the voters extend these taxes for an additional five years.

The Governor’s proposed non-tax solutions include:

• $1.8 billion of borrowing from special funds
• $1.7 billion of property tax shifts (related to the redevelopment proposal)
• $1 billion from Proposition 10 funds, and
• $900 million from Proposition 63 funds

Realignment of State Services to Counties

The Governor is proposing that a variety of state programs be realigned to counties. The realignment would occur over two phases. Under the immediate realignment, known as Phase I, counties would be responsible for: emergency services in what is now a portion of State Responsibility Areas; court security; housing low-level felony offenders; supervising individuals on state parole; supervising all juvenile offenders; and providing mental health services, substance abuse treatment, foster care, child welfare and adult protective services. Funding for these realigned services and programs (with the exception of mental health services) would stem from the voters approving a five-year extension of the 1% sales tax increase and a 0.50% increase in the vehicle license fee at a June 2011 Special Election.

Under Phase II of the realignment proposal (which is scheduled to occur after the implementation of Phase I), In-Home Support Services and California Children’s Services will become the responsibility of the State. However, CalWorks, food stamp administration, child support, and child care programs will become a county responsibility. It is anticipated that savings from federal health care reform will free up monies used by counties for indigent health care, thus providing a portion of the funding to assume these realigned services.

Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies

The Governor’s Budget proposal calls for the elimination of redevelopment agencies, effective in the 2011-12 Fiscal Year. As such, redevelopment agencies would no longer be able to enter into new obligations and property taxes generated from an existing redevelopment project would be routed to counties, schools and special districts once contracted obligations are met. To assist local governments with economic development in light of the elimination of redevelopment agencies, the Governor is requesting voters consider a constitutional amendment which would lower the vote threshold to 55% for approving special taxes and/or bonded indebtedness for economic development projects.

Cash Flow Concerns

California’s cash situation remains precarious. With the help of a variety of cash deferrals and the sale of short-term loans, the state is expected to meet its cash obligations through the first half of 2011. However, the Governor and Controller proclaim that the state is likely to face another cash flow crisis during the summer and suggest the need for deferrals of state payments to meet cash obligations. This would be exacerbated if the Legislature does not enact statutory spending reductions in the coming weeks and/or the voters fail to extend the tax increases that are set to expire on June 30th.

Key Issues/Changes for RCRC Members

• Williamson Act subventions eliminated in both the current year and the budget year
• Realignment of many corrections and health and human services programs to counties
• Restructuring CalFire’s services in the State Responsibility Area
• Re-enacting the Gas Tax Swap to preserve state and local transportation funding

Administration of Justice, Corrections and Law Enforcement

Responsibility for Low-Level Offenders. The Governor’s proposed Budget realigns custodial responsibility for those who commit low-level crimes. As such, those convicted of specified crimes (offenders without any current or prior serious or violent or sex offenses) and certain parole violators would be the responsibility of county law enforcement. Funding for servicing this population would be derived from a portion of the extension of sales taxes and vehicle license fees, which is contingent upon voter approval in a special June election.

Juvenile Justice Realignment. The Governor’s proposed Budget requires counties to provide custody, rehabilitation and post-incarceration supervision for all juvenile offenders, thereby eliminating the Division of Juvenile Justice. Funding for this realigned responsibility would stem from a portion of the extension of sales taxes and vehicle license fees, which is contingent upon voter approval in a special June election. As such, it is anticipated that counties would receive funding for this juvenile population based on a formula.

In 2007, the state shifted responsibility for the custody and probation of a large number of low-level juvenile offenders. This shift was accompanied by significant resources for counties. Last year, the Legislature sanctioned that state-housed juvenile offenders be supervised, upon release, by county juvenile probation personnel. For counties to absorb the parole functions of this juvenile population, the state will allocate $15,000 per juvenile parolee per year, based upon average length of stay on parole, to county probation departments.

Public Safety Funding. The Governor’s proposed Budget retains the elements of a funding scheme created in the 2009-10 state Budget. As such, several public safety programs (Booking Fees, Rural Sheriffs Grants, Citizens’ Option for Public Safety, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention, etc.) are ultimately funded by an increase in the vehicle license fee. This increase is set to expire on June 30, 2011. In order to continue funding these public safety programs, the voters will need to approve an extension of the increase in the vehicle license fee – a question that would need to go before the voters in June.

Counties to Provide Adult Parole Services. The Governor’s proposed Budget requires counties to provide supervision to those being paroled from state prison. Counties currently provide supervision to those being released from county jails and/or sentenced to probation. Funding for this realigned responsibility would stem from a portion of the extension of sales taxes and vehicle license fees, which again is contingent upon voter approval in a June special election.

Court Security. The Governor’s proposed Budget would provide the courts with a set amount of monies to provide for court security in which the courts would negotiate with county sheriff departments to provide the service. Funding for this revenue stream would stem from a portion of the extension of sales taxes and vehicle license fees, which is contingent upon voter approval in a June special election.

Court Reductions.The Governor’s proposed Budget makes a permanent $200 million reduction to the courts. In the coming months, the Administration will be meeting with judicial stakeholder groups to identify ways to address this reduction. In previous years, reductions of the courts have resulted in trial courts closing at least one day per month.

Courthouse Construction. The Governor’s proposed Budget commences, continues or completes the construction or renovations of courthouses for the following RCRC member counties: Alpine, Butte, El Dorado, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Merced, Nevada, Plumas/Sierra, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Tuolumne.In 2008, the Legislature enacted SB 1407 (Perata) which authorized additional fines, penalties and court filing fees to provide adequate capital improvement funding for courthouses. In most counties, the operation and facilities management of courthouse facilities have been transferred to the State of California.

State and Local Detention Facility Capital Improvements.The Governor’s proposed Budget provides funding for a number of capital outlay projects involving existing jails and state prisons. Projects identified for funding include: a replacement jail in Calaveras County; a replacement jail in Madera County; improvements to the state correctional facility in Lassen County; and improvements to the California Women’s Facility in Madera County. The funding for these projects stems from several sources including AB 900 (2007).

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA)

• Air Resources Board (ARB). The Governor’s proposed Budget includes no General Fund money and maintains existing program levels.
• Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes shifting $2.5 million from the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Fund to provide support for the Department of Food and Agriculture’s pesticide analysis capabilities, which help support DPR’s regulatory activities. The funds will be expended for new equipment, equipment replacement, staffing, and associated costs to meet expanded testing needs.
• Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes a fund shift of $1.13 million from the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund to the General Fund to support the Proposition 65 program.
• Office of the Secretary for Environmental Protection/Rural CUPA Assistance. The Governor’s proposed Budget maintains the $835,000 for the continued reimbursement of the qualified CUPA’s located in low-population counties.
• State Water Resources Control Board. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes a General Fund reduction of $12.8 million, to be made up by the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and the Water Rights Fund. The State Water Board will need to increase fees to make up the difference. The proposal includes statutory changes allowing the State Water Board to assess fees for basin planning activities.

Education

K-12. The Governor’s proposed Budget guarantees the same level of funding for K-12 education as was provided in 2010-11. Without any changes, the Proposition 98 requirement would actually be $2.3 billion lower than in 2010-11, but the Administration cited its belief that K-12 has absorbed enough reductions in the past few fiscal years. This adjustment will be handled in part through a deferral of costs until the 2012-13 fiscal year and through a component of the package going to a vote of the people in June, 2011. Additionally, the Governor’s proposed Budget maintains the flexibility in programs provided by previous Budget years for two more years. These flexibilities include reductions in fines for increased classroom sizes, removal of limitations on categorical spending funds, contributions to maintenance funds, and other issues such as instructional materials and mandatory reserve funds.

Community Colleges.The Governor’s proposed Budget includes several “solutions” for community college funding while purporting to maintain the Proposition 98 mandated 11 percent apportionment. The proposed Budget includes increases in student fees from $26 to $36 per unit, which will save the state $110 million in apportionments to the community college system.

California State Universities and University of California. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes approximately $1 billion in cuts to the California State University and the University of California systems, a targeted $500 million reduction to each to be determined upon negotiation with the faculty and administration of each system.

General Government

Department of Food and Agriculture. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $364 million representing a decrease of $20 million from last year. Of note is the permanent $32 million decrease in General Fund revenue as a result of removing state funding for support of the 78 local California Fairs.

Additionally, the Secretary is to convene all stakeholders to look at the long term viability of state programs and find solutions to limit the need for General Fund revenue.

State Mandates.The Governor’s proposed Budget continues the suspension of most mandates not related to law enforcement or property taxes for a decrease of $227.8 million. The Governor’s proposed Budget also proposes to fund the AB 3632 mandate, which deals with mental health services for special education students, with Proposition 63 funds from the Department of Mental Health budget. This will result in a General Fund savings of $98.6 million. Finally, the Governor’s proposed Budget continues the deferral of mandate funding obligations for pre-2004-05 mandates, resulting in a $94 million General Fund reduction.

The Administration is also proposing to develop a process with the Legislature to review all reimbursable mandates and determine which should be maintained, which should be modified to cut costs, and which should be repealed altogether.

Proposition 1A/Property Tax Shift.Proposition 1A – the voter-approved measure which protects local property taxes from being diverted for state purposes – allows for a one-time borrowing of these local property taxes. In 2009, the Legislature sanctioned a diversion from local governments. To ensure that counties would not experience a reduction in their property tax proceeds, the monies were “securitized” with a near $1.9 billion bond, issued by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority. All RCRC counties elected to participate in the securitization plan. Consistent with actions taken last year, the Governor’s proposed Budget provides a $90.8 million interest payment for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year. The bond is to be fully repaid by the State before July 1, 2012.

Williamson Act. The Governor’s proposed Budget eliminates the $10 million General Fund appropriated in the current year for Williamson Act subventions. In addition, the Governor’s proposed Budget eliminates Williamson Act subventions in future years.

Health

Medi-Cal. The Governor’s proposed Budget would utilize a number of “solutions” to manage Medi-Cal (federal Medicaid), the state’s second largest General Fund program.

The Governor’s proposed Budget would use $1 billion in Proposition 10/First 5 funds to fund Medi-Cal services for children through age five. This would require passage of a ballot measure.

The Governor’s Budget would reduce provider payments by 10 percent for physicians, pharmacy, clinics, medical transportation, home health, Adult Day Health Care, long term care facilities and certain hospitals for an anticipated General Fund savings of $9.5 million in 2010-11 and $709.4 in 2011-12. This proposal would require federal approval.

The Governor’s proposed Budget would eliminate the Medi-Cal Adult Day Health Care Program for an anticipated General Fund savings of $2.1 million in 2010-11 and $193.2 million in 2011-12.

Other Medi-Cal Solutions. The Governor’s proposed Budget utilizes a number of other budgeting limitations and solutions for reining in the cost of Medi-Cal to the state’s General Fund including the requirement of co-payments, limits on utilization of services, elimination of over-the-counter cold medicine and vitamins and an extension of the existing hospital fee that is utilized to leverage additional federal funding to hospitals. These changes are anticipated to generate at least a $774.5 million General Fund Savings.

Healthy Families Program (HFP).The Governor’s proposed Budget would make changes to limit the costs to the state of the Healthy Families Program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides health, dental and vision care insurance for children up to age 19. Program costs are funded through a combination of premiums paid by the participating families and state and federal revenue. The Governor’s proposed Budget would eliminate those vision benefits not provided through the health plan, it would increase premiums on enrollees at or above 150 percent of poverty, it would Increase co-payments on certain services, and would continue collecting revenues from taxes assessed on Managed Care Plans to draw down federal matching funds by making these taxes permanent rather than expiring on June 30, 2011. These changes are anticipated to generate a $135.7 million General Fund Savings

Mental Health. The Governor’s Budget proposes to use local Proposition 63/Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) revenue to fund the state’s responsibility for Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT), county mental health managed care, and AB 3632 services in 2011-2012 for an anticipated General Fund savings of $861.2 million. The Administration believes this can be achieved with a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes $1.04 billion for EPSDT, $367.1 million for County Mental Health Managed Care, and $98.6 million for reimbursements to counties for AB 3632 services provided in prior years. While mental health is on the slate for future realignment, the timing of that is unclear.

Local Emergency Medical Service Agencies (LEMSAs). The Governor’s proposed Budget maintains the current amount of General Fund support for the seven Local Emergency Medical Service Agencies. Most RCRC counties participate in LEMSAs to meet their state obligations for emergency medical care services. Last year, the Budget appropriated approximately $2 million for this purpose. However, the Governor’s Budget does propose to reconsider the annual expenditure of $5.8 million used to maintain California’s mobile field hospitals, their equipment and their medical supplies.

Human Services

California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS).The Governor’s proposed Budget would make changes to CalWORKs that would reduce the 2011-12 caseload projection by 21.3 percent from the 2010-11 estimates. The Governor would utilize solutions including limiting the time on CalWORKs from the current 60 months to 48 months, reducing the monthly grant payment on CalWORKs by 13%, and by maintaining the reduction to county single allocation funding previously included in the 2009 and 2010 Budget Acts for a total savings of $1.48 billion. The Governor is suggesting that CalWorks become a program that will be a county responsibility under Phase II of realignment.

Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP). The Governor’s proposed Budget would reduce monthly SSI/SSP Grants for Individuals to the federally required minimum payment standard for an anticipated General Fund savings of $177.3 million, assuming successful legislative action by March 1.

In-Home Supportive Services. The Governor’s proposed Budget makes cuts and changes to California’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program including an across-the-board 8.4% reduction in service hours, the elimination of domestic and related services for certain recipients including minors living with a parent who is able and available to provide care, a new requirement of a physician’s written certification that IHSS Services are necessary to prevent out-of-home care, and the elimination of state funding for county IHSS advisory committees, for a total General Fund Savings of $486.3 million. The Governor is suggesting that IHSS become a program that reverts to being a state responsibility under Phase II of realignment.

Child Welfare Services. The child welfare system in California provides a continuum of services to children who are either at risk of or have suffered abuse and neglect. Children’s programs include: Child Welfare Services, Child Abuse Prevention, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship placements. The Governor’s Budget includes $4.2 billion ($1.7 billion General Fund) to provide assistance payments and services to children and families under these programs. This represents an increase of $23.2 million General Fund, or 1.4 percent over the 2010-11 appropriation. The Governor is suggesting that Child Welfare Services becomes a program that will be a county responsibility under Phase I of realignment.

Reduce Transitional Housing Program–Plus.The Governor’s proposed Budget would reduce $19 million, the cost of the Transitional Housing Program-Plus (THP-Plus) services for 18 and 19 year old foster youth. This reduction is proposed in light of the passage of Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010 (AB 12), which expands foster care services to age 19 and allows for their placement in a transitional housing program similar to THP-Plus, but one where the state is able to draw down federal Title IV-E reimbursement for the cost of providing services. This proposal would save General Fund dollars, while still providing services to those 18- and 19-year olds wishing to participate in a transitional housing program.

Department of Child Support. The Governor’s Budget proposes to allocate $1 billion to the Department of Child Support – an $18.1 million increase over 2010-11. A key provision for counties is the suspension of the county share of collections for child support payments. This reduction will not affect the $18.7 million in revenue stabilization funding to maintain caseworker staffing levels. This effectively transfers $24.4 million previously flowing to counties into state General Fund coffers. The Governor is suggesting that Child Support becomes a program that will be a county responsibility under Phase II of realignment.

Native American Affairs

Special Distribution Fund (SDF). The Governor’s proposed Budget would borrow approximately $50 million from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (SDF). Additionally, the Governor’s proposed Budget would also roll approximately $100 million of other special tribal gaming funds directly into the state General Fund. These funds were previously being held in a special account designated for a transportation program that was part of the mitigation listed in a compact agreement with certain tribes to allow for unlimited machine gaming at their facilities. The bond sale for this transportation program has been in litigation to date, and so the $100 million remained in the special account. The Governor’s proposed Budget would divert that money to the state General Fund without waiting for the final outcome of the litigation.

Resources

California Conservation Corps. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $64.5 million representing a $26 million reduction from last year largely due to a reduction in bond funding.

California Water Plan. The Governor’s proposed Budget appropriates approximately $126.5 million for the continuing formulation of the California Water Plan. This is a significant reduction from the 2010-11 Budget which provided over $1 billion for the development of the California Water Plan which is the state’s strategic plan for the efficient use, management and development of the state’s water resources.

Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes a small reduction of $2 million for the Central Valley Flood Protection Board whose mission is to control flooding along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Debt Service. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $976 million General Fund revenue for debt service costs on various natural resources general obligation bonds. [Note: Debt service historically had its own line item under General Government within the state budget but recently debt service is attributed to each agency.]

Department of Boating and Waterways. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $63.9 million in funding which does not include any General Fund revenue and is the same as prior years funding. The proposed Budget includes approximately $36 million for boating facilities including grants and loans to local government as well as aquatic weed control in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Department of Conservation. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $98 million representing a reduction of $35 million due largely to a reduction in bond funding.

Delta Protection Commission. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $1.2 million reflecting a reduction of $3.9 million from last year primarily from the California License Plate Fund without any major programmatic changes.

Delta Stewardship Council. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $44 million to the Council, which was established in 2009 as part of the water package, representing an increase of $20 million from last year. The Council’s mission is to achieve the two co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem.

Department of Fish and Game. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $400 million representing an $87 million reduction from last year primarily from the Biodiversity Conservation Program which encourages the preservation, conservation, maintenance and restoration of wildlife resources.

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.The Governor’s proposed Budget eliminates the peak season four firefighters-per-fire truck staffing levels started in 2003. By reverting to the pre-2003 standard of three firefighters-per-truck, the state saves $3.6 million in 2010-11 and $30.7 million in 2011-12. According to an analysis of historic trends, the increased staffing level to four firefighters-per-truck has not appreciably improved CalFIRE’s initial attack efficacy.

State Responsibility Areas.The Governor’s proposed Budget addresses the issue of State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) in a more measured way than an SRA fee. The Administration seeks to limit the cost of CalFIRE’s activities within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) by directing the Board of Forestry (BOF) to investigate and redraw the maps for SRAs to eliminate those SRA areas that have become more densely populated. No specific dollar figure has been linked to this potential savings. However, the Administration will likely provide the BOF with more detail regarding the number of acres it would like to see removed from SRA, or the desired projected savings required.

CalFire Civil Cost Recovery Program.The Governor’s proposed Budget includes an increase in spending for the Civil Cost Recovery Program, a unit of CalFIRE that investigates the causes of wildfires and actively pursues cost recoveries from those at fault for fires caused by negligence or illegal activities. CalFIRE estimates that the increase of $1.7 million to this program will bring in an additional $6.8 million per year for a net savings to the state of $5.1 million.

Department of Parks and Recreation. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $119 million representing a decrease of $11 million General Fund revenue resulting in the partial or full closure of state parks with the lowest attendance and revenue generation. The Department is to work with local communities and stakeholders for partnership opportunities. The reduction is anticipated to save $22 million of ongoing General Fund revenue.

Public Safety and Prevention of Flood Damage.The Governor’s proposed Budget appropriates approximately $317 million for the Public Safety and Prevention of Damage Program. This program protects life and property from damage by floods, ensures proper construction and maintenance of jurisdictional dams and levees, and provides loans for construction, improvement and rehabilitation of domestic water systems to meet state standards for drinking water. This is a significant reduction from the 2010-11 Budget which provided over $1 billion for the program. Projects types that are proposed to have funding reduced or eliminated include land acquisition, levee reconstruction and improvement, flood control, dam modifications, and feasibility studies, among others. A list of specific projects impacted can be accessed at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/3000/3860/infrastructure.html

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $1.387 billion, which includes a $6 million dollar increase over the prior year funding, primarily attributable to an increase in the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides proposes $1.3 million which is consistent with last year. The Conservancy is charged with advancing both environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents in a complementary manner.

San Joaquin River Conservancy.The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $646 million for the Conservancy which is consistent with prior years funding. The Conservancy is to acquire (willing sellers), preserve, manage and promote access to lands within the floodplain of the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to Highway 99.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $4.8 million for the Conservancy, a reduction of over $25 million as a result of the reduction in the bond funding.

State Water Project. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes an increase of approximately $43 million for the implementation of the State Water Resources Development System. This includes the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP) which includes the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, project specific conservation measures, and the Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

Tahoe Conservancy. The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $5.7 million in funding representing a reduction of $11 million from last year which is due exclusively to a reduction in bond funding.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.The Governor’s proposed Budget provides $4 million, which is consistent with prior years funding. TRPA is a congressionally approved compact between Nevada and California to coordinate planning and regulations that enhance the resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin with Nevada providing one-third of the revenue and California the remaining two-thirds.

Transportation

Gas Tax Swap. The Governor’s proposed Budget continues the funding commitment to transportation by requesting the Legislature to reenact the so-called “Gas Tax Swap.” As counties recall, last spring the Legislature, in an effort to reorganize transportation funding and provide State General Fund relief for bonded indebtedness associated with transportation, approved the Gas Tax Swap on a majority vote.

The Swap made the following changes:

• Eliminated the sales tax on gasoline and replaced it with a 17.3-cents per gallon excise tax increase, indexed to keep pace with what the sales tax on gasoline would have generated in a given fiscal year to ensure true revenue neutrality. Proceeds from the ‘new’ excise tax on gasoline are allocated as follows: 44% State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); 44% Local Streets and Roads; and 12% State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).
• Reduced the excise tax on diesel to 13.6-cents and replaced it with an increase in the sales tax rate on diesel by 1.75 percent, and provided an exemption to hold harmless entities that would be impacted from this change. Proceeds from the increase in the sales tax on diesel are forwarded to fund transit purposes.

However, due to the passage of both Proposition 22 and Proposition 26, the Swap will effectively be invalidated in November 2011 and the use of gasoline tax revenues for General Fund relief is immediately affected. At least $2.5 billion in transportation funding and additional federal matching funds are at stake if the Swap is not reenacted. Therefore, the Governor’s Budget proposes reenactment of the Gas Tax Swap by a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature.

Additionally, to retain the General Fund relief contained in the Swap, the Governor’s budget proposes to use transportation weight fees that currently go into the State Highway Account (SHA) to pay bond debt service. Specifically, the proposal would transfer $262.4 million in 2010‐11 and $700 million in 2011‐12 in weight fee revenues from the SHA to the General Fund for transportation‐related debt service. The proposal would also loan weight fee revenues to the General Fund with $494 million in the current year and $166 million in the budget year. Transportation weight fees generate roughly $900 million annually.

The proposal also includes additional appropriations from the Public Transit Account to make transit providers whole and consistent with the Swap.

Proposition 1B. The Governor’s proposed Budget includes a $2.3 billion appropriation for Proposition 1B funding for transportation projects, including:

• $631 million for Corridor Mobility;
• $972.3 million for Trade Corridors;
• $117 million for Public Transit;
• $200 million for State-Local Partnership;
• $22 million for Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit; and
• $391.9 million for State Route 99 Corridor.

The Governor’s Office announced they anticipate a state bond sale this fall.

Jerry Brown's official portrait as California's Governor last time around.

Our “new” Governor Jerry Brown started the year off with a big bang by releasing his much-heralded bad news California state budget this morning. 

Cities and counties are awaiting in depth analyses of what the entire budget will  mean to local government, but for sure it’s not good. Count on one thing: this thing’s a long way from over.

After some months of partisan and special  interest wrangling and a battle royale to extend “some existing taxes” another five years, Brown will issue a revision in May. And if all goes as it hasn’t gone for years, we could have an approved budget in the end of June.  

Yeah, right. Wouldn’t that be a miracle? At a minimum, the next six months will be a very, very bumpy road for Californians.

Here’s the press release from the Governor’s office with the highlights (or lowlights, if you prefer).  

Governor Brown’s Budget Slashes State Spending by $12.5 Billion 

Sacramento – Governor Jerry Brown will release a balanced state budget today that slashes spending by $12.5 billion, including an eight to 10 percent cut in take-home pay for most state employees, and proposes a “vast and historic” restructuring of government operations. 

“These cuts will be painful, requiring sacrifice from every sector of the state, but we have no choice,” Brown said. “For 10 years, we’ve had budget gimmicks and tricks that pushed us deep into debt. We must now return California to fiscal responsibility and get our state on the road to economic recovery and job growth.” 

Brown’s budget also calls for temporary continuation of taxes while the state pays off debt, moves forward with his realignment plan and consolidates or eliminates functions. 

“Since it will take some time to fully implement these changes, I propose to ask the voters for a five-year extension of several current taxes so that we can restructure in an orderly manner,” the Governor explained. 

He said the proposed spending plan, which puts $1 billion into a “rainy day” reserve fund, closes California’s budget deficit “now and into the future.” 

The Governor said his realignment plan, which he called “vast and historic,” will return decisions and authority to cities, counties and schools and “allow government at all levels to focus on core functions and become more efficient and less expensive” by reducing duplication of services and administrative costs. 

The one area of state spending spared from cuts is kindergarten through 12th grade education. 

“Schools have borne the brunt of spending reductions in recent years, so this budget maintains funding at the same level as the current year,” the Governor said. 

Brown’s budget proposes total spending of $127.4 billion for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Of this amount, proposed General Fund spending is $84.6 billion. 

The spending plan eliminates an 18-month budget gap estimated at $25.4 billion, comprised of a current year shortfall of $8.2 billion and a budget year shortfall of $17.2 billion. A combination of $26.4 billion in actions is needed in order to have a $1 billion reserve. In addition, the deficit will grow to $26.6 billion if the proposed sale of state office buildings, blocked by court order, does not proceed, requiring $27.6 billion in budget actions in order to have a reserve. 

Brown’s budget proposes $12.5 billion in spending reductions, $12 billion in revenue extensions and modifications, $1.9 billion in other solutions to close the gap and provide for a $1 billion reserve. 

Major spending reductions include $1.7 billion to Medi-Cal, $1.5 billion to California’s welfare-to-work program (CalWORKs), $750 million to the Department of Developmental Services, $500 million to the University of California, $500 million to California State University, and $308 million for a 10 percent reduction in take-home pay for state employees not currently covered under collective bargaining agreements. Brown also plans to trim state government operations by $200 million through a variety of actions, including reorganizations, consolidations and other efficiencies. 

The Governor’s spending plan proposes additional reductions throughout state government, including corrections, the judiciary and resources. 

The budget also proposes to change the role that state and local governments play in local development activities by eliminating state tax benefits for enterprise zones and phasing out the current funding mechanism for redevelopment agencies. This will return billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities and counties and help pay for public safety, education and other services. 

The revenue component of the budget calls for an election this coming June where voters will be asked to continue current personal income and sales taxes, as well as the Vehicle License Fee rate, for five years. Brown said revenue from the sales tax and the vehicle license fee will be transferred directly to local governments to finance the first phase of his realignment plan. 

Brown’s budget also requires all corporations to use a single sales factor when measuring income attributable to California and calls for an amnesty program for taxpayers who have avoided or underreported income owed to the state. 

Brown called the spending plan “a tough budget for tough times” that will close the state’s structural deficit and provide a “strong and stable foundation” to meet future needs. 

“Without decisive action, the state’s severe budget problems will persist, threatening economic recovery, job growth, public education and the quality of life in California,” he said. “The adoption of this budget will position the state to lead the country as it slowly recovers from the Great Recession.” 

The Governor’s spending plan assumes that all statutory changes to implement budget actions will be adopted by the legislature in March, allowing the necessary ballot measures to be put before the people at a June special election. 

The Governor’s news conference will be streamed live this morning at 11:00 a.m. at www.calchannel.com. The budget, in full, will be posted online shortly after the news conference begins at: www.ebudget.ca.gov. 

###

This is from Public CEO, “a local government news site dedicated to providing a statewide perspective on California’s cities, counties and special districts”.

Note To The Legislature: We Are All Ashamed
Written by James Spencer
September 22, 2010

I’m going to make this over-simplified and to the point.

It’s been more than 80 days since the State of California was supposed to have a budget passed. That’s 12 weeks after the fiscal year began. There’s no end in sight.

This steps beyond the “Are you kidding me?” stage and directly into the “Unfathomably ridiculous” category.

How the state is allowed to operate on this level is an embarrassment. Every single person in the Capitol who is responsible for the delay should be gone.

Remember what your damn job is and do it. Everyone else in the world is held to that standard, and you all need to be as well. We need adults in the legislature.

The taxpayers in California don’t care why it isn’t done. They (we) just want you to get it done.

Show some integrity and responsibility.

I am ashamed of my state.

James Spencer can be reached at jspencer.

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.

We’re not a large county. Our total budget is around $143 million. Perhaps our numbers don’t seem too bad, but proportionally, these are major setbacks. They’re going to hurt.

Over the last five years, the General Fund has dropped by almost $11.7 million and revenues are down 7.1% from last year.  Board policy is to maintain a minimum of $1 million in a contingency fund, however this year it is proposed to contain just  $750,000 and will likely be all that stands between us and draconian cuts that will have to be made after the state budget is approved.

While the cuts are being couched in terms of employee positions to be eliminated, what that actually means is a reduction in service levels to the public. These are just some of the actions being proposed: the “high” points, if you will.

Due to the privatization of Tuolumne General Hospital, the Visiting Nurses Association, and other cost-cutting actions, the Board has eliminated 270+ permanent positions over the time I’ve been in office. This year’s budget proposes to further reduce the workforce by 70 permanent employees (26 employees will be moved under a tri-county Child Support Services Department).

Staff is asking the Board to consider allocating the yet-to-be received Transient Occupancy Taxes approved by the voters this month to restore some positions slated to be cut (including restoring the 4-H Program manager  and Public Defender’s attorney to full time, adding back an on call Animal Control officer, and a half-time Director of Library Services, the Public Health Officer (to .8), and restoring a Road Department and housekeeper position.

Some of the significant proposed reductions include the elimination of the Board’s Assistant Clerk (necessitating consideration of a reduced Board meeting schedule), back-filling the Board Clerk’s workload with a portion of the CAO’s executive assistant’s time, eliminating three full-time positions in the Assessor-Recorder’s office, eliminating four employees from the Facilities Management Department (and relief positions, as well), transferring the Film Commissioner to the Tuolumne County Visitor’s Bureau, reducing the Information Technology Department by two employees, delaying hiring of a District Attorney’s investigator, a reduction in hours for two Public Defender’s attorneys, eliminating three employees from the Sheriff-Coroner’s budget, not replacing ten Sheriff’s vehicles, demoting two positions, and eliminating a Jail Commander position.

The Probation Department is slated to lose a position, the Community Development Department four positions, and Environmental Health, one.  The Library is proposed to lose its 1/2 time Library Director as well as operating hours and Bookmobile days, although all branches will remain open. The Recreation Department is proposed to operate seasonally rather than year-round and two full time positions could be eliminated.

In the Public Works Department, Engineering is proposed to lose one full-time position. Road Maintenance revenues will be down almost $1.2 million due to reductions in state and federal funding. Road funds will be used to supplement the Department and one position is proposed to be cut. It goes without saying that this may impact both construction projects AND snowplowing. Please take it easy on Evan this winter – it’s not his fault (nor is it mine!).

County Fire has reduced permanent positions by two (resulting in paperwork processing delays, but not a reduction in fire services). The County proposes to continue staffing two Amador Contract stations (seasonal), Mono Village (full-time) and Jamestown (six months). The Solid Waste Department will lose one position. Solid Waste fees are being proposed to be increased significantly to cover repayment of an internal loan from the Traffic Mitigation Fund ($1.7 million).

The Health Department will be hit particularly hard due to a large reduction in H1N1 funding and other grant funds that are not available in the coming year. Clinic staff and the Public Health Officer positions are proposed to be eliminated to balance the fund budget. Obviously, such a reduction would be catastrophic should a pandemic or other major health crisis emerge. A significant amount of Behavior Health one-time contingency funds will be required to balance the budget and the recently established Crisis Stabilization Program will be retooled (but actual coverage will increase).

The Welfare Fund is proposed to lose four full-time employees due to retirements, vacancies, and layoffs. This despite the fact that there will surely be an increase in demand for services. Ambulance Fund revenues will be down by over a quarter of a million dollars and the budget is balanced without contingencies or capital improvement allocations. The Airport Department staff is proposed to be reduced by one full-time position and the Airports Director position will be transferred into the Public Works Department  to begin to oversee a new Fleet Management division.

Like I said, those are some high points… Yeah, right.

We anticipate a crowd at Tuesday’s meeting. Folks will come out in support of the Departments and positions they feel are indispensible and the Board will try to make the best of a very, very bad situation. We need to hear from you, but please realize that every Department is important to someone. The Board will need to make some difficult decisions.

The hardest part is that Tuesday will not be the end of the cuts and readjustments, but merely another difficult day of our work in process.

Over the last four years, in order to live within our means, the Board has adhered to critically important key principles: 1) don’t spend more than we take in; 2) maintain reasonable reserves and contingencies; and 3) minimize and promptly repay debt. These actions have enabled us to look beyond the immediate future to the long term. It’s a good thing.

Among precautionary measures taken were the closure of Tuolumne General Hospital, the establishment of the Tuolume County Economic Development Authority with the City of Sonora, projecting multi-year budgets, and being proactive to  identify and eliminate unnecessary costs.

These have been both necessary and helpful, although in and of themselves they will not be enough to close a yawning gap between revenues and spending.

Beginning in March, the Board heard a number of presentations from Chief Administrative Officer, Craig Pedro. Here’s what we were told and how we responded:

• Mar. 16: FY 2010/11 multi-year budget projections - Craig forecasted the economy wouldn’t see a notable and sustained change for 2-3 years, more cuts and cost shifts would be made by the state, local revenues won’t rebound for 2-3 more years, and all the County’s major operating funds  would experience operational deficits if the Board did not authorize immediate corrective action;
• Apr. 6: FY 2010/11 budget strategies – he recommended and the Board adopted nine specific actions to be taken (see below) to prepare the upcoming draft budget;
• Apr. 27 – May 11: Craig made reorganization proposals – six of them – which ranged from moving Behavioral Health into the Human Services Agency to moving Recreation and Libraries under the CAO’s office (not a popular option with supporters of either agency). This will result in the elimination of 10 full time employee positions;
• May 11: 2010 Early Retirement Program – his plan would eventually allow 14 employees to retire and should save the County $1.3 million over the next five years; and
• Jun. 1: the Board directed him to close gaps and balance each of the County’s major funds. We selected priorties for balancing the budget.

The following nine strategies were adopted to develop the budget:

1. Implement a selective hiring and expenditure freeze in order to build fund balances to be carried over to next fiscal year;
2. Economize where possible (all non-essential funding requests were limited by department heads);
3. Reduce staffing where work volume indicated a reduced workload (Human Resources, the Community Development Department, Public Works, and Environmental Health);
4. Stop providing services that can be provided by the private sector (previous years have seen more aggressive action on this front, although the Tuolumne County Film Commission and some County services are being spun off to be provided by Avalon Healthcare);
5. Evaluate the elimination of some existing services  that are unfunded state mandates (not much cost savings can be realized here);
6. Implement streamlining and cutting costs via reorganization of internal departments;
7. Negotiate cost savings via bargaining with the County labor unions (pension reform, benefit concessions, furloughs, etc.);
8. Offer an early retirement program (40 people came forward); and
9. As a last resort, implement staff reductions and  reductions in services via extending the payoff of some debt, utlize $1 million in cash reserves to preserve jobs and services, and prioritize public safety and roads services, while implementing common sense measures in other departments.

In Part II, we’ll summarize the results of the impending draft budget. Guaranteed you’re not going to like it much.

Over the next few months the budget may get better… but more likely, it will get worse. Far worse.

Until the state approves their budget, ours is just a work in progress.

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

Take Our Poll

Being Chair does come with challenges though, chief among them: managing distinct and opposing interests like district residents, out of district residents, fellow Board members, staff, and the County itself. As you can imagine, it got tricky at times. It was not unlike keeping breakable plates spinning simultaneously.

There were and still exist institutional obstacles in County government to greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability that must be reformed for the Board to lead most effectively. Conditions are, however, light years ahead of where they were when I first ran for office in 2006 and they continued to improve in 2009.

But not all areas improved. Not yet. I’ve learned to raise an issue at least three times so folks can see the forest for the trees. Reforms accomplished this year along with reforms that were rebuffed contributed to a greater level of awareness among Board and staff. Overall that’s a good thing.

Worst of years

I can’t name all the things that qualified 2009 to be the worst of years, but the state budget and its impacts on the County budget are at the top of the list. The state worked hard to divert local tax revenues for its own use, but ultimately was only partially successful. As the economy worsened, the public and staff began to experience stress. Multiple iterations of the County budget were prepared and discarded as revenue forecasts continued to decline. Subsequently, County services and staffing cuts increased stress levels. Early on, we had to do more with less. By year’s end we were reduced to doing less with less.

The Board considered several controversial land use projects in 2009 including the Law and Justice Center property purchase and consideration of an appeal of a grading permit for a controversial antiquated subdivision in Twain Harte. I am particularly proud that the public and staff were heard and treated with respect and dignity on these issues regardless of the outcomes. And for the most part, the Board seems to have mastered disagreement amongst ourselves without holding grudges.

Best of years

There were a number of factors that qualify 2009 as the best of years. Staff and elected officials voluntarily reduced benefits and went on furlough to save County services and jobs. Further, despite the critical need to reduce County expenditures to match revenues, the Board affirmed the public’s priorities of maintaining funding for Roads, Sheriff, and Fire services, while it minimized service cuts to the public and layoffs of employees.

In fact, after an accounting error was discovered in the draft budget in August, three previously unfilled Sheriff’s deputy positions were added, critical recreation services were retained (pools!), and library branches weren’t impacted quite as heavily as they would otherwise have been. These were all bright spots in light of the privatization of some services and in light of the cuts we had to make.

In a well-timed effort to improve the local economy, the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) got off to an aggressive start in recruiting new and expanding existing businesses here. And while the County lost a number of businesses due to the economy, TCEDA expects to make several major announcements in 2010 that should help the local economy considerably.

The Board authorized Waste Management to implement a two cart recycling program in the areas they serve beginning next year. Although I was not in favor of extending the contract until 2022 without going out to bid, I am very much in favor of reducing, reusing, and recycling. We hired an illegal dumping enforcement officer this year, as well. His efforts should begin to be evident as folks learn that Tuolumne County has an active enforcement program.

Over the years, County residents and communities have experienced negative economic and quality of life outcomes as state and federal government agencies have not given serious consideration or even evaluated in much depth local concerns, needs and interests. This year a majority of the Board stepped up to voice concern relative to several state and federal resource decisions that will impact the local economy.

Given the loss of the SPI mill and other businesses in recent years, the fact that Tuolumne County contains 76% public lands, strong historic, traditional, and cultural ties to the land, and the fact that state and federal statutes give counties the ability to be involved in their decision-making processes early on, it is critical that this happen. In addition, the Board signified its intent to establish and maintain productive and beneficial relationships with other levels of government.

One vehicle to encourage that to happen – federal and state agency coordination – was controversial, but the Board did not reverse an action in 2007 to initiate coordination with federal and state agencies. The Board’s dialog led to a Sonora Area Foundation grant to Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment (TuCARE) to work with community and economic stakeholders on a draft land use plan to establish local policy for planning and management of federal and state lands and resources.

The plan doesn’t establish environmental policy (numerous advocates, federal, state, and local statutes, and policies already exist for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment). Rather, the plan deals with the human environment (which is interrelated with the natural environment). It’s important to note that the land use plan does not revise or impact existing state, federal, or local laws, nor does it allow the public to make federal and state agency decisions. It will primarily apprise agencies of local policies and values that must be better factored into decision-making and management actions in Tuolumne County.

The draft land use plan will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Planning Committee on Thurs., Jan. 7^th at 1:30 pm in the Board Chambers. Consideration of approval by the Board will follow later in the month or in February.

General Activities in 2010 (in addition to weekly Board meetings, review of agenda materials, and committee assignments.)

• The County completed and dedicated the Hope House, a transitional housing program for kids aging out of the foster care system;
• Along with key community and agency leaders, formed the Safety Net Agencies  Planning Group to help bridge agency shortfalls and service gaps in light of the state’s budgetary problems which inspired a Sonora Area Foundation campaign that raised over $500k to expand efforts to meet the most basic needs of our struggling neighbors;
• Worked with leaders of ATCAA’s food bank, University Cooperative Extension, Ag Advisor’s office, Master Gardeners, and others to plan and seek funding for community gardens to provide extra food for the food bank, local wholesale market, and individuals;
• At Supervisor John Gray’s request, initiated new supervisor orientation meetings with all department heads;
• Worked to improve County/federal agency communication and problem solving;
• Participated in an advisory committee for the Tuolumne County Courts to plan and implement a community mediation program to reduce the number of court cases;
• Participated in ATCAA/Central Sierra Connect’s efforts to determine local need for Broadband and expand its adoption;
• Supported a successful effort for Habitat for Humanity to obtain funding to purchase property in Jamestown for a multiple unit housing project;
• Involved in local foster children placement issues, participated in foster parent networking group, and County’s Peer Quality Review process;
• Served on the Sonora Regional Medical Center’s Civic Advisory Board and Dawn’s Light Grief Counseling advisory board;
• Participated in Cities, Counties, Schools Partnership Summit on Governance examining potential reform measures in light of state budget and governance problems;
• Worked with the Tuolumne County Resource Conservation District, The Stewardship Council, and other agencies to ensure Kennedy Meadows is locally owned and managed;
• Convened first joint board meeting with Tuolumne Utilities District on water issues, attended City and County of San Francisco Tuolumne River stakeholders meetings;
• Monitored State Delta Water Bills and related water issues and legislation, worked with Senator Cogdill’s staff and TUD to analyze and educate County staff and Board members;
• Participated in planning and the Department of Water Resources’ Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) interview that resulted in local IRWMP’s designation for funding of future watershed projects;
• Reviewed and commented on United States Forest Service (USFS) Travel Management Rule Plan EIR, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) fish stocking EIR/EIS, and USFS planned removal of Relief Cabin by PG&E;
• Requested California Legislature and Congress to increase efforts to support and fund fuels management; and
• Commented on proposed new electricity transmission line to New Melones by Transmission Agency of Northern CA (TANC).

Chair District 3-related Activities

• Held monthly district office hours in Tuolumne, Twain Harte, and Mi-Wuk Village, town hall meetings, and published over 75 blog posts on County, District 3, and state issues;
• Worked with community members to convert Mi-Wuk Village library branch into the volunteer-staffed Mi-Wuk Village Little Library in the Woods Community Center with T1 Internet service;
• Sought funding for Tuolumne parking & alleyway studies, partnered with Tuolumne community members o hold various public and town hall meetings to discuss the Tuolumne Community Plan, parking and alleyway studies, Memorial Hall use, and law enforcement  issues;
• Facilitated donation of Lyon’s Reservoir Trail parking area in Twain Harte to honor Supervisor Jim Peterson, sought and obtained additional implementation funding for Twain Harte trail, attended Sheriff’s Town Hall meeting;
• Participated in Pinecrest Circulation Study Stakeholder Group, supported Dodge Ridge Transit Bus;
• Attended meetings with Strawberry Property Owners Association, Cold Springs Property Owners Association, Tuolumne Township and The Women’s Improvement Society of Tuolumne,  Mi-Wuk Homeowners Association, Twain Harte Homeowners Association, and Pinecrest Permittees; and
• Established Snowplowing Advisory Committee.

Looking ahead in 2010

There remains much to be done in 2010. Several 2009 Board goals were not accomplished this year due to the extraordinary amount of staff time expended on budget revisions. One of our first actions on January 5^th will be to revisit those goals.

To give our kids a future and a hope and to ensure economic prosperity and quality of life, the Board must establish a youth advisory board to better understand what our kids would like Tuolumne County to look like in the future. It should also prioritize funding for a Resources Analyst to better stay on top of important decisions being made by other agencies, and fund the Board-approved but unfilled grant writer position.

Broadband should also continue to be an emphasis, especially in the Hwy 108 Corridor so we can nurture existing and a new generation of entrepreneurs and diversify the economy. We will also continue working with community fire districts and the City of Sonora to maximize fire protection Countywide.

Efficiency, transparency, and the accountability of County government must continue to increase next year. I am hopeful that it will be the year – my fourth year of advocating for it – that we implement online Board agenda management and video streaming to increase access to our meetings and citizen participation. Finally, the Board must continue to cultivate strong relationships with other government agencies: local, state, and federal. Our future depends on it.

So thanks to my colleagues for electing me Board Chair in 2009. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. Thanks also to staff, our videographer, Kathleen Conneau, audio streaming technician, Jim Garaventa, members of The Tuesday Club (regular spectators), and the public for the respect and honor given to this supervisor and the office of Board Chair.

Next year will have a new Chair (likely current Vice Chair Liz Bass) and new challenges, budgetary and otherwise. Counties, Tuolumne included, will be required to cut services further to continue to live within our means. There will be new crises with which to deal.

You can anticipate more of the worst, more of the best, and more uncertainty. But come what may, I promise you one thing for sure. Next year will go by just as quickly as did 2009. Maybe quicker.

County Supervisors frustrated, angry