I just received the following message from the California Library Association, and a similar one from the League of California Cities. Once again the State Legislature is threatening to take local property tax revenues in order to solve its budget crisis. Property taxes make up about 88% of PVLD's revenues(the rest comes from library fees (e.g. overdue fees, meeting room rental fees), entrepreneurial activities such as our Passport and Notary services, a very small amount of State funding (less than 1% of our budget) and money raised by the Peninsula Friends of the Library. Flattening property tax revenues have already resulted in significant cuts to our budget for library books and online databases, a hiring freeze, and other budget cuts as well as asking the Friends of the Library to double their level of support. The loss of a further 8% of our property tax revenues (which would be about $500,000) would be devastating and would mean further slashing of the book budget and cuts to library hours and services. And these cuts would come at a time when demand for library services is higher than ever as people turn to the library for financial planning and budgeting resources, job search resources, free access to the Internet and much more.
YOU CAN HELP! Please contact the Legislators listed at the bottom of the following message and tell them that the proposal to borrow local property tax revenues would be devastating not only to the library but to other local services such as police and fire. THANK YOU!!!
GOVERNOR’S ADMINISTRATION WARNS: THE STATE MAY BORROW $2 BILLION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IF MAY 19TH BALLOT MEASURES FAIL
Yesterday the State Department of Finance informed several local government organizations that, with the possibility that the May 19th ballot initiatives may not be successful, one of the options to address the potential Budget shortfall would be to borrow approximately $2 billion in property taxes from local governments.
The background paper provided during the briefing by the Department of Finance states:
“The constitution allows that up to 8% of local governments’ property tax revenues can be borrowed by the state and repaid within three budget years with interest. The amount that can be borrowed is determined by the amount of property taxes received by cities, counties, and special districts in the preceding year. Borrowing from local government in the 2009-10 fiscal year would provide $2.006 billion in solutions.
Local governments could borrow against the state’s constitutional obligation to repay, thereby mitigating the impact of this reduction. However, in the current economic landscape, local governments are not easily finding available short term financing and could face difficulties borrowing these funds from the market. If they borrow, local government will incur substantial borrowing costs.”
The Department of Finance also acknowledges that there would be varying affects on local governments as it “will, in part, depend on the ability of local government to obtain borrowing from the market. This reduction could result in cuts to locally funded services such as police and fire, waste collection, road maintenance, libraries and other services.”
As you will recall, Proposition 1A in 2004, provided certain protections for cities, counties, and special districts against future raids of their property taxes, for the purpose of balancing the state Budget. However, contained in Proposition 1A was a caveat, which allows the state, beginning in 2008-09, to “suspend” the prohibition on taking local property taxes if the Governor proclaims a “significant State fiscal hardship” and gets the Legislature to agree by a 2/3rds vote. If you are interested, the legislation spelling out the terms of Proposition 1A is contained in SCA 4 (2004) and SB 1096 – a Budget trailer bill from 2004.
Last year, during the very difficult and protracted Budget deliberations, there was an ongoing threat that the Budget deal would include borrowing property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts. Thanks to opposition from affected groups, the proposal was not included in the final Budget agreement. As you may be reading, and it is particularly indicative in early polling data, there is a strong likelihood that several, if not all of the ballot measures will fail on May 19th, resulting in a $6 billion loss in revenue, primarily from the loss of $5 billion in lottery securitization funds (Proposition 1C). Coupled with the $8 billion shortfall already projected by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, there will be an immediate $14 billion hole in the state Budget. Some Republican members of the legislature have stressed that “taxes will not be an option this time around” and thus, the legislature will be looking to solutions such as cuts, borrowing, and increased fees. Please take a moment today to write the Governor and the four legislative leaders, as well as your own Senator and Assemblymember(s) to encourage their opposition to any proposal that would borrow property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts. In your letters, please indicate how your Budgets are already stretched thin, and that you could not endure a deep and significant cut, such as the one the Governor’s Department of Finance is suggesting.
The Honorable
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of
California
State Capitol
Sacramento
,
CA
. 95814
The Honorable Darrell Steinberg
Senate President pro Tempore
Room 205
State Capitol
Sacramento
,
CA
. 95814
The Honorable Dennis Hollingsworth
Senate Republican Leader
Room 305
State Capitol
Sacramento
,
CA
. 95814
The Honorable Karen Bass
Speaker of the
California
Assembly
Room 219
State Capitol
Sacramento
,
CA
. 95814
The Honorable Mike Villines
Assembly Republican Leader
Room 3104
State Capitol
Sacramento
,
CA
. 95814
Recent Comments