E-Mail
Print
Because of the economy, cities are finding themselves in "uncharted territory."
"It's forced a lot of belt-tightening at the local level," Carrigg said. "Just in the last four or five years, you've seen cities do things that I would say four or five years ago would have been almost inconceivable. They've been laying off police and fire, closing parks, doing lots of things that, I think, people thought they wouldn't really see."
The loss of redevelopment agencies for cities was also a big blow to finances and curtailed the ability of municipalities to spur growth by reversing blight, he noted.
"It was really an important tool, especially for downtown development, because cities don't really have many options when it comes to financing infrastructure and repairing some of the old infrastructure -- the water, the streets, the sewers -- in downtown areas," Carrigg said.
Despite the argument that "all boats rise" when redevelopment projects come to fruition, the state still decided to get rid of redevelopment agencies to help balance its budget, a move that halted funding for new redevelopment projects.
Carrigg thinks the drawbacks from that move will be played out for a long time.
"The lack of the investment, we believe, will have long-term negative ripple effects in our economy," he said. "I think when we look back on this five or 10 years from now, the way this was handled will be viewed as a major mistake."
But redevelopment is only one piece of the local fiscal puzzle.
The economic collapse had a magnified impact on Valley cities, since many of them were in growth spurts at the time, Carrigg said. More affluent communities along the coast saw less of a decline in property tax.
"Some of these Valley cities are more in their growth phases, where some of the more established cities that have a more diversified economy maybe have been able to weather it differently," he said.
Many Valley economies relied on housing starts in several ways.
"A lot of times, as I understand it, businesses will say, 'You need the rooftops before the other investments come in,'" Carrigg said.
And while some may have seen a downturn coming, few could have predicted the depth and breadth of the trouble.
"This economic downturn has been probably deeper than most people expected," Carrigg said.
Reporter Mike North can be reached at (209) 385-2453 or mnorth@mercedsunstar.com.
City budget health
Cities throughout the region have been struggling with budget shortfalls, wrestling with layoffs and spending cuts for years. Some cities are in better shape than others. Here's a look at just how the six cities in Merced County are faring on the balance sheets.
MERCED
POPULATION: 80,232
LAND AREA: 23.3 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1889
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME: $36,269
PER CAPITA INCOME: $16,887
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13: $32 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13:
$32.3 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $6.2 million
LIVINGSTON
POPULATION: 13,271
LAND AREA: 3.7 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1922
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $46,198
PER CAPITA INCOME: $13,947
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13: $4.5 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13:
$4.5 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $1.4 million
LOS BANOS
POPULATION: 36,558
LAND AREA: 10 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1907
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $54,375
PER CAPITA INCOME: $18,437
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13: $9.5 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13:
$10.1 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $4.5 million
DOS PALOS
POPULATION: 5,032
LAND AREA: 1.4 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1935
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $40,121
PER CAPITA INCOME: $13,761
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13:
$1.05 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13:
$1.05 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $0
ATWATER
POPULATION: 28,626
LAND AREA: 6.1 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1922
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $42,226
PER CAPITA INCOME: $17,768
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13: $9.2 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13: $12 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: Negative $3.7 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $0
GUSTINE
POPULATION: 5,611
LAND AREA: 1.6 square miles
YEAR INCORPORATED: 1915
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $40,818
PER CAPITA INCOME: $16,183
PROJECTED REVENUE 2012-13: $1.6 million
PROJECTED EXPENSES 2012-13:
$1.6 million
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2012-13: $75,843
