Thread: California tax revenues $1 Billion over projection

1. Nearly 1 in 14 of the World's Billionaires Lives in California
   
   www.allgov.com/.../ca/.../california.../nearly-1-in-14-of-the-worlds-billio...
   
   
   
   
   Mar 9, 2015 - California gained 20 new billionaires in the past year, according to ... at the report and concluded: “Millionaires aren't likely to move away from, ...
   
   

California democrats crush middle class with taxes, regulations

February 8, 2015 by Harold Bray
In his state of the union address on January 20th, the President called for the taxing of college savings accounts, inheritances, and housework (giving a tax break to two spouse working families is the same as taxing a housewife for staying home and doing “housework”). This week he introduced his new $4 trillion proposed budget, with a new batch of tax increases.
There is nothing he won’t tax, confiscate, or redistribute.
On a more local basis, a friend has been a tad less elegant than Barak senior about taxation when talking about the Governor and Legislature’s attempt to tax Californians: “They just don’t know when, how or why to f__king stop; they can’t control themselves, they know nothing else about governing.”
California Democrats just keep taxing. In the 2014 November election there were 171 new local taxes and 118 local bonds on ballots. These were mostly to pay for pay increases for a multitude of public service union members or to bolster failing pension plans. Oh, the ballot measures or initiatives read that they were mostly for new infrastructure or the repairing of in-place infrastructure or some other service for public use. But in reality the reason the money was needed was because the money to normally pay for those projects has been sucked up by higher pension and retiree health care costs across the state, necessitating the finding of new revenue.
So California Democrats, not satisfied with driving businesses out of the State (reducing jobs), reducing the incomes of middle class families, and subsiding more and more services with high taxes are implementing or proposing numerous new taxes between this year and the 2016 election: Keeping the Proposition 30 “temporary” taxes; implementing an AB-32 gasoline tax which will hit us starting this month, Changing Proposition 13 (property tax relief), taxing oil extraction in the State, and the most laughable if it wasn’t painful, newly proposed Senate Bill 8 (SB-, the so called “Upward Mobility Bill” that adds sales tax to services.
One of these taxes would be extreme in our current environment. Implementing some combination would be devastating for the economy and the families that must share the burden of paying the taxes. But as my good friend says “they just f___ing can’t quit.” Let’s look briefly at these tax proposals and ask ourselves “where do the Democratic candidates for State Senate District 7 stand on each issue and the crushing of the California Middle Class.
Extending Proposition 30 “Temporary “taxes: $6-7 Billion per year
Proposition 30 was enacted in 2012. It provides government agencies and schools with $1.5 billion in revenue per year from an increase in sales taxes and $5-6 billion per year on incomes above $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for couples. The Governor is standing by his promise to make the tax temporary, with the sales tax expiring in 2016 and the income tax ending in 2018.
But, surprise, surprise, storm clouds are gathering. State Superintendent of School Tom “I never met a tax I didn’t like” Torlakson was among the first to demand it be made permanent. Numerous Democratic lawmakers have jumped on the bandwagon and SEIU, CTA and other unions have formed coalitions to pressure the Governor to keep the taxes. They have one good reason: they have spent the money into perpetuity. This is the normal Democratic playbook in California’s volatile funding formula: cry there is not enough money during a recession, spend like a drunken sailor when money comes in, and then cry poverty and pain when the next recession hits.
AB-32 Gasoline tax: $1B-Infinite Billion per year
Halfway to Concord recently reported on the AB-32 “Cap and Trade” taxes hitting us this month. Surprised? Welcome to the secret world of the California Politburo, otherwise known as the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This is the world of secrecy and central planning, where unelected bureaucrats tax businesses (actually, anyone they want to) at their whim, supported by purposefully flawed climate science and secrecy, while Czar Brown and the legislature hands out hundreds of millions of dollars to favored friends (read donors) like the Hollywood movie studios who received $400 million in tax reductions this year.
Don’t think the CARB is secret? How much in cap and trade revenue did they collect last year? From which companies and industries? How much is the tax that took effect on January 1st? What industries does it tax this year? Who is the only state agency to set up and operate under a Delaware corporation?
CARB is, of course, the agency. This Western Climate Initiative Inc. is the Delaware Corporation established to manage and run CARB Cap and Trade auctions absent public or legislative scrutiny; that is, Delaware Corporations are not subject to California’s open meeting or sunshine laws and therefore not subject to any oversight or scrutiny. Is it legal to run a state agency as a Delaware Corporation? It is if the legislature passes legislation that explicitly exempts your meeting from open meeting regulations as has been done for CARB auctions.
How will this tax affect California’s middle class?
Enacting a tax on gasoline will not only increase the cost of gasoline, but it will increase the cost of everything we purchase in the State. Every product and service we buy and use in the State has an energy component, be it in the production, shipping, or sales of the product or service.
One final note on CARB. What will they tax next? Anything they damn well feel like taxing. They are free to tax anything, and do it without an election or any other over sight. We humans breathe and, therefore, have a carbon footprint so they are free to tax our breathing. This is secretive, coercive government at its worst.
Oil Severance or Extraction Fee cost at this time: unknown
A severance tax is legislation that imposes a tax on the extraction of a natural resource, in this case oil. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement standards, California is the only state that does not impose a significant severance tax. However, California imposes an “assessment fee”, imposed on the first production, sale or distribution of motor oil within the State. The fee is currently .04 cents per gallon.
The State has attempted to pass an oil severance tax 10 times since the 1990’s; every bill or initiative proposed a severance tax of between 5.5% and 12.5% on oil and natural gas with revenues generally targeted to the State General Fund and/or to “educational purposes”. The last such attempt was SB-241 in 2013; the bill is currently on the “suspense” file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
A separate initiative, the California Severance Tax on Oil and Gas was approved for circulation to gather signatures for the Nov. 4, 2014 election, but the initiatives sponsors did not submit any signature to election officials by the deadline. The initiative would have imposed a 9.5% tax on oil and natural gas extracted in California with 60% of the revenue going to education (K-12, community colleges, the CSU and UC system, 22% to clean energy projects, 15% to counties for infrastructure, public health and safety services (one can read pensions into this sentence), and 3% to state parks.
As in most new California laws, this one has a fairy tale component: the initiative would have prohibited the passing of the tax on to consumers through higher fuel prices.
We can expect another attempt to double down on oil and natural gas taxes on top of AB-32 taxes between now and 2016. With billionaire Tom Steyer actively involved in California politics and willing to spend millions of his own money to fight “climate change”, expect the most aggressive action yet.
Changes to Proposition 13: $4 Billion
California Democrats have given us the highest sales tax, personal income tax, gasoline tax, and business taxes in the country, so where the hell is government going to go for more taxes.
Proposition 13 is a prime target. Passed by voters in 1978, Prop. 13 restricts the rate of growth of property assessments to 2% per year, except when properties are sold or there is new construction on the property. The property is then assessed at current market value.
Proposition 13 also prohibits, “split roll property taxation“; that is the taxing of business properties at a different rate than residential properties.
Both of these attributes of Proposition 13 are under attack. There have been at least 9 proposals made by government and union entities to change one of both. The L.A. Times has reported that residential property owners pay a larger share of property taxes in the State than business property owners; the Tax Foundation disputes this “fact”.
Those wishing to change Prop0sition 13 by advocating simplifying the definition of a sale of business properties are looking to allow for the reassessing of those properties more frequently. They point out that business sales are complex transactions and, at times, businesses are able to avoid reassessment in the transaction.
California Democrats who advocates calling for a split roll assessment, on the other hand, simply want businesses paying a higher rate than residential properties. Typical “progressive” entities and leaders see no reason why both cannot be accomplished. They couch their arguments in terms of fairness, as if raising the business tax would allow them to lower the tax on residential properties.
The expressed intent of California Democrats is dishonest. While fighting for “fairness” and “equity” they also point out the tax base could be raised by $2 Billion to $4 billion per year (which means it must be twice that amount). The true fact is that any change to proposition 13 will increase the cost of living in California for all families, harming mostly middle class families as substantial increases on business properties in California will raise the price of the products and services produced and/or delivered. The other potential consequence is, of course, businesses competing on a national or international basis will leave the state, taking jobs with them.
Senate Bill 8: The, I kid you not, “Upward Mobility Taxation Plan”. $10 Billion per year
Apparently written as a sequel to the Grimm Fairy Tales, this bill proposes to “create upward mobility” by extending sales taxes to most services in the State. This bill, authored by State Senator Bob Hertzberg of Los Angeles, would generate $10 billion in new tax revenue and promises, as most Democrat written bills do these days, tax reform measures sometime in the future.
Where will the revenue raised from this tax go? The bill specifies tha
– $3 billion will go to K-14 education,
– $3 Billion to local government
– $2 billion to the CSU and UC systems and,
– $2 billion to a new earned income tax credit for low-income families “to help low-income families offset the burden of the proposed sales and used tax in this bill”.
In other words, the tax revenue from this bill would go to help low income families recover from the taxes contained in this bill. This must be a new low in legislative authorship.
The law further states that some funding would go toward “small business and minimum wage relief” which would “enhance the state’s business climate, create jobs, and incentivize entrepreneurship by evaluating the corporate income tax to determine whether it is meeting its intended purpose while at the same time linking changes to a more reasonable minimum wage.”
Be really afraid.
This law would tax services frequently provided by businesses owned and operated by low income and middle class families, making their services more expensive for low-income and middle class families, thus devastating any upward mobility within California. The only benefit I can see in the law is that the education component would educate students to understand that leaving California is in their best interest.
Conclusion
What can we expect between now and the election of 2016?
We can expect a full court press on all the above tax increases. California Democrats, including the Legislature, the Governor and local governments have already spent all of the Proposition 30 temporary tax increase revenue on on-going expenses and will need to cover those beyond the promised expiration dates of the taxes.
Common Core implementation has required the State to provide $1.2 billion per year in additional funding to school districts in the past two years; school districts are now demanding an additional $1 Billion plus per year to pay just for the cost of computers and internet access for the testing component of the program alone.
CalPERS, CalSTRS, University of California, and local government pension costs are increasing by at least 50% over the next five years (school district costs throughout the state are rising from 8% of payroll to 21% of payroll, for example) as the Governor has demanded the phased in increase to cover billions in unfunded liabilities. Next up for discussion is how to pay for government employee retiree health care benefits, which now has a $74 billion unfunded liability.
According to California Healthline, from October 2013 to November 2014 MediCal, California’s version of Medicaid, added 2.7 million Californians, a 31% increase (from 8.6 million to 11.3 million people). Fifty percent of California children are now covered by MediCal. We will see what the total is this year after the enrollment period for ObamaCare is over.
We were promised, of course, that the federal government would pay for the expansion of MediCal under ObamaCare. Oh, silly us, we believed it apparently, but he cost is on us. The Governor has budgeted $1.2 billion this year and will need to bump that number up significantly going forward. And we don’t know what the cost of all the ObamaCare subsidized plans will cost yet or the cost of running Covered California.
And higher education? Who knows how this monster is going to turn out. Today 55% of UC students pay no tuition or fees; 300,000 CSU student and 350,000 Community College students pay no tuition or fees. They are all on the middle class payment schedule. How much higher can/will it go?
If you are middle class, get out of the State now. One of my neighbor’s son is moving to Boise, Idaho this month. My son is helping a friend move to Austin, Texas next week (Texas created more jobs in the past decade than all other 49 states combined). A former co-worker is leaving for Neveda.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that thirty four states are now run by Republican governors and, in some cases, Republican controlled legislatures; thirty one of those states have or are now lowering income, property, and/or sales taxes and business taxes to encourage business and job growth.
What can you do as a middle class resident or business owner in California?
Join the fight against the taxes; fight the decline of the middle class caused by California Democrats. Or, as many of your friends are doing, move on, and oin the parade out of California to a better life.

http://halfwaytoconcord.com/californ...-middle-class/

. . . When you look at all state revenue – including taxes, fees, licenses, and intergovernmental revenue – the amount per person is $5,292, landing California at 24th highest nationwide . . .

http://www.alipac.us/f19/calif-taxes...ighest-250993/

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

. . . When you look at all state revenue – including taxes, fees, licenses, and intergovernmental revenue – the amount per person is $5,292, landing California at 24th highest nationwide . . .

http://www.alipac.us/f19/calif-taxes...ighest-250993/

Your basing your information on 3 year old data.

Excerpt:

2. California

• Average Annual State and Local Taxes: $9,509
• Difference from National Average: 36 percent
• Adjusted Rank by Cost of Living: 50

Sunshine and ocean waves come at a steep price. California ranks as the second worst state for taxpayers, with the average burden totaling $9,509. In comparison, Nevada has an average annual state and local tax bill of $3,370, third lowest in the nation. California is considering a tax overhaul that could increase revenue by $10 billion a year. Last year, voters in Berkeley passed the country’s first soda tax, charging consumers one penny per ounce on sugary drinks.

Read more: http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/t...#ixzz3a2z8uZ00

California’s budget surplus soars to new heights; schools to benefit

By Jessica Calefati and Theresa Harrington, Bay Area News Group
POSTED: 05/05/15, 8:21 PM PDT |
4 COMMENTS

SACRAMENTO >> In the clearest sign yet that the Great California Recovery is proceeding on pace, Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins announced Tuesday that the state’s budget surplus has climbed as much as $8 billion in the last four months.

The state’s public schools will receive the bulk of that windfall under Proposition 98, and Assembly Democrats hope it’s used to increase average per-pupil spending and expand access to quality child care and preschool programs, the San Diego Democrat said.

Another chunk of change must be saved for a rainy day under a proposition approved by California voters in November. But the Legislature will likely also have about a billion dollars to play around with — a happy accident that’s expected to set off fights among health, poverty and other interest groups about how to spend the extra cash.

“We know we’re not going to get everything we want,” Atkins said. “No one ever does.”

Atkins’ comments come a week before Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to release a revised draft of his $113 billion general fund spending plan for the fiscal year that begins in July.

Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer wouldn’t comment on Atkins’ surplus projection of between $6 billion to $8 billion, but he said it’s safe to assume the governor’s May revision will reflect strong personal income tax receipts, driven in part by surging capital gains revenue as California’s economy quickly recovers.

One thing is clear: California’s financial outlook couldn’t be more different now than it was just a few years ago in the depths of the state’s fiscal crisis — at one point the budget deficit hit $26.6 billion.

Assembly Democrats have a “laundry list” of programs they’d like to see funded that they’ll tailor once they know the precise amount of new revenue available, Atkins said.

Topping that list are plans to establish a state earned income tax credit for working families and to use some of the revenue generated from truck weight fees for the preservation and maintenance of California’s crumbling roads and highways.

Atkins said she wants to see a slice of the surplus go to UC and CSU. But, she said, for UC to get its money the system would have to freeze in-state tuition, limit out-of-state student enrollment, implement pension reform and cut administrative costs.

Asked whether interest groups would be jealous of the huge windfall public schools are expected to get, Atkins said that schools had suffered tremendously during the Great Recession and that they deserved a break, even after receiving a big chunk of last year’s surplus.

“It’s good that the lion’s share of this money is going to education,” Atkins said. “We’ve all wanted this for a long time.”
Senate Democrats share many of their Assembly counterparts’ goals. They, too want to see new investment in higher education and a solution that chips away at income inequality.

But they don’t necessarily agree on how to get there.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, has proposed an alternative higher education plan that would give more money to UC and CSU in part by eliminating the Middle Class Scholarship Program, even though Atkins has said she won’t support that.

De Leon and other Senate Democrats also may be more interested in improving the state’s CalWorks program for low-income mothers and children than creating a state earned income tax credit, said a source close to the caucus’s budget negotiations.

“We must invest in higher education so we have larger returns for California’s future,” de Leon said. “We must invest in quality child care so mothers can join the workforce knowing their children are being taken care of in a safe environment.”

Perhaps surprisingly, news of the latest windfall didn’t appear to be a cause for celebration among public school officials.

While any increase in funding is welcome, they pointed out that California’s school budgets are still so much smaller than they were before the recession.

“It still doesn’t solve the overarching problem of adequate, sustained school funding,” said Jon Gundry, Santa Clara County’s superintendent of schools. “Until California at least surpasses the national average of per-pupil funding, we have a long way to go.”

But Terry Koehne, spokesman for the Contra Costa County Office of Education, said the trajectory of the Legislature’s funding for schools was certainly encouraging.

“We’ve been fighting and pushing for pre-recession funding levels for a long time now,” he said. “Anytime we can see an increase in funding, it’s certainly good news.”

The recession forced school districts to increase their class sizes, cut arts and music programs and distribute thousands of pink slips to make ends meet.

When voters in November 2012 passed Proposition 30 — which raised taxes on the wealthy substantially and the sales tax slightly — schools started to roll back those cuts, but the recession’s damage hasn’t been undone yet.

According to the nonpartisan California Budget and Policy Center, the state ranked 42nd in K-12 school spending two years ago. But after voters approved Proposition 30, California’s K-12 spending rose to 29th when compared with other states and the District of Columbia.

Proposition 30 is expected to generate about $7.9 billion this year and $8 billion next year. However, this additional funding is expected to decline after fiscal year 2015-16, as the new taxes are phased out.

The California Teachers Association and other groups have proposed extending the proposition. But Brown has so far resisted, saying the taxes were designed to be temporary.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/gov...ols-to-benefit

Brown to propose $380 million tax credit for working poor

Posted: May 13, 2015 9:49 PM PDT
Updated: May 13, 2015 9:49 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Jerry Brown will propose offering a $380 million tax credit for the working poor as part of his revised budget Thursday.

Information provided by the Brown administration says the tax credit would help as many as 2 million people who earn up to $13,870 a year for a family of four.

The tax credit proposal was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Brown has been under pressure from fellow Democrats and social welfare groups to spend some of the surplus revenue pouring into state coffers this year as California rebounds from the recession.

The governor has mostly opted for a restrained approach and urged caution on spending new revenues.

His administration says the average tax credit under would be $460 a year with a maximum credit of $2,653.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/2906028...r-working-poor

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Brown to propose $380 million tax credit for working poor

Posted: May 13, 2015 9:49 PM PDT
Updated: May 13, 2015 9:49 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Jerry Brown will propose offering a $380 million tax credit for the working poor as part of his revised budget Thursday.

Information provided by the Brown administration says the tax credit would help as many as 2 million people who earn up to $13,870 a year for a family of four.

The tax credit proposal was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Brown has been under pressure from fellow Democrats and social welfare groups to spend some of the surplus revenue pouring into state coffers this year as California rebounds from the recession.

The governor has mostly opted for a restrained approach and urged caution on spending new revenues.

His administration says the average tax credit under would be $460 a year with a maximum credit of $2,653.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/2906028...r-working-poor

I wonder if any of those tax credits will be going to illegal immigrants (parents of anchor babies)?

ABBOTT CONTINUES TEXAS TRADITION OF TAKING CALIFORNIA JOBS


Kubota Website

by BOB PRICE15 May 2015

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has successfully moved yet another California Company to Texas. Abbott announced on Thursday that Kubota Tractor and Credit Corporation is relocating its corporate headquarters to Texas. It is expected the move will create at least 344 new Texas jobs and $51 million in capital investment in the Lone Star State. The State has made a grant offer of $3.8 million to Kubota from the Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF).

“I’m proud to extend a warm Texas welcome to Kubota and I know their investment in Texas will allow their company to grow, prosper and create even more jobs in the coming years,” said Governor Abbott in a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas. “Thanks to our low-tax, low-regulation environment that allows all businesses to thrive, we are able to bring job creators like Kubota to Texas. As the top state in the nation for agriculture, Kubota is sure to find fertile ground for its products and distribution network.”

Kubota will be moving from Torrance, California to Grapevine, Texas. A team effort that included the City of Grapevine, the Dallas Regional Chamber and the Governor’s Office worked together to convince the tractor manufacturer to move to Texas.
“Our decision to relocate our corporate headquarters to a more central part of the U.S. was a major part of our future business strategy, but which state we would ultimately choose was not,” said Masato Yoshikawa, President & CEO, Kubota Tractor Corporation. “Texas ultimately helped make that decision easier. Their business friendly climate, state incentives and geographical location were important factors in our final decision.”

While the move to Texas is slated for early 2017, construction of the new corporate facility is expected to begin right away. Kubota currently employs about 100 people in a Texas facility located in Fort Worth.

The offer of $3.8 million from the TEF is contingent upon the final execution of a contract between the TEF and Kubota. The company must also meet specified requirements related to jobs and capital investment projections. Receipt of local incentives is also a contingency in the agreement.

Kubota is the U.S. based marketing and distribution corporation of Kubota-engineered and manufactured machinery and equipment. This includes a complete lineup of tractors that range up to 179 Gross hp. It also includes performance-matched implements, compact and utility-class construction equipment, consumer lawn and garden equipment, hay tools and spreaders, commercial turf products, and utility vehicles. The company is the U.S. subsidiary of Kubota Corporation which is headquartered in Osaka Japan.

“The City of Grapevine is proud to partner with the State of Texas and Kubota Tractor Corporation by welcoming Kubota’s new corporate headquarters to Grapevine,” said Grapevine Mayor William D. Tate. “Kubota’s history and products complement the heritage of our community, and this partnership marks an important milestone in the continued development of the City of Grapevine.”

“The Dallas Regional Chamber is excited to welcome Kubota Tractor Corporation to our region. Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Patrick, Speaker Straus and their teams demonstrated real leadership throughout this process, and proved they are absolutely committed to Texas remaining the number one state in the nation to do business and to continuing to attract top-notch companies,” added Dallas Regional Chamber President & CEO Dale Petroskey.

The TEF was created by the Texas Legislature in 2003. Funding for the TEF has been reauthorized by the five subsequent legislatures. Its mission is to help attract new companies to Texas and to expand existing Texas companies with the goal of creating more Texas jobs and economic growth across the state. The TEF projects must be approved by the Governor, Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/...lifornia-jobs/

1. California adds more than 33000 private sector jobs
   
   Sacramento Business Journal-May 13, 2015
   California added 33,400 private-sector jobs in April, an increase of 23 percent above the jobs added in the year-earlier period, according to a ...
   

​

1. California adds 39800 jobs in March; unemployment rate dips
   
   Los Angeles Times-Apr 17, 2015
   The job gains last month marked nearly four years of consecutive monthly increases in California, which has seen employment increase at a ...

$8.6-billion L.A. budget to fill 350,000 potholes, trim 57,000 trees

A city contractor uses a lift to trim a tree in the West Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles on Oct. 23, 2014.
(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)



By EMILY ALPERT REYES contact the reporter

• 
  

L.A. lawmakers back $8.6-billion budget plan that boosts fire department funding, ramps up tree trimming

Plan said to fill 350,000 potholes, trim 57,000 trees, preserve 2,400 miles of pavement, hire 270 firefighters


Los Angeles lawmakers unanimously voted Thursday for a nearly $8.6-billion budget plan that would boost funding for the Fire Department, tree trimming and street and alley cleanup while stashing more money in reserves.

At a Thursday hearing, Councilman Paul Krekorian said the budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year, which starts July 1, would allow the city to fill 350,000 potholes, trim 57,000 trees, preserve 2,400 lane-miles of pavement and hire 270 firefighters.


Public safety at center of Eric Garcetti's new $8.57-billion budget

Krekorian heralded the budget as a sea change from the dire finances of years past, saying that city leaders had worked diligently to chip away at ongoing deficits by shrinking the city workforce, undertaking pension reform and finding other long-term savings.

But he warned that they should remain financially cautious: The upcoming budget does not account for any future raises that could be bargained with employee unions, many of which are locked in negotiations with the city. Budget deficits are still predicted for several years.

“While there’s much good news in this, there’s also reason to continue to be conservative, continue to be careful about what we do in our budget,” Krekorian said Thursday.


The plan is largely similar to the budget proposed last month by Mayor Eric Garcetti, which uses a modest boost in tax revenue to increase spending on public safety and city infrastructure. Revenues for the main day-to-day budget — the city general fund — have been estimated to rise roughly 5% over the previous year as the economy revives.

Garcetti thanked the council for working with him on the plan and praised it as “a back-to-basics budget that is balanced, sets our reserve fund at a record high, and makes the prudent investments we need for more services, infrastructure and jobs in Los Angeles.”


L.A. Council acts to prevent halt in funding for community programs

The budget approved Thursday includes $9 million for a Clean Streets Initiative to pick up trash and clean alleys, $20 million to fix sidewalks, an additional $55 million for the Fire Department, an added $10 million for affordable housing, and more than $4.5 million for body cameras for L.A. police officers, Krekorian said.

Council members also made tweaks to the Garcetti proposal, including adding $2 million to speed up the hiring process for city employees and providing $500,000 to reduce a fingerprinting backlog at the Police Department. They also restored millions in funding for community programs that were once covered by federal grants, including those that shelter people fleeing domestic violence, remove graffiti, assist people with HIV/AIDS, and help day laborers.

Councilman Mike Bonin said in a statement that the plan begins to restore neighborhood services and “spares several crucial programs that suffered crushing cuts in their federal support.”

That added spending will be paid for from an additional $50 million that was identified by city analysts after Garcetti made his initial budget proposal, including a revised, higher forecast for property taxes and money left unspent by city departments.

But the bulk of that added money went into reserve and budget stabilization funds, bringing the total of such reserves — already the highest amount and percent budgeted in the last two decades of city history, said City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana — even higher.

“We know that there will be an economic downturn,” Krekorian said in explaining why the council increased city reserves. “It's only a question of when it occurs.”

Such reserves played a big role in plugging the budget gap this time around: The mayor proposed using $80 million in such funding to help close the originally projected deficit of $165 million for the coming fiscal year. (The amount of reserve money used ultimately totaled $56 million after the council’s changes.) But even with that transfer, officials said, reserves remained flush.

Firefighters union President Frank Lima praised the increased funding for the Fire Department, saying in a statement, “Mayor Garcetti and the City Council have shown that they understand the importance of our Fire Department and our dedicated first responders.”

The Fix LA Coalition, which includes labor unions and community groups, issued a statement from member Sheila Flory saying that the budget “finally takes a step in the right direction, but even with the new funding our city of Angels will be playing catch up for years to come.”

Budget officials say Los Angeles is on track to wipe out its year-over-year, or “structural,” deficit by mid-2018.

The budget plan approved Thursday will be formalized in a resolution that the council will vote on again before it goes to the mayor for final approval.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...navtype=outfit