Tuesday night the Council heard testimony from city employees and citizens about the proposed layoffs and potential service cuts in order to balance the budget for the fiscal year 2011-2012.
The unanimous vote came after compelling testimony about the value of the literacy program which will be severly cut due to the state budget cuts and elimiinated if the city council initiated staff proposed cuts for next fiscal year. Ellen Kolowich eloquently testifid that the literacy program is mostly for people, the majority of whom were born in the US, but did not learn English or how to read in school. She testified how English as a Second Language literacy program opens the doors to life for them by removing the barriers of not speaking English or reading. It was compelling.
Because many of the proposed staff cuts targeted publish safety, there was discussion looking to other deparments for additional layoffs to spare public safety. The city manager pointed out that last year, that is actually what happened - positions have not been filled and layoffs occurred in many of these deparments. There are not too many more places to look for employee salary savings.
Hence, the direction to staff by the unanimous vote by Council is to seek to negotiate with the bargaining units (unions) for salary and benefit savings to avoid the layoffs and service cuts. As a city fire employee stated, "we [the public employee] didn't cause this economic recession" and yet he lamented that the public makes negative statements about them as if they are responsible for the hard times.
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Hard Budget Decisions
Action is necessary to achieve a budget with balanced expenditures and revenue projections for fiscal year 2011-12. Our employees stepped up in 2010 when agreeing to salary and benefits reductions requested by the Council. Revenues on which the city depends are lower because of depressed property values, lower Benicia Industrial Park sales taxes and lower franchise fees, so we continue to make expenditure adjustments. The choice between layoffs and salary and benefits reductions is not a welcome one, but the situation speaks for itself.
These decisions are grounded in the Council’s policy to maintain a balanced budget, to avoid service cuts and to maintain fair and competitive salaries. To quote our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” Our city employees have been inventive, creative and frugal in finding ways to reduce costs and maintain our parks as the jewels of Benicia; our police deparment’s vigilant effectiveness; our fire department’s dependable and responsible emergency response; our water quality for drinking; our wastewater treatment to avoid polluting the Carquinez Strait; and other everyday public safety and administrative needs.
Their efforts are commendable. But it is not enough in the face of such a severe revenue shortfall. That is why we have the decision Tuesday night about further layoffs and potential salary and benefits reductions.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Survey - we want your opinion
We want your opinion about city budget solutions. Take a survey! The following introduction explains the survey available by clicking on the link below. After you take the survey of which services you think are important and which services could be cut, you may want to make other recommendations. Unfortunately the survey does not provide for comments. Please feel free to click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this post and make your comments.
The City of Benicia wants to know what your priorities are for City services. While the City has fared well during the first two years of the economic recession, City revenues dropped sharply this year and are not expected to return to previous levels soon. This revenue decline impacts the City’s ability to support the current level of services.
This survey of community priorities will help ensure that we know what the community values most and enable us to tailor our spending in ways that match community priorities.
Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions in the survey. Working together, we will make the best decisions possible.
Your answers to the questions below will tell us about the importance of a list of services provided by the City of Benicia. Please note that only services, programs and facilities funded from the General Fund are listed.
Click on the following link to take the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3DJ72MP
The City of Benicia wants to know what your priorities are for City services. While the City has fared well during the first two years of the economic recession, City revenues dropped sharply this year and are not expected to return to previous levels soon. This revenue decline impacts the City’s ability to support the current level of services.
This survey of community priorities will help ensure that we know what the community values most and enable us to tailor our spending in ways that match community priorities.
Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions in the survey. Working together, we will make the best decisions possible.
Your answers to the questions below will tell us about the importance of a list of services provided by the City of Benicia. Please note that only services, programs and facilities funded from the General Fund are listed.
Click on the following link to take the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3DJ72MP
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Governor signs budget-balancing bills
Published in Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com/1095/story/2062713.html
by By Steve Wiegand, Tuesday, Jul. 28, 2009
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a 27-bill "good, bad and ugly" budget-balancing package today that imposes deeper cuts in programs that range from operating state parks to preventing AIDS and puts aside a relatively paltry $500 million reserve.
"This has been a very tough budget, probably the toughest since I have been here in Sacramento," the governor said as he signed the bills before a horde of reporters and aides packed into a Capitol conference room. "I'm the only one responsible for these cuts ... but we dealt with it because I think it's important to have a reserve."
Schwarzenegger characterized what amounted to re-balancing the budget adopted last February for the fiscal year that started July 1 as "good, bad and ugly:"
• Good because it contains no tax increases, "lives within our means" and includes reforms of some programs.
• Bad because of severe cuts in virtually every state program that serves California's most needy populations. "That's why you don't see us celebrating."
• Ugly because the package legislators sent Schwarzenegger on Friday lacked a reserve and was $156 million short of balanced, forcing the governor to make even deeper cuts. "That's ugly, when already we've cut so much," he said.
The governor also warned that more cuts might be in the offing if the state's economy continues to deteriorate.
"We are not out of the troubled waters yet," he said. "We are ready if our revenues drop further to make the necessary cuts to again live within our means."
At least one legislative leader took immediate umbrage to the cuts, challenging whether the governor had the legal authority to make further reductions in a budget adopted in February.
"We will fight to restore every dollar of additional cuts to health and human services," Senate President Darrell Steinberg said in a prepared statement. "We question whether the majority of these vetoes are legal.
"The Governor has the right to blue pencil an appropriation. The funding levels identified in the budget revision in many cases are not new appropriations. This is not the last word."
To eliminate the $156 million deficit and create the $500 million reserve, Schwarzenegger made $489 million in additional cuts, borrowed $50 million from one of the state's special funds and found about $117 million in savings from money not spent in the last fiscal year.
The biggest single cut was $80 million in funds allocated to counties to finance programs that investigate and remediate cases of child abuse and neglect. Administration officials said the program had been spared in earlier rounds of budget cuts.
"The situation has just gotten to the point we can't exempt them anymore," said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's finance director.
Other cuts include:
• $60.6 million from funds used to pay for Medi-Cal eligibility workers at the county level. Aid to recipients was not cut, but they will likely have to wait longer for service.
• $50 million from the Healthy Families Program, a 12-year-old program that provides low-cost medical insurance to low-income families that don't qualify for Medi-Cal. New enrollments were frozen two weeks ago due to budget cuts; officials say that unless other funding is found, some families now on the program will be disenrolled.
• $52.1 million from the Office of AIDS Prevention and Treatment. Officials said the cut means the elimination of all services except providing drug assistance and monitoring the number of cases.
• $27.8 million from the Williamson Act program, which provides money to counties that give tax breaks to landowners who keep their land as open space. Because the governor couldn't unilaterally abolish the program, he cut the budget to a token $1,000.
• $6.2 million from state parks. Coupled with earlier cuts, the added reduction could mean as many as 100 of the state's 279 parks could close in October. But officials cautioned that local governments with nearby parks, or public-private partnerships, might save some parks.
Officials are banking on the package being enough to convince Wall Street lenders to provide the state with $8 billion to $10 billion in loans to help with California's cash-flow needs, and allow state Controller John Chiang to stop paying many of the state's bills with IOUs.
"It's not going to be as easy as it has in the past," Genest said of the prospects of securing the loans.
Genest said administration officials would be huddling with Chiang and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to figure out exactly how much in loans the state should seek, and when Chiang can turn off the IOUs.
But he acknowledged that even if all of the lawmakers' and governor's machinations work, the state has no unforeseen emergencies and no one successfully sues the state to thwart some budget-balancing effort, California's books might still be from $7 billion to $8 billion out of whack by the end of this fiscal year.
"No one can predict with certainty what's going to happen," he said.
by By Steve Wiegand, Tuesday, Jul. 28, 2009
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a 27-bill "good, bad and ugly" budget-balancing package today that imposes deeper cuts in programs that range from operating state parks to preventing AIDS and puts aside a relatively paltry $500 million reserve.
"This has been a very tough budget, probably the toughest since I have been here in Sacramento," the governor said as he signed the bills before a horde of reporters and aides packed into a Capitol conference room. "I'm the only one responsible for these cuts ... but we dealt with it because I think it's important to have a reserve."
Schwarzenegger characterized what amounted to re-balancing the budget adopted last February for the fiscal year that started July 1 as "good, bad and ugly:"
• Good because it contains no tax increases, "lives within our means" and includes reforms of some programs.
• Bad because of severe cuts in virtually every state program that serves California's most needy populations. "That's why you don't see us celebrating."
• Ugly because the package legislators sent Schwarzenegger on Friday lacked a reserve and was $156 million short of balanced, forcing the governor to make even deeper cuts. "That's ugly, when already we've cut so much," he said.
The governor also warned that more cuts might be in the offing if the state's economy continues to deteriorate.
"We are not out of the troubled waters yet," he said. "We are ready if our revenues drop further to make the necessary cuts to again live within our means."
At least one legislative leader took immediate umbrage to the cuts, challenging whether the governor had the legal authority to make further reductions in a budget adopted in February.
"We will fight to restore every dollar of additional cuts to health and human services," Senate President Darrell Steinberg said in a prepared statement. "We question whether the majority of these vetoes are legal.
"The Governor has the right to blue pencil an appropriation. The funding levels identified in the budget revision in many cases are not new appropriations. This is not the last word."
To eliminate the $156 million deficit and create the $500 million reserve, Schwarzenegger made $489 million in additional cuts, borrowed $50 million from one of the state's special funds and found about $117 million in savings from money not spent in the last fiscal year.
The biggest single cut was $80 million in funds allocated to counties to finance programs that investigate and remediate cases of child abuse and neglect. Administration officials said the program had been spared in earlier rounds of budget cuts.
"The situation has just gotten to the point we can't exempt them anymore," said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's finance director.
Other cuts include:
• $60.6 million from funds used to pay for Medi-Cal eligibility workers at the county level. Aid to recipients was not cut, but they will likely have to wait longer for service.
• $50 million from the Healthy Families Program, a 12-year-old program that provides low-cost medical insurance to low-income families that don't qualify for Medi-Cal. New enrollments were frozen two weeks ago due to budget cuts; officials say that unless other funding is found, some families now on the program will be disenrolled.
• $52.1 million from the Office of AIDS Prevention and Treatment. Officials said the cut means the elimination of all services except providing drug assistance and monitoring the number of cases.
• $27.8 million from the Williamson Act program, which provides money to counties that give tax breaks to landowners who keep their land as open space. Because the governor couldn't unilaterally abolish the program, he cut the budget to a token $1,000.
• $6.2 million from state parks. Coupled with earlier cuts, the added reduction could mean as many as 100 of the state's 279 parks could close in October. But officials cautioned that local governments with nearby parks, or public-private partnerships, might save some parks.
Officials are banking on the package being enough to convince Wall Street lenders to provide the state with $8 billion to $10 billion in loans to help with California's cash-flow needs, and allow state Controller John Chiang to stop paying many of the state's bills with IOUs.
"It's not going to be as easy as it has in the past," Genest said of the prospects of securing the loans.
Genest said administration officials would be huddling with Chiang and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to figure out exactly how much in loans the state should seek, and when Chiang can turn off the IOUs.
But he acknowledged that even if all of the lawmakers' and governor's machinations work, the state has no unforeseen emergencies and no one successfully sues the state to thwart some budget-balancing effort, California's books might still be from $7 billion to $8 billion out of whack by the end of this fiscal year.
"No one can predict with certainty what's going to happen," he said.
Monday, July 20, 2009
CalWORKS: Is it costing too much?
It's the kind of statistic that makes radio talk show hosts drool:
California is home to about 12 percent of all Americans – and more than 30 percent of all Americans on welfare.
Critics of the state's welfare program, called CalWORKs, say it's clear proof that the system is flabby and overly beneficent, particularly as compared to other states.
"We are more lenient here; we are more generous in the state of California," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said last week, "and also we are giving greater benefits for longer periods of time, and there are really no consequences if someone doesn't fulfill the work requirements."
But program officials and advocates for welfare recipients say the statistic masks the fact that California's welfare system is one of those government rarities: a program that actually works.
"That (statistic) is an apples-and-oranges thing," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors of California. CalWORKs has been "one of the most successful programs the state has had in the past decade."
There's little argument over the numbers themselves. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 1.2 million Californians (950,000 of them children) participated during the 2008 fiscal year in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program.
In California, TANF is called CalWORKs and is fueled by about $5.5 billion in federal and state funds.
The 1.2 million Californians receiving cash assistance represent 31.3 percent of all TANF recipients – or more welfare patrons than the next nine most populous states combined.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, California's $694-a-month grant for a single-parent family of three was surpassed only by those in Alaska and New York.
But a commonly held theory that California's relatively high benefit level attracts large numbers of welfare recipients from other states is disputed by system officials and program analysts.
"We've never seen any evidence of that," said Mecca, whose experience dates back over two decades. "The fact is, low-income people just can't pack up and move that easily."
Instead, officials and analysts point to a covey of other factors that have helped swell the ranks of welfare recipients in California, including:
The Safety Net. The federal TANF program, a product of compromise in the mid-1990s between Democratic President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress, required that recipients be weaned off the program within five years.
California, however, is one of 11 states that have a "safety net" under its welfare program. The net allows children under the age of 18 to continue to receive cash assistance even after the five-year clock has run out on their parents.
Lack of "Full Family" Sanctions. Under the TANF program, adult recipients who fail to comply with rules on working, seeking work or undergoing job training (130 hours a month is required in California) can be sanctioned by a state, and their benefits withheld.
But California is one of six states that penalize only the adult portion of the benefit – which is currently $139.
Moreover, the five-year clock is suspended while a sanction is in place. That means children can continue to receive benefits until they turn 18, even if their parent or parents have been sanctioned for years.
"Technically, you could be on (welfare) aid for 18 years," said John Wagner, director of the state's Department of Social Services. "With our current system, an adult could either work 130 hours or face $139 in sanctions. That's very little incentive to participate in activities, including work, that lead to a family's self-sufficiency."
Undocumented Immigrants. About 48,000 of the state's 526,000 CalWORKs households are headed by illegal immigrants.
While the adults are not eligible for welfare, any of their children born on U.S. soil – about 95,000 – are American citizens, and thus entitled to all government services.
"We're trying to get numbers of similar cases in other states, but my sense is this is higher in California than in other states," Wagner said, increasing the state's welfare workload.
"Umbrella Benefits." California includes some programs under its welfare system, such as some foster care services, that other states do not, thus increasing the overall TANF-related numbers.
Eligibility Rules. Because of its higher cost of living, California allows CalWORKs participants to hold more resources than other states' welfare programs. That broadens the eligibility pool here.
But while most of those involved agree the state's large number of welfare recipients is due to a multiplicity of factors, there is sharp disagreement as to what kind of a problem it poses – and how to fix it.
The governor, has proposed a sheaf of changes to CalWORKs, including:
• Reducing total eligibility from five years to two.
• Limiting support services such as job training and child care to the 22 percent of CalWORKs families that currently meet strict federal work guidelines.
• Imposing "full family" sanctions that would end aid to children as well as adults for repeated violations of program rules.
• Requiring recipients to meet with caseworkers every six months.
"We will give you the bootstrap," Schwarzenegger said, "but you have to pull yourself up."
The administration has estimated the proposed changes could save the state $753 million in the current fiscal year and $1.5 billion by 2012.
But critics of the governor's proposals contend they are based on false assumptions and faulty logic – and would demolish a program that directly aids those who need it most.
They point out that 65 percent of CalWORKs adults who can work already participate in work or education activities; that about 500,000 people have moved from the program to jobs since 1998; that the governor's cost-cutting estimates are wildly speculative; and that slicing services such as child care during tough economic times will only exacerbate the program's problems, not solve them.
"We want to look at sensible policies," said Mecca, "but the governor hasn't increased funding for (the program) since he's been in office, and now he wants to make $800 million in cuts ... and expects that to result in a more efficient system?
"That's not sensible; it's nonsensical."
Call Steve Wiegand, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1076.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
WHAT IS FAMILY ECONOMIC SUCCESS?
Simply put, family economic success (FES) seeks to help families overcome the economic, social, and policy barriers to achieving financial stability. Women In Government’s Family Economic Success Policy Resource Center is dedicated to connecting state legislators to
policy resources that support financial stability for lowincome, working families.
Our current Family Economic Success portfolio includes:
· Asset Building and Financial Literacy
· Earned Income Tax Credit
· Home Mortgages and Foreclosures
· Pay Disparity
· Predatory and Payday Lending
· Workforce Development
WHY FOCUS ON FAMILIES?
Families with children that are below the poverty level are at the heart of Women In Government’s FES efforts. The FES Policy Resource Center shares in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s approach to strengthening lowincome families and isolated communities through assetbuilding, family economic support programs, and workforce development. As noted by the Casey Foundation, children in the greatest trouble in America are those growing up in poor households and in economically disconnected communities. By linking state legislators with resources on FES issues, we hope to stimulate legislative interest in family economic
success issues and encourage policymakers to sponsor and cosponsor FES legislation in their own states.
For more information on Women In Government’s
Family Economic Success Policy Resource Center, visit:
http://www.womeningovernment.org/familysuccess
Telephone (202) 333-0825 Fax (202) 333-0875
1319 F Street NW, Suite 710 Washington, DC 20004
www.womeningovernment.org
QUICK FACTS
· The 2009 federal poverty
level for a family of four is a
gross yearly income of
$22,050 or a gross monthly
income of $1,838. (U.S.
Department of Health &
Human Services)
· In 2007, the family poverty
rate and the number of
families in poverty were 9.8%
and 7.6 million, respectively,
both statistically unchanged
from 2006. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2007, marriedcouple
families had a poverty rate of
4.9% (2.8 million), compared
with 28.3 % (4.1 million) for
femalehouseholder,
nohusbandpresent
families and
13.6 % (696,000) for those
with a male householder and
no wife present. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2007, more than 37 million
people lived below the
official poverty level, which
was just over $20,000 for a
family of four. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2006, the median
household income for white,
nonHispanic
families was
$50,673, over 1.5 times the
amount for black families
$31,969. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
FAMILY ECONOMIC SUCCESS
POLICY RESOURCE CENTER
policy resources that support financial stability for lowincome, working families.
Our current Family Economic Success portfolio includes:
· Asset Building and Financial Literacy
· Earned Income Tax Credit
· Home Mortgages and Foreclosures
· Pay Disparity
· Predatory and Payday Lending
· Workforce Development
WHY FOCUS ON FAMILIES?
Families with children that are below the poverty level are at the heart of Women In Government’s FES efforts. The FES Policy Resource Center shares in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s approach to strengthening lowincome families and isolated communities through assetbuilding, family economic support programs, and workforce development. As noted by the Casey Foundation, children in the greatest trouble in America are those growing up in poor households and in economically disconnected communities. By linking state legislators with resources on FES issues, we hope to stimulate legislative interest in family economic
success issues and encourage policymakers to sponsor and cosponsor FES legislation in their own states.
For more information on Women In Government’s
Family Economic Success Policy Resource Center, visit:
http://www.womeningovernment.org/familysuccess
Telephone (202) 333-0825 Fax (202) 333-0875
1319 F Street NW, Suite 710 Washington, DC 20004
www.womeningovernment.org
QUICK FACTS
· The 2009 federal poverty
level for a family of four is a
gross yearly income of
$22,050 or a gross monthly
income of $1,838. (U.S.
Department of Health &
Human Services)
· In 2007, the family poverty
rate and the number of
families in poverty were 9.8%
and 7.6 million, respectively,
both statistically unchanged
from 2006. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2007, marriedcouple
families had a poverty rate of
4.9% (2.8 million), compared
with 28.3 % (4.1 million) for
femalehouseholder,
nohusbandpresent
families and
13.6 % (696,000) for those
with a male householder and
no wife present. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2007, more than 37 million
people lived below the
official poverty level, which
was just over $20,000 for a
family of four. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
· In 2006, the median
household income for white,
nonHispanic
families was
$50,673, over 1.5 times the
amount for black families
$31,969. (U.S. Census
Bureau)
FAMILY ECONOMIC SUCCESS
POLICY RESOURCE CENTER
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothingx
By Elizabeth Patterson
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there are some state legislators who, along with the governor, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Duncan McDuffie, an early 20th century developer in San Francisco and Berkeley, once said: “Next to our fertile soil, California’s greatest single asset is the opportunity it offers for outdoor life. It would seem to be sound business for the state to see that its major opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the out-of-doors are left open for the use and enjoyment of both its citizens and its visitors.”
California’s magnificent state parks — from the sublime to the spectacular — are facing the most severe budget cutbacks in state history. Having governed his way along with the Legislature to a $24.3 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has set forth a shortsighted proposal to eliminate all funding for state parks. Only parks that make money, such as off-road vehicle parks, will remain open.
This means that about 80 percent of the parks will be shut down, starting as early as September. To put this in perspective, the public will soon be losing access to about 1.3 million acres of parkland — a vast expanse larger in area than all Native American-owned forest in the United States, the Grand Canyon and the entire state of Delaware.
Californians have fewer acres of state park system land available to them per capita today than at anytime since 1930. Today we are coping with the most severe economic recession since that time, but even in those Depression days, parks were maintained and expanded. One compelling reason why parks were kept open was because most people in the cities and towns did not have the means to access large rural open spaces; they depended on urban and regional parks, small and large.
Parks are important to our quality of life. Proximity to parks is one of the most important factors people consider when locating or purchasing a home or business, because parks increase property values while providing recreation and restorative benefits.
The governor and legislators clearly believe that eliminating park system funding makes economic sense. Let’s ask them to think again:
First, think about the effects of park closure on our downtown businesses. The Benicia State Capitol building contributes about $230,000 per year in economic activity in the city. And think about the effect of closure on our property values.
Second, California’s General Fund budget for parks amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget. Our state parks serve as an enormous economic engine, attracting 80 million visitors a year and generating revenues of $2.1 billion in direct expenditures and $4 billion more in indirect spending. In exchange for comparatively small savings, the state would lose these tremendous sources of revenue, as well as thousands of jobs statewide.
A survey commissioned and funded by the California Parks and Recreation Department found that park visitors spend an average of $57.63 per visit, including $24.63 inside state parks and nearby communities, and $33 in communities more than 25 miles from the park being visited.
So what’s the alternative to zeroing out the California state park system?
As the Sacramento Bee reported this week, some have suggested raising fees. But the parks have done that four times in this decade, and attendance has declined. Others have suggested that state parks should use volunteers. But the parks already have 17,000 volunteers — and only 3,000 paid staff.
The parks have also partnered with the private sector to provide services and have raised millions from private sources to supplement public dollars. But none of this can fully replace the $140 million from the General Fund.
The California State Parks Foundation supports a proposal by former Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz to increase the vehicle license fee by $15. In return, any car with California license plates would get free entrance to all state parks. This fee revenue would be more than enough to cover the $143 million in the General Fund, plus begin the backlog of maintenance and repair (about $1 billion). It may be enough to begin to reach the same level of park land per capita that we had in the 1930s.
It takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to pass this fee increase equal to one movie and popcorn once a year, so don’t hold your breath. But urge your friends who live in Republican districts to write their representatives to support this fee. See these Web sites for district maps and names:
• http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/senplan/senate.htp
• http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
California should not be so entirely void of vision that its state parks become playgrounds only for those who can pay large fees — or closed off entirely to the public. As the Sacramento Bee editorial said, “The Schwarzenegger administration seems to believe that you can simply shut the gates and reopen them ‘when the budget improves.’ They’re in la-la land. Closed parks will go feral — expect graffiti, fires, illegal camping, dumping and crime.”
There are only two state parks in Solano County. They are both here in Benicia: one small historic site downtown and one small coastal park between Benicia and Vallejo. Closing these parks is not an option.
Today, June 21, a Save Our Solano Parks Day of Action — a march/bike ride and rally — will be held to oppose the proposed closure of the Benicia State Recreation Area and the Benicia State Capitol Historic Park. The rally gets under way in the Benicia SRA at 9:30 a.m. (see front-page story for details on the issue).
The Day of Action is being conducted in conjunction with similar actions in state parks across California. The California State Parks Foundation, the Benicia State Parks Association and the California Native Plant Society Willis Linn Jepson Chapter are leading the efforts in Benicia. The city of Benicia will provide a city bus to take people who need a ride from the State Recreation Area to the State Capitol in downtown Benicia. Join us.
Elizabeth Patterson is mayor of Benicia.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there are some state legislators who, along with the governor, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Duncan McDuffie, an early 20th century developer in San Francisco and Berkeley, once said: “Next to our fertile soil, California’s greatest single asset is the opportunity it offers for outdoor life. It would seem to be sound business for the state to see that its major opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the out-of-doors are left open for the use and enjoyment of both its citizens and its visitors.”
California’s magnificent state parks — from the sublime to the spectacular — are facing the most severe budget cutbacks in state history. Having governed his way along with the Legislature to a $24.3 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has set forth a shortsighted proposal to eliminate all funding for state parks. Only parks that make money, such as off-road vehicle parks, will remain open.
This means that about 80 percent of the parks will be shut down, starting as early as September. To put this in perspective, the public will soon be losing access to about 1.3 million acres of parkland — a vast expanse larger in area than all Native American-owned forest in the United States, the Grand Canyon and the entire state of Delaware.
Californians have fewer acres of state park system land available to them per capita today than at anytime since 1930. Today we are coping with the most severe economic recession since that time, but even in those Depression days, parks were maintained and expanded. One compelling reason why parks were kept open was because most people in the cities and towns did not have the means to access large rural open spaces; they depended on urban and regional parks, small and large.
Parks are important to our quality of life. Proximity to parks is one of the most important factors people consider when locating or purchasing a home or business, because parks increase property values while providing recreation and restorative benefits.
The governor and legislators clearly believe that eliminating park system funding makes economic sense. Let’s ask them to think again:
First, think about the effects of park closure on our downtown businesses. The Benicia State Capitol building contributes about $230,000 per year in economic activity in the city. And think about the effect of closure on our property values.
Second, California’s General Fund budget for parks amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget. Our state parks serve as an enormous economic engine, attracting 80 million visitors a year and generating revenues of $2.1 billion in direct expenditures and $4 billion more in indirect spending. In exchange for comparatively small savings, the state would lose these tremendous sources of revenue, as well as thousands of jobs statewide.
A survey commissioned and funded by the California Parks and Recreation Department found that park visitors spend an average of $57.63 per visit, including $24.63 inside state parks and nearby communities, and $33 in communities more than 25 miles from the park being visited.
So what’s the alternative to zeroing out the California state park system?
As the Sacramento Bee reported this week, some have suggested raising fees. But the parks have done that four times in this decade, and attendance has declined. Others have suggested that state parks should use volunteers. But the parks already have 17,000 volunteers — and only 3,000 paid staff.
The parks have also partnered with the private sector to provide services and have raised millions from private sources to supplement public dollars. But none of this can fully replace the $140 million from the General Fund.
The California State Parks Foundation supports a proposal by former Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz to increase the vehicle license fee by $15. In return, any car with California license plates would get free entrance to all state parks. This fee revenue would be more than enough to cover the $143 million in the General Fund, plus begin the backlog of maintenance and repair (about $1 billion). It may be enough to begin to reach the same level of park land per capita that we had in the 1930s.
It takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to pass this fee increase equal to one movie and popcorn once a year, so don’t hold your breath. But urge your friends who live in Republican districts to write their representatives to support this fee. See these Web sites for district maps and names:
• http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/senplan/senate.htp
• http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
California should not be so entirely void of vision that its state parks become playgrounds only for those who can pay large fees — or closed off entirely to the public. As the Sacramento Bee editorial said, “The Schwarzenegger administration seems to believe that you can simply shut the gates and reopen them ‘when the budget improves.’ They’re in la-la land. Closed parks will go feral — expect graffiti, fires, illegal camping, dumping and crime.”
There are only two state parks in Solano County. They are both here in Benicia: one small historic site downtown and one small coastal park between Benicia and Vallejo. Closing these parks is not an option.
Today, June 21, a Save Our Solano Parks Day of Action — a march/bike ride and rally — will be held to oppose the proposed closure of the Benicia State Recreation Area and the Benicia State Capitol Historic Park. The rally gets under way in the Benicia SRA at 9:30 a.m. (see front-page story for details on the issue).
The Day of Action is being conducted in conjunction with similar actions in state parks across California. The California State Parks Foundation, the Benicia State Parks Association and the California Native Plant Society Willis Linn Jepson Chapter are leading the efforts in Benicia. The city of Benicia will provide a city bus to take people who need a ride from the State Recreation Area to the State Capitol in downtown Benicia. Join us.
Elizabeth Patterson is mayor of Benicia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)