theSheetNews.com

Pictured: Jack Jerry Colby/

On Thursday, Sept. 6 the Mono County Narcotics Task Force (MONET), along with assistance from the Mono County Sheriff’s Department and Mammoth Lakes Police Department, concluded an extensive investigation for the sales of cocaine in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

MONET agents served a search warrant resulting in the arrest of Jack Jerry Colby, age 70, of Mammoth Lakes for suspicion of cocaine sales. The search warrant resulted in the seizure of more than $19,000, which was proceeds from the sales of narcotics. Agents recovered scales, packaging materials, more than one and a half pounds of cocaine, one gram of methamphetamine and a small amount of marijuana.

Colby was taken into custody at the Mono County Jail in Bridgeport and charges are pending with the Mono County District Attorney’s Office. -Press release

Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators late last week reached an agreement for an amended California’s fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. The deal reportedly targets the state’s welfare rolls, cuts back other social programs, allows the legislature to pass a state budget on time and Brown to shift his focus toward campaigning for voter approval of his tax initiative package on the ballot in November.

The budget also nixed a potential showdown between Brown and members of his own party, who sought to curb the steepness in some of his proposed cuts.

Democratic leaders and Brown spent this week negotiating their lingering disagreements, and agreed to “split the difference” on various budget-cutting proposals, though at least for now education has been left relatively untouched in the new budget deal. Brown has previously called for significant cuts to a raft of education funding that would hit in January 2013, assuming his tax package is flop at the box office.

This budget tightens work requirements and time limits for welfare recipients, a feature Brown wanted. But monthly checks would not be reduced, and there could be exemptions made for those close to finishing job training programs.

“This agreement strongly positions the state to withstand the economic challenges and uncertainties ahead,” Brown said in a statement. “We have restructured and downsized our prison system, moved government closer to the people, made billions in difficult cuts and now the Legislature is poised to make even more difficult cuts and permanently reform welfare.”

The final, amended spending plan will probably be slightly smaller than the $92.1 billion actual budget approved by the Legislature last week. Passing the budget last week along strict party lines allowed lawmakers to meet a June 15 constitutional deadline and, more important it would seem, continue receiving their paychecks. Mono County’s State Senator Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) was one of the entirety of legislative Republicans who voted against that budget.

“This budget is not balanced, not honest and not what the people of California deserve from their government,” Gaines said in a statement. “It is a phony, gimmicky document that does nothing to address chronic, structural overspending.”

Needless to say, the budget is far from a cure-all, and still leaves the state facing numerous financial challenges. The spending plan hinges on voters approving more than $8 billion in tax increases. Brown’s initiative, which qualified for the November ballot Wednesday, would raise the state sales tax by one-quarter of a cent for four years and hike income taxes on California’s wealthiest residents by one to three percentage points for seven years. If voters reject the taxes, billions of dollars would be cut from California schools, and the academic year could be shortened by three weeks.

Another factor: how money from defunct local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) is spent. Brown wants to use $1.4 billion in leftover property tax money that used to fund the RDAs to help close the current $16 billion deficit. Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said in a Department of Finance review that there’s “considerable uncertainty” as to the amount of tax revenue projected, and expects it to be lower, raising the deficit by almost an additional $1 billion, essentially canceling out any help the RDA money might provide.

Taylor added that some of the RDA money could be siphoned off before it reaches the state because of defunct redevelopment agencies’ previous obligations, such as construction contracts or bond payments. Lawsuits threatened over recent dissolution of the agencies could further complicate matters.

The budget also assumes California will rake in $1.9 billion in tax revenue related to Facebook’s public offering. But that calculation is based on a $35 share price, and the stock stood more than $3 below that on Thursday.

Meanwhile, the fate of several critical programs — welfare, childcare, college scholarships and healthcare (such as the state’s Healthy Families program) — still hangs in the balance.

One of the education provisions of note in this budget calls for stricter standards for Cal Grants, the state’s college scholarship program. Newly awarded Cal Grants would be valid only at colleges that graduate a certain percentage of their students.

Gutting the gridlock

It’s been a dream for as long as many California residents can remember: a Sacramento legislature free of gridlock. But for as long as many can also remember, running for office as a Republican meant essentially standing on a “no new taxes” platform, one that was rickety at best when it came to having an ability to negotiate.

All that could change this election year, as the state’s political landscape, newly painted with redrawn districts and new election rules, has given several moderate candidates who are not staunchly anti-tax hope of gaining ground, at least in the Assembly. Electing enough of those to office could mean an end to an era of what’s devolved into purely partisan bickering and obstinate obstruction.

Going into the November vote will be at least five viable Republican Assembly contenders, who refuse to sign a no-tax pledge that has, they think, only led to bad budget deals and gimmick-laden spending, as the state watched its fiscal crisis grow and grow.

In a state where voters constantly seek some sort of balance between extreme liberal and extreme conservative districts, creation of more centrist districts along with the new open primary electoral system, has opened the door to a major political shift toward the middle. Even business groups that typically back GOP candidates have turned away from the usual dyed in the wool conservatives, and begun supporting pledge-free Republicans.

Peter Tateishi, one of two GOP candidates competing for a seat in the Assembly who didn’t sign an anti-tax pledge, told the LA TImes he thinks his party missed a chance to win big policy victories, such as changing the state’s public pension system, by walking away from tax negotiations with Brown. “There are very few opportunities in which the minority [party] can advance the ball…and negotiations are one of them,” he said. “I’m not running because I think we need more taxes. But if the governor or the [Assembly] speaker want to have a conversation with me, I need to have everything on the table.” –Addl. Sources: LA Times, California County News

California’s controversial rural fire fee that was enacted in the 2011-2012 state budget earlier this summer met with huge resistance and calls for its repeal almost immediately upon signature into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

Last week, however, Brown and many Democratic lawmakers said they are pushing for even higher rates than originally predicted in Brown’s budget.

Most recently the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection had revised the law’s fee structure so that rural residents can only be charged a maximum of $90 (as opposed to $150). However, this change certainly affects the amount of revenue the state can hope to take in, as previous estimates projected $50 million in funds for the state.

The law was supposed to bring in $200 million annually after the first year.

The change did not sit well with the Governor.

According to a report in The Sacramento Bee, “[Brown’s] new proposal would impose a minimum of $175 on the first building and $25 on each additional structure. It would also assess a land fee starting at $1 per acre for the first 100 acres. Homeowners who live in fire districts, which includes 94 percent of the roughly 730,000 rural structures being charged, qualify for a $25 discount. When Brown signed the original plan, ABX1 29, he signaled it was flawed because it didn’t allow the state to use fee dollars to fight wildfires.”

But all that effort could come to naught if some legislators are successful at stalling the fees at the collecting stage.

According to the Regional Council for Rural Counties (RCRC), as of Wednesday, the Assembly version of the new State Responsibility Areas (SRA) fire fee bill, AB 24X, was heard in the Senate Budget Committee, but was not voted on, and set aside.

Meanwhile, in the Assembly, its companion measure, SB 7X, essentially the funding mechanism for the original bill, was scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Budget Committee, but was tabled, with the Chair citing “numerous concerns as cited by the Senate Budget Committee.”

In other drama, Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries (R-Riverside) made an attempt to offer amendments to an unrelated budget bill, AB 45X, which would repeal the existing statute sanctioning the SRA fee. The Budget Committee immediately moved to block the Jeffries amendment. All Republicans voted against the motion. But while most Democrats voted “aye,” a pair of Democrats, Assemblyman Wes Chesbro (D-Humboldt) and Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-Marin) voted “no,” which analysts interpreted as a willingness on the part of some Democrats to consider a repeal of the SRA fee.

Representatives from numerous rural counties and supervisors, including Mono County, have been harshly critical of the fee. “It’s a lot of bullsh*t,” Supervisor Tim Hansen remarked.

Homeowners affected by the fee can expect to receive a bill in spring of 2012, but the dust is far from settled. Activist groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have vowed to fight the fee “to the death” in the courts, should it be allowed to stand.

State Senator Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) has already filed a referendum to repeal the law. Jeffries was also expected to insert his AB 45X repeal language into other vehicles over the remaining two days of the legislative session. If none of the new bills are passed by the legislature by Friday, which isn’t seen as being likely, the fee’s collection mechanism could find itself essentially dead in committee, opening the door for a full repeal of the initial fee law.

-Additional sources: California County News, Sacramento Bee

“We do not have a spending problem. We have a revenue enhancement problem.” That infamous quote from former Democratic District 1 Assemblywoman Patty Berg could hold the key to a lot of the budget problems plaguing Sacramento lawmakers.

Democrats and Republicans have already gone back and forth on cuts to universities, shifting prisoners to county jails and slashing funds for Medi-Cal patients, mopping up between $11 billion and $14 billion of the state’s $26.6 billion red ink by trimming line items, taking funds from special accounts and coming up with creative ways to raise revenue. That, however, appears to have been the easy part; finding the rest of the money will be significantly harder … and likely more painful as of this week.

On Wednesday, Governor Jerry Brown dropped his plan to broker a bipartisan California budget by asking voters, via a June special election ballot measure, to approve a five-year extension of temporary sales and income taxes originally enacted in 2009 that he hoped would help close the state’s $26.4 billion gap by $12 billion.

Brown came close, needing just four more Republican votes to realize the special election. He attributed the shortfall to a lengthy list of GOP counter proposals. “Every Republican legislator I’ve spoken to believes that voters should not have this right to vote unless I agree to an ever-changing list of [at least 53] collateral demands,” he said in a statement late Tuesday afternoon.

“Governor Brown and the Dems can’t have it both ways. They asked for ideas, and then complained there were too many,” Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the California Republican Party Chair responded.

Now the governor is free to implement his threatened “all-cuts” approach to the budget. Nothing would be overlooked, with Brown targeting everything including ending K-3 class-size reduction and eliminating sports at community colleges, according to a report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

GOP leadership objected to the special election proposal, spinning the extensions as “new taxes,” even though the measures would only telescope out taxes currently in existence. The GOP leadership is also opposed to Brown’s call for eliminating redevelopment agencies, an idea that has support from the historically conservative Wall Street Journal.

Democrats, who of late have been “cut happy” on certain sections of the budget, may have had their fill, and likely won’t stomach billions more in cuts. Republicans say they are in favor of health and welfare reductions, but opposed to cuts to education and corrections.

“The Republicans, for some reason known only to them, don’t want to balance the budget with cuts. And they don’t appear to want to balance it with new revenues. So they must want a profound, continuing unbalanced budget,” Gov. Brown observed.

Republicans responded that they aren’t opposed to cuts, but disagree with Democrats’ methodology. “We agree with cuts, but if you look at it overall, there are some cuts, but it’s not $12 billion worth of cuts. It’s fund shifts, and it’s moving [money] around,” Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway, (R-Tulare) said.

Senate Republicans, who have had talks with the governor, have also proposed amending the State Constitution with spending caps and pension cuts, and loosening strict regulations that affect businesses and construction, hoping to draw back industry that has fled the state for better tax climates. Unions oppose the constitutional changes, but say they are willing to address the pension system.

A recent Field/UC Berkeley poll showed that registered voters are inclined to support tax extensions, but at the same time oppose any new tax hikes.

“I think they have to be careful that it’s not perceived as they’re going to the voters to raise taxes because the legislature couldn’t get the job done,” said California political consultant Adam Mendelsohn, a former adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “People have such a low opinion of what’s happening in Sacramento.”

No wonder since the dysfunctional behavior shows no sign of letting up. The Senate has debated and passed budget measures on strictly party-line votes, typically with zero GOP support, and the Assembly has proven to be a model of partisan bickering and procedural acrimony.

As Daniel J.B. Mitchell, UCLA Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Management, observed, “Brown could take the position that ‘you’re not giving me this (tax) option, so if that’s what you want, I’ll give you the budget you seem to say you want.’” The governor, he added, might try to “present the ‘budget from hell’ and see what happens.”

Additional sources: The Times-Standard, Sacramento Bee, Christian Science Monitor

Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard wasn’t a fan of Gov. Jerry Brown (pictured here in the 1970s) in his first go-round as governor, but may be a convert in 2011. (Photo: uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com)

Mono County’s Board of Supervisors finally approved the new building codes on Jan. 11, and came a lot closer to embracing the new CalGreen Title 24 residential and non-residential construction mandates enacted by the state as of Jan. 1.

The Board thinks the County can reckon with most of the new regulations, except one: fire suppression. Board Chair Hap Hazard said the supervisors aren’t happy with residential fire suppression mandates, particularly as concerns remote, part-time occupied homes. “Full-time residential homes are not the issue,” Hazard commented. “We’re concerned about cabins, especially those that sit empty during the winter.”

Hazard said those structures would be left sitting unattended with charged systems and wells running, leading to freezing issues. “I think that a fire in an unoccupied building, in a snow-covered field, isn’t much of a risk as a health and safety issue,” he said. “It’s another one of those ‘one state law fits all’ situations.”

Hazard’s favorite color

It may not be brown, but the District 2 Supervisor expressed some optimism when it came to the state’s newest “old” governor, Jerry Brown, who took office on Jan. 3 for another term, after having served two terms in the 1970s. (That was prior to California’s enacting of term limits on the state’s highest office.)

Hazard, not speaking for the rest of the Board of Supervisors (just himself), indicated he’s cautiously optimistic about Brown’s immediate assault on the state’s fiscal problems and size of the budget scalpel he’s wielding.

“I’m not a big Jerry Brown fan … I lived under him before, but at this point, he’s appearing to be more Republican and conservative than Ronald Reagan was,” Hazard opined. “He truly seems to understand how the state got in this position. He identified what the problems are and hit the ground running.”

Brown has yet to fully win over Hazard as a convert, but the supervisor is nonetheless impressed at the speed at which the governor presented his proposals. “Usually we would have to wait 6-8 months to see something. He’s way ahead of the typical schedule. At least we know where the hits will come,” Hazard remarked. Thanks to the jump on the budget plan, County staff has the “luxury” of reviewing Brown’s budget proposals for use in the Board’s mid-year budget review next month. “We’ll have to see how they impact the County,” he added.

Cash flow for the state, he thinks, is going to be the most crucial factor. One aspect he pointed to that isn’t being talked about (at least not yet) involves localities having to pass tax increases to pay for burdens transferred by the state to local governments, should the governor’s proposed tax extensions be rejected at the ballot box this coming June or prevented from reaching the ballot at all.

Hazard indicated to The Sheet he’s not pleased at the prospect of that scenario emerging. Given the recent resistance voters have exhibited toward enacting “new” taxes (as opposed to Brown’s plan of extending existing taxes at current levels), self taxing at the local level is likely not something Mono County citizens will be too thrilled about, either.

Bipartisan solutions will be needed to make most if not all of the budget proposals work, Hazard suggested. “Nobody’s going to like everything.”

It may prove cheaper than registering your car

In the 1970s, when Jerry Brown was elected the state’s 34th governor, his touchy-feely manner and strong environmental stance earned him the odd nickname “Governor Moonbeam.”

A generation or more later, after a hard-fought electoral victory over former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, Moonbeam’s back, but the brightness of his optimism, in the face of a gargantuan budget deficit, is considerably dimmed. Instead, his first proposed budget is filled with paring and downsizing. And at least a few of the cuts arguably stem from policy decisions Brown had a hand in when he first held the office more than 30 years ago.

In his fiscal plan, unveiled Monday, Brown asked Californians to accept deep service cuts, more taxes and a fundamental shift in the way resources are distributed. The document calls for $12.5 billion in what he called “drastic cuts” to nearly every state program, an extra $12 billion in revenues and nearly $1 billion in reserves for the next 18 months to lead the state out of a $25.4 billion budget deficit that has been steadily growing as the economy has shrunk.

The state has lost 2 million residents to other states in the past 20 years, and has the lowest credit rating of any state in the union. No wonder … it also has $91 billion in accumulated debt, which has ballooned by 50% just since the recession hit about three years ago.

The new taxes mentioned are essentially proposed extensions of taxes approved in 2009 and set to expire in July. Part of Brown’s budget is predicated on Californians voting to extend these taxes in June.

If they don’t, Brown indicated that could leave schools and other state services at risk, and force him to look for additional areas to cut. “I’m hopeful (voters will) want to do this,” Brown said at a recent budget news conference. “This is the best I can figure out.”

Brown immediately won praise from Democratic leaders, though Republicans condemned the tax extensions, promising to fight to keep them from reaching the ballot. Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) called the budget a “comprehensive framework” that he has committed to enacting despite the tough cuts Democrats will have to agree to. He asked Republicans to approach the budget as an exercise in “shared sacrifice.”

Not likely, say GOP leaders. “There’s not any support for tax extensions” among Republicans, according to Assembly Budget committee vice chairman Jim Nielsen (R-Redding). “I believe there’s $25 billion that people don’t need to be taxed for. It’s the worst signal to send that taxes will be maintained.”

Brown said he’d prefer a bipartisan deal and a two-thirds vote to get any ballot measure through the legislature, but tempered that by saying he and Steinberg would, if necessary, consider pushing the ballot proposal forward with a simple Democratic majority vote.

California’s government will spend $84.6 billion in general funds for 2011-2012. The Senate was scheduled to begin holding budget hearings Thursday.

Where the moonbeams won’t shine

Whacked in this budget: the less fortunate. Medi-Cal will be hit for $1.7 billion; the welfare-to-work program, CalWORKS, loses another $1.5 billion and the Department of Developmental Services, $750 million.

As soon as the budget was announced, protesters were lined up in demonstrations outside the Capitol. The cuts, they said, would “put further strain on an already taxed community safety net.”

Higher education will also see further impact. The University of California and California State University will lose $500 million each. The budget does spare K-12 education, maintaining expenditures at its current $49 billion level.

State parks, which managed to dodge budget bullets under former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, may be under the gun yet again. Parks stand to lose roughly $11 million; some parks may be partially or fully shuttered.

State employees not covered under collective bargaining agreements would get a 10% reduction in take-home pay, saving $308 million. Another $200 million would be saved through government-trimming operations such as reorganizations and consolidations.

Under Brown’s realignment plan, revenue generated from the taxes would go directly to local governments to finance the first phase of Brown’s plan to shift responsibilities from the state to local governments. Transferring authority to locally run community-based corrections facilities, for instance, is estimated by Brown’s budget to save $458 million. More than 50,000 inmates are sent to prison to stay less than 90 days, a cost of $200,000 per inmate. “We’ll send the money down to [the localities],” the governor said. Mental health, foster care and substance abuse programs are also programs better handled at the local level, he added.

The governor also proposes to eliminate enterprise zones and phase out the state’s 425 redevelopment agencies, which he said would reroute billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities and counties. Not surprisingly, redevelopment advocates are against such a move.

Brown called his proposal “a tough budget for tough times” that eliminates the structural deficit and sets the state on course to stable budget practices. State Controller John Chiang called Brown’s budget a “refreshing departure from past schemes that too often sacrificed long-term fiscal stability for band-aid solutions.” Unions, Brown’s closest allies, not unexpectedly lined up in support of the budget, though some expressed reservations about certain cuts. The California Labor Federation, however, called it a “much-needed balance between cuts and revenues.”

Getting the tax measures finalized in time for a summer vote dictates that the state legislature must complete its budget work by March. In his budget statement to legislators, Brown acknowledged that getting the tax extensions on the ballot, much less passed by voters, would take a stepped up sales pitch. “I’ll try to win over as much support as I can. I will sometimes go into the lion’s den and see if I can’t satisfy them with less red meat than they’re accustomed.”

Eye of Newt

Meanwhile, it seems that more and more of the private sector is wising up to the size of the banquet to which the public sector unions have been treating themselves at taxpayer expense. And the unions may soon find that the party’s over. Politicos who have heretofore curried favor with the unions by boosting pensions, adding holidays and dropping reforms, rather than increasing front-end pay, now find themselves up against a wall and facing a firing squad of money shortfalls. Now, they have to cut costs, focus on productivity and improve levels of service. Or else, as evidenced in November nationwide, it’s the blindfold and a cigarette for your seat in government.

Too many state workers can retire in their 50s and at almost full pay, and estimates show that underfunded (or unfunded) pension liabilities owed by the states start at $5 trillion and could actually be as much as $13 trillion.

For reference: the entire U.S. national debt just passed the $14 trillion mark.

Critics say that fixing the pension problem shouldn’t be used as a reason to disparage the public sector, but at the same time point to myriad problems caused by its fallout, including infrastructure issues, such as the poor state of the country’s roads and rail system, and employment problems, such as those caused by a poorly planned teacher tenure practices, among others.

One concept being floated by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is to allow states to declare bankruptcy under federal law, which he thinks would go a long way toward avoiding any potential bailouts by the federal government.

The intent, according a story by Examiner.com Finance writer Ken Schortgen, seems to be to allow the states the opportunity to void the destructive contracts they helped institute with the unions over the past three decades, and to help them get out from under the un-payable Municipal debt they accumulated from their own fiscal irresponsibility.

On the flip side, how can one support the breaking of contracts with one’s own citizens and negating the pension agreements created with municipal and state workers?

California’s unfunded pension liability is estimated at more than $500 billion, six times the present state budget, according to a Stanford University study.

But if it’s a choice between bankruptcy or more taxes, its seems voters are inclined to take just about any other remedy, so long as it doesn’t involve any more taxation. As one Illinois voter told a television reporter for Fox News, “Do something. Just don’t keep sticking it to those of us who are already paying more than we can afford.”

Sources: Contra Costa Times (Steve Harmon), FOX News, The Economist and the Wall Street Journal.