Cities, counties worry about funds

Ballot measure aims to block state from dipping into revenues


An initiative targeted for the November ballot would prohibit the state from taking or borrowing local funds to help balance the state budget. Below are the amounts local government officials say are vulnerable to such transfers in the 2010-11 budget year.

City of San Diego: $747.8 million

San Diego County: $271.0 million

Chula Vista: $105.8 million

Carlsbad: $79.2 million

Oceanside: $69.3 million

San Marcos: $65.1 million

Escondido: $62.9 million

El Cajon: $53.6 million

Poway: $51.1 million

Vista: $44.2 million

National City: $40.5 million

Coronado: $30.7 million

Santee: $24.2 million

La Mesa: $22.1 million

Encinitas: $20.9 million

Lemon Grove: $9.7 million

Imperial Beach: $9.5 million

Solana Beach: $7.6 million

Del Mar: $4.1 million

— California voters could decide in November whether to block the state from taking local government revenues dedicated to roads, public transit and other services.

Previous safeguards have failed to deter lawmakers and the governor from dipping into certain city and county revenues, forcing officials to shrink their budgets as state lawmakers try to balance theirs.

Local government representatives and construction trade unions appear likely to qualify a constitutional amendment for the fall ballot to prevent the state from taking more money in the future, whether it’s an outright transfer or treated as a loan.

They say billions of dollars in city and county accounts are vulnerable each year unless voters step in, including nearly $1.7 billion in San Diego County.

“Local voters are tired of being ripped off by Sacramento,” said San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who believes the measure will be a winner.

The ballot push is a sign of growing frustration among local officials who have waged battles against state diversions of money initially targeted to redevelop neighborhoods and provide public transportation.

“It’s highway robbery,” said Santee Councilman John Minto. “This ballot measure is nothing more than doing crime prevention.”

But a legislative leader defended the moves, saying the budget crisis has forced tough choices. Those redirected dollars go to other priorities such as schools, health care and social services, said Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

He said the constitutional amendment would simply add to previous budget restrictions passed by voters, making it even more difficult for the state to provide the services the public demands.

“Our government is tangled in enough knots without tying another big knot,” he said.

Organizations involved in programs that would face deeper cuts if not for the transfer of local money — schools, health care and state employees — are considered the most likely opponents with enough money to mount a statewide campaign.

The California Teachers Association has already taken a stand against the initiative. Spokeswoman Sandra Jackson said the measure “would create a wall that will prevent borrowing in times of economic crisis and would place an even greater burden of cuts on public education and the backs of our students.”

Most recently, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers reworked legal definitions that govern local shares of selected transportation funds, eliminating the sales tax on gasoline dedicated to specific programs. They replaced that with an excise tax, which contains no such restrictions.


