theSheetNews.com

Council, public hear budget reduction plan; Harvey speaks his mind

The Town of Mammoth Lakes, which managed to balance its budget this fiscal year, but faces a $2.8 million projected shortfall next year, rolled out its budget reduction plan on Tuesday night.

During a Special Meeting of the Town Council on Tuesday in Suite Z, Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez talked about specifics of the plan, which her presentation said balances the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget, creates a surplus fund to satisfy debts and obligations currently owed, including the $43 million Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition judgment and puts the Town on a sustainable path for future budgets.

Clearing up between $2.5 million and $2.7 million of the shortfall, the plan’s 40 actions and initiatives were designed to avoid an across-the-board 14% cut to all departments and all personnel. Probably the largest single reduction would come from salaries. Employees will be asked for pay concessions that amount to more than $1 million in cuts … 10% from civilians, and another 24% from police, the latter of which could, if necessary, be asked for position reductions.

Property leases would be negotiated down 10%, for another $50,000 in savings. Another $1 million in savings would be realized through myriad of cuts to nearly every department, including some Town contracts with outside entities, such as High Sierra Energy Foundation’s modest $14,500 stipend, all the way up to Mammoth Lakes Trail and Public Access, which will need to look more toward Measure R and Measure U awards to backfill its $170,000 eliminated subsidy.

Several positions will be eliminated, including at least one in Recreation lost through attrition that won’t be refilled, the duties of which have already been divided among remaining Rec staff.

Marysheva-Martinez’s proposal does increase funding in one area: road rehabilitation. While the road budget is still deemed unsustainable to maintain roads in the long term, she said the Town should fund $750,000 of the desired $1.5 million for roads.

This past year, the Town spent just $500,000 on roads.

The plan also counts on revenue enhancement through Transient Occupancy Tax enforcement, which hopefully will add $500,000, some of which will be split between Mammoth Lakes Housing, Eastern Sierra Transit Authority and Mammoth Lakes Tourism. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that those same agencies are going to get hit with 5% net reductions, and 10% if TOT enhancement isn’t realized. This  didn’t sit well with MLT Director John Urdi, whose presentation earlier in the evening stressed not cutting back on marketing during tough times.

A sense of Urdi-gency

During his pitch to Council, Urdi was diplomatic, but blunt. “Mammoth is [comrpised of] one industry: Tourism,” he stated. With no agriculture or other industries to fall back on, and surrounded by public land in all directions, Urdi also charged it’s also unrealistic to expect anything to replace it.

“No one in this town is untouched by tourism,” he added, pointing out that 60% of the workforce is directly related to tourism. According to Urdi’s figures, visitor spending pays for almost 70% of town services; “It’s not from me buying a pair of ski boots.”

Every household in Mammoth would pay an additional $3,052 to make up for visitor spending, if tourism went away or never existed. That’s the highest per capita figure for any municipality in the state.

Brands that increase advertising during economic downturns typically fare better than those that cut back, and ultimately spend less overall,” he said. Urdi pointed to Colorado, which in 1992 was the #1 summer destination. Tourism was then seen as an “unnecessary tax.” The state basically gutted the entire $12 million tourism budget, using the argument, “The Rocky Mountains were here long before tourism, and they’ll be here long after the marketers have left.”

As Urdi illustrated, while the Mountains remained, fewer visitors came to admire them. Visitation plummeted and cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues and visitor spending. To this day, Colorado still hasn’t recovered fully.

Urdi reinforced that message by also highlighting Wisconsin’s lack of promoting itself, which has only racked up losses to the tune of $700 million, and Washington state, which cut its tourism budget completely this past year, and could be headed down the same road as Wisconsin and Colorado.

Michigan, however, doubled its tourism budget to fund the “Pure Michigan” ad campaign, generating 1.5 million additional visitors, almost half of which are considered new. The state has enjoyed massive increased visitor spending and revenue, paying for more police and teachers, and creating 10,000 new jobs. Montana took a page from that same book, and has seen a boost in tourism.

During a brisk public comment period, Leigh Gaasch advocated no further cuts in police positions, citing what she indicated were increasing public safety needs in the Sierra Valley Sites area. Warren Harrell thought there should be more spending on roads. Ruth Harrell talked about contracting out law enforcement and considering disincorporation.

And Tom Cage suggested taking the estimated savings (five year, and year-to-year thereafter) and applying those to marketing. He also talked about PR campaign to clean up the MLLA mess. “The sky is falling mentality … is hurting us as a community,” he said. “Get it wrapped up and done with. The rumors are killing us, as are the time and the interest accruing on the judgment. Push the button; get it done.”

Council remarks were brief and mostly restrained. Mostly. Councilmember John Eastman pointed out that MLT is slated to get back almost $100,000 in recovered TOT funding. Councilmember Matthew Lehman mentioned the impact on jobs. “MMSA had to lay off 75 people … our unemployment rate went up 1% in one day,” he said.

Mayor Jo Bacon said little, except conspicuously mentioning “strategies for future litigation,” which presumably involves the MLLA judgment, though no specifics were brought up.

“It’s difficult to argue anything people have said tonight,” Councilmember Rick Wood said. According to Wood, the Town had “begun a restructuring process long before what we’re going to do in next few months … we outsourced tourism and transit … we’re going down another 6 employees,” if MMM’s downsizing plan is adopted as part of the new budget in June.

“In 2009, we suffered from a structural deficit, which came to a head through dramatic decline in snow. We would still have some structural deficit if would have had a good year,” Wood opined. “I’m not suggesting we can’t make more cuts, or do business differently.”

Marysheva-Martinez, he said, eloquently stated [in her presentation that for this Council this is the third round of cutting, amounting to $7 million in three years. There will be more, Wood added.

Wood said it would be important to consider what role should government plays in the promotion of itself and its product, and what role the private sector plays, since it directly benefits from that.

Wood refrained supporting any significant changes to the budget plan vis a vis MLT’s reduced funding. He seemed to back addressing underfunded roads, wanting to avoid any perception of a bait-and-switch campaign. “We can see the mountains in the pictures … we have to provide the services when people get here,” he posited.

The Harvey speech

One person who held back very little was outgoing Councilmember Skip Harvey. “What a mess … it’s a total mess,” Harvey stated, adding Mammoth’s situation is a reflection of the times. “What’s really on peoples’ minds is the lawsuit and what’s going to happen with that. I owe everyone an apology in that it doesn’t appear it will be finished by the time I leave office. It’s something I wanted to accomplish, and I’m sorry … I’m truly sorry.”

Harvey further said he doesn’t want Mammoth to be known as the town that declared bankruptcy. “I would like to avoid that.” He agreed with the many comments supporting marketing, but also with [Wood] that Mammoth shouldn’t have “smoke-and-mirror” marketing.

“The Town has to take responsibility for its actions getting us into the lawsuit,” Harvey charged. MLLA is people, he added, not some big ugly monster. “They’re not the bad guys. They didn’t set the judgment amount, a jury in Bridgeport did. We were told by the judges that we were wrong, that we made mistakes. We have to find out what happened.”

He said that based on recent letters he’s seen, MLLA is mad … really mad, and issued an impassioned plea the company participate in mediation. “This could be our last chance to get this resolved,” he told those in attendance.

Harvey also lashed out at those running Mammoth Yosemite Airport, saying it’s been a victim of bad decisions and management, as well as several lawsuits that have yielded mixed results. “I’m tired of the airport being managed in a mediocre form,” he blasted. “We can plan for the future, but we have to change things, or we’ll be right back in it again.”

All but naming names, he aimed his remarks squarely at senior management, saying the airport litigation judgment “had barely cooled, when the airport tried to hire someone who had the feature of being related to someone.” He did, however, praise Marysheva-Martinez, who he said stepped in and made a course correction that averted another potential lawsuit.

“The experts in this town are the five of us. We know this town better than anyone. You need to lock this Council, MLLA and our town managers in a room and say don’t come out until this is wrapped up,” Harvey advised the constituency. “We need help from community … I know it irks you to pay for something you had absolutely nothing to do with.”

Though Marysheva-Martinez stated earlier that part of the balancing plan would be to address the MLLA judgment, no clear delineation was presented as to how that would be achieved. Yet to come are public hearings on the budget and public deliberations on Council’s take on the balancing plan. The 2012-2013 budget is required to be passed by July 1.

During its mid-year budget review on Wednesday, Mono County’s Board of Supervisors learned that it’s “so far, so good” when it comes to the bottom line. According to the Finance Department, spending is on track, and so far no departments are forecast to go over budget. In addition, the County is looking at $1.2 million in revenue wondfall, which includes a one-time influx of almost $800,000 in revenue from the finalization of the recent property tax reassessment of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area.

Board reserves were predicted to plunge below zero in 2012-2013, but Finance Director Brian Muir pointed out that current assumptions are likely to change, in that there won’t be as much drawdown needed next year to backfill the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund as with this fiscal year.

Muir suggested that the reserve fund should level out at least around $1.5 million to $2 million, and even with unknowns at the state level, it should be easier to balance the budget next year. He added that the goal, which he thinks is reasonable, is to build the reserves back to the roughly $6 million that the Board prefers. Board Chair Vikki Bauer recalled that when she and Supervisor Byng Hunt were first elected to the Board, there was no reserve fund, but after two years, money had been squirreled away to establish the first incarnation of what the Board now calls its Reserve Fund, even with normal spending and buying new snowplows. “That has made the economic downturn a lot more sustainable for this county as opposed to other counties,” Muir reminded the Board.

Supervisor Hap Hazard said he thinks Mono County has historically lived under conditions in which the County hits bumps in the road every three years or so. “We usually have a chance to see things coming at the state budget level before we get to our budget,” Hazard observed. “This one [the 2009 recession] came up on us rather suddenly … 27% of our revenue disappeared almost overnight.”

Meanwhile, he said, the County acted responsibly, putting projects on hold and not filling vacancies from attrition, among other measures.

“What we didn’t see was a turnaround [economic recovery] at the 3-year mark, but we should be able to get through the next year to 18 months,” he opined. “If everything remains the same, the County hopes to be able to dig back out. Assuming the County doesn’t face any 9/11 or gas crisis issues, we should be at bottom and in a 24-month recovery cycle.”

Hazard said he’s “thankful” for the $1.2 million revenue windfall, but indicated conservative spending and saving measures need to be the priority.

Hunt wasn’t as optimistic, saying he thinks the recession is still on, and doesn’t want the public to think the County is flush with cash. He did, however, agree in principle with Hazard that spending must remain frugal and services must be sustained, as well as jobs. “There are counties that had 35% or 40% in job cuts and reductions in levels of service, but we managed to avoid much of that.” Hunt was quick to point out that the extra cash should be saved for rainy days, and not viewed as a sign that happy days are here again.

Gas prices and their impact on goods and services are a big worry to Supervisor Tim Hansen. “You buy a couple of tomatoes and a head of lettuce and it costs you $20,” he said. “We got some good news here [with the contingency money], and we need to be frugal.”

Bauer said she’s concerned there could be a big crash coming in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) fund. State projections indicate that CalPERS shortfalls will increase charges from 7-8% to as much as 20% or more. The County, meanwhile, has already taken steps to reduce its contribution to PERS fund by restructuring its debt plan. Muir also was skeptical of any crash, explaining that CalPERS typically has a 20-year “smoothing curve” when it has funding issues.

Johnston was wary of figures indicating the state’s economic indicators are showing a 1% to 3% growth rate, but Muir said he’s been seeing a trend toward some amount of growth. He did acknowledge that the public might not perceive it yet, but that could also be due to the County generally lagging behind the overall curve. Hazard agreed with Muir that it appears growth is occuring, but took Johnston’s point that a 3% growth rate isn’t very robust, and that any impact, no matter how minor, could send the County right back into recession again.

“We’re not out of the woods, and I wouldn’t suggest that we are,” Hazard said. Muir, however, is not as sanguine on the state of things. “There’s nothing in this set of numbers that gives me heartburn,” Muir told the Board. “We’re definitely spending well within budget.”

Bishop City Council met Monday night at City Council Chambers on West Line to approve the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget, discussed at a public hearing last week. What began as a simple issue of “Yay” or “Nay” took a turn into more complicated territory after Mayor Pro-Tem David Stottlemyre voiced his reservations.

“At the hearings, I had some concerns about the budget as presented,” Stottlemyre said. “This time around I believe, with the economic climate the way I read it, I’d rather not see us approve this budget just yet.”

He explained that he had done his own calculations to determine the FY 12-13 General Fund deficit, and projected an additional potential deficit of $318,000 to add to the existing projected shortfall.

By his calculations, the General Fund deficit of $516,930 as stated in the preliminary budget would be closer to $835,500. Therefore, Stottlemyre said, “I would rather err on the side of playing it safe.” He elaborated that he would prefer to wait until city accountants’ audited financial statements came back to the Council in several weeks, and perhaps even wait to complete labor negotiations before agreeing to a FY 12-13 budget.

“What if we adopted the budget with a stipulation that we’d come back and review it with the audited financials and labor negotiations?” asked Councilmember Jeff Griffiths. Mayor Pro-Tem Stottlemyre replied that he was worried if the Council adopted the budget as is, “some people tend to rely on those numbers” and would be disappointed if further cuts were made.

Councilmember Jim Ellis sided with Mayor Pro-Tem Stottlemyre on the issue. “We’re in such a rush to adopt [the budget] and all the pieces aren’t quite there yet,” he said. “There’s an audit, which is going to hurt, and then there is that big cloud hanging over us as far as what’s going to happen with negotiations and what that’s going to do to us 2 years down the road.”

However, City Attorney Peter Tracy pointed out that the preliminary budget “is not actually a binding document, in many respects,” and that changes based on future financial data were to be expected. “I think it’s just [an issue of] semantics,” added Councilmember Griffiths. “I really don’t have a preference on how we do this because I think it’s the same either way. My only worry is losing all the hard work we put in during the budget hearings.”

Mayor Pro-Tem Stottlemyre’s motion to continue consideration of the preliminary budget to Dec. 12 was not approved by the Council. Said Councilmember Griffiths, “I’m almost positive you won’t have the answers to your questions by then.” Instead, the Council approved the preliminary FY 12-13 budget and directed staff to bring the budget back to be re-agendized for further discussion at the Dec. 12 meeting.

“I hope I’m wrong, I really do,” said Mayor Pro-Tem Stottlemyre after the meeting. “I just felt we had more time to be cautious in our approach to this. We don’t have to do business as usual. I wanted to let the public know the city of Bishop is being more careful.”

The Council’s next scheduled regular meeting will be Nov. 14.

Bishop City Councilors met for the first time to discuss the city’s FY 2012-2013 Budget on Tuesday at City Council Chambers on West Line.

Like most budget hearings in California of late, this meeting was far from cheery. Interim City Administrator Keith Caldwell reported that the total FY 12-13 expenditures for the city are projected at $9,653,708, while total revenues are projected at $8,880,479, leaving a $773,229 shortfall. If the shortfall isn’t made up through a combination of employee concessions, beginning July 1 2012, changes in the budget, or changes in benefits, the city will be relying on its $2.2 million General Fund Reserve to close the deficit gap.

Mayor Pro-Tem David Stottlemyre pointed out that relying entirely on the reserve would leave just $1.4 million, “which isn’t a whole lot.” On top of that, Stottlemyre continued, “some General Fund-funded things, like salaries, are coming out of TUT [Transient Use Tax] money now.” In FY 10-11 the TUT balance was $280,782. But, said Stottlemyre, “The TUT fund balance by the end of 2013 is projected to be about $17,800. So come 2013, both the General Fund and TUT are going to be way down. This puts us in a very uncomfortable position.”

To determine whether they might cut corners in anticipation of these concerns, Councilors ran through a list of organizations requesting funding for FY 12-13. Two presentations in particular moved Councilors to consider funding requests: the first was from Jennifer Duncan, Director of the Inyo Mono Senior Legal Program. Duncan described the plight of an 86-year-old client who contacted the organization after her SSI (Supplemental Security income) benefits were ended without notice. Duncan reported that, with the help of the Senior Legal Program, the client was able to obtain an immediate reinstatement retroactively to Oct. 2010 for the wrongful termination of SSI benefits. This was just one of many examples of the good the Senior Legal Program has done, she said.

Jean Turner, Director of County Health and Human Services, presented next for the Inyo Mono Area Agency on Aging (IMAAA). As The Sheet recently reported, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors formally ended its partnership with the IMAAA, notifying the IMAAA Governing Board that it would no longer continue providing administrative services for the senior service program as of June 30, 2012. Nevertheless, Turner was requesting the same level of funding from Bishop for the program: about $22,000 to help cover propane, utilities and janitorial service at the Bishop Senior Center.

“We only see our senior population increasing in Inyo County,” Turner said. This past year IMAAA delivered 59,261 meals to homes around the County. In addition, IMAAA delivered 16,572 meals to senior centers, about 8,000 of which were delivered to the Bishop Senior Center. Turner related that she had spoken to some seniors on fixed incomes who “have to decide between food for themselves or their pets. Sometimes their pets are their only companions.”

Jim Tatum, presenting for the Tri-County Fairground and High School Rodeo, was so moved by Duncan and Turner’s presentations that he admitted, “I’m not sure we need this money. I’m not comfortable competing with some of these other programs for these funds. We’re not going to get our feelings hurt if this $1,000 goes to another program.”

Council Member Jim Ellis applauded Tatum for his sincerity. “It shows a lot about your character,” he said. “You’ve got an incredible program, and I hope it continues for a long, long time.”

One area in which the plight of seniors didn’t garner much sympathy was County retiree health insurance costs. The overall cost for providing health insurance to retirees “has doubled in 3 years across the board,” Councilmember Ellis said. A bit of research proves that Ellis wasn’t far from the truth: in FY 09-10 the actual expenditure for City Council retiree health insurance was $38,488; the request for FY 12-13 is $60,000. The same goes for Administration: $16,161 in FY 09-10; $33,000 requested for FY 12-13. The same for Finance: $7,720 in FY 09-10; $14,000 requested for FY 12-13. And so on.

“We pay more for retirees than current employees,” said Councilmember Jeff Griffiths. This, too, appears to be true: City Council FY 09-10 expenditures for current employee healthcare was $35,823 compared to $38,488 for retirees, and the request for FY 12-13 is $57,000 compared to $60,000 for retirees. Although Councilors mused whether they might cap retiree health insurance benefits in the future, no solution was arrived at by the close of the hearing.

Ultimately, Council chose to maintain FY 2010-2011 levels of funding for all programs, with one exception: the IMAAA. “I don’t know who’s going to be running the program,” said Griffiths. “We need a better understanding of who we’d be writing a check to.”

IMAAA is expected to come before Council with more information and a new request sometime next year.

The preliminary FY 12-13 Bishop City budget will move forward for a chance for approval on Monday, Oct. 24.

The Inyo County FY 11-12 Budget Hearing on Aug. 12 in Independence was less doom-and-gloom than one might have been expected, considering this year’s recommended budget marked a $1,206,287 (1.5%) decrease from the FY 2010-11 approved budget.

However, the recommended budget was received with appreciation rather than anger in part because it required no cuts to staff; although three positions were eliminated, said CAO Kevin Carunchio, “The positions that remain are functioning at full capacity. We’re not cutting any services.”

On the other hand, there’s also no money left over to set aside for a rainy day.

Carunchio noted at the beginning of the hearing that FY 2008-09 had marked the “zenith” of Board approved expenditures; since then, the county budget has shrunk by 6.4%, or $5,333,819.

This year the total recommended budget comes to $77,865,291, with $49,421,830 in General Fund expenditures, down $251,511 from last year, and $28,443,461 in Non-General Fund expenditures. General Fund revenues were projected at $45,828,056, while Non-General Fund revenues were projected at $24,516,171.

These revenues have decreased 9.68% since the ‘zenith’ in 08-09, in part because of a recent decrease in LADWP property tax payments, as well as decreases in unsecured property tax revenue.

To balance the deficit between General Fund expenditures and revenues, the recommended budget is looking to use $3,799,535 of the General Fund balance (or rollover) available from FY 2010-11, a move that made some supervisors at Monday’s meeting nervous.

District 2 Supervisor Susan Cash referred to this annual General Fund rollover as a “drip line” the county needed to wean itself off of. “We could do it in baby steps,” she suggested: “say next year we’ll only rely on 3.5 million; the next year only 3.4 million, and so on.”

Currently, the County uses every last drip available.

But as Carunchio noted, reliance on this rollover (accrued when positions go unfilled or when anticipated projects get shelved for some reason) is nothing new to the county, nor is it unusual for other counties, cities and states.

“My dream if we weren’t using the Fund Balance is we could actually start budgeting earlier,” he said after the hearing. “We could potentially get the budget done as soon as June.” The county waits to complete its budget until September not only because it takes the state that long to “get its act together,” but also because the county is relying on the Auditor-Controller to certify the General Fund Balance.

Not using the Fund Balance this year would mean more than $3.5 million in cuts – inevitably to staff and services.

The county’s self-described conservative approach to budgeting has allowed it to avoid these cuts so far. Even Supervisor Cash admitted “the belt’s been tight since I was a county employee 15 years ago.”

The recommended budget was received favorably for the most part by Supervisors and the assembled public. One voice of dissent came from County Coroner Leon Brune, who requested the Board consider giving his employees a raise. But the recommended budget will not have the funding to approve any Department Requested Personnel Actions this year, including requests for employee equality adjustments, career ladders, and reclassifications. Carunchio was sympathetic to Coroner Brune’s request, and stated, “I don’t have any issue with what he’s recommending, other than that I’m not recommending any personnel adjustments.”

The Board promised it would do its best to accommodate the request in the future, when it had a chance to look at overall classification issues in January.

Considering that state revenues are already 10% lower than projected, “trigger cuts” from Sacramento seem inevitable come December and could create mid-year adjustments.

Carunchio pointed out in his 50-page budget message, “one must consider whether the county could ever hope to have adequate contingencies for the level of carnage the State’s ongoing fiscal drama has the potential to visit on county finances.”

“It’s the uncertainty that makes it tough,” Carunchio continued. “The county has to provide services, but when the state baits and switches, for instance with reimbursable public safety grants, the county can get left footing the bill.”

Nevertheless, said District 3 Supervisor Rick Pucci, “I think this budget is a very good document. This is a very difficult time as we all know for economic stability, and I think you have to be self-sufficient as much as possible. I think that’s what this staff is trying to do.”

The budget is expected to be adopted Sept. 20. For more information visit www.inyocounty.us.

Although Recreation Commissioners had a full roster at Tuesday’s meeting in Suite Z, one topic took the floor for longer than one might have expected: Inyo National Forest campground toilets.

A presentation by Mammoth and Mono Deputy District Ranger Mike Schlafmann began innocuously enough. Schlafmann was on hand to discuss fiscal challenges and resource issues faced by the INF with regard to the closure of non-fee Upper/Lower Deadman, Hartley Springs and Obsidian Group camps. He reported that this year all national parks received their budgets much later than normal; INF didn’t receive its budget until June 15, already 75% through the fiscal year. The final budget required a 15% cut to the recreation program, giving the INF “about two weeks to reduce the budget by $400,000.” The result: the INF was forced to lay off five employees, all of whom were subsequently picked up by partners and other organizations, and to close the four aforementioned campgrounds, as well as reducing services and interpretive programs at visitors centers throughout the national forest area.

“We really don’t have a good sense of what kind of budget we’re going to be working with next year,” Schlafmann said. “Best case scenario is it’ll be close to what we have this year,” which is about $1.7 million in appropriated funding, with additional ‘soft money’ from grants and fee collection.

“These are tough circumstances,” Schlafmann acknowledged; “don’t think we take these closures lightly. The challenge is balancing that with all the other services we’re trying to offer on the ground.”

Chair Bill Sauser and Commissioner Sean Turner expressed their frustration and concern with these closures. Chair Sauser voiced his worry that campground closures would have one particular negative impact: campers unfamiliar with dispersal camping would leave dispersal campsites littered with trash and even human waste. Commissioner Turner also had bathrooms on the brain when he related another example of the negative impact of closures: “I was just up at Horseshoe this last weekend,” he said, “and only one side of the toilets were open. That side had a very long line with noticeably discomforted people. That’s not a good visitor’s experience. People might not want to come back.”

Schlafmann agreed that this was a less than ideal situation, but noted that the Horseshoe toilets may have been closed for a temporary maintenance issue, not permanently. Either way, he said, “toilets are a blessing and a curse. The INF has 160 toilets to clean, sometimes twice daily.” If cutting funding for maintenance of some restroom facilities means keeping basic necessities like staff and service hours at INF visitors centers, Schlafmann said, then some toilets will have to go. “It’s as stark as that.”

“I wasn’t sure if that struck home,” Schlafmann said after the meeting. His fear: commissioners’ expectations regarding INF services might not fully take into account the difficult position the INF is in. “This is a zero sum game,” he said. “INF operates on a fixed budget, so to maintain one facility means another facility can’t be maintained.” Furthermore, INF was given strict direction along with its already reduced budget: any deficits in FY11 will be deducted from FY12 budgets. That, coupled with the fact that so much of INF ‘soft money’ comes from grants threatened by the economic downturn, has forced the INF to prioritize and make some tough calls.

Ostensibly the purpose of Schlafmann’s presentation at the meeting was to facilitate a discussion of possible INF-Town partnerships. “We’re ready to partner with whoever is interested,” said Schlafmann; however, “it’s challenging if you’re not sure your partners have a clear strategy when it comes to the potential impact of the Hot Creek settlement.”

Chief Sauser steered the conversation back to toilets with a suggestion for one possible partnership: “there may be local businesses willing to help with bathroom maintenance if you put up a plaque,” he said. Commissioner Teri Stehlik’s dry response: “That’s always what I wanted my name on.”

All joking aside, Schlafmann reminded the commissioners “it’s not just about bathrooms, although that’s the most obvious example; you see it and experience it.” INF is looking at many more tough cuts to meet its budget constraints while still providing necessary services for the four million visitors who pass through the Inyo National Forest every year. But, reported Schlafmann, “Overall, anecdotally, the closures do not seem to be having a substantial effect on visitation. In fact, numbers for visitors centers, campgrounds and Reds Meadow are up as of July.”

It’s “so far, NOT so good” for Gov. Jerry Brown’s new budget. Since Brown signed the spending plan into law, revenues have come in 10% short of expectations. The numbers seem to defy the governor’s optimistic expectations for the fiscal year that began on July 1, and are a likely indicator of the toll the economy is still taking on states across the country.

In July, the state brought in $4.71 billion, according to data released Tuesday by its controller. That was $538.8 million short of the expected $5.25 billion for the month. August wasn’t trending well either as of mid-month, though final figures won’t be in until September.

In order to close the state’s $25 billion budget deficit, Brown and Democrats in the legislature are relying, in part, on $4 billion in “anticipated” revenues. No Republicans voted for the budget.

If that “anticipated” revenue doesn’t materialize, Brown’s plan calls for midyear cuts that could hit public schools, universities and other areas if the state’s revenue assumptions are too high by $1 billion or more. If revenues are off by more than $1 billion, look for $600 million in cuts to higher education and childcare. If they are off by more than $2 billion, more cuts are in store for K-12 education, which could kick in as early as January 2012.

“While we hope for better news in the months ahead, every drop in revenues puts us closer to the trigger cuts that could be imposed next year,” Controller John Chiang said in a statement.

Mammoth Unified School District Superintendent Rich Boccia is watching this situation closely. Boccia hopes to fiscally shore up the District by pushing hard for passage of a new five-year term for its $59 Parcel Tax, which will be put before voters this November. The tax, a one-size fits all, annual tax on property owners, has provided roughly $650,000 of what Boccia and former Finance Director Jim Maxey say might have started out as “supplemental,” but has lately become “essential revenue” in the MUSD budget.

Boccia has said the Parcel Tax could well mean the difference between riding a state budget cut storm out and being forced to make difficult, and indeed painful choices. “The Parcel Tax is now a ‘local stimulus package,’ and if it fails we will have drastic cuts in staffing and programs at all levels,” Boccia told The Sheet.

Funding cuts could split Inyo-Mono agency on aging

Budget cuts and revenue reductions are effecting services provided by Inyo and Mono counties, and the latest to take a hit is the Inyo Mono Area Agency on Aging (IMAAA).

Formed in 1980 through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA), IMAAA provides Inyo and Mono county seniors with direct services like congregate meals at senior sites, home delivered meals, transportation to medical appointments or grocery shopping, and home services such as light housekeeping and personal care.

Inyo covers the bulk of the cost for these services, which aren’t cheap, and have only been rising in recent years, while funding allocations remain stagnant, or decrease.

According to Inyo County Health and Human Services (HHS) and IMAAA Executive Secretary Gina Ellis, IMAAA is funded through a complex combination of state, county, and local dollars. This year, the state allocation is about $145,000 less than it was in FY 07/08. In addition, June 30 marked the end of a three-year grant with The California Wellness Foundation (TCWF) that covered $300,000 for

“core operating” costs. Inyo won’t learn until September whether IMAAA will be awarded another three-year grant for between $50,000-$63,333 per year, that would help with administrative and food costs.

Couple these changes in funding with Inyo’s budget challenges, and you have a recipe for a massive shortfall. The current total shortfall for FY 11/12 is $871,465, according to Ellis. That shortfall is made up a combination of administrative and direct service delivery costs.

Administrative costs — the cost of data collection from all service providers and data reporting to the state, preparation of state-required budgets and multiple reporting documents, staffing all activities associated with both the Advisory Council and Governing Board, etc. — continue to increase annually, while revenues continue to decrease. The current administrative allocation of $61,932 — down from $95,445 three years ago — won’t come close to covering the $393,388 it costs Inyo County to administer the program for the two counties.

Then there’s the direct service delivery cost to Inyo eligible seniors, which in FY 10/11 was $1,078,043, while Inyo’s share of the state and federal revenue for providing those services was $486,521. In FY11/12, Inyo’s share of state and federal revenues is $453,126. This leaves a direct service funding gap of $540,009.

In the past, Inyo has sought the use of General Funds to close these gaps. This year the proposed IMAAA budget is requesting a General Fund contribution of $686,514, and is hoping to make up the extra $184,951 through contributions from other revenues, including locally-generated dollars. The request for $686,514 marks a $99,702 increase from the General Fund contribution for FY 10/11, or an increase of 17%.

So how else can Inyo get the funding it needs? Currently Inyo provides 72.5% to Mono’s 27.5% of direct service revenues, and Inyo maintains 100% responsibility for administration. One of Inyo’s solutions to the budget problem is to seek greater support from Mono County for administrative costs. As a recent Inyo Board of Supervisors letter to IMAAA pointed out, “one of the most apparent ways” to increase revenues would be to “spread the cost of the administrative shortfall — shouldered exclusively by Inyo County during the twenty four years it has provided IMAAA with administrative services — among other contractors.”

In other words, it might be time for Mono County to relieve a little bit of Inyo’s burden.

The BOS letter to the IMAAA ends on a somewhat ominous note: “No later than Oct. 4, the Inyo County Board will be considering options for the continuation of senior services in Inyo County, including possible notice to terminate its contract with IMAAA.”

IMAAA may have brought this threat upon itself by reminding the BOS in an Aug. 2 Agenda Request Form that “it may be useful to recall that neither Inyo nor Mono is mandated to provide these services. The responsibility for the provision of these services is mandated by the federal government to the state, and the state is required to provide these services via state-designated Public Service Areas (PSAs). In many parts of the state, PSAs are operated by nonprofit agencies and do not require counties.”

So what does this mean for the future of IMAAA? When asked whether these two statements could spell the end of Inyo’s support for the IMAAA, Ellis answered, “We know that the Inyo Board of Supervisors has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, a strong commitment to seniors.”

What this means for the more than 8,065 seniors in Inyo and Mono counties remains unclear.

The Inyo County BOS elected not to accept the proposed IMAAA budget on Aug. 2. The budget will be reconsidered as part of the county’s budget hearings currently scheduled to begin on Sept. 12.

The reverberations from contentious battles being waged on Capitol Hill over the budget and the debt ceiling are being felt in the Eastern Sierra.

The U.S. Forest Service has already laid off a handful of staff and is bracing for what could be a tough 2012. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives leadership is proposing a continuing resolution that would trim $74 billion in government spending, including a $38 million cut in Forest Service funding for the next fiscal year.

According to a statement from Inyo National Forest spokesperson Nancy Upham, cuts and trims so far are actually fallout from this year’s 2011 budget, which arrived late this year. “By the time the budget arrived (in June), we had staffed visitors center, hired rangers, and were ready to go for summer, and the numbers came in lower than expected,” Upham explained. The Forest Service has so far laid-off seven temporary employees, though two of those were reassigned and are being paid out of grant dollars; another two permanent positions are being left unfilled.

Closures include four campgrounds: Upper and Lower Deadman, Hartley Springs and Obsidian. Trims in operating hours have been implemented at area visitors centers, including the Mono Basin Scenic and Mammoth locations, Bishop’s White Mountain Ranger Station. Schulman Grove near the Bristlecone Pine Forest and the Interagency Visitors Center in Lone Pine.

Also 1 p.m. interpretive tours at South Tufa site at Mono Lake have been cancelled. (Mono Lake Committee and State Tufa Reserve still conduct tours.) Upham said other agencies including the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association and even the National Parks Service have pitched in to help stretch hours and “keep the train on the tracks.”

“I apologize for any inconvenience this is causing, especially so late in the summer season,” commented new Inyo National Forest Superintendent Ed Armenta. “I am thankful to all our partners in providing assistance and helping us in service to the visiting public.”

How does all this affect Town Wildlife Specialist Steve Searles? Mammoth Police Chief Dan Watson said no changes are expected to the Town’s contract to patrol Forest Service lands within the Town limits, but added there is still no hint on the horizon of any progress on allowing Searles to perform his wildlife management duties on Forest Service land. A proposal to get Searles qualified and duly permitted was filed in January but is still awaiting a determination.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which already claims it’s woefully underfunded to effectively manage endangered species, is set to take a $72 million hit, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund would be cut by a whopping $348 million.

Environmental and other conservation groups are also budget targets. The House seeks to cut $1.6 billion from the EPA’s overall budget, including $25 million from the EPA’s state and local air quality management programs, and $48 million from the agency’s Brownfields program, which promotes restoration and reuse of contaminated lands. In addition, the Natural Resource Conservation Service stands to lose $46 million, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund could be gutted by as much as $34 million.

Even the U.S. Geological Survey, which monitors earthquakes and other activity, might have to ride out a $27 million temblor.

It remains to be seen how the cuts will impact Devils Postpile National Monument, which celebrated its centennial earlier this month. Devils Postpile is governed by the National Park Service, which would lose $51 million. “We’re in wait-and-see mode,” said Postpile Superintendent Deanna Dulen. “There’s so much uncertainty about the budget. We haven’t seen anything with any definition on it yet. We’re playing it conservative … we’re preparing for the worst and hoping for the best.”

In a state historically late delivering budgets, the California legislature voted Tuesday night to approve an $86 billion budget that closes a $10 billion shortfall using a mix of cuts to state universities and welfare programs, deferring payments to schools and making what some critics labeled “rosy assumptions” for $4 billion in additional revenue.

Democratic majorities in both the state Senate and Assembly took a detour around stubborn Republicans, who provided zero votes in support.

Brown did meet his goal to have a spending plan in place before July 1, the start of the state’s fiscal year.

Much is riding on those $4 billion in “assumptions.” If that revenue doesn’t materialize, school spending could face significantly deeper cuts next year. Already among the hardest hit in the new budget, the University of California and Cal State systems face about a 23% in funding cuts. Both systems will lose $150 million dollars and could face deeper cuts in December. These cuts will force both university systems to increase their tuitions as well as the Community College System.

Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management in Los Angeles, said the budget package’s revenue expectation was risky and reminded her of the budget tricks Brown said he would strive to avoid. “I like to call it the ‘abracadabra’ budget,” Cohen said. “Abracadabra and the $4 billion magically materializes.”

Earlier this month, Brown vetoed an earlier budget submitted by Democrats, which fell far short of being balanced and took too many legal risks.

Stubborn Republican lawmakers, who fought Brown tooth and nail on numerous facets of the budget, sharply criticized the package. Several Republicans lamented that what could have been a bipartisan budget was lost due to a lack of Democratic flexibility on spending caps, and changes to touchstones such as public-sector pensions and environmental regulations. -Geisel

Additional sources: Reuters, Tribune Weekly Chronicle (Holtville)