With the passage of this year's California budget, the state's leaders once more have put their fingers in the dike. They have played their annual shell game - moving revenue sources around to fund or eliminate state and local services. Each year, the Sacramento budget process gets more devious and obtuse.

The cuts approved by state representatives have been in the billions of dollars. The impact is mind-boggling. Programs for the poor, the vulnerable, the sick, the elderly and the young have been whacked by the Legislature and governor. The government is not working; the state of California needs to find a new way to do its business.

Is it possible to reshape the way California is governed?

At a time of continuing unhappiness with the governor and Legislature, several groups have issued proposals that would redesign the financial structure of the state. But now is the time to not only rethink the fiscal systems of California but to redesign how services are delivered.

California government was forever changed by 1978's Proposition 13, which restricted the growth of property taxes and required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to pass any new taxes. Cities and counties lost not only revenue but also fiscal control to the Legislature.

More recently, the governor usurped legislative power when he blue-penciled many programs important to local communities in this year's budget. Local governance no longer equals local control.

As an eight-year member of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, most of the complaints I heard from constituents involved service delivery: "When will my streets be repaired and my trees trimmed? Why are there not more police patrols? We need more parks and a cleaner ocean."

The Public Policy Institute of California confirmed in a recent survey that 60 percent of adults are very concerned about local government services as a result of cuts in the state budget. Here are areas that need to be considered in the reform movement and in any debate about governing the state:

Special districts

Special districts are a holy grail in California communities, but are they still needed? Many began when and where services did not exist. Today, according to Peter Detwiler, staff director of the state Senate's Local Government Committee, California has about 3,400 special districts. Many counties have multiple water, sewer, fire and transportation districts. Why not consolidate or annex them to local municipalities? The administrative savings alone would be worth millions to taxpayers, and more-efficient services would result.

Regional government

Counties have been the real losers in this last budget go-round. They perform many of the same services that cities provide and also those that are mandated by the state: public and mental health, social services, tax collection, courts and probation.

Why not create regional forms of government that would reduce duplication? Counties can provide services that cover larger geographical areas, and cities can serve the day-to-day needs of their communities such as land-use planning, public works, building safety, parks and recreation, and police.

If cities are too small to provide their own police departments, they can contract with neighboring communities; it is done frequently throughout the state. Counties can contract with nearby cities to provide day-to-day municipal services for their own rural areas. The elimination of some of these functions would result in huge savings to local governments and more streamlined delivery of services.

Any debate on this subject invariably will include the question of what model of government most allows the voices of a community to be heard. Many large cities have neighborhood councils or planning bodies that allow constituents to connect to their elected officials. A restructuring of cities and counties into regional governments need not negate access or lessen accountability to its citizens.

Consolidating services

California has 58 counties. Each presents a laboratory of opportunities for reshaping government. Santa Barbara County has a population of 405,000 and 10 fire protection agencies. Services are provided by some of the cities, the county, special districts, and state and federal programs that include firefighting. In some areas, training and communication systems have already been combined. Small communities can be very protective of their fire departments, but a single consolidated fire service program could provide greater resources and increased service levels. Why not unify all county fire programs into one area-wide agency?

Santa Barbara County also could be an example for consolidated parks management. The county is experienced in running parks and has staff and resources already in place. Gaviota Beach, El Capitan, La Purissima and other state parks in the county were considered for closure in this year's budget discussions.

The state could turn the management of these parks over to the county. A transfer of ownership to local government would result in new parking and camping revenue for these jurisdictions that could cover costs. In addition, decision-making would occur at the regional level, enabling parks departments to move quickly when service issues need to be resolved.

Clearly, redesigning local government in California would be like climbing Mount Everest. We could begin the restructuring process by providing incentives to jurisdictions to negotiate those service realignments. Increased financial return from the state and better services would provide strong motivation.

Every community is unique and requires different services, and there is no simple answer to the state's complex problems. But the debate that has begun to restructure California's fiscal systems would have a greater chance to succeed if the citizens of California believed that it would also result in improved delivery of services.