San Benito County residents will feel the effects of state
budget cuts
As state legislators wrangle to close the state’s estimated $17
billion deficit, the only certainty is that San Benito County
residents will feel the effects.
San Benito County residents will feel the effects of state budget cuts
As state legislators wrangle to close the state’s estimated $17 billion deficit, the only certainty is that San Benito County residents will feel the effects.
“Whatever happens, there are huge cuts coming down the road,” said Anna Caballero, assemblywoman for District 28.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s May revision proposes cuts to every public assistance program in the state, Caballero said.
Proposed cuts could hit services for San Benito County’s most vulnerable residents, said Kathy Flores, the director of Health and Human Services for San Benito County.
“These cuts are targeted at our kids, our child welfare system and adults that may be at risk of neglect or abuse,” Flores said.
State funding made up 24.4 percent of San Benito County’s budget in the 2007-2008 financial year, according to the county budget.
“The amount of dollars that the state is out of balance is the biggest that I have ever heard,” said Susan Thompson, county administrative officer. “We anticipate that there will be reductions and we will feel them locally. There is no way for them to balance the budget otherwise.”
The county provides many services on behalf of state officials, Thompson said.
“We are the provider of last resort for health care, behavioral services,” Thompson said.
In the 2007-2008 financial year, the San Benito County Department of Health and Human Services had a budget of nearly $7 million.
Staff administer programs mandated by the California Health and Human Services Agency, such as Child Welfare and Adult Protective Services.
Gov. Schwarzenegger’s May budget revision proposes unprecedented cuts of 11.4 percent to Child Welfare and 10 percent to Adult Protective Services, according to documents from Flores.
“It’s affecting more programs,” Flores said. “For example, [cuts to] child welfare and adult protective services really threw me for a loop. I didn’t understand that. I’d never seen that proposed.”
Other reductions include cuts to food stamps, cash assistance and Medi-Cal.
“These are entitlement programs,” Flores said. “If someone shows up at the door and is eligible, we need to accommodate.”
The proposed reductions are primarily in state funding for local staff, Flores said. Those eligible would still receive services, but applicants could face longer waiting periods.
The cuts are coming at a time when applications are up, Flores said. Due to the economic downturn, local Health and Human Services staff is receiving more applications for services such as food stamps.
“If they say, ‘we’re cutting your dollars but we’re not cutting your mandate,’ it’s a shift from state to local.”
State legislators have been making such hidden cuts for years, Thompson said.
It is unclear whether some of the more Draconian cuts in the governor’s May revision will go through, Caballero said.
“I think it depends on what the Republicans put on the table,” Caballero said.
Democratic legislators introduced a budget that reduces the severity of the governor’s May revision through tax increases, Caballero said.
“We don’t believe that you balance the entire budget of the State of California on the backs of the poor and students,” Caballero said. “For many of the services, if you cut the state dollars, you lose federal dollars as well.”
The state budget should have been passed July 1.
Legislators need to make progress because state officials run out of money Aug. 1, Caballero said.
“What we know is right now there are services for people that are starting to suffer because we did not meet the July 1 deadline,” Caballero said. “The situation gets worse the longer we go into the summer months.”
Services such as law enforcement, fire protection and library services are not mandated by state law, Thompson said. Others, such as food stamps, are.
County officials could lose thousands of dollars through a proposal to reduce funding for the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
Under Land Conservation Act, landowners can sign up to restrict development to agricultural or open space, in return for a reduction in property taxes.
In San Benito County, state officials reimburse county officials for the loss in property tax dollars to the tune of $750,000 annually, Thompson said.
“They are talking about cutting 10 percent,” Thompson said. “That’s $75,000 right there.”
That money is spread throughout the county budget, Thompson said.
“There’s no other money to backfill that,” Thompson said. “The board is going to have to decide what to do with that.”
On June 24, county officials passed a balanced budget without cutting services or tapping into reserves.
“We approved a budget that was very conservative and flat,” said Anthony Botelho, a member of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors. “I think we’re in position to maintain the same level of service.”
County staff have been frugal with departmental budgets, Botelho said.
“I am supportive of using an appropriate amount of contingency funds to preserve a reasonable amount of service,” Botelho said. “As far as digging deeper into our reserves, we have to weigh that very carefully.”
The commitment is to maintain services, said Jaime De La Cruz, a member of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.
“Anything that will really be detrimental to the community or will be unbearable, the board really needs to consider all the options that are available,” De La Cruz said. “That’s why we need to continue to work on a good solid economic development that will continue to provide revenue into our community.”
County officials have done whatever they could to save money, Thompson said. They froze unnecessary spending and department heads are keeping vacant positions unfilled.
“We’re trying to give ourselves as much flexibility to react however we can.” Thompson said. “We also have a $2 million dollar contingency fund.”
The largest chunk of the county budget is spent on law enforcement, Thompson said.
“Nobody wants to reduce law enforcement because we have issues that we want to be sure that we take care of for our community,” Thompson said. “Beyond that, we have to run an organization.”
The state deficit has been brewing for some time, Thompson said.
“They’ve simply been pushing that forward every year,” Thompson said. “It’s come home to roost now. Very unfortunate. Hopefully this year, you have some folks in Sacramento who are willing to make a tough decision.”
People should not worry until state legislators pass the budget, Thompson said.
“It is possible, though improbable, that the state is going to do revenue enhancements,” Thompson said. “They are actually taking about raising taxes.”
County expenditures by source
26. 11 percent – Public ways and facilities
23.08 percent – Public protection
19.73 percent – General government
16.97 percent – Public assistance
10.70 percent – Health and sanitation
2.21 percent – Appropriations for contigencies
.74 percent – Education
.25 percent – Recreation
.21 percent – Debt service
0 percent – Provision for reserves and designations
