It was our big topic Tuesday on 17 News at Sunrise. A one cent sales tax increase proposal from the Kern Taxpayers Association. Mike Turnipseed says it's about our county controlling its destiny. Naysayers see another tax and possibly misspent funds.
The proposal could raise $150 million per year. It would not be self-money that is matched by the state because in order to get that, we would need to designate specifically where the money would go and the proposal might take a 2/3 vote.
Here's how Turnipseed says the money could be spent:
20 YEAR EXPENDITURE PLAN
This referendum could address three critical needs in Kern County:
• Roads ($2.0 billion)
o $500 million: Matching funds for the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP)
o $500 million: Funding dedicated to congestion mitigation and air quality
o $500 million: Funding for local roads, distributed to the cities and county, based on population.
o $500 million: Annual distributions, based on population, to all cities and the county devoted to maintenance of local roads.
• Public Safety ($ 675 million)
o $500 million: Ongoing funding of Kern County Gang Violence Strategic Plan (Prevention, Intervention and Suppression) over 20 years.
o $40 million: Match for $100 million AB 900 state grant to construct 790 beds in the new building at Lerdo Jail.
o $100 million: New fire facilities and equipment
o $35 million: Sheriff Substations and equipment
• Health Care ($325 million)
o Funds could also be used to invite U.C. Merced to establish a medical school in Bakersfield / Kern County.
o Establish a level one trauma center at KMC
o Establish a pediatric department at KMC
o Health and Wellness Issues
And here was Mike's pitch to county supes:
Chairman Rubio, Members of the Board, I am Michael Turnipseed, representing the Kern County Taxpayers Association. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this year’s budget.
KERNTAX is a member-supported, non-profit organization, whose purpose is to bring about, through cooperative effort and communication, greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in government and bases its recommendations upon the analysis of facts obtained through research.
KERNTAX is politically independent, viewing matters and policies in an objective, impartial manner, and taking positions based on the Association’s adopted principles. Founded in 1939, KERNTAX has had only one bias, the best interests of Kern County taxpayers.
With all of the last minute questions about this year’s budget issues: overmatch, allocation of this year’s general fund money and setting spending priorities by departments or by programs/functions. It is not possible to have a detailed view of issues during these budget hearings. To address these issues thoroughly, the hearings should be expanded and final adoption delayed until all pending issues are fully addressed. After this year’s budget process is completed, we will be presenting a proposal to radically change and improve the current budgeting process including a public review of these issues well in advance of budget adoption.
Kern County should consider a two year budget process. This would give departments time to prepare multi-year work plans, especially since many projects overlap one or more fiscal years.
The continued use of one-time funding mechanisms appears to reduce the short term budgeting difficulties, but in reality, only sets departments up for deeper cuts and loss of positions, even when the fiscal situations improve. This is especially true for Budget Saving Incentives. For departments that have carefully managed their budgets and saved funds over many years, it is extremely painful to have their hard earned reserves spent in a one time allocation.
If the Board will not provide full funding to departments, then the Board must be prepared to prioritize functions or programs and recognize that some projects or programs will be delayed or not accomplished at all. It is easy to say “Do more with less”, but many departments have done just that for years. Many managers are already working nights and weekends to meet department workloads. Some managers may be reluctant to tell you this because they don’t want to be seen as weak or ineffective, but overextending staff over a long period of time cannot be sustained with satisfactory results.
When your board adopts new projects, from helicopters to redevelopment agencies, you must fully fund their financial needs at the time of approval.
Your board should not adopt a new program unless enough funds are available to see it through completion, or at the time of approval, make focused cuts in other programs, to fund the new activity.
These are items your board has some control over.
Let’s talk about the dark side of this year’s budget.
State lawmakers are seriously considering pilfering money from local government and transportation funds to balance this year's $15.2 billion budget deficit.
As reported, as much as $3 billion could be in jeopardy, but this borrowing would only be a temporary fix for California's structurally unbalanced budget. Two voter-approved ballot measures will force any diversions to be repaid -- with interest -- within three years.
This doesn't do anything to solve the state's ongoing budget dilemma, but the chances of raiding such funds appear very high and this action will have very detrimental effects on local government. In Kern County, the consequence on local governments could reach $65 million dollars in lost funds.
The transportation and local government borrowing would come from two sources.
The first would transfer property taxes away from local governments to area schools. That would lower the amount of school spending that must come out of the state's general fund, helping balance the state's books.
Voters limited that practice in 2004 by approving Proposition 1A with 80 percent of the vote. But that measure allows lawmakers to still make such a transfer -- up to two times per decade -- provided the state repays all the borrowed funds within three years.
Ironically, this is the first year lawmakers are eligible to make the property tax transfer since Proposition 1A passed.
The second would divert gas sales tax revenues from transportation projects -- such as highway construction and mass transit -- to the state's general fund. Passing Proposition 42, voters similarly restricted that practice in 2006, with provisions akin to the limits on taking funds from local government.
These raids are allowed by law, but were never meant to deal with the structural deficit. They were meant to deal with short-term cash flow problems.
The two funds are hardly the only pots of money that lawmakers can take from cities and counties as they struggle to cobble together this year's budget, which is already three weeks overdue.
Other borrowing options contemplated have included taking unspent funds from voter-approved First 5 commissions (roughly $2.4 billion) and temporarily taking money from mental health services funded by Proposition 63. Neither of these ideas has been included in any written budget plan, yet.
But the underlying problem to all the internal borrowing -- especially monies like those from Proposition 1A and 42 -- is that there's no plan on how to repay the taken funds.
And the state legislature does not have a clue on how they are going to pay this raided money back.
On top of this, the study, "The Measure of America," applied to the United States for the first time a so-called "human development" standard previously used to evaluate developing countries from Afghanistan to Zambia. The domestic results are sobering.
Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley's 20th Congressional District, a major portion of Kern County, dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.
Even, notoriously grim Appalachia fared better than the congressional district that includes portions of Kern, Fresno, and Kings Counties.
There are significant issues in the Valley that reflect rural inequality. Kern County has always been an area that's underserved.
This brings us to a question that no one wants to ask. “What are we going to do to solve these and many other issues that Kern County faces?”
For the past six months, I have had many in depth conversations with two KERNTAX members, former County CAO’s Joe Drew and Joel Heinrichs, discussing the myriad of issues facing Kern County. Many of these issues existed during their terms of service with the county. We talked about transportation, public safety, public health, public education, the economy, and almost everything else imaginable. We have discussed unfunded mandates, and the lack of federal dollars returning to California, especially the San Joaquin Valley.
We had sober discussions on grave issues and concluded that a major discussion must occur among Kern County taxpayers about the future of the county and the quality of life which residents want for themselves, their children and grandchildren.
With this in mind, The Kern County Taxpayers Association respectfully requests that your board place on the November 8, 2008 ballot a referendum to Kern County voters to increase the local sales tax by one cent to fund solutions to transportation, public safety, and public health issues facing Kern County residents.
If approved, a one cent sales tax has the potential to generate $150 million per year in needed revenue to Kern County.
And here are Turnipseed's proposed safeguards:
• Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee. This independent committee would be established by the Board of Supervisors through unanimous vote to provide citizen review and to ensure that all measure funds are spent in accordance with provisions of the Expenditure Plan and Ordinance. Specific terms and conditions for an Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee will be available and periodic certified independent financial audits will be performed.
• Administrative Costs. The administering authority shall expend only the amount of funds generated from the tax that is necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities for auditing, administrative expenses, staff support and contract services. In no case shall the funds expended for administrative salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the tax.
• Maintenance of Effort. Additional funds provided government agencies by this measure shall supplement existing local transportation revenues for street and highway purposes. Transactions and use tax revenue shall not be used to replace existing local road funding programs or to replace requirements for new development to provide for its own road needs.
• Termination of Taxing Authority. The retail transactions and use tax authorized by this Ordinance shall terminate upon the earlier of twenty (20) years or upon action by the State of California to divert the revenue from the special retail transactions and use tax authorized herein for purposes other than those specified in the Ordinance.
Many residents will be asking, “Why is KERNTAX doing this?”
It is the right time for taxpayers to decide on the future quality of life in Kern County.
KERNTAX developed this proposed referendum using four principles:
• Fairness: A good tax distributes the burden evenly, provides services that are useful to the general public, and is levied only to pay for needed services.
• Understandability: A good tax is visible, levied and spent by the jurisdiction closest to the voters, would be approved by voters for generally desired services, and is identified with the services it provides.
• Cost Effectiveness: A good tax pays only for those few services that can best be provided by government, and supports efficient, useful government programs.
• Benefit: A good tax pays for services that encourage growth of the private sector, is levied on consumption, and encourages capitol formation.
It is not normal practice for KERNTAX to advocate for a tax increase. But, we have come to a fork in the road, and the consequences of inaction greatly outweigh the burdens created by this action.
KERNTAX looks forward to your board referring this request to your July 29th meeting for discussion and placing this referendum on the November 8 ballot for the voters to decide this critical referendum.
