Laserfiche WebLink
I expenditure~ and continuation items only" approach. The <br /> projected shortfall in this:scenarlo, was $399 million. (See Page <br /> I III of attachment.) <br /> Potential Reductions Affectlng'Count~es <br /> <br /> I It should be noted that while 'a'~wi'de~variety of budget reduction <br /> alternatives Were discussed by the ABC, no specific set of <br /> options were ~ndorsed. Nevertheless, a number of reductions <br /> I which would have severe implications for local governments were <br /> included in the discussions and may be incorporated in the <br /> Governor's recommended budget for the 1991-93 biennium. These <br /> i potentially damaging reductions need to be taken very seriously. <br /> <br /> 1. Reimbursements and Other Transfers to Local Governments <br /> <br />I - ' <br /> The presentations to the ABC combined the revenues for existing <br /> reimbursements with proceeds from state shared taxes <br /> (intangibles, beer/wine, and utility franchise) under the general <br /> I label of 3'Loca! Government Transfers". Thus, the amount of local <br /> government funding which might be at risk has risen from $235 <br /> million to nearly $500 million. <br /> <br /> At the November 26 meeting, the ABC reviewed proposals which <br /> included a 5% reduction in the transfers which would save the <br /> state approximately $25 million.' The December 6.~presentation <br /> i~cluded a~proposal to freeze the appropriation for:Jlocal_ - <br /> government transfers" at 1990-91 levels thereby saving the state <br /> $23 million, in 1991-92 and $45.8. million in 1992-93.=.-[Also,. it. <br /> I appeared that the transfers would be subject to the~i~creased <br /> (2.7%) "negative reserve" requirement, producing a further <br /> reduction of approximately $13 million. (See Page III of the <br /> attachment.) <br /> <br /> 2. Reductions in the Publio School Fund · <br /> <br />I Several proposals to cut state aid to public schools, were <br /> discussed, most of which would amount to a simple shift in burden <br /> from the state to the counties. (See Page IV of the attachment.) <br /> I O Delay Public Construction - $45 million <br /> School <br /> <br /> This proposal would produce a one-time d~verSion of monies from <br />I the ADM Fund and the Critical Needs Fund to help balance the <br /> 1991-92 budget. Aside from disrupting planned school <br /> construction schedules, it would leave those counties which have <br />I issued bonds in anticipation of a steady flow of ADM Funds with <br /> no alternative but an increase in property taxes. <br /> <br /> o Public Schools Utilities Costs - $36 million <br />I EssentiallY, this would eliminate any state'appropriations for <br /> school utility expenditures. Since the 1930s funding for these <br />Icosts has been a state rather than a local responsibility <br /> <br /> <br />