Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "state budget"

Education Coalition warns of Impact of further budget cuts

2011-10-19T19:48:20Z

Like schools around the state, Sacramento public schools continue to suffer from the impact of budget cuts and must get more funding to provide our students with the quality education they deserve, local Education Coalition stakeholders stressed in a news conference here today.

Speakers explained how California’s K-12 schools have been decimated by more than $18 billion in cuts in the last three years alone, and how this affects a generation of students. They discussed the new California Budget Project report ranking the state 46th in both per-pupil spending and the number of students per administrator (301), and worst in the U.S., in the number of students per teacher (20.5) and per school librarian (5,489).

The news conference was held at Washington Elementary School in Sacramento, which is struggling to maintain support services including school nurses and teachers’ aides in the face of budget cuts. Despite strong community partnerships in place, the entire staff at the school has agreed to minimize school supplies to fund basic educational programs.

“This school remains a great place for kids to learn and prepare for the future because the teachers, staff, parents and community partners work hard to provide students with the best educational experience we can. But maintaining our commitment to our students has become more and more difficult because every year we are faced with more and more budget cuts due to the state's underfunding of education,” said Principal Marilyn Garcia Collins.

Although Washington Elementary School is bolstered by a strong PTA and several community partnerships, students there are feeling the impact of budget cuts, like so many students across the state. Funding is only available for the school nurse to visit one day a week, while Collins takes on some of the work that would have been done by teachers’ aides or resource teachers. She worries that class sizes will further increase next year and that other vital staff will be cut, further impacting students.

“Our students cannot be the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the future of this state,” said Scott Smith, president of the Sacramento City Teachers Association. “Educators in Sacramento and throughout California are struggling to do more with less. Lawmakers must commit to reversing this downward spiral and find the ongoing, stable revenues needed to invest in our schools and provide our students a quality public education,” Smith said.

“As PTA members, we see firsthand the effects of budget cuts. And we are stepping up as never before to help in our children’s schools,” Lily Williams, president of the Sacramento Council of PTAS said. “We are also stepping up to make sure our elected leaders understand that we must make an investment in all our children. If we don’t, we will shortchange an entire generation and jeopardize California’s chances for a prosperous future.”

Priscilla Cox, CSBA Region 6 Director and Elk Grove Unified School District board member said, "The cuts we've been forced to make in recent years to school programs and services have been painful and devastating. It's very difficult to continue providing the high-quality education our students need today and on which our future depends. The state must stop shortchanging the future and provide sufficient revenues to support our students and ensure their success in school and in life."

"By perpetually underfunding public education, the state is putting California's future at risk,” said Jonathan P. Raymond, superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District. “The 6.3 million children who rely on public schools to ready them for careers and college deserve much better than this. Without strong, well-supported schools, California will not continue to shine as the Golden State."

Disclosure: Dina Martin is a communications consultant with the California Teachers Association, a member of the Education Coalition.

Education Coalition Addresses Impact of School Cuts in Sacramento on Wednesday

2011-10-18T21:53:55Z

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 18, 2011

Contact: Dina Martin, CTA
650-552-5491
415-710-6794 (cell)
dmartin@cta.org

Sacramento Teachers, Parents, School Leaders
to Highlight Continuing Impact of Budget Cuts on Education Wednesday, 10 a.m. at Washington School

SACRAMENTO – Along with the enthusiasm and promise of a new school year, California continues to faces serious challenges to delivering a quality public education after year upon year of budget cuts to our schools – and it is true for schools in Sacramento as well.

On Wednesday, Oct. 19, teachers, school and district officials and parents from the Sacramento area will call attention to the impact of these cuts and the need to prevent the further erosion of funding to education.

Educators will explain how schools have been decimated by more than $18 billion in cuts in the last three years alone, and how this affects a generation of students.

WHAT: California Education Coalition news conference calling attention to the ongoing impact of budget cuts on our schools. Tour of a classroom will follow.

WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 19 at 10 a.m.

WHERE: Washington School, 520 18th St., Sacramento, CA 95811.

SPEAKERS: Marilyn Garcia Collins, principal, Washington Elementary School;
Jonathan P. Raymond, superintendent, Sacramento City Unified School District;
Scott Smith, president of the Sacramento City Teachers Association;
Lily Williams, 2011-12 president, Sacramento Council of PTAs;
Priscilla Cox, CSBA Region 6 Director and Elk Grove USD board member.

Disclosure: The Education Coalition represents more than 2.5 million parents, teachers, school board members, school employees and administrators. Dina Martin is employed by the California Teachers Association.

Redevelopment 101: A bucket half full

2011-07-16T00:54:37Z

There is a lot of talk about changes to redevelopment agencies in the state and the impact those changes will have on development projects in Sacramento.

To get a better idea of how redevelopment agencies work from a fiscal point of view, Sacramento Press has put together a “redevelopment primer” to make it easier to understand where the money comes from, where it goes and how the city benefits from redevelopment funding – and how it doesn’t.

“It all starts with property taxes, guaranteed school funding from Proposition 98, and state redevelopment law,” said Peter Detwiler, a consultant with the state Senate Governance & Finance Committee.

FIRST, WHAT IS A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY?
Cities and counties set up redevelopment agencies to eliminate blight by paying for public and private improvements and economic development.

According to a report from the state Legislative Analysts Office, the use of redevelopment has improved many areas through the revitalization of downtown and historic districts and improvements in public infrastructure.

This creates economic growth, provides affordable housing and adds value to properties and neighborhoods, increasing property taxes and bringing revenue to cities, counties, special districts and schools.

HOW IS IT FUNDED?
Property taxes don’t just fund schools – they also provide revenue for cities, counties and special districts, such as water districts, utility districts or waste disposal.

When property values rise in a redevelopment area, so do the property taxes collected. The distribution of that money is calculated using formulas established by state law, and it is not divided equally.

As soon as a redevelopment agency is formed, the distribution changes. Instead of the increased property tax amount flowing out in its usual proportions to cities, counties, schools, and special districts, their shares are fixed, and redevelopment takes the rest – the growth – off the top.

That “growth” is the incremental tax increase, and it is the prime source of funding for redevelopment agencies.

HOW DOES IT SPEND MONEY?
When a redevelopment agency forms a development project, it leverages the projected amount of tax increment it will receive with bonds to finance the project.

Eric Rasmusson, a Sacramento lobbyist who specializes in housing issues, said to “think of a redevelopment bond as kind of a mortgage.”

A mortgage is secured by a house. On a home loan, the bank gives money up front on the risk that the value of the house will go up – and that the homeowner will make the required payments.

“A redevelopment bond is secured by the expected tax increment (revenue from property value increases) that a project will earn over the next 40 years,” Rasmusson said, “and the bond money finances the project.”

The bondholder loans on the risk that a development project will, in fact, raise property values and revenue – and that the agency will make the required payments.

When a redevelopment area experiences growth and the redevelopment agency collects revenue from that growth, the agency then uses those funds to pay the debt on bonds and to finance more projects.

WHAT IS THE CONNECTION TO SCHOOL FUNDING?
Schools are funded by property taxes. When Californians passed Proposition 98 in 1988, they established a constitutional obligation for the state to fund schools to a certain level.

Proposition 98 spending for schools is determined by a formula outlined in the state constitution, and it equals approximately 45 percent of the state general fund revenues each year.

Let’s think of school funding as a big steel bucket.

Imagine two faucets over the bucket. One faucet is “property tax,” the other is “state general fund,” and water (money) flows from those faucets into the bucket.

Since schools are primarily funded by property taxes, the property tax spigot is turned on first.

“School districts get, on average, about 52 cents of every property tax dollar, based on state formulas,” Detwiler said.

Property taxes are based on home and land value, and California has been suffering from a severely impaired housing market, so the property tax spigot doesn’t always fill the bucket to the top, he said.

When that happens, the state general fund spigot takes over to fill the bucket to the constitutionally guaranteed level. The less property taxes there are to fill the bucket, the more the state general fund has to make up.

Last year, the state general fund spigot poured out $3.2 billion for school funding in California.

At the same time, the state budget included cuts to everything from health and human services to transportation and parks.

WHAT FUNDING PROBLEMS DO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES CREATE?
If redevelopment agencies are collecting the incremental growth from increased property values in a redevelopment area, that money is not going to cities, counties, special districts – or schools.

Think of it as a hole in the bottom of our school funding bucket: Schools get some of the property taxes for a redevelopment area, but not as much as they would receive if their allocation level wasn’t frozen by the redevelopment agency.

Redevelopment agencies may help create growth, but they do not share the revenue from that growth.

IS THAT ALL?
Not quite.

A recent study showed that increases in property tax revenues are not solely due to redevelopment agencies.

“When redevelopment agencies do good things, property values rise,” Detwiler said. “But some of that was going to rise anyway.”

The study, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, concluded that about half of the growth from property value increases was going to happen anyway, and half is attributable to redevelopment agencies.

“It’s fair to say, then,” Detwiler said, “that the unearned half of revenue being captured by redevelopment agencies (from property value growth) should really belong to schools.”

Since the state is obligated to make sure the school funding bucket is full, it is in effect subsidizing redevelopment agencies for the unearned portion of revenue.

The question the governor asked Californians with the new budget was, “Can the state general fund afford this size of subsidy to redevelopment?”

The governor’s answer was “no.”

HOW DO WE PATCH THE HOLE?
The new state budget included legislation that eliminates redevelopment agencies in an effort to save the state nearly $1.7 billion dollars in “backfill” school funding obligations.

Under the new laws, redevelopment agencies can elect to remain in business by paying “continuation payments” that fund K-12 schools – reducing the amount of “water” flowing from the state general fund spigot.

Those continuation payments, however, must come from the city or county that has authority over the redevelopment agency. That means, if a city cannot afford the payments, it cannot afford its redevelopment agency.

Between a property tax spigot that runs low in a bad economy, and a state general fund spigot that is running dry, redevelopment agencies may be too big of a hole in the bucket.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her @MelissaCorker.

State budget brings good news and bad news for Sacramento

2011-07-14T01:39:44Z

The new California state budget reduced spending by $15 billion and potentially includes an additional $2.5 billion in cuts – but it’s not all bad news for Sacramento.

Some of the impacts of the state budget on Sacramento were outlined at the City Council meeting Tuesday, most notably problems stemming from changes to redevelopment, realignment and motor vehicle license fees.

“The best thing I can say is that it was an on-time budget,” said David Jones, lobbyist for the city of Sacramento.

The budget was balanced using $4 billion in projected revenue increases, Jones said, and about 40 percent of that is “just hopeful thinking and subject to litigation or challenges.”

That’s good news for the city, Jones said, because some increases in the budget would result in significant revenue loss for the city if they remain in place.

One aspect of the state budget that will have a deep impact on the city is the restructuring of redevelopment agencies.

According to Jones and Leyne Milstein, city finance director, redevelopment funds from tax increment funding through the state bring approximately $3.5 million to the city and county each year.

Under the state’s new Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) will have to come up with an initial $22 million “continuation payment” to continue its operations, or it will be dissolved.

If that happens, said La Shelle Dozier, executive director of SHRA, numerous Sacramento redevelopment projects in the works will be stalled unless alternate financing is identified, and some projects would never come to fruition.

Jones said the California Redevelopment Association is filing a lawsuit to stop the new redevelopment agency legislation but, until that litigation is resolved, redevelopment agency activities in Sacramento are on “uncertain ground.”

Another item in the state budget that will impact the city comes from the realignment of public safety programs from the state to local governments.

Senate Bill 89 (SB89) diverts 100 percent of motor vehicle license fee revenues from cities to counties, using it to fund public safety activities that have been realigned from the state to the counties.

Until last year, Sacramento received approximately $1.7 million from vehicle license fee revenues annually.

“Realignment is one of the major features of the governor’s budget,” Jones said. “There will definitely be an impact (to local government) down the line.”

The governor’s realignment strategy involves shifting low-level offenders from state institutions to county institutions and local government programs.

“We’re going to see offenders crowded out of from our county jail and possibly onto the streets,” Jones said.

Other realigned programs, according to the governor’s budget summary, include local public safety programs, mental health, substance abuse, foster care, child welfare services and adult protective services.

“The measure passed in the very last hours of budget talks,” Milstein said. “If this legislation stays on the books, it will be a real hit to the city.”

The state budget isn’t all bad news, though, said Jones.

The Community Oriented Policing Services public safety grant has been approved, Jones said, and that means $763,000 in funding to the city.

Assembly Bill 678 (AB678), which provides reimbursement to local fire departments for emergency medical transport, is progressing through the Legislature and may be out of committee and onto the governor’s desk by the end of August, Jones said.

Additionally, transit agency funding has reached a higher funding level this year – the second-highest in its history.

“We’ve seen better-than-anticipated sales tax from the first quarter,” Milstein said, “So we’re keeping an eye on it, and it looks like a positive trend. Then we can adjust for it later in the year.”

Read the governor’s budget summary here.
Read the text of SB89 here.
Read the text of AB678 here.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Sacramento redevelopment future in jeopardy

2011-07-09T01:21:03Z

The future of development and affordable housing projects in Sacramento is starting to look pretty grim. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state budget into law June 29, putting two new bills into effect that significantly impact redevelopment agencies: ABx26 and ABx27.

“There is no good news in any of this,” said La Shelle Dozier, executive director for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). “It’s very detrimental, given the fact that we have an economy that’s struggling.”

The two bills go hand-in-hand. ABx26 says redevelopment agencies can opt to discontinue redevelopment activities and be dissolved.

ABx27 says that if redevelopment agencies pay a first-year lump sum payment and then commit to annual “continuation payments,” they will be allowed to continue their redevelopment activities – with additional limitations and without any tax increment funding from the state.

Tax increment funding through a redevelopment agency is one way cities and counties are able to finance redevelopment and affordable housing activities.

Over the last six years, tax-increment funding has resulted in the production of 7,329 housing units in the Sacramento area, including 3,189 units for very-low income and homeless families, Dozier said.

According to the provisions of the new legislation, redevelopment agencies have until Oct. 1 to either dissolve or make the first-year continuation payment to continue redevelopment activities.

“We are conducting an analysis of current projects to see how we would generate (our) estimated $22 million payment as well as an evaluation of projects if the agency must be dissolved,” Dozier said.

Each redevelopment agency is subject to a specific first-year and continuation payment schedule, calculated using a formula outlined in ABx26.

For SHRA, which is an authority of both the city and the county of Sacramento, the “year one” payment amount would be $22 million, Dozier said, and continuation payments are estimated to be approximately $5 million every year after that.

~~Once the SHRA governing boards have an opportunity to review the completed analysis, Dozier said, they will give the agency their recommendations on the options available.~~

Once the agency has an opportunity to review the completed analysis, Dozier said, she will give the SHRA governing boards recommendations on the options available.

“Right now, we’re in a state of limbo,” Dozier said.

At this point, several major redevelopment projects in Sacramento are currently stalled, Dozier said.

These include the 800 K Street project, a mixed-use development to help revitalize the center of downtown; the 65-acre Township 9 project, which is a $1.7 billion mixed-use urban fill development, and Veterans Village, a proposed new construction development in the Mather Redevelopment Area that would provide affordable housing for veterans.

Some projects that have already been approved, however, would not be affected by the new legislation, including the Seventh and H streets project, the La Valentina project on 12th Street, and the Hotel Berry renovation project, Dozier said.

These three projects are slated to provide, in total, nearly 250 affordable housing units and create more than 400 jobs, according to Dozier.

"(Redevelopment agencies) do great work – phenomenal work,” said Eric Rasmusson, a Sacramento lobbyist who works on local housing issues. “But we can't afford them the same way anymore. That's the message of this state budget."

By eliminating redevelopment agencies, Brown anticipates a $1.7 billion savings in cost offset to the state general fund.

“Right now, we’re prohibited from engaging in any new redevelopment activity,” Dozier said, “so we’re focusing on existing projects to keep them moving forward.

“We’re hoping for relief from the courts so that we can continue working on projects that were heading toward various stages of approval,” she added.

Kathy Fairbanks, a representative of the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), said the association plans to file a lawsuit in the next couple of weeks challenging the new legislation.

“It’s unconstitutional,” Fairbanks said. "Proposition 22 passed last November by an overwhelming majority, and it specifically prohibits the state from doing anything with local funds, including redevelopment funds.”

Fairbanks said that, if ABx26 and ABx27 are allowed to stand, it will mean redevelopment agencies that are not eliminated will be forced to abandon projects – and any resulting jobs and economic opportunity – in order to make the required continuation payments to the state.

In the lawsuit, the CRA will seek an immediate stay of the two bills. If the court grants a stay, some or all of the provisions of the bills would be suspended until the court makes a final decision. Until a stay is issued, however, the legislation will remain in force.

There are 397 active redevelopment agencies throughout California, according to the CRA website.

The elimination of redevelopment in Sacramento would have significant unintended consequences, according to the SHRA website, including “no way to monitor affordable housing developments, no funding to put more money into affordable housing projects in the future, as well as direct and indirect job losses.”

“With the economy in its current condition,” Dozier said, “this is not a time to be putting redevelopment agencies out of business.”

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Editorial Note: Corrections have been made to this article after it was published. The incorrect information has been struck out and the correct information has been added.

Region's $9.6 billion education cluster threatened by 'all cuts' state budget

2011-04-15T00:14:34Z

A state budget that makes $25 billion in cuts will drastically impact the Sacramento region—especially the $9.6 billion education industry in six counties.

“The education industry is critical to our region’s economic prosperity,” said Matthew Mahood, Sacramento Metro Chamber president & CEO. “Not only for the work the sector does to educate our residents—but also for the huge injection of dollars into the region. Education institutions employ thousands of people who make consumer purchases throughout the region.”

A newly released Education Industry Cluster Economic Impact Report, commissioned by the Metro Chamber, analyzes everything from elementary schools and universities to private technical colleges. The report pegs the impact on the economy at $9.6 billion—generated by $5.1 billion in direct impacts, $3.1 billion in employee spending and $1.4 billion in industry purchases. The study analyzed data from 2008.

In fact, payroll for the education cluster employees totaled $4.2 billion in 2008. The largest sector, of course, is public education whose institutions employ 79,000 people in the region. Private sector schools account for 19,000 jobs.

Most visible are the region’s nationally and world-ranked institutions of higher education: UC Davis, Sacramento State and the Los Rios community colleges. These schools and others contributed $3.2 billion—or one-third of public education’s impact—on the region’s economy.

“Higher education is a huge economic engine for this region in so many ways,” said Los Rios Chancellor Brice Harris. “From the thousands of students we move into the workforce, to the millions of dollars we pour into goods and services, and the millions of dollars more spent in the region by our employees.”

Between 2004 and 2008, the education sector stood out as one of the region’s leading industries in terms of growth, racking up double-digit advances in terms of dollar value contributed to the economy. The annual dollar impact grew by 19.2 percent.

Gains made since 2004, however, are threatened if the state Legislature ultimately opts for the “all-cuts” budget. Statewide, the California State University and University of California systems will see about $1.1 billion cut, according to the S.F. Examiner. The community college system will lose $585 million and K-12 education will lose $5 billion.

“With a $73 million budget shortfall that could occur, UC Davis is projecting staff cuts of at least 450 to 500 employees,” Mahood said. “If this were a private company announcing they were shutting down or laying off 500 employees—there would be an uproar. These are employees who pay mortgages, buy cars, groceries, shoes, clothes and spend money across all sectors.”

“The report demonstrates the positive economic impact that education has all around in our region,” Mahood said. “Our region is known for its innovation driven by our institutions of higher education. It’s what keeps us competitive with other regions across the nation—and world. Strong schools mean a skilled workforce—and that’s something that business must have to create jobs. Our schools have an impact that ripples through the generations. These proposed massive cuts in the state’s education spending will be likewise: all around, everywhere and down through the generations. It’s very concerning.”

To download a copy of the complete report, visit http://bit.ly/SMCCEducationReport.

Hal Silliman is communications director for the Sacramento Metro Chamber.

Budget forum cites "unprecedented" deficit problems

2010-12-09T04:04:56Z

Governor Elect Jerry Brown hosted a state budget forum at Memorial Auditorium Wednesday morning. Over 1200 state and local government officials were invited to the invitation-only event. About 200 attended.

Joining Brown on the stage for the panel-style presentation were newly re-appointed Finance Director Ana Matosantos, Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, State Controller John Chiang, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Assembly Speaker John A. Perez and Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway. Senate GOP leader Bob Dutton did not take his place on the stage but was spotted in the audience.

Jerry Brown opened the meeting by saying the budget problem "goes back probably more than a decade" and that the goal of the meeting was, "to set that common factual basis on which and from which we can then discuss the full range of solutions." Throughout the forum Brown referred to the budget problems as "unique" and "worse than ever."

Two dozen slides and charts were projected on a large screen during the one-hour presentation. Matosantos carried the bulk of the presentation by explaining the state's general fund revenues and expenditures and gave examples of how state money is spent.

Some of the significant points presented were:
- the projected budget deficit for fiscal year 2011-12 will reach $28 billion (Brown)
- the budget problem is expected to stretch until 2016 (Brown)
- over 71% of general fund dollars are passed through to local government and services in support of education, health care and human services. (Matosantos)

- the state entered the recession in 2008 in poor fiscal condition (Matosantos)
- no matter how the budget is balanced (raising taxes or cutting services), it won't be good for the state's economy (Taylor)
- this recession is more devastating to the state's budget than previous recessions (Brown)
- many stop-gap measures in the past are no longer available and some made the future deficit worse (Matosantos)
- California's low credit rating results in a significant penalty when borrowing (Lockyer)
- the cost of borrowing amounts to almost $3 billion (Brown)
- California needs to get off its over-reliance on borrowing money (Chiang)
- the state's current borrowing level is unprecedented (Brown)

Stressing the difference between budget and cash, Controller Chiang does not see a cash-flow problem through June 2011, but he projects serious cash-flow shortages beginning in July and August, barring long-term solutions. Chiang's office will monitor changes to expenditures and revenue in the coming months.

After the presentations concluded, the panel solicited questions and comments from the audience. A local official expressed concerns about more services being shifted from state to local levels and asked to be included in discussions. A state legislator asked about additional revenues and another asked if services for undocumented immigrants would be
scrutinized. Brown reassured audience members that during budget discussions, everything should be on the table and everyone should be at the table."

Walt Scherer, a Loomis council member, defined the partisan policy making environment as the greatest obstacle to overcome and asked what would be done to address it. Brown responded that people will have to overcome their ideological predilections and he would focus on the "zone of common agreement" that lies beneath the differences.

The forum was webcast and can be viewed in its entirety at the California Channel. Brown is considering additional forums in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

Photos by Ron Nabity, www.nabityphotos.com

Veteran teacher hosts Wake for Public Education

2010-07-01T02:52:54Z

Close to 60 people converged on a home in the River Park neighborhood of East Sacramento Tuesday evening to mourn the reductions in the public education budget in the Sacramento area and to discuss what can be done to prevent further cuts.

Educators, students, parents, political figures and concerned members of the public were all in attendance to listen to speakers, hear poetry and voice their concerns and opinions on the state of education in the community.

The wake was hosted by Jim Harper, a teacher of American government and history at Laguna Creek High School and an occasional instructor at California State University, Sacramento. Harper has been teaching for 23 years and was involved with education at the state level prior to that. He said he has seen the cuts in education firsthand and wanted to do something about it.

"I'm not just going to go home for the summer and be on vacation," Harper said of his idea to have the wake.

In an interview after the wake, Harper said he thinks there needs to be three elements to promise a better future to public education in Sacramento and across the state: first, a zeal for reform in government and the community; second, using test scores and data appropriately; and third, connecting the school community with the surrounding community.

Those attending were encouraged to wear either pink or black to commemorate the California teachers that have been pink slipped this year and to symbolize the proverbial death of public education. A coffin filled with education paraphernalia resided in the front lawn as another symbol of education's grim future.

Towards the end of the wake, those in attendance brainstormed ideas to alleviate the issue and raise awareness. They consolidated these ideas into a compact of five points, which they are sending to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, members of the State Legislature and candidates running for statewide office.

You can read the compact and see more photos of the event on the Wake for Public Education's Facebook page.

Other community members included political staffers, teachers recently laid off and political candidates.

The current budget crisis does not hold a lot of promise for education funding, according to David Gonsalves, a staffer for Assemblyman Dave Jones.

"This being a year when we're $20 billion in the hole, everything is on the chopping block unfortunately," Gonsalves said. "Events like these help us to understand what the priorities of the community are," he said.

When asked if Jones has any plans to protect education funding in the state budget, Gonsalves said that while it is important for the Assemblyman, his influence only goes as far as expressing his priorities to the legislative leadership.

Ryan Chin, who will compete in a runoff election for City Council, said education has always been a priority for him in his District 7 race and he would look to local businesses to alleviate the funding shortfalls.

"You have a greater influence as a City Council member to reach out to (private business) and say, 'Come to the table. Education is important to the work force of Sacramento, so step up and help us fund it,'" Chin said.

Susan Cooper, education consultant to State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, was the first to address the audience about the budget crisis and education.

"We need to raise taxes," Cooper said.

Cooper added that new taxes will be a critical source of revenue for an educational budget, but that it's not the only source.

"It would be a really smart thing to convince our friends on the other side of the aisle to extend some taxes that are about to expire," she said.

An audience member asked if there was sufficient political will for special taxes for educational funding.

"There is an appetite, but it's a partisan appetite," Cooper said.

Cooper encouraged members of the community to contact their legislators often and voice their opinions.

"You got Steinberg's vote, so work on the other (legislators)," Cooper said.

Ken Poppers from the Elk Grove Education Association spoke after Cooper with a message of solidarity for the teachers in attendance.

"We're all in this together, we're here to serve our students," Poppers said.

Redevelopment group to sue state over budget

2009-07-28T03:42:07Z

The Sacramento-based California Redevelopment Association is preparing to sue the state over a "devastating" $2.05 billion in redevelopment funds that state leaders want to be redirected to schools.

On Friday, the California State Legislature passed a budget that includes a provision ordering city and county redevelopment agencies to transfer $1.7 billion in property tax revenues in fiscal year 2009/10 and $350 million in 2010/11, said state Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. The budget was crafted to close a $24 billion to $26 billion hole in the state's finances.

The order would siphon at least $20 million away from the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, a joint powers authority that manages community redevelopment and affordable housing for the city and county. The money is set aside for investments in housing, infrastructure and other redevelopment.

Major redevelopment projects such as The Railyards, Township 9, Curtis Park Village -- as well as smaller projects -- could lose funding under the plan, sources said.

"I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is devastating," said California Redevelopment Association (CRA) Executive Director John Shirey. "Most agencies will be shutting down for the year. They will not be taking on any new projects."

However, the provision won't become legally binding until 90 days after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the budget into law, which is expected Tuesday. The budget was passed by a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority required to approve tax increases. Vetoes are still possible in the meantime.

CRA has submitted a formal request that the order be vetoed. But Shirey said he doesn't expect the governor to veto the provision after Schwarzenegger made a similar proposal last year.

Last fall, CRA successfully sued the state to stop it from taking $700 million in redevelopment funds. Taking those funds was found to be unconstitutional. The California Constitution outlines that property tax increment must be used by redevelopment agencies to finance redevelopment projects.

Under the budget plan, the city of Sacramento is expected to lose $16.9 million and the county $2.8 million, totaling $19.7 million for both, according to the CRA, which broke down the figures to estimate what each redevelopment agency's responsibility would be.

Sacramento County officials estimate the county would lose $17 million in low- and moderate-income housing funds, plus $8 million in investment funds.

Some major local projects could lose Proposition 1C funding if redevelopment money is redirected, said city spokeswoman Wendy Klock-Johnson. In 2006, voters passed Prop. 1C to help finance infrastructure for infill redevelopment that contains affordable housing.

Last month, the city won $55.8 million in Prop. 1C funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. That money was earmarked for four projects: the Railyards, Township 9, Curtis Park Village and Capitol Lofts.

However, Sacramento must provide matching funds to get the Prop. 1C grant money. The city was using its redevelopment funds as the matching funds, she said.

If the state takes city redevelopment funds, the city may not have the money to provide matching funds. So projects could lose the Prop. 1C grant money funding, Klock-Johnson said.

The state’s move to take redevelopment funds from Sacramento “jeopardizes our ability to stay in that [Prop. 1C] program,” she said.

In addition, the local economy would be hurt by the loss of jobs. Based on the number of construction sector jobs lost in California last year, CRA believes the entire state would lose 164,000 jobs the first year and 34,000 the second year if redevelopment agencies lose these funds. The Sacramento region has been hit especially hard by the loss of such jobs.

"It's as if the Legislature had set out to pass legislation to slow down California's economy," Shirey said. "If they had done that, this is the bill they would have come up with."

The budget provision orders the money to be sent to schools in redevelopment areas because the funding must be linked to redevelopment, Taylor said.

CRA legal advisers don't believe that link can withstand the legal challenge they expect to file within 45 to 60 says, Shirey said.

"The people who told the Legislature last year it was legal to take redevelopment money, which was later found to be unconstitutional, are the same people saying it is legal this time," Shirey said.

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency could not be reached for comment.

Staff reporter Kathleen Haley contributed to this report.

Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. She can be reached at 916-804-2856 or suzanne@sacramentopress.com.

Commentary: The Budgetary Elephant in the Room

2009-07-20T18:21:32Z

It seems everyone is talking about it.

Sacramento still has no budget, and the cost of inaction alone is steadily approaching half a billion dollars. It's big news, with blame being cast on both sides. In a prime example of the definition of partisanship, our elected leaders can't seem to make up their minds. Granted, the decisions to be made are tough - stemming from a stagnant economy. But this in of itself isn't the big picture. It doesn't even address the crux of the issue. The entire argument and subsequent cost seems to entirely overlook the Elephant in the Room.

When I think about what goes on behind closed doors in the Capitol, I picture a frenzy of men and women in suits, fighting over a very large pie. Some wield better weapons than others, and few seem to have the interests of their constituents at heart. The laundry list of line items they debate over is staggering; police, fire, schools, public health, higher education, infrastructure, libraries, and public services - the list goes on and on. Each of these have powerful lobbies backing them, bending our elected leaders toward their will - further compounding the problem.

Even without the hurdles our political system creates, it's a huge undertaking - one that affects 36.7 million people. It's no wonder it takes time to sort it all out. As an aside, many of us are left wondering though; just what is it that our leadership had been doing leading up to the deadline? The budget's due date isn't a state secret... Its passing alone saves the state millions. So what gives?

There's a bigger problem though, one that's being overlooked from every angle. In my vision of our legislators 'at work', there's a rather timid, rather large elephant sitting in the middle of the room. He occupies plenty of space, but no one seems to care. They can't see him, even as he himself sits upon a very large portion of the imaginary pie.

This elephant is hard to name, but he represents the manner in which our individual state departments spend their money. He's not occupying a share of the pie that belongs to any one agency or initiative, but all of them. He's parked himself on the very center of the proverbial pie, eating up a vast share of the available pool of money. It takes a keen eye to see his effects, and a little experience working in or around any one of the many agencies and institutions that serve the business of running California.

Based on my experience, here's how it works:

In any one of our many agencies and institutions, there exist multiple departments, each of which is responsible for a set series of tasks. Some pertain to public services such as parking, public transit, libraries, etc. Others support infrastructure. Still others simply oversee the people who serve in these departments, be it from a human resources perspective, payroll, or training & development. There are many hundreds of these departments. Each department has a role it plays in the overall progress of the state's initiatives, and each one has an allotted amount of money. This money comes from the California State Budget, which serves as an allocation of funds to various state departments.

These departments are allocated a finite amount of money with which to undertake their initiatives. The decision for what to spend and how is largely left to the individual department leader(s). These leaders approve or deny requests to spend money from their subordinates. The requests cover everything from staples and other office supplies, to computer software and peripherals, to huge projects, and everything in between.

Here's where the problems begin. Each department is given a set amount of money to spend, and a set amount of time to spend it in. If for any reason they don't require the full amount they've been allocated, two things can (and typically do) happen. The first is that any amount left over when their time expires is lost. The second is that their budget allocation for the next cycle is often reduced by whatever amount they didn't spend. This means there is no incentive for individual departments to save money, only penalties for not spending it.

I like to demonstrate my points with scenarios, so let's consider an unlikely one here to demonstrate this effect:

Let's say that your spouse is responsible for your family budget. (S)he determines how much money is coming in, what money is to be spent, and where. Your spouse allocates a set amount of money for bills, entertainment, automotive upkeep, rent/mortgage, etc. One of the items within the budget is your meal allowance, which your spouse has set at $40 a week.

Now, let's imagine that on Sunday night, your spouse hands you $40 cash for your meal allowance. You put this in your wallet, and commence your week. Some days, you eat out. Others, you take a lunch from home. It's a busy week, so one day you don't eat lunch at all. You know how much you have to spend, but by the time Sunday rolls around again, you have $10 left.

You ask your spouse about your meal allowance for the coming week, but before they hand it over they ask, "How much do you have left from last week?" You show them your $10, which they promptly take from you, and pocket.

They then take out $30, and give it to you as your meal allowance for the coming week. Puzzled, you look at this and ask why it's been reduced. "Clearly, you don't need as much as I gave you." They reply.

Confused, you ask for the funds to be increased over several weeks, and have little success. Each time Sunday comes around again, you've ensured that every last dime is gone before you approach your spouse for the next week's allowance. You realize that if you don't spend it, you don't get to keep it. Worse still, you also get less to spend the next time around.

Unlikely though this may be in your personal life, it applies to an important lesson in how bureaucratic spending works. Sadly, this is how many of our state's departments are run. It demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the way our political system does business - one that will ensure that the problems we're facing now will never go away.

So what's the fix?

Simply put, it's to reverse the inherent penalties associated with saving money. This can only occur on a department level, but must be brought about by reform at the highest levels of the budgeting process. Until department leaders are confident that saving money won’t put their efforts deeper in the fiscal hole, we'll never see the progress we'd like.

I'm of the belief that departments should be rewarded for the savings they bring about. I consider it akin to training dogs or small children - you simply reward the behaviors you like to see, and discourage those you don't. There's several ways this could be brought about through unique incentives for employees and departments alike. Any of them could truly serve the interests of the people of California, by mitigating spending on every level.

Sadly, this isn't likely to ever happen in California, largely because our elected leadership is often in the stalemate brought about by the 2/3rd's majority rule. This rule alone impedes our ability to get much of anything done (wasting significant amounts of time in the process), and makes our state leadership ineffective at bringing about change.

That said, department spending isn't a problem limited to our efforts here in Sacramento, but one that faces bureaucracy on every level nationwide, be it city, county, state, or federal. In our personal lives, we value our money and strive to save it. When we do so, we're rewarded. I believe that the system of government that reflects our will should absolutely do the same.

Until it does, I'm afraid the hole we're in will just keep getting deeper and deeper.

State may issue IOUs to legislators

2009-01-02T23:44:53Z

When you take a job, how much does your salary factor into the reason you accept?

While watching the morning news on New Year's Eve, my eyes widened to see the letters "IOU" go across the screen.

According to the State Controller, John Chiang, legislators may soon be seeing IOUs instead of paychecks. This could happen as early as Feb. 1 due to the state's budget problems.

If you were to begin receiving IOUs from your employer, how would you feel? Would you continue to work?

Do you think this is a fair way for the state to allocate its money and alleviate further debt?

Do you think that legislators are doing a service for the state and therefore should be the first ones impacted by the deficit?

For more information, you can read these articles:

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1507453.html

http://cbs13.com/local/california.lawmakers.iou.2.897507.html

http://www.kcra.com/politics/18385281/detail.html

The photo was used from flikr http://www.flickr.com/photos/jglazer75/58543652/