The City of Sacramento is conducting nine special budget workshops, allegedly to provide information about the City's budget, the impacts of possible budget reductions to current service levels, and to obtain community input. The workshops began September 17th and the last will be at City Hall on October 22nd, just 14 days before the November 4th elections. The League's Executive Director attended the four "workshops" held to date, and, if possible, will be at all others. He was often accompanied by League Treasurer Carl Burton.

What seems apparent during each is that they are thinly veiled campaign ploys against Measure T, the Utility User Tax (UUT) reduction on the November ballot, using City employees and elected officials as moderators. To their credit, the City staff has been judicious in advertising and using their material as "educational", and are careful not make recommendations regarding any elements during their presentation.

It is the timing of the "workshop" exercise that raises the quasi-campaign question. The question of timing stems from the fact that the "workshop" meetings are occurring during a strange period in budget planning. It is a first, as well as can be recalled. The City has just come through many similar hearings since May on its 2002-2003 budget, just approved as balanced. New planning and hearings would not normally begin again until April 2003. Yet now, just before the election, much time, activity, and City money is being spent asking community members what should be cut from city services, based on possible reductions in future income.

During briefings the staff uses 5-year projections to amplify their pitch, but talk in present day terms which can lead attendees to a presumption that projected reductions in sales taxes and state provided revenue may continue to decline for the next 5 years, neither of which anyone can project. And they bomb the Utility User Tax (UUT) reduction from 7.5% to 2.5% over five years, always stating, "-may result in an annual $39 million reduction to the City's General fund", giving some the impression it will happen next year. They never pointed out is that the final 1% reduction would not occur until the 2007-2008 budget is prepared!

It is apparent the attendees, except for staff, the local council member at each, and League representatives, by-and-large have no real knowledge of budget planning details, nor even what makes up the UUT reduction and expansion of the UUT rebate program. As a result, most making comments at the "workshops" are trying to either protect money received from the City in the past, or are trying to get projects or services either started or improved, all reminiscent of the hearings just completed for next year's budget. Only a few suggestions cover how to improve use of taxpayer's money or what to cut in future budgets. Many suggestions made would require spending more.

As a bottom line the City is skating close to the edge of violating the intent of election codes prohibiting any public agency from using taxpayers money in campaign activities.

EXAMINING THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S BUDGET

The League is repeatedly challenged by City representatives to suggest what to cut from its budget in the event Measure T, The Fair Utility Tax Act passes, essentially the same question being asked at the "workshops." We have two professional auditors dissecting the City's new budget, and examining the way the City handles taxpayer's money. We have discussed in past Tax Faxes, the millions of dollars spent, or about to be spent, on cost overruns; loans made or extended to faltering enterprises; tax exemptions for developers; lack of oversight of money spent; approving work without contracts; bonds for theater and Music Circus improvements now exhibiting a cost estimate increase of $3.1 million in one year; $337,000 in loans to arts groups with cash flow problems; ballet and opera three-year extensions on about a quarter million dollars in loans they are unable to pay; the City's lending its Golf Division $2.9 million to keep it afloat, and its plan to budget more General Fund money to cover Golf Division losses in coming years. And it seems that each day we encounter more. The last three plan to subsidize, with up to $2.6 million, an architect and developer who are buying and plan to restore a brick building at the rail yard; subsidizing an auto mall in Natomas with somewhere between $6 to $11 million; and a possible $16 million subsidy to a developer to build expensive apartments near the City Hall. Perhaps the new complex behind City Hall should be named The City of Sacramento Taxpayer's Subsidy and Loan Building.

MEASURE T OPPONENTS CAMPAIGN MONEY

As we reported in the last Tax Fax, the Taxpayers League now knows whom we are facing. Our opponents are well-funded city employee labor unions, organizations that receive money from the City budget, and millionaires and commercial enterprises whom HAVE BEEN, AND IN THE FUTURE COULD BE, RECIPIENTS OF MILLIONS OF CITY PROFFERED TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS TO FURTHER THEIR ENTERPRISES. Effectively, we are opposed by those who FEED REGULARLY AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. We pointed out that the California Musical Theater Music Circus/Broadway Series, dependent on support from the City, yet donated $5000 to our opponents. And the AKT Development Corporation, headed by millionaire developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, presented them with $20,000. What we did not know last month was that Mr. Tsakopoulos needs the City to rezone two parcels near the airport so that they can be developed. This appears to be a page borrowed from Governor Davis' Pay to Play Manual. If ever voters should remember the adage "FOLLOW THE MONEY" before the vote on Measure T, now is the time!

NOVEMBER STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Prop. 46 - HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT

Would issue up to $980 million in bonds for programs providing assistance for multifamily housing, emergency housing, farm worker housing, homeownership for low-income households, and down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.

Position: Oppose

Prop. 47 - KINDERGARTEN - UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002

A $13 billion general obligation bond for K-16 facilities upgrade. Follows $9.2 billion approved by voters as Prop. 1A in 1998.

Position: Oppose

Prop. 48 - COURT CONSOLIDATION

It would delete obsolete references to municipal courts from the CA Constitution. All 58 counties have already merged the superior and municipal courts.

Position: Support

Prop. 49 - AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. STATE GRANTS. INITIATIVE STATUTES

Increases state grant for before and after school programs. Establishes priority for continued funding for schools already receiving grants. Makes public elementary, middle, and junior high schools, including charter schools, eligible for grants ranging from $50,000 to $75,000. Provides priority funding for schools with predominately low-income students. Declares that funding shall be above Proposition 98 base funding, and at least $85 million for first year increasing to $550 million annually if state revenues grow. Would have major impact that would exceed $400 million annually, beginning in 2004-2005.

Position: Oppose

Prop. 50 - WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY AND SAFE DRINKING WATER PROJECTS, COASTAL WETLANDS PURCHASE AND PROTECTION BONDS

Authorizes $3.44 billion general obligation bonds for water projects specified by CALFED. Would cost about $5.7 billion to pay principal and interest over 25-years.at $227 million per year. Potential additional cost to operate or maintain properties and projects is unknown.

Position: Oppose

Prop. 51 - TRANSPORTATION. ALLOCATION OF SALES AND USE TAXES RAISED FROM SALE OR LEASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES INITIATIVE STATUTE

Reallocates 30% of certain state revenues collected on motor vehicle sales or leases from the General Fund to the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund. Involves about $460 million in 2002-2003 and $950,000 million in 2003-2004, increasing annually thereafter.

Position: Oppose

Prop. 52 - ELECTION DAY VOTER REGISTRATION

Allow persons who are legally eligible to vote and have valid identification to register to vote at their polling places.

Position: Oppose

NOVEMBER LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES

Measure G - Sacramento County Utility User Tax, and

Measure H - Sacramento County Transient Occupancy Tax Increase (Hotel Tax)

Position: None. The Measures resulted from a Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Sacramento County Taxpayers League 4-year lawsuit against the County for establishing both taxes illegally by not putting them to a public vote. The Court affirmed the allegation, and the County agreed to put them on the ballot.

Measure I - Sacramento City Unified School District $225,000,000 Bond Measure.

Position: Opposed. The League is withdrawing its representative from The Citizen's Oversight Committee monitoring the $195,000,000 bond approved in a special election on October 19, 1999 costing $322,404. Over three years, meetings of the Committee have been intermittent, controlled by the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, and information provided on capital and other expenditures has not been adequate for proper evaluation.

Measure J - San Juan Unified School District $350,000,000 Bond Measure.

Position: Neutral. Position derives from belief Proposition 39, reducing approval level of local school bonds from 66.6% to 55%, is unfair to property owners. In1998 San Juan placed $157,000,000 Measure S on the November Ballot. The District worked with the Taxpayers League on Resolutions that assured bond money would be used only for capital improvements, and that a Blue Ribbon Citizen's Oversight Committee would monitor expenditures, backed by an independent audit. Based on the District's excellent cooperation, the League signed the Argument in Favor of Measure S, and it passed. Since, the District work with the Oversight Committee has been meticulous, for which we commend them.

Measure K - Roseville Joint Union High School District $65,000,000 Bond Measure, and

Measure L - Elverta Joint Elementary School District $10,500,000 Bond Measure, and

Measure M - Natomas Unified School District $45,880,000 Bond Measure, and

Measure N - Rio Linda Union School District $15,400,000 Bond Measure.

Position: None, for the reason above regarding objection to 55% approval level for local school bonds.

Measure O - City of Elk Grove Base Year Appropriation Limit Measure

Position: None.

Measure P - City of Folsom Charter Amendment Regarding Water Meter Retrofits and Metered Water Rates.

Position: Opposed. This Initiative would prevent Folsom from installing water meters on homes built prior to 1992. This would put Folsom in the position of violating Federal law for use of 7,500 acre-feet of Central Valley Project water, which must be measured. Simply put, no meters - no water. Further, the League advocates the "Cost of Service" principle, including metering water, as is done with power and gas consumption.

Measure Q - City of Galt Campaign Contribution Limits Ordinance, and

Measure R - City of Galt Growth Ordinance.

Position: None

Measure S - City of Sacramento Full-Time Mayor Charter Amendment

Position: Oppose. The League agrees the City of Sacramento should have a full-time Mayor, but opposes the Initiative as written. It does not add more formal power for the Mayor in the City Charter, but does add potential salary increases for Mayor and City Council Members. As written, it simply is a general pay raise.

Measure T- City of Sacramento Utility User Tax Reduction.

Position: Support. The Taxpayers League is the proponent of The Fair Utility Tax that will reduce the present unfair utility tax, which is three times higher than other utility tax in the County. Further, it expands the City's utility tax rebate to include all residents in the city whose income is less than $25,000 per year.

Measure V - Galt Fire Protection District Special Tax, and

Measure W - Proposed Incorporation of the City of Rancho Cordova

Position: None

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Four times in September I went from reality to fantasy in Wonderland. But unlike Alice, I did not step through the looking glass. Instead, I attended four of nine (five yet to come) City of Sacramento workshops contrived to obtain community input about what to cut in future City budgets, if revenue falls below its current income.

The meetings indirectly attack Measure T, the Utility User Tax (UUT) reduction the League put on the November ballot. The timing is strange. Such "workshops" normally begin in April and end in September. Yet now, just before the election, City money is being spent asking people what should be cut in the future. And to be sure people come they feed them. Yet, they will begin similar public hearings again next April, getting ready for the 2003 - 2004 budget.

The fantasy evolves with the illusion that the public is intimate with budget formation, what's contained, departmental financial operations, money flow and source, and the myriad other details necessary to create a balanced City budget. It is sad to watch, as public ignorance of budget planning is displayed repeatedly. Well meaning people provide comments related to their interface with City services, their fear that services directly affecting them may be cut, along with many, who oddly simply complained about garbage, trash collection, and City clean-up efforts, being poor to non-existent. And there are others who are either trying to protect money received, or trying to get projects and/or services started or improved. Only a few covered how to improve use of taxpayer's money, or what to reduce in future budgets.

The meetings are a charade, being played out in public. And like Alice's Wonderland, I watched as many of Lewis Carroll's characters appeared on stage. The March Hare scurries around at every meeting, and the Mad Hatter has shown up. The Cheshire Cat appears, then dissolves, leaving behind a trademark smile. The last act will be on October 22nd in the City chambers. It will probably end with the Queen of Hearts, pointing at the White Knight and demanding, "Off with his head."

Joe Sullivan

<< Back to Index

Officers