Leaders See Proposition 22 as Best Protection from California

Poway officials are rallying behind Proposition 22, saying passage on Nov. 2 would prevent the state from once again raiding city coffers to balance its budget.

Although the city doesn't anticipate sending another check to California, there's the constant reminder that Poway had to release $16.5 million in redevelopment funds to the state.

"We are not prepared for another state grab," said Tina White, Poway assistant city manager. "But the passing of Proposition 22 will provide the protection local communities need."

The ballot initiative would amend the California constitution to protect existing funds that are allocated to local government. Until Nov. 2 rolls around though, a number of officials are speaking out against the state and in favor of Proposition 22.

"The city remains very concerned about the state's desperate measures to balance its budget," wrote Poway City Manager Penny Riley in a June 15 letter to the mayor and the City Council.  "We do not yet know if the state will come back for additional redevelopment funds this year to help plug its estimated $19 billion deficit. An additional take would be devastating."

The state took $13.7 million of Poway's redevelopment funds in fiscal year 2009-10 and another $2.8 million in fiscal year 2010-11.

"We had planned to utilize that money for a number of major projects," said Poway City Council member Jim Cunningham.  "We had wanted to revamp community parks, install new lighting in sports fields, and revamp other recreational facilities, but instead the funds were essentially stolen. It stopped these plans dead in their tracks."

The city is uncertain when it will be able to begin work on stalled projects.

"Assuming no further raids of redevelopment funds take place, it will be years before our Redevelopment Agency would be able to bond for projects," White said. She added that the local projects would have not only improved the community, but would have created jobs and stimulated the local economy.

White believes the state should deal with its budget problems with its own resources.

"They should not be taking away local government funds," she said.

Mandating redevelopment funds from local municipalities was just one part of the state's budget deal last year. 

The plan also suspended California Proposition 1A. Passed in 2004, the proposition was intended to protect revenue collected from local governments from being transferred to the state for statewide use.  The suspension, which allowed for blanket borrowing of 8 percent of overall property tax revenue, meant Poway was also forced to write an additional $1,282,809 check–payable to Sacramento.

Unlike the $16.5 million in redevelopment funds, which are gone forever, the borrowed property tax revenue must be repaid with interest within three years.

State Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego) feels taking money from local governments is bad policy all the way around.

"It's not like the state's budget is going to get any better any time soon," he said.  "The state needs to balance its budget, and you don't do that by taking money from local governments–especially money that you have no way to repay.  [The State Assembly] has consistently opposed any efforts to take money from local governments by Sacramento, but in terms of the upcoming budget cycle, I don't know what's going to happen next."

Local elected officials agree.

"Despite Sacramento not being able to balance its budget, Poway has had a balanced budget for 28 years," Cunningham said. "The state attempting to balance its budget on the backs of fiscally responsible cities and counties is outrageous."

This practice, he feels, is to the detriment of local governments.

"This has a trickle-down effect," he said. We have a lot less people doing a lot more work to provide services to the community. We've shortened hours at City Hall, and we've done many things to try to prepare for the worst case scenario."