The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments agreed June 18 to draft a resolution opposing a recommendation by the state to siphon off gas taxes to help pay for state debt service costs.

The state Budget Conference Committee recommended June 11 that the state take two years of the local portion of gas taxes that come from the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA). The proposal would take away 100 percent of local gas tax revenue in fiscal year 2009–10 and 75 percent the following year.

This would amount to about $1.7 billion in lost revenue, with Santa Barbara County, including the incorporated cities, sharing $21 million in lost revenue. Santa Ynez Valley alone could lose about $900,000.

Scott McGolpin, director of the county’s Public Works Department, warned SBCAG members that a diversion of these tax dollars would be “devastating.” The gutting of his department — which gets 30 percent of its revenue from the gas tax — and those of its city counterparts would cut off many vital services to the public, he said, adding that about 38 positions would be lost.

The county’s Public Works Department maintains about 1,667 miles of roadway and more than 100 bridges. This includes pot hole patching, tree trimming, traffic signs and signal operation maintenance, center and edge striping, and 24-hour call out requests from public safety personnel. “The question we and other agencies up and down the state have to ask is Can we really afford the loss of these services?” McGolpin told the board. “Our customers really take them for granted, and they don’t think about them, and if this funding were to go away, I think our customers would be thinking a lot more about the services we weren’t providing and wondering why we aren’t providing them.”

At the behest of 5th District Supervisor Joseph Centeno, SBCAG unanimously voted to draft a resolution to tell the state Legislature to “leave our money alone.”

Steve Wagner, director of public works for the city of Goleta, applauded the board’s motion and said local jurisdictions across the state must mount a rear-guard campaign to keep the state’s hands off their gas tax revenue.

“When the state legislature heard the cacophony of local interests on Proposition 1A raid, I think that really helped,” he said. “And while we can breathe a sigh of relief that that may not happen this year, the state’s going to continue to look for pots of money to solve their problems.”

SBCAG wasn’t the only regional planning agency that adamantly opposes the recommendation.

During a special meeting of the California State Association of Counties June 17, the board unanimously voted to oppose the tax-take proposal. Also, a group called Coalition Against Fiscally Reckless Diversion of Gas Tax Funds, was quickly formed by a broad number of public and private organizations to galvanize protest against the proposal.

The League of California Cities is talking about challenging the take-away in court, should the Legislature approve it.

Supervisor Centeno advised SBCAG’s counsel to work in concert with other jurisdictions to assess any legal options the county may have to stop the proposal.

“The league did promulgate a legal opinion from expert attorneys as to the Legislature’s taking the HUTA, and it was favorable in terms of our being able to stop it,” Santa Barbara City Councilwoman Iya Falcone said. “But I think the unanimity of all of the jurisdictions getting together and standing up to the Legislature and the Governor at this point is incredibly powerful.”

McGolpin, in an interview June 19, said the plan to take gas taxes from local municipalities is a short-sighted, irresponsible maneuver that does nothing to solve the state’s long-term budget issues. “I understand that the state is proposing this to help shore up its budget, but specifically what will the saved revenue, if this goes through, go toward in helping the state achieve that end?” he asked. The recommendation to take local gas taxes, he explained, is an attempt by the state Legislature to pay off transportation debt bonds. During the February budget negotiations, there was agreement between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and all caucuses to increase the gas tax by 12-cents a gallon to pay down these bonds, but the measure ultimately failed.

Californians currently pay 18 cents on every gallon they charge at the pump, with 6 cents divvied up equally to counties and cities.

“Now the state Legislature wants to take that money from us, yet they only maintain 18 percent of the lane miles,” McGolpin said. “Does that make any sense? This is their problem, so why are they making it our problem? Local agencies have done a great job with our pavements, and now Sacramento is threatening to take it away.”

Public Works departments across the county are scrambling to find ways to shore up their services, if the state is successful in taking local gas taxes. McGolpin told SBCAG members that they could tap Proposition 1B, but not for very long because the state may cut off funding after the next fiscal year.

That measure — the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 — was approved by California voters on Nov. 7, 2006.

Consequently, the county would have to dip into Measure D, the half-cent transportation sales tax Santa Barbara County voters passed in 1989, and its sister, Measure A, which sunsets in 2010.

McGolpin said the loss of the gas tax over the next seven years would undue all of the gains the county was able to achieve with Measure D.

The measure would wallop the county in other ways: federal economic stimulus money at the local level would be erased, and money that could have been used to leverage federal grant money would be lost, McGolpin said. There is also discussion, he said, about the state taking local gas taxes in perpetuity.

“It would absolutely kill our roads,” he said.

Reach Jeremy Foster at jfoster@syvjournal.com.