The state budget will be voted on this week in Sacramento. There are unlimited options available to figure out how the state can spend the billions of dollars available to provide state services in California.
As a local government official I have strong feelings about the ways that make the most sense. People certainly disagree with me on some of these things and that is fine.
I am not going to argue about how stupid it is to raid Highway User Tax Act (HUTA) funds on the basis of what these funds do. That could be the subject of a whole blog by itself.
What I will argue is that a budget based on this transfer is not wise because it may not be legal.
Voting for this budget suggests confidence that it will be used as a document of proposed spending that will last for the next fiscal year. However, that just isn’t going to happen.
Prop 5 (1974) provided cities and counties greater control over these funds. This is money that can be used to pay off local bonds but not state bonds. See Section 19 of the State Constitution.
Whatever you think about HUTA funds and the appropriate role for them to play in this budget year — the use of them in the way that is being considered puts the entire budget package in question. If the budget comes from the Big 5 includes this provision it should be viewed as probably unbalanced.
The taking of road money is not the sort of budget reductions by constituents are looking for. They are looking for a reduction in direct transfers of their money to others. Taxpayers use roads.
Don’t do it.