Two ballot measures passed by wide margins by California voters could impact Manteca municipal services in different ways.
Passage of Proposition 22 prohibits the state from taking funds used for transposition, redevelopment or local government projects and services even during severe fiscal hardship.
During the current and previous fiscal years the state took $8.1 million in local property taxes from Manteca that was collected by the redevelopment agency as part of a $2.05 billion statewide RDA money grab by Sacramento.
Last year in a bid to cover a $21 billion deficit the state had also tried to take local transportation funds from cities and counties. That would have cost Manteca over $900,000 and would essentially have wiped out the entire street maintenance division work force. A backlash from cities and counties prompted the legislature to drop the proposal at the last minute.
The state has been repeating the strategy of taking from local agencies when Sacramento is in a deficit situation since the early 1990s. Manteca alone has lost over $18 million in local revenue in the last two decades to the state balancing their budget on the backs of local government.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton noted that Proposition 22’s passage was a big plus in stabilizing the city’s budget outlook. But he is now concerned about Proposition 26.
The measure‘s title states it “requires that certain state and local fees are approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee payer’s business.
Up until several weeks before the election, that was widely interpreted as applying to environmental issues.
However, there are some who are wondering if that addresses user fees for services such as water sewer and garbage as well. Those user fees are adopted by a super majority of local governing boards following public hearings and are required to reflect the actual cost of delivering the services. Some also have expressed concern it could be interpreted by the courts to address growth fees since the fee payers - in this case developers - are creating “adverse impacts on society” by adding the need for more services.
It could take the ability to assess fees on growth out of the hands of elected leaders and force ballot measures on them. It could put cities at a disadvantage since if fees don’t pass they would have a difficult time stopping growth unless they could prove an urgent health and safety situation exists.
Pinkerton said he is monitoring the legal interpretations of Proposition 26.
While the city keeps tabs on its budget and revenue on a weekly basis, they will take a closer look in mid-January. At that point Mayor Willie Weatherford has expressed hope that the general fund will be strong enough to allow the rehiring of some of the 12 police officers laid off last year.
Passage of Proposition 22 prohibits the state from taking funds used for transposition, redevelopment or local government projects and services even during severe fiscal hardship.
During the current and previous fiscal years the state took $8.1 million in local property taxes from Manteca that was collected by the redevelopment agency as part of a $2.05 billion statewide RDA money grab by Sacramento.
Last year in a bid to cover a $21 billion deficit the state had also tried to take local transportation funds from cities and counties. That would have cost Manteca over $900,000 and would essentially have wiped out the entire street maintenance division work force. A backlash from cities and counties prompted the legislature to drop the proposal at the last minute.
The state has been repeating the strategy of taking from local agencies when Sacramento is in a deficit situation since the early 1990s. Manteca alone has lost over $18 million in local revenue in the last two decades to the state balancing their budget on the backs of local government.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton noted that Proposition 22’s passage was a big plus in stabilizing the city’s budget outlook. But he is now concerned about Proposition 26.
The measure‘s title states it “requires that certain state and local fees are approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee payer’s business.
Up until several weeks before the election, that was widely interpreted as applying to environmental issues.
However, there are some who are wondering if that addresses user fees for services such as water sewer and garbage as well. Those user fees are adopted by a super majority of local governing boards following public hearings and are required to reflect the actual cost of delivering the services. Some also have expressed concern it could be interpreted by the courts to address growth fees since the fee payers - in this case developers - are creating “adverse impacts on society” by adding the need for more services.
It could take the ability to assess fees on growth out of the hands of elected leaders and force ballot measures on them. It could put cities at a disadvantage since if fees don’t pass they would have a difficult time stopping growth unless they could prove an urgent health and safety situation exists.
Pinkerton said he is monitoring the legal interpretations of Proposition 26.
While the city keeps tabs on its budget and revenue on a weekly basis, they will take a closer look in mid-January. At that point Mayor Willie Weatherford has expressed hope that the general fund will be strong enough to allow the rehiring of some of the 12 police officers laid off last year.
