Balanced Budget

AikiMike · Posted: 16 Jul 2010 12:19 PM Post subject: Balanced Budget

The City Council announced that they will have a balanced budget for the this fiscal year, with a surplus of $ 145,000. That sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? But, part of the budget includes transferring over $ 400,000 of Prop 172 funds into the General Fund. As a reminder, Prop 172 created a small hike in taxes to fund public safety, which includes police, fire, lifeguards, prosecutors and so on. By moving that money to the General Fund, it can be spent in any way the City chooses. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about it, particularly after just passing Prop H for that same purpose, with the promise that although the funds would reside in the General Fund, they would only be spent for public safety?

Have you been scammed on Prop 172? Do you still believe Prop H monies will only go to public safety?

verbal · Posted: 23 Jul 2010 11:05 AM Post subject:

I believe John Moreno and Victor Carillo, will spend as much of that General Fund money as possible.

Was it really necessary to travel to Texas for an investigation to the Toll for border crossers? Go online, read up, and make some calls. Instead, Victor, John, a 3rd gunmen went to Texas.

Public safety? What is that exactly? How much money is allocated for it?

AikiMike · Posted: 23 Jul 2010 12:42 PM Post subject:

Public Safety is pretty well defined in the original proposition, Prop 172. I don't recall the year we passed it, but it included a half-cent sales tax to fund public safety. That term was defined as police, fire, and prosecution services. The money could not be used for any other purpose, and more importantly, could not be used as a basis to supplant General Fund monies. What that meant is that the local government had to continue funding public safety and could not reduce the expenditures by the amount of the Prop 172 monies. I don't know how much Calexico generates annually, but it should be in your budget books for each fiscal year. In the present case, the City is moving $435,000 into the General Fund, so that much is being taken inappropriately in my opinion. That also suggests to me that your recently passed Proposition H will also be pirated as well.

Frankly I was surprised it took so long to get any reaction here - I honestly thought people would be up in arms when they learned what is happening. You guys don't seem to miss a thing when the local politicians start running amok.

verbal · Posted: 23 Jul 2010 01:35 PM Post subject:

AikiMike · Posted: 23 Jul 2010 04:27 PM Post subject:

I don't have a lot of answers for you since I don't have any inside information. I learned of all this reading the IV Press on line - at least the part about transferring the monies and the send-up for Prop H before the June election.

What was reported was that the City was transferring $ 435K from the Prop 172 fund into the General Fund in order to balance the budget and achieve a surplus of $ 145K for the current fiscal year. That is the functional equivilent to moving road tax money into parks and recreation. In other words, the money moved is dedicated funding that was collected and earmarked for a very specific and limited purpose. By moving it to the General Fund, it can be spent any way the City chooses to spend it. That is the rub, in my mind.

Prop 172 was passed by the voters in the mid-eighties (as I recall) and called for a half-cent sales tax to fund public safety. Again, the money was not to be used for any other purpose and was not to supplant local government's obligation to fund public safety. In other words, it was to enhance public safety beyond what the local governments were willing and capable of funding. Because the requirements for use were so restrictive, even very conservative tax watchdog groups supported the measure and it passed with a wide majority.

Calexico's Proposition H was a similar measure that was presented to the voters as a way of funding public safety in the city. Uniquely, again as I understand it from reading the paper, it was advertised as a general revenue increase which required a simple majority to pass instead of a special tax (like Prop 172) which required a two-thirds majority. As I recall the arguments for Prop H, the city fathers pledged that they plan to use the money only for public safety even though it resides in the General Fund. Of course politicians will always do exactly what they claimed in a campaign so I'm sure you have nothing to worry about with Prop H funds.

In summary, your "balanced budget" is so much smoke and mirrors and based on improper transfers of money. I'm all for a balanced budget in any local government, but this appears to be a sham. Your Council needs to make some hard and painful decisions if they want to be effective and responsible. Eliminate waste, prioritize spending, reduce services and programs when appropriate, and live within their means.

For example, why did it take three city officials to travel to Texas to examine the toll for crossing the border? Couldn't the City Manager call his counterpart and ask about it? It seems simple to me, since it became readily apparent that there is a specific toll to pay for the construction of a bridge which helps speed traffic through the POE and not to generate revenue through those crossing as they were "exploring" in Calexico.

I hope this helps answer some of your concerns.

AikiMike · Posted: 23 Jul 2010 04:31 PM Post subject:

I did a little research....Prop 172 was passed in the November, 1993 general election and remains a consititutional amendment here in California.