The award was Consent Calendar item A3 on the regular meeting agenda at the San Jacinto Community Center, 625 S. Pico Avenue. No council member pulled the item for separate discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Clarisa Sanchez moved approval of the consent calendar; Councilmember Alonso Ledezma seconded. After electronic voting, the clerk announced that all votes were in and that the motion passed 5-0.

How They Voted (consent calendar, including A3)

Roll call at the start of open session showed all five members present.

Staff’s written recommendation, requested by Chief Innovation Officer Derek Williamson and approved for the agenda by Interim City Manager Travis Randel, asked the council to award the agreement to SDI Presence, authorize the city manager to execute it subject to city attorney approval as to form, and authorize the city manager to approve amendments or change orders when appropriations allow and city procurement rules are met.

The staff report says the city’s financial-management system is more than 25 years old and its utility-billing system has been in use for more than 10 years. The city issued a request for proposals and received 10 proposals; staff said SDI Presence received the highest overall score. The initial contract covers needs assessment, functional and technical requirements, and procurement support for evaluating replacement systems. Staff wrote that implementation management for selected software is not included in the initial award and would require separate authorization later. The agreement “does not commit the City to the purchase of any software, hardware, implementation services, or other related technology expenditures,” the staff report states.

Staff’s fiscal-impact statement says the Professional Services Agreement is not to exceed $102,625 and that “Funding for these services were included within the City’s FY26/27 adopted budget.” The staff report does not list a general-ledger account number.

Open session adjourned at about 7:32 p.m., per the mayor’s closing on the official AgendaLink recording.

The recorded open session did not include a discussion of when the FY 2026-27 adopted budget or the latest annual financial report would be posted to the city’s Finance page.

The post San Jacinto awards SDI Presence $102,625 needs-assessment contract appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

HEMET — Hemet’s adopted 2026-27 budget is not a secret. Combined General Fund and Measure U spending is $96,123,000. Combined revenue is $86,535,000. The city plans to spend $9,588,000 more than it takes in.

The city’s own explanation is in the same book. Revenues have begun to flatten. Costs keep rising. The document cites inflation, personnel costs, insurance, and contracts. Liability premiums are about $7.0 million, plus a $2.0 million self-insured retention. Measure U is budgeted at $16,985,000 in and $21,406,000 out, including $1.5 million for retiring police payouts and $1.5 million toward the insurance premium.

The city also lists cost-containment: a hiring freeze on vacant posts, new hires limited to mission-critical and revenue-generating jobs, a 10 percent cut in department maintenance and operations, and 17 frozen positions, including six police officers and a deputy fire chief. Reserves are reported at about $28.9 million as of June 30, 2025, against a 40 percent policy.

That is the city’s case, at its strongest. It is not enough to justify another tax.

Measure Q would add 1 cent on each dollar of taxable purchases. The city estimates about $16 million a year. It is a general tax. Proceeds go to the General Fund for any lawful city purpose. The ordinance does not require a spending cut, a headcount cap, or an efficiency audit as a condition of collecting the money. Groceries and medicine are exempt. Oversight language is in the city’s materials. None of that changes the structure: more tax revenue, same open-ended spending.

Public-employee costs and insurance keep climbing. The pattern on offer is higher taxes and thinner services. Frozen officers and a new sales tax in the same year is not a reform. It is a request for residents to pay more while the city spends more than it collects.

The solution is not to raise taxes. The solution is to cut government spending. It is never enough for the public-service payroll. Voters should not be told the only choices are a higher tax rate or fewer services. Efficiency is the third choice, and it is not on the November ballot.

The news account of these figures is here.

The post Editorial: Cut spending. Don’t raise taxes. appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget on June 23 by Resolution 2026-105. Combined General Fund and Measure U revenues are budgeted at $86,535,000. Combined expenditures are budgeted at $96,123,000. The difference is $9,588,000, a $9.6 million use of fund balance.

Those figures come from the adopted budget tables. They are the city’s official plan for the year ending June 30, 2027.

Across all city funds, the adopted budget lists $150,757,303 in revenue and $154,184,303 in expenditures.

The combined General Fund is two pots. Fund 110 is the city’s main operating fund. It is budgeted at $69,550,000 in revenue and $74,717,000 in spending. That is a $5,167,000 gap.

Fund 115 is Measure U. Voters approved that 1 percent transactions and use tax in 2016. The adopted budget describes it as a general sales tax restricted solely to public safety by resolution. Measure U is budgeted at $16,985,000 in revenue and $21,406,000 in spending.

The Measure U gap is $4,421,000. The adopted budget says Measure U fund balance is being used to buy equipment such as radios, cameras, hoses and vehicles, to rehabilitate fire stations, and to help pay liability insurance for police and fire.

One-time Measure U uses listed in the budget total $4,537,000. The largest items are $1.5 million for retiring police personnel payouts and $1.5 million toward the liability insurance premium. Other listed items include four police interceptors, 50 radios, two traffic motorcycles, cameras, Fire Station 5 work, and fire hose replacements.

One-time General Fund uses listed in the budget total $1,233,000. They include downtown parking lot repavement, a truck routing ordinance, radios, storage work, branding, Christmas decorations, and other one-time purchases.

The budget says revenues have begun to flatten while costs keep rising. It cites inflation, personnel costs, insurance, and contracts. Cost-containment steps in the document include a hiring freeze on vacant posts, limiting new hires to mission-critical and revenue-generating jobs, and a 10 percent cut in department maintenance and operations spending.

Citywide positions are down 8.5 full-time equivalents from the prior adopted budget. The document lists 17 frozen positions, including six police officers, a deputy fire chief, and other public safety and civilian posts.

Liability insurance is called out as a major pressure. For fiscal 2026-27, the budget puts liability premiums at about $7.0 million, plus a $2.0 million self-insured retention for claims. That is about 4.9 percent higher than the prior year, the document says.

Hemet’s written reserve policy requires spendable, unrestricted General Fund reserves equal to at least 40 percent of current expenditures. The City Council raised that target from 20 percent to 40 percent beginning in fiscal 2023-24. The adopted budget says the reserve totaled about $28.9 million as of June 30, 2025.

The city’s latest posted Annual Comprehensive Financial Report remains the report for the year ended June 30, 2024. That is the newest ACFR on the Finance Department’s financial information page.

The operating budget is separate from the capital program. The city’s five-year Capital Improvement Program for fiscal 2026-27 through 2030-31 lists a grand total of $159,501,108. The fiscal 2026-27 column is $21,736,408. Those totals are in the CIP project summary, not the operating-budget tables.

On the November 3, 2026, ballot, Hemet voters will decide Measure Q. It is a separate 1-cent transactions and use tax. The City Council placed it on the ballot on July 14. The city’s Measure Q FAQ and the city attorney’s impartial analysis both say the tax is estimated to generate about $16 million a year.

Measure Q would be a general tax. Proceeds would go to the General Fund and could be used for any lawful city purpose, according to the proposed ordinance and the impartial analysis. The tax would last until ended by voters. The city says groceries, prescription medicine, diapers, and feminine hygiene products are exempt. The city also says the money would stay in Hemet, with public disclosure, independent citizens’ oversight, and audits.

Hemet’s current sales tax rate is 8.75 percent, the city’s FAQ states. Measure Q would add 1 cent on each dollar of taxable purchases.

The city has scheduled three Measure Q open houses at the Hemet Public Library, 300 E. Latham Ave.: Sept. 16 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Sept. 26 from 10 a.m. to noon, and Oct. 16 from 6 to 8 p.m.

The adopted operating budget does not include Measure Q revenue. The November vote is a separate question from the books the council already adopted for this fiscal year.

The post Hemet budget spends $9.6 million more than it takes in appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

   Hemet voters will decide this November whether to approve a proposed 1% sales tax increase that city leaders say is necessary to address the city’s long-term financial challenges and preserve essential public services. The Hemet City Council voted unanimously last week to place the measure on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot, giving residents the final say on whether to raise the city’s sales tax to what would become the highest rate in Riverside County. If approved, the increase would surpass the sales tax rates in neighboring communities, including Palm Springs and La Quinta.

    City officials estimate the measure would generate approximately $16 million in additional revenue each year, although residents would not see the financial impact immediately. According to City Attorney Steven Pacifico, the city would not begin receiving the new revenue until approximately August 2027. Pacifico acknowledged the increase would place Hemet at the top of Riverside County’s sales tax rankings but noted that other cities facing similar financial pressures may also pursue tax increases in the future.

    The proposal comes as Hemet continues to confront rising costs, aging infrastructure and increasing demands for police, fire and emergency services. City officials say the additional funding would help address a structural budget deficit that has persisted despite recent cost-cutting measures. Interim City Manager Noah Rau told council members that while the city has significantly reduced what was once a $13.3 million budget deficit, Hemet’s underlying financial issues remain unresolved and require a long-term solution rather than temporary reductions in spending.

    “This represents an important step in the council’s ongoing efforts to address the city’s long-term financial sustainability while maintaining the essential services our residents rely on every day,” Rau said. He added that several of the reductions implemented during the current budget year are not sustainable over the long term and warned that the city’s reserve funds are projected to decline to approximately 32%, well below the city’s policy goal of maintaining a 40% reserve.

    Before placing the measure before voters, the city commissioned a feasibility study to determine public sentiment. According to the results presented to the council, at least 59% of respondents in every council district expressed support for the proposed sales tax increase. Mayor Linda Krupa, who served on the city’s ad hoc committee reviewing the proposal, said the findings surprised city officials and demonstrated that many residents recognize the financial challenges facing the community.

    “Every one of us in that room were absolutely shocked at the results that came back, and that our citizens understand the need that we have at this point,” Krupa said during the council meeting.

    Not everyone shares that view. Several residents spoke during the public hearing, voicing frustration over deteriorating roads, crime and what they described as inadequate public services. Some questioned whether taxpayers should be asked to contribute more before seeing improvements in the city’s existing services.

    Resident Judith McPherson told council members she has been assaulted multiple times in private parking lots and expressed concern about what she described as worsening crime throughout Hemet. She urged city leaders to focus on improving public safety before asking residents to approve another tax increase.

    Resident Charles Vineyard also criticized the city’s priorities, pointing to deteriorating streets across Hemet. “Our streets are devastated,” Vineyard told the council. “If you’re going to do it, designate all the money for those. Then, after the streets are done, it goes to whatever. Quit putting in little loopholes.”

    Several council members acknowledged they were hesitant to support placing another tax measure before voters but said the decision ultimately belongs to the community. Mayor Pro Tem Joe Males said he generally opposes tax increases but believes residents should determine whether additional funding is necessary.

    “I’m not one for raising taxes, but this is not me raising taxes,” Males said. “This is the people making the decision whether they want to raise the tax. So, I’m going to vote yes to give them the decision on what they want to do.”

    Hemet voters previously approved Measure U in 2016, which increased the city’s sales tax by 1% to its current rate of 8.75%. Like Measure U, the proposed increase would direct revenue into the city’s general fund, allowing city leaders to allocate the money toward a variety of municipal services, including public safety, infrastructure and other operational needs.

    The outcome of the November election will determine whether Hemet receives the additional revenue city officials say is needed to strengthen long-term financial stability or whether residents choose to reject the proposal and require the city to pursue other options to address its ongoing budget challenges.

The post Hemet Voters to Decide on Proposed Sales Tax Increase appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The shift is notable in a state dominated by Democratic voters, where support for government services has often translated into willingness to pay higher taxes. California already ranks among the nation’s highest-tax states, with steep rates on retail sales, personal income and corporate income. While property tax rates are comparatively restrained, the state’s high home values often leave property owners with substantial annual bills.

Additional taxes on fuel, utilities, tobacco, alcohol, health care, gambling, firearms and ammunition add to the overall burden. State and local governments, along with school districts, collect roughly $400 billion in taxes each year, according to the Tax Foundation. That amounts to more than $10,000 per resident, the fifth-highest per-person tax burden in the country.

The state budget now being negotiated includes several smaller tax proposals, including a new tax on managed health care services and another involving software. At the same time, local governments across California are asking voters to approve new sales taxes, parcel taxes and bond measures. The November ballot also could include several statewide tax-related proposals, some seeking to raise taxes and others designed to limit future increases.

Together, those measures will test how much more California voters are willing to pay. Recent polling and election results suggest that appetite may be shrinking.

In a May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 55% of voters said they preferred lower taxes and a state government that provides fewer services as a way to address ongoing state budget deficits. Even among Democrats, only 10% supported solving the state’s budget problems primarily through higher taxes, according to PPIC researcher Dean Bonner.

The results of California’s recent primary election appeared to reflect that mood. Voters considered 92 local measures that would either raise taxes directly or authorize bonds that would trigger higher property taxes to pay off the debt. The California Taxpayers Association found that 57.5% of those measures passed, a sharp drop from approval rates of about 70% in other recent elections.

The resistance was visible even in San Francisco, one of the state’s most progressive cities. Voters there rejected Proposition D, which would have increased taxes on large companies whose executives are paid at least 100 times more than their rank-and-file workers. They also turned down Proposition C, which would have raised the city’s gross receipts tax on businesses.

Other tax proposals failed in Democratic-leaning areas as well. San Diego voters rejected a new tax on vacant residential properties, and Contra Costa County voters turned down a sales tax increase. In Los Angeles County, voters approved a sales tax hike for health care, but only by a very narrow margin.

The growing hesitation may be tied to broader anxiety over California’s high cost of living, a concern felt heavily across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where household budgets have been strained by housing, transportation, insurance, utilities and grocery costs.

The same PPIC survey found that 44% of Californians considered the cost of living and the economy the state’s most important issue. Housing costs and availability ranked second at 14%. The poll also found that three in four Californians expect difficult economic times ahead, with pessimism widespread across party, regional and demographic lines.

Voters worried about their own finances are often less inclined to support measures that could raise household costs further. With more tax proposals expected in November, California will soon get another measure of just how far that reluctance may go.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voters Grow Wary of Ballot Measures Seeking New Taxes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Two years later, parts of that agenda are moving forward. A new interagency council intended to improve coordination among workforce programs is scheduled to meet next week. The state also is developing a digital “career passport” meant to help students and workers organize their education, skills and work experience in a format employers can use.

But the money behind some of Newsom’s most visible workforce initiatives is tightening as California confronts another budget shortfall. Under the governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, several job training efforts would receive little or no new funding. The California Workforce Development Board, one of the state’s main agencies for coordinating workforce programs, could lose about 20% of its staff.

Among the programs facing uncertainty are Newsom’s “high road” training partnerships, which were designed to connect workers with careers that offer better wages, stronger retention and employer involvement. Without additional funding, some programs could shrink or end around the time the next governor takes office, or shortly afterward.

The Legislature has approved a budget that largely reflects Newsom’s proposal. The governor has until the end of the month to sign it.

Workforce groups say the timing is troubling, particularly as Californians continue to struggle with high housing, transportation and living costs.

“At a time when affordability is such a massive concern, it feels like we’re focusing on what things cost and not enough on what people can earn,” Julia Hatton, president of the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, told CalMatters. Her organization trains workers for construction and climate-related jobs and has received nearly $4 million in state workforce grants.

State finance officials say the administration is not abandoning workforce development. At an April legislative hearing, Allison Hewitt, a budget analyst with the California Department of Finance, said the Workforce Development Board’s budget was not being cut so much as returning to a lower level after several years of unusually large grant allocations.

That explanation drew skepticism from Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat.

“You can say that all you want,” Durazo said at the hearing. “But if we’re not proposing funding for that … then you’re basically saying this is gonna be the new policy. The bottom line is without funding, it’s not a reality.”

In an emailed statement to CalMatters, Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor’s workforce plan emphasizes “structural changes to benefit students, which does not always require funding.”

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in the same email that the current budget plan includes more than $250 million in new workforce funding, including for health care and construction programs.

That figure is far below the more than $2.2 billion in new workforce grants California approved in the 2022-23 budget year, when the state had far more money available.

For decades, state and federal governments have invested in job training programs, especially for low-income workers and people without college degrees. Results have often been uneven. Some participants end up in low-wage jobs or positions with high turnover, leaving policymakers searching for better ways to connect training with long-term employment.

California’s high road training partnerships were created to address those weaknesses by focusing on programs that involve employers and lead to jobs with livable wages and career growth. The state began making smaller investments in the model around 2014, according to Stewart Knox, secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

In 2021 and 2022, California dramatically expanded those investments, sending hundreds of millions of dollars into programs tied to construction, health care, technology, public-sector jobs, youth apprenticeships and retraining for oil workers affected by refinery closures.

The results have varied. Some grants helped train large numbers of workers for union jobs, while others produced fewer measurable benefits. In one case, a grant intended to train workers at electric vehicle company Proterra was disrupted when the company shut down before workers could begin.

This year, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat, is carrying legislation that would place tighter limits on how high road training money can be used.

Another bill, by Assemblymembers Isaac Bryan of Culver City and Damon Connolly of San Rafael, would give grantees more time to spend funds intended to help oil workers retrain. According to a bill analysis, about 500 of roughly 1,700 eligible oil workers had participated as of May.

Newsom’s broader career education push formally took shape in 2023, when he signed an executive order calling for a master plan that would reshape how California prepares people for work. Released in 2025, the plan called for better coordination among workforce providers, expanded high road training programs and continued support for youth apprenticeships.

Knox said the state is still in the middle of that effort, even if program funding is less robust than it was during the post-pandemic budget surge.

“We’re definitely not done,” Knox told CalMatters. “We’re kind of mid-stage.”

He pointed to other parts of the master plan that are advancing, including growth in dual enrollment, which allows high school students to take college courses, and efforts to help more students receive college credit for prior work experience.

Palmer said the Legislature’s budget proposal includes additional money for both dual enrollment and credit for work experience. Those dollars, however, come from Proposition 98, the constitutionally protected funding stream that largely supports K-12 schools and community colleges, rather than from the workforce budget.

The Shirley Ware Education Center, a national workforce training nonprofit founded in Oakland, was one of the earliest and largest recipients of high road grants. Since 2017, it has received more than $40 million in state workforce funding and used the money to help more than 5,500 workers move into better jobs, mostly in health care.

“When the state was flush with cash, they put a lot of money into these programs,” Executive Director Rebecca Hanson told CalMatters.

Now, Hanson said, California’s budget deficit makes it difficult to argue for more workforce funding when other essential services also face cuts. Her organization’s high road grant runs through 2027, but she said the group has other funding sources and is accustomed to shifts in state support.

“My hope is that by the time we’re talking about 2028, we’ll be able to find other money,” Hanson said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Funds Dwindle for Newsom’s Promise to Help Californians Build New Careers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The vote is expected largely because legislators must pass a balanced budget by June 15 under the state Constitution in order to continue receiving pay. But the spending plan approved by the Legislature is not likely to be the final version. Lawmakers and the governor have until July 1 to reach a final agreement on health care, education, homelessness funding and other major programs that affect communities across California, including the Inland Empire.

A major point of disagreement is health care spending. Newsom proposed cuts in response to reduced federal funding tied to a tax and spending law signed last year by President Donald Trump. His plan included restrictions on health coverage for undocumented immigrants, as well as refugees, asylees and survivors of human trafficking.

Legislative Democrats want to push those reductions back by one year while they look for ways to reduce the impact. They also oppose Newsom’s proposal to raise monthly Medi-Cal premiums for undocumented immigrants from $30 to $50, preferring to leave that decision to the next governor.

Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said the Legislature is trying to buy time and avoid deeper cuts if possible.

Lawmakers also rejected Newsom’s plan to bring back stricter asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities enrolled in Medi-Cal by July. Instead, they proposed a less restrictive limit beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year. With bipartisan support, legislators also turned away proposed reductions to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which helps older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes.

The Legislature did agree with Newsom on one health care item: $300 million to help subsidize private health coverage for low-income Californians.

Education and child care are another central part of the budget debate. Democratic lawmakers want to add 22,000 state-funded child care slots over the next several years and rejected Newsom’s proposed cut of 6,800 state-supported slots. The added spaces would focus on children 3 and younger, an age group advocates say has not benefited from the state’s expansion of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds.

Lawmakers are also proposing $2.7 billion more for transitional kindergarten through 12th grade schools and community colleges than Newsom included in his May budget revision, based on a more optimistic revenue forecast.

Still, education groups say the Legislature did not go far enough. They had urged lawmakers to reject Newsom’s plan to withhold $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school funding as a way to avoid overpaying districts if projected revenue does not arrive.

David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, accused state leaders of relying on budget maneuvers instead of fully funding schools and said the union is prepared to hold them accountable.

Counties would also receive more support under the Legislature’s plan. The proposal includes additional funding to help counties handle expanded eligibility checks for residents applying for food assistance and health care benefits, requirements tied to Trump’s federal spending law.

The Legislature also wants to provide $125 million to help counties rebuild indigent care programs for low-income residents, which were largely scaled back after the Affordable Care Act took effect. On homelessness, lawmakers propose $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, compared with $500 million in Newsom’s plan.

To raise revenue, lawmakers are aligned with Newsom on three tax proposals. One would apply sales tax to most business software, including platforms such as Slack and Microsoft products. Another would limit the amount of tax credits large corporations can claim. A third would extend a tax on Medi-Cal health providers, a tool the state has used to draw down additional federal funding.

Those measures would not need voter approval, but they would require two-thirds support in both houses of the Legislature. The proposals come after California voters rejected many local tax measures in the June primary.

Senate Democrats had also considered a monthly charge on large employers whose workers are enrolled in Medi-Cal, but they have stepped back from that idea. Instead, they are asking the next governor to present “fully viable options” next year.

Lawmakers and Newsom also agree that California should be able to save more money in its rainy day fund, though they have not settled on the details. Under current law, the state is required to make deposits into the reserve, but the fund cannot exceed 10% of general fund tax revenue.

Changing that cap would require voter approval. Legislators are considering whether to place a measure on the November ballot to allow the state to save more for future downturns. They face a June 25 deadline to decide what, if anything, to put before voters.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Reach Budget Deal With Spending Above Newsom’s Proposal appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Last year, the state committed $15 million to support the California Local News Fellowship and the Propel Initiative, two programs aimed at strengthening local reporting and community-based news organizations. Supporters say the funding marked a significant public investment in journalism at a time when many communities are seeing fewer reporters covering schools, city halls, public agencies and neighborhood issues.

That funding, however, was not included in the Legislature’s proposed budget. Unless legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom restore the money before the budget is finalized, the programs could lose support just as organizers say they are beginning to show results.

The debate comes as California faces a period of major political and social change. Voters will choose a new governor in the coming year, and communities across the state continue to confront economic uncertainty, wildfires, other natural disasters, rapid changes in technology and a complicated information landscape.

Advocates for local news funding argue that reliable, community-based reporting is especially important in those conditions. Nationally, more than 70% of journalism jobs have disappeared over the past two decades, and nearly one-third of local newspapers have closed, according to research from Northwestern University’s Local News Initiative.

The decline has affected communities across California, including areas where residents depend on ethnic media, in-language reporting and small local outlets for information they do not receive elsewhere. Supporters say the loss of trusted local coverage can leave residents more vulnerable to misinformation, reduce civic participation and weaken public accountability.

The California Local News Fellowship, launched in 2023, has placed more than 110 journalists in newsrooms throughout the state. Those fellows have produced more than 10,000 stories, according to program supporters. More than one-third of the first graduating class has since been hired into permanent positions by their host newsrooms.

The program was designed not only to add reporting capacity, but also to help develop a journalism workforce that better reflects California’s diversity.

The Propel Initiative focuses on the institutions that serve local and ethnic communities. The effort is a partnership involving the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, California Black Media, American Community Media and the Latino Media Collaborative. Together, participating outlets serve more than 20 million Californians.

This spring, Propel convened journalists, editors, publishers, freelancers and students from ethnic, community, local and legacy media organizations for training in storytelling, audience engagement, leadership, innovation and sustainability.

This summer, the initiative is expected to launch Fire Up, an entrepreneurship program intended to help emerging media leaders and local news organizations improve their business models and work toward long-term stability.

Martin G. Reynolds, co-executive director of the Maynard Institute and former editor-in-chief of The Oakland Tribune, has urged state leaders to continue supporting the programs. He cited the philosophy of Robert C. Maynard, who emphasized that all Americans should have “front door access to the truth.”

Supporters say continuing the funding would help preserve access to reliable information, strengthen civic participation and sustain news organizations that serve California’s diverse communities.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Weigh Local News Funding Cuts as Industry Pressures Mount appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At the center of the dispute is a plan approved by the California Air Resources Board that would provide free pollution allowances to oil refineries and other large industrial polluters if they commit to investments in clean energy or efficiency upgrades. Senate Democrats say the program threatens a climate-funding agreement reached last year between Newsom and lawmakers, and they are trying to use the state budget to stop it.

Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, a San Bernardino Democrat who chairs the Senate’s climate budget subcommittee, said the state should honor the agreement that was negotiated when lawmakers extended California’s carbon market through 2045.

“We really need to stay to the deal,” Reyes said.

The Senate’s budget proposal, released last month, would block the new incentive program until the administration shows the state can still fund the climate commitments made in last year’s agreement. Senate Democrats are calling their approach “Deal is a Deal,” a pointed message to Newsom as budget negotiations continue.

The stakes are substantial. Money from California’s carbon market helps pay for programs such as public transit, safe drinking water, neighborhood air monitoring, wildfire protection and affordable housing near transit. Many of those programs are intended to benefit communities that face heavy pollution burdens and limited public investment.

The Senate plan also puts pressure on some of Newsom’s own priorities, including funding for high-speed rail, wildfire programs, electric vehicle incentives and a proposed tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel.

California’s carbon market, launched in 2013, is designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by requiring major polluters to obtain allowances for the carbon they emit. Companies can buy those allowances at state auctions, generating billions of dollars for climate-related programs.

Last year, Newsom and lawmakers agreed to extend the system, now rebranded as “cap and invest,” through 2045. The agreement set a spending order for the money raised through carbon allowance auctions. Under that deal, high-speed rail would receive $1 billion annually before many other programs, and lawmakers would control another $1 billion each year for their own priorities.

Other programs, including affordable housing near transit, cleaner buses and rail service, safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and local air monitoring, were placed further down the funding list.

But last month, amid concerns over rising gasoline prices and after heavy lobbying from the oil industry, the Air Resources Board adopted changes that reduce the number of allowances sold at auction through 2030. With Newsom’s support, the board also created the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, which could provide up to $4 billion in free allowances to companies that invest in emissions reductions. About half of that amount is expected to go to the fossil fuel industry.

Critics say the changes could dramatically shrink the money available for climate programs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated the new rules could cut annual auction revenue from about $4 billion to roughly $2 billion, potentially leaving little or no funding for some community-focused programs.

Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, criticized the state’s response to pressure from the oil industry.

“It’s unfortunate that the state of California empowers the oil industry to freak everyone out and adopt bad policies,” Wiener said.

Newsom’s office defended the changes, saying they are meant to keep the carbon market stable while addressing costs for consumers and industry.

Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for the governor, said the administration is trying to preserve California’s climate program in a difficult political and economic environment.

“That is not a retreat from climate leadership — it’s how California keeps leading while the federal government is retreating,” Martinez said.

The Senate’s counterproposal would preserve the $1 billion controlled by lawmakers and then direct up to $2 billion toward housing, transit, clean air and drinking water programs. Newsom’s priorities would be moved lower in the funding order. If carbon-market revenue falls to $2 billion, programs such as Cal Fire, high-speed rail and other administration priorities could receive little or no money from that fund.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Senate housing committee, questioned why the state would risk reducing funding for affordable housing during a severe housing crisis.

“Why, at this time … would we take away critical funding to build affordable homes in California?” Arreguín said.

Wiener said transit systems also should not be left vulnerable to annual funding fights.

“Every year, transit funding becomes a political football,” he said.

Assembly Democrats have not taken the same position as the Senate. Their budget plan does not directly address the Air Resources Board rule change, and they have not advanced an alternative. Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin and Cottie Petrie-Norris, Democrats who lead key climate and energy committees, have supported the board’s approach, saying it reflects the Legislature’s interest in affordability, including the possibility of providing more help with electricity costs.

Newsom and lawmakers face a June 30 deadline to approve a state budget before the new fiscal year begins. However, much of the climate spending dispute could continue beyond that date, since some of the funding decisions can be worked out before the legislative session ends in September.

The fight has already slowed some of the governor’s proposals. Newsom in January proposed spending $200 million on electric vehicle incentives, including $115 million from the climate fund. Senate Democrats have delayed negotiations on that item, and discussions could continue through the summer.

The Senate also rejected Newsom’s proposal for a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. The governor has argued the credit would encourage production of cleaner fuel and support refinery jobs. The proposal would allow eligible producers to pay less into the state’s road repair fund. It followed lobbying by Phillips 66, the only company that has publicly said it would benefit from the tax credit.

Supporters of the Air Resources Board’s new manufacturing incentive program say it is a practical tool for reducing emissions while keeping major employers in California. The board says companies would receive allowances only if they cut their own emissions and that the program includes safeguards requiring companies to return allowances if they fail to meet their commitments.

Lindsay Buckley, a spokesperson for the Air Resources Board, said the cap-and-invest program was revised to reduce pollution in a cost-effective way, protect ratepayers and keep businesses operating in the state.

“The program was never designed to maximize auction revenue,” Buckley said.

Opponents see the program differently. They argue that giving free allowances to major polluters amounts to a subsidy without enough assurance that emissions will actually fall. Some critics also warn the changes could make it harder for California to meet its legally required 2030 climate targets.

The Air Resources Board approved the overhaul on a 10-3 vote, but several members raised concerns. Before the new incentive program begins, the board required further review.

The Senate proposal would restrict climate-fund spending unless the Department of Finance certifies that last year’s agreement can still be funded. It also would prevent the Air Resources Board from distributing the new industrial allowances unless state officials determine the program aligns with California’s climate goals, helps lower gasoline prices and leaves enough funding for endangered climate programs.

The dispute could carry broader political consequences for Newsom, who has often presented California as a national and international leader on climate policy.

Katie Valenzuela, a policy advocate who works on environmental justice issues, said the rule change could damage the governor’s climate record if it is not revised.

“If this rule goes forward and isn’t fixed, this is a huge stain on his climate legacy,” Valenzuela said. “He is showing loud and clear that the most vulnerable residents who are most impacted by climate change are not his priority.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Warn They May Stall Newsom’s Agenda as Climate Deal Falters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The spending plan for the 2026-27 fiscal year carries major implications across the state, including for Southern California and the Inland Empire, where many residents rely on Medi-Cal and other health and social service programs. At the center of the negotiations are billions of dollars in disagreements over how much California should spend, what services should be preserved and whether new taxes should be used to help close ongoing budget gaps.

Newsom’s revised budget proposes $334.2 billion for health and human services, with Medi-Cal making up the largest share. About three-quarters of that funding comes from the federal government. But with federal aid reduced and the state still facing a persistent budget deficit, the governor’s proposal would scale back some services.

Those proposed reductions have drawn sharp criticism from advocates for Medi-Cal recipients, who have issued a series of objections since Newsom released his revised spending plan. Medi-Cal serves roughly 15 million low-income Californians.

Legislative leaders in both the Senate and Assembly have put forward budget outlines that would restore many of the services Newsom seeks to reduce or eliminate. The two legislative plans vary in details, but both would increase spending by at least several billion dollars. Neither plan lays out a precise final bottom line.

Lawmakers are also weighing tax increases, particularly those aimed at corporations. Proposals include changing how multinational companies calculate taxable income and imposing a $285 monthly fee on large employers for each worker enrolled in Medi-Cal.

The Senate has proposed adopting that employer fee instead of renewing the state’s long-standing Managed Care Organization tax, which is supported by Newsom and the Assembly. The current tax on health plans generates about $4.5 billion per year and has helped California draw additional federal health care dollars. It is set to expire at the end of the year.

The future of that tax is complicated by new federal limits and by Proposition 35, a 2024 ballot measure approved by California voters that requires proceeds from the tax to be used for medical services rather than non-medical programs.

The California Association of Health Plans opposes renewing the managed care tax, arguing that doing so would conflict with the 2024 ballot measure and increase consumer health care costs by $1.5 billion annually.

The debate reflects the broader challenges facing Newsom and legislative leaders as they decide whether to offset federal funding cuts, restore services targeted for reductions and raise taxes to help pay for it all.

Health and welfare programs are expected to dominate the budget talks because of their size and cost, but they are not the only unresolved issues. The spending plan will be Newsom’s eighth and final budget as governor.

Newsom has said his revised proposal would close the gap between state revenues and spending, a problem that first emerged in 2022 and has continued since. He has argued that the plan would prevent his successor from inheriting a structural deficit when the next governor takes office in January.

Still, many of the tools used to balance the proposal are temporary. They include drawing from emergency reserves, relying on loans outside the main budget framework and using revenue that may be tied to a short-term boost from taxes connected to the artificial intelligence industry.

Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek has cautioned that the state remains financially vulnerable. In a review of Newsom’s budget, Petek wrote that California’s reduced reserves and growing debt leave it poorly positioned if revenues fall below expectations.

As the June 15 deadline approaches, the remaining question is whether state leaders will craft a long-term solution or once again rely on short-term measures to keep the budget in balance.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Medi-Cal Cuts, Tax Hikes Loom as State Lawmakers Negotiate Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.