Preview of Tonight's City Council Meeting - What's in it, what's not

Tonight's City Council Agenda is spectacularly huge.  There are 23 items on is and that doesn't include the study session for the Task Force On Homelessness and Mental Health Services or the Closed Session conferences with legal counsel.  One of the countless law suits alone could cost Fullerton taxpayers more than $10-million and no one was killed.  Indeed, it is a strange world we live in.

I'm not sure what to expect for the Task Force's study session and the agenda is void of information.

The Consent Calendar is where we often see expensive plans put quietly in motion and tonight is no different.  The 15 items consist of General Plan update, legal contracts, labor contracts, insurance report with recommendations from staff, November's general election, Successor Agency debt update (more on this in a moment), Measure M funding, custodial services contract, agreement with Brea for sewer replacement, rezoning, property acquisition, sewer lining, Chapman Ave (at Fox Fullerton) right-turn lane, and the Walnut/Lincoln sewer replacement.

All told, these represent $647,106,698 in spending.  Of that, $641,969,234 is from the Redevelopment Agency's debt courtesy of the City Council.  That leaves $5,137,464 in new expenditures/allocations.  And where is this buried?  The Consent Calendar.

There are Public Hearings on four items.  
Agenda item 16 is the OCTA Bike Share Pilot Project.  This is a 66-month trial run to see if people will use bikes dispensed from an automated bike rack like a vending machine.  The staff report claims huge success in major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, and Mexico City.

Item 17 proposes the use of tax dollars to subsidize a low-income apartment building proposed for 345 East Commonwealth, dubbed the Alexander Senior Housing Project.  Besides the issue of using public funds for private housing, there remain discrepancies in the City's numbers.  The Joint Powers Authority that the City wants to partner with has approved $14,000,000 while the City seems to think they will get $14,500,000.  I have repeatedly brought this up and City staff just shrug.  I oppose the project for several reasons including substandard parking, zoning, and open space, as well as the use of public funds for private development.  Deals like this are bad for taxpayers and ultimately bad for the real estate market.  It gives one developer, The Richman Group or TRG, an unfair advantage by giving them $14,000,000 and numerous development concessions as noted above. And TRG has little to no risk.

Item 18 is the tow franchise and repeal of a chapter from the municipal code.  This is the by-product of the Fullerton Police Department's failed attempt last year to ramrod a contract through to Anaheim/Fullerton Towing and To' and Mo' Towing.  Last year you may recall that the FPD compiled and reported to the Council the nitty-gritty details of employees who worked for the other responding tow companies.  Most saw the report for what it was, cheap shots to justify keeping a 40-year contract in place.  The FPD then pushed through a commercial truck route law that punished tow operators on City streets.  Everything the FPD has had to do with towing seems to be under a dark cloud of cronyism and special favors.

Item 19 is the proposed revised budget that was continued from the last meeting.  City Staff were ordered to return with a balanced budget.  Although the balance sheet works, the premise behind the more than rosy numbers is questionable.  For example, the budget assumes the City will receive $20,000 in outdoor dining fees for restaurants with patios in the public right of way, like Florentine's bar on the northeast corner of Commonwealth and Harbor except Florentine's won't be paying a dime for their use of the sidewalk.  Ask the council members being recalled why.  The budget also shows a "potential revenue from citywide fee study" with $50,000 generated.  Since when does a study in and of itself generate tax revenue?  Then there are the so-called cuts or savings.  Staff assume that there will be a $260,000 reduction in contract costs for legal services, graffiti, animal control, and custodial service.  The proposed custodial contract is $16,430 less than the current contract which allocated $425,801 to cleaning City Hall.  Strange how we can get the contract workers to take a 4% cut but not our own employees.  There are several other glaring issues that should have been addressed but weren't.

And finally, Regular Business...
Item 20 is All the Arts for All the Kids Heart Project.  This allows those big decorated hearts to be placed all around town without going through the permit process.

Item 21 tackles the skate park and its operations.  It asks that the Skate Park Ad Hoc Committee pick up the slack and help with cleaning and maintaining the park.  That's a first and not a bad suggestion if their are community members interested in taking on that role.  I'm glad to see it opening up again (pending approval by the Council).  there is an estimated $50,000 cost to make some much needed upgrades and maintenance.

Item 22 is the Boys & Girls Club lease agreement.  The deal looks a little shady.  The City asked the Club to lease the facility in exchange for a $1,000,000 contribution.  The Club will purchase their own furniture and computers ($300,000) and will pay the remaining $700,000 in monthly payments of $3,333.33.  At that rate, it will take the Club 17.5 years to make their "contribution" to the City.  In the mean time, Park Dwelling Funds will be used to backfill the shortfall.  I like the Boys & Girls Club but this creative financing is not good.

Outdoor dining is last on the list as item 23.  Aside from playing with the numbers, one of the proposed price lists uses type of beverage served.  No alcohol means you will pay $0.30/SQFT, beer and wine will cost you $0.60SQFT, and full liquor means you get saddled with a $0.90SQFT cost to use the public's right-of-way.  As noted above, Florentine's seems to be immune to these taxes despite his outrageous encroachment onto public property for the consumption of alcohol.

So what's missing?  WATER RATES!!!  Why aren't they being adjusted?  

There is a lot to cover tonight and I hope you come out and speak.  Speak from your heart and be heard.

Would You Like to Help Shape Your City's Budget?

The Participatory Budgeting Project is a New York based non-profit organization that is attempting to get community groups involved in their local agency budget process. 

We work with elected officials, public agencies, and community groups in the US and Canada to implement participatory budgeting - a process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.

With residents and business owners in agreement that the City has neglected the aging infrastructure, many are asking how they can get involved to get Fullerton on the right track.  This may be part of the answer.

Go to http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/ and read more about the Participatory Budgeting Project.

State Controller: Audits find more than $3 billion

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today announced that since taking office in 2007, his audit findings through State and local investigations now total more than $3 billion, more than any other Controller in recorded State history.

"Unchecked spending is an invitation for misspending," said Chiang.  "My audits offer an inside-look at state and local checkbooks, and show us where fiscal practices need serious improvement. These findings can lead to real taxpayer savings, and every dollar rescued is one that we don’t have to take away from education, public safety, or other essential services."

The Controller's office typically has 200 to 300 different audits under way at any given time during the year. A sampling of investigations initiated by Controller Chiang include:

·       Unlawful spending and illegal property taxes in the City of Bell

·       Misspent and poorly-managed bond funds at LA Community College District

·       Massive losses from uncollected fines at State agencies

·       Inappropriate spending on gifts at the State Lottery

·       No-bid contracts and lax spending controls in the City of Montebello

·       Millions in overpayments to a State healthcare contractor

His office is currently in the process of auditing the City of Hercules, and investigating claims of
pension-spiking at the California State Teachers' Retirement System.

After completing his work in the City of Bell last year, the Controller's office was flooded with requests audits of more than 200 local governments across California. In order to meet those demands and better protect taxpayer dollars at the local level, the Controller introduced legislation to broaden his office's auditing abilities.

While those bills stalled in the last legislation session, the Controller will continue to push to expand his office's ability to protect taxpayer dollars through financial audits.

For more information on the Controller's audit programs, visit his website at www.sco.ca.gov.

California's cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion

PRESS RELEASE - CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California's cash balance, receipts and disbursements in November, showing monthly revenues came in $497.7 million above projections in the state budget.
"While November's totals came in 9 percent above projections, they did not erase the fact that we are still running $1 billion behind in revenues and $2 billion ahead in expenditures," said Chiang.  "Regardless of whether midyear cuts are enacted next week, the Legislature faces a tremendous fiscal challenge when it returns to session next month."
After accounting for November revenues, total year-to-date general fund revenues are now behind the budget's estimates by $1 billion, but expenditures for the year are over projections by $1.95 billion.  The Controller's Office continues to work with the Department of Finance to identify and prepare for any impact on the State's cash outlook.
The State ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. The combined current year cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion.  Those deficits are being covered with $16.1 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds) and $5.4 billion of external borrowing.
For more details, read November 2011's financial statement and summary analysis.

The Taxpayer-Subsidized Racing Boat?

The City Council would like to give Sunny Hills High School $2,500 and sponsor the school’s participation in the annual Solar Cup Race.

Interestingly, the race is being put on by our water supplier, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

The idea behind the race, according to the City of Fullerton staff report, is for the high school students to build and race solar powered boats. 

And what are the benefits to the taxpayers?  According to the same staff report, the benefits to MWD and its member agencies include:

• Promote stewardship of natural resources, water quality and recreation
• Increase understanding of water conservation and many issues, perspectives, and science of water
• Greater ties to secondary education audience (high schools) in our service area
• Legislative outreach opportunities both locally and regionally
• Intense collaborative effort between MWD and sponsoring agencies
• Community outreach opportunities to service groups retirees or organizations – Lions, Elks Clubs
• Increase awareness to paths into water industry careers

And where will the $2,500 come from?  The Water Fund.  This is the same fund that, just a few short months ago, city staff were crying was underfunded and that they just had to raise our water rates.  They said they wanted to sell tens of millions of dollars in bonds to fund replacement of the City's ancient water system.

How is it we went from “Captain, Captain, the ship is sinking!” to floating a $2,500 sponsorship fee (made payable to a public agency – MWD) for a high school outreach program? 

What could have changed?  Did ending the decades-long franchise tax on the Water Fund result in more cash on hand for “outreach” efforts like this?  Was there a sudden revenue spike in Water Fund revenue resulting in a massive surplus?

Is this water education allocation a good use of public funds at a time when we are being asked to pay nearly double on water rates?  Does the Water Fund’s “water education” allocation need some scrutiny?

If any of these questions have raised the hair on the back of your neck, you might want to ask your City Council to justify this $2,500 expenditure.  In 2009, the City Council voted to support the Sunny Hills Team for the 2011 race in name only and not give them any funding.  That was responsible.

So what changed since 2009?  Our City Council voted to approve a two-year budget with a $8-million deficit and passed a $29-million tax bond that will cost Fullerton taxpayers $45.5-million!  Oh, and in 2010, the City Council voted to resume sponsorship of the team.  Now we’re broke!

Time and again, we see Fullerton’s failed leadership implement meaningless policies with little benefit to the taxpayer who makes it all possible. 

Waste at any level is waste and when we have a massive deficit coupled with out of control spending, it's time to stop the party bus. 

I know some of the teachers involved in the Solar Cup Race at Sunny Hills.  These are truly some of the brightest minds our high school district has to offer.  My opposition is to the City's use of our funds for the sponsorship and not extracurricular activities that help students learn.

I suggest the Sunny Hills team have fundraisers like the other clubs and athletic teams.  They should start soliciting donations from the District’s Board Members and Superintendent. 

The team should contact all of the City's, as well as the District's, employee unions and ask for donations.  Come election season they always seem to be flush with cash for campaign signs and glossy mailers - surely their members would like to contribute to such a worthy cause.

They can even call me, I'd love to chip in.  When the City said no in 2009, Marty Burbank jumped in and donated.  (MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU, MARTY!!)  But please don’t ask for money from City Hall until we can pay off the mounting debt and balance the budget. 

USA a Second-Tier Nation? How about Fullerton??

Director of USC's Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, Richard Little believes that unless infrastructure needs are addressed soon, the United States "is in danger of becoming a second-tier nation."

 

That sentiment is echoed here.  Moreover, Fullerton is similar to rest of the nation in that we continue to raise taxes and fees and still do not address the true cost to maintain our roads, water, sewer, and other parts of our crumbling infrastructure.

 

Although $8-million shy of being balanced the City of Fullerton has budgeted $66.6 million for FY2011-12 from the General Fund, the fund which the Council has the greatest control over.  Most of that will go to cover salaries and benefits including pensions.  Most of the revenue source for the General Fund comes from your property taxes and vehicle licensing fees.

 

Why does any of this matter you ask?

 

Because the City Council has allocated $0.00 from the General Fund to go towards the City's infrastructure.  And I bet you thought your tax dollars were suppose to help pay for roads go into the infrastructure.  No, that's not the way we operate in Fullerton.

 

The fact is, ALL of our $47.56-million infrastructure is paid for from two sources: 1) special fees such as your sanitation fees or water rates less the hidden tax of $2.5-million that goes into the General Fund, and 2) state or federal grants. 

 

With State and Federal funds quickly drying up, it's only a matter of time before our grant funded repairs turn into unfunded replacement nightmares.

 

And for those interested to see how $66.6-million gets allocated to departments:

City Council: $384,207

City Manager: $869,142

Administrative Services: $1,708,157

Human Resources: $365,459

General Government: $630,470

Fire: $16,759,781

Police: $36,673,676

Community Development: $2,975,455

Engineering: $1,615,484

Maintenance Services: $4,659,910

 

Public Safety is 80.2% of the total fund leaving a mere $13,166,543 to cover the rest of the costs of operating our City.

 

And if you rank these based on percentage of budget:

Police 55.0%

Fire 25.2%

Maintenance Services 7.0%

Community Development 4.5%

Administrative Services 2.6%

Engineering 2.4%

City Manager 1.3%

Human Resources 0.5%

City Council 0.6%

General Government 0.9%

 

Clearly, the replacement and repair of our infrastructure  has taken a backseat "other interests".

 

 

Footnote: I found the information above via the City's Meetings Live! page.   Look for the budget as item 3 on the June 7th, 2011 a City Council agenda.  The CIP information above was found in item 4 of the May 25th, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda.  If you would like these emailed to you, send me an email at GregSebourn@yahoo.com.

"Many positive signs" says State Controller

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California’s cash balance, receipts and disbursements in June and for the complete 2010-2011 fiscal year
The State ended the fiscal year with $95.5 billion in receipts and $93.8 billion in disbursements.  June revenues alone came in $440.5 million (3.7 percent) above estimates found in the May Revision of the Governor’s proposed 2011-12 budget. 
“The latest report shows many positive signs.  The State is spending less than it took in, we are borrowing less cash, and all three major sources of revenue show signs of growth,” said Chiang.  “But the success of the newly-adopted State budget will depend on continued economic expansion throughout the year.”
Sales taxes were above projections by $21.8 million (0.8 percent) in June, personal income taxes were up $410.5 million (6.8 percent), and corporate taxes were up $156 million (7.2 percent). 
While the Governor signed a new budget on June 30, 2011, revised cash flows for June 2011 and Fiscal Year 2011-12 are not expected until later this month.  But the State Budget did expect $1.2 billion in additional May and June revenues (above those projected in the May Revise estimates) to be carried-over into the new fiscal year.  By June 30, $849 million in additional revenue had materialized.
The State faced an $8.2 billion cash deficit on June 30. That deficit was covered by internal borrowing, or short term loans from special funds.
For more details, read June 2011's financial statement and the summary analysis.

State Controller Finds Budget Did Not Balance On Paper

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today announced that his analysis of the State budget vetoed last week shows the spending plan was incomplete and unbalanced. His analysis sought to determine whether the budget met the requirements of Proposition 25 and Proposition 58, which forfeit Legislative pay if a balanced budget is not passed by June 15.

“My office’s careful review of the recently-passed budget found components that were miscalculated, miscounted or unfinished,” said Chiang. “The numbers simply did not add up, and the Legislature will forfeit their pay until a balanced budget is sent to the Governor.”

Proposition 25, titled the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010,” was approved by voters November 2, 2010. The initiative lowered the vote requirement for passing a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority without lowering the two-thirds vote required for tax increases. It also forfeits Legislators’ pay and living expenses incurred from June 16 until “the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor.”

Nothing in the Constitution or state law gives the State Controller the authority to judge the honesty, legitimacy or viability of a budget. The Controller can only determine whether the expected revenues will equal or exceed planned expenditures in the budget, as required by Article 4, Section 12(g) of the Constitution: “. . .the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that. . .exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill's passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues shall be set forth in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.”

“While the vetoed budget contains solutions of questionable achievability and some to which I am personally opposed, current law provides no authority for my office to second-guess them in my enforcement of Proposition 25,”said Chiang. “My job is not to substitute my policy judgment for that of the Legislature and the Governor, rather it is to be the honest-broker of the numbers.”

Using this standard, the Controller’s analysis found that the recently-vetoed budget committed the State to $89.75 billion in spending, but only provided $87.9 billion in revenues, leaving an imbalance of $1.85 billion.

The largest problem involved the guaranteed level of education funding under Proposition 98. The June 15 budget underfunded education by more than $1.3 billion. Underfunding is not possible without suspending Proposition 98, which would require a supermajority (2/3) vote of the Legislature.

The budget also counted on $320 million in hospital fees, $103 million in taxes on managed-care plans, and $300 million in vehicle registration charges. However, the Legislature never passed the bills necessary to collect or spend those funds as part of the State budget.

A summary of the Controller’s analysis of the authorized expenditures versus the estimated revenues can be found on the Controller’s website at www.sco.ca.gov.

How would you spend $193-million?

The City of Fullerton's Proposed Budget is out and tonight your elected Council will vote to approve it.

$172.6-million represents the "total appropriations" planned for FY2011-12 for the City of Fullerton and the balance, $20.4-million, is what the Redevelopment Agency plans to spend for the same period.

The biennial budget also includes a rough budget for FY20120-13 with $183.2-million in projected additional spending.

If the City had the money to spend, I could see a favorable vote by Council members, however, the 2-year budget falls $8-million short of being balanced. 

Unfortunately, this budget is based on the premise that city employees will negotiate and accept a cut in benefits in order to help balance the revenue short-fall or over-extended expenditures depending on your point of view. 

5 Council members elected by you to control $193,000,000 and in the end, we get about $4,043,000 to repave our streets and $1,600,000 to fix our water system... 

With only 3% of our budget being invested in our streets and water system its no wonder our water rates will be going up.

City of Fullerton's Proposed Budget Unveiled - $274.9-Million to be spent

The City of Fullerton unveiled the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

The budget appears to be largely a rearrangement of the deck chairs with no real cuts proposed.  There are proposed cuts in certain projected spending to help make up for significant increases in employee benefits.

There were no explanations about the benefits increasing which Councilmember Whitaker took issue with. 

Councilmember Quirk-Silva reminded staff that last year there were several ideas proposed for generating revenue and increasing fees such as the tow franchise which will be heard by the Council later this year.  Quirk-Silva expressed appreciation that the tow franchise was moving forward but would like to know about the other measure proposed last year.

One of my major concerns continues to be the infrastructure.  As Public Works Director Hoppe pointed out, we still have a nearly $150 million dollar paving deficit to deal with.  The current paving plan does not adequately address this nor does this proposed budget.  I hope the council members and City Manager Joe Felz will give serious consideration and address our infrastructure with this budget.

Below are the summaries for the proposed budget. (click on image to read)  The big question remaining in my mind is how does $274.9 million in taxpayer expenditures next year benefit my family, my neighborhood, and the quality of life in my community?

Fullerton City Council Special Meeting Tonight - The Budget

Does Government Work Require Government Employees?

I have to thank Fullerton's own Travis Kiger and Jack Dean for forwarding a link that answers this question (as if you didn't already know).  During last year's election I proposed a plan to improve police and fire services while cutting costs to taxpayers.  I suggested the City of Fullerton hire more reserve police officers and begin hiring reserve firefighters.  I caught flack from everyone and for various reasons. 

Some said the unions wouldn't allow it, as if the unions ran the City, and therefore shouldn't bother with it.  Others said it would result in poor service and create dangerous conditions.

That idea is has been implemented in Redlands California where it has proved to be a massive savings for tax payers while improving the actual services.

The story at Governing.com features Redlands PD describes what has happened after drastic cuts were made.  The following is a brief excerpt. 

At a time when most city and local governments are preparing to do less with less, officials in Redlands are taking a different approach: They’re attempting to maintain current levels of service through other means. Ramping up the use of volunteers is one of them.

It’s easy to see why. Three years ago, the police department in Redlands, a city of 71,000 people east of Los Angeles, had 98 sworn officers, 208 civilians and about two dozen volunteers. The police budget was $23.8 million, nearly half of the city’s operating budget. Today, the department employs 75 sworn officers and 138 civilians and relies on 291 active volunteers, who last year contributed more than 31,000 hours of their time to the city.

Later the article says, Pleas read the article and discover how Fullerton might incorporate some of the solutions Redlands has implemented.  As the article suggests, "Do-it-yourself government is here for good."

“We have fewer resources,” says City Manager N. Enrique Martinez. “We had to cut staff. My challenge is to maintain the same service level if not better. The public is not interested in whether you have 15 fewer people than before or not.”

Nor should they be. At least that’s the argument Police Chief Jim Bueermann makes. “The fallback position for most local government bureaucrats like me,” he says, “is that it’s so much easier to say, ‘We have $3 million less so you are going to get fewer services.’ But there are multiple ways to get to the outcomes that taxpayers expect their police department is going to deliver.” Prominent among them are a greater reliance on technology and a greater use of volunteers.

Controller Releases February 2011 Cash Update

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California’s cash balance, receipts and disbursements in February. Total receipts for the month were $139.4 million lower (-2.4 percent) than estimates found in the Governor’s proposed 2011-12 State Budget.
“After the first 8 months into the fiscal year, we are $1.3 billion ahead of projections,” said Chiang. “But with 40 percent of all revenues expected in the final quarter, our cash outlook can shift quickly.”
Sales taxes were down $247.2 million (-7.1 percent) in February, and corporate taxes were down $134 million (-49.6 percent). Personal income taxes came in $250 million above (14.4 percent) estimates.
The State faced a $19.2 billion cash deficit on February 28. That deficit was covered by $9.2 billion of internal borrowing – short term loans from special funds – and $10 billion of external borrowing.
February 2011’s financial statement and the summary analysis, can be found on the Controller's website at www.sco.ca.gov.

###

Norby Notes 4

	If you have problems viewing this email click here
	Norby Notes 4 March, 2011 | Issue 04 http://www.arc.asm.ca.gov/member/72/ Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov Five Questions State budget crisis discussions are dominated by the following five questions, whose answers will determine our long-term fiscal future: 1)  Will Governor Brown peel off the four Republican legislators to create a 2/3rds majority for his plan?  To fill the $25 billion budget hole, the Governor proposes about $11 billion in tax extensions and $12.5 billion in spending cuts. Some GOP support may be needed to place his plan on the ballot in a June special election. Specifically, it would take two Republican votes in each house to form a 2/3rds majority (although this may not actually be required-see Question 4). 2)  Will Republican legislators simply oppose Brown, or will we unite behind a plan of our own? There is broad agreement that our plan must include both serious pension and regulatory reform. Unsustainable public pensions are a serious concern, and business owners complain more about the uncertain regulatory environment more than they do about taxes. There is widespread discussion about whether to offer a counter-proposal, or try to merge our reforms with Brown's package without compromising on taxes. 3)  Would Democrats accept any Republican counter-proposals? Would Democrats agree to placing a competing plan on the ballot if it were the only way to secure a place for the Governor's plan? 4)  Without any bi-partisan support, would the Governor seek a simple majority vote to place his plan on the ballot? While Brown wants Republican support, he may not legally need it. While a 2/3rds legislative vote is needed to raise taxes, it might not be needed to place tax extensions on the ballot. 5)  If the Brown Plan makes the ballot, would the voters pass it? The 5-year tax extensions (totaling $55 billion) may be a tough sell in a special election when turnouts are low and voters are disproportionately older and more conservative. If they don't pass, we revert to an all-cuts budget. An all-cuts budget would be balanced with $25 billion in spending reductions-perhaps draconian by today's standard, but would place us at 1998 levels, even adjusted for inflation. I will not be one of the two of my party to cut a side deal with the Governor and provide cover for his tax plan. However, I will not criticize my colleagues looking for real solutions, as I believe my party must. Saying "no" is not enough. I will support counter-proposals that avoid new taxes while imposing necessary economic and government reforms-especially in pensions, regulations, education, prisons, healthcare and welfare. Unlike Congress, the state legislature cannot print money nor borrow endlessly against future generations. We will have a balanced budget. March 9th is the deadline for the legislature to vote to place proposals on the June ballot. Monday Majesty My weekly Monday flight from Orange County to Sacramento was particularly spectacular as the wintery majesty of our Golden State below gives no hint of the paralysis of its government. We rise above Newport Beach with its sandy strand that marks the end of a continent. We curl back over the rocky coast of Catalina, and the docks of San Pedro harbor, whose crowded wharfs welcome the wealth of the world. Below now is LA, its 4 million people criss-crossed with traffic-clogged concrete ribbons. I spot the USC campus (my son Alex is down there) and the Hollywood sign. Far to the east are the three snowy sentinels of Mounts Baldy, San Gorgonio and San Jacinto, all topping 10,000 feet. Resplendent from the recent snow, the rugged San Gabriels and Tehachapis rise abruptly from the suburban valley floors. Off to the east is the Antelope Valley, where a rainbowed rug of wildflowers will soon be responding to our recent rainfall. I see the reservoirs and aqueducts, engineering marvels equalizing the North-South hydrologic imbalance. Now appear the glistening Sierras, whose vast snowmelts will soon fill our lakes, rivers, irrigation channels, bathtubs and garden hoses. Below now is California's agricultural heartland with its grapes, almonds, cotton, melons, citrus and the general cornucopia of the Central Valley. We pass over Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Stockton and finally Sacramento.  The Sierra skyline is topped by Mt. Whitney, and deeply gouged by the Yosemite Valley. Below is the muddy, meandering Sacramento River, snaking through the orchard and rice fields toward the delta. I land for another compressed week in the Capitol. This land is your land. This land is my land. From California to the New York Island.  Budget crises may come and go, but this land will endure. New District Office Grand Opening Thursday, March 10th 4:00-6:00 p.m. 1400 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 601, Fullerton  Chris' Question Who is the highest paid employee of the State of California? (Answer in the next newsletter) This Issue Five Questions Monday Majesty New District Office Grand Opening Chris' Question DISTRICT OFFICE 1400 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 601 Fullerton, CA 92835 714-526-7272, 714-526-7278 fax CAPITOL OFFICE P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 916-319-2072, 916-319-2172 fax © 2011 Assembly Republican Caucus | Disclaimer

Unsubscribe     |    Update Email

A message from Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation

Is your state going to be serious about its budget, or kick the can down the road?  I live in California, which has elevated to Superbowl level its skills at dodgy budget tricks to put off reckoning with deficits.  But many other states have papered over, postponed or obscured their budget problems rather than addressing them directly.

It is high time for some real, practical, and effective budget solutions.  The new State Budget Reform Toolkit -a joint project of the American Legislative Exchange Council, Reason Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Washington Policy Center, Evergreen Freedom Foundation and State Budget Solutions-provides just that.  It offers a practical set of budget management and procurement best practices to guide state policymakers as they work to solve the current budget shortfalls, assisting legislators in prioritizing and more efficiently delivering core government services.

You can get the Toolkit here . Some of the things it covers include :

• Priority-Based Budgeting/Budgeting for Outcomes
• State Pension Reform
• Privatization and Competitive Contracting
• State Tax and Spending Limitations
• Balanced Budget Requirements
• Non-Partisan Revenue Forecasts and Independent Budget Certification
• Performance Assessment and Management
• Performance Audits
• Independent Recovery Audits
• Budget Transparency
• Budget Timeouts
• The Item-Reduction Veto
• Sunset Review Processes for State Agencies, Boards, and Commissions
• State Privatization and Efficiency Councils
• Statewide Real Property Inventories
• State Hiring Freezes
• Restructuring State Retiree Health Care Plans
• Activity-Based Costing
• Employee Incentive/Gainsharing Programs, and more.

Please share this with others in your state who may be able to use it or encourage the solutions it offers.  And if you have any questions about it or about how to implement the solutions, don't hesitate to ask me.

Adrian


Adrian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Adrian Moore
Vice President
Reason Foundation
(661)477-3107

Steve Poizner Stops By

January 19, 2011

Friends,
Let there be no doubt that California is still at the brink. With a budget deficit over the $25 billion mark and a combined unemployment and under-employment rate over 20%, it is vitally important that you stay informed, ask questions of your elected officials, and follow closely as they work to overcome the challenges that face our state.

There has been much discussion in recent weeks about a special election with select ballot initiatives developed by the Governor and Legislature that purport to solve California's budget problems once and for all. Much of the talk revolves around spending cuts and a push to raise taxes to close the near-term deficit gap.

My concerns as I track these developments are two-fold.

First of all, there is little discussion on what is needed to get our sputtering economy back on track. Without a healthy, robust, growing economy that produces stable job growth, our state's finances will remain structurally unbalanced and we will continue to face massive deficits each year. Revitalizing California's economy to effectively compete in the global economy should be a top priority. As I have often noted, and Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee recently wrote: "It's entirely possible that California, with its high taxes, dense regulatory underbrush, poorly performing schools, congested and crumbling highways and water supply issues, may have become noncompetitive in a global economy".

Secondly, there is no discussion of overhauling and reforming state government institutions and programs in ways not unlike what I accomplished at the Department of Insurance. Whether prison reform, K-12 reform, pension reform, or MediCal reform, the question that needs to be asked is: how and what is our state government spending each dollar on, and what are the ways by which we can maximize the value of each and every dollar spent? Institutional and program reform can save billions, all while increasing productivity and efficiencies within a smaller, more accountable government.

Our state faces many challenges this year, but with these challenges comes opportunity to get at the heart of California's problems and rebuild our state.

The Fullerton Redevelopment Agency Does Something Right!

According to the FY2010-2011 Budget Summary, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency operates a $90,000,000 budget with 7 employees.  Compare that to the rest of the City which has a budget for the same period of $210,000,000 and 806 employees.  Take out the Police and Fire services (234 and 95, respectively) and you are left with 477 employees.  Using the Redevelopment Agency's model, we should be able to get by on a lot fewer full-time workers and still maintain basic services. 

How does the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency do it?  Outsourcing.