Cotati’s Proposed Sales Tax
Posted by scta | Filed under Uncategorized
On October 15, 2009, Diane Thompson, the Cotati City Manager, presented the case for revenue enhancement (new taxes) for Cotati at the Association’s Board of Directors luncheon meeting. It was a persuasive case. Cotati has seen tax revenues fall dramatically as a result of the recession, both from traditional tax sources and from the State dipping it’s hands into city’s coffers to try to combat the State’s own financial problems. In response Cotati has cut expenses, postponed non-essential activities, and employees have voluntarily taken noticeable pay cuts. Still Cotati is racing toward insolvency.
Among the potential solutions are several that would have Cotati, a City of only 7,500 residents and Sonoma County’s smallest city, combine with the County or with the adjacent Rohnert Park to provide public services. Thompson described the strong independent streak among Cotati residents that is an obstacle to pursuing these alternatives. Several Cotati residents at our meeting confirmed the community identify and the concern it will be lost if Cotati has to partner with other government units going forward.
It’s expected a citizens’ initiative will place a half cent tax sales measure on the February 1020 ballot. The result, if passed, is estimated to provide the current short fall of approximately $700,000 in Cotati’s budget. It would also raise the sales tax in Cotati to 9.50%, the highest in Sonoma County.
While it’s hard to support raising taxes, especially during a recession, and when the local residents are unwilling to consider measures like shared services with other government units which might avoid the need for raising taxes, as long as the hurdle for approval is high, 2/3 of all ballots cast, it may be appropriate to the let the taxpayers in Cotati decide what kind of city they have.
But therein lies the rub. Cotati, a small city, houses a large regional retailer, Loew’s home improvement store. Many of the taxpayers who would pay a higher tax by shopping at Loew’s are not Cotati residents and would have had no opportunity to vote on the proposed tax. In addition, Loew’s competes with the Home Depot store close by in Rohnert Park, OSH in Petaluma and Friedman’s in south Santa Rosa. Some shoppers, especially those making larger purchases like contractors or consumers buying big ticket items may logistically opt for buying at other retailers instead.
For this reason the Association may not support the Cotati tax. If Cotati residents truly are willing to tax themselves to pay for their penchant for independence, let them enact a tax that would fall only on the residents, like a parcel tax on residential parcels (assuming the owners of commercial parcels may be less likely to be Cotati residents and voters in Cotati. The idea that some Cotati residents want to raise a tax that mostly others will pay is not right, and not something the SCTA should supports.
Opinion by Jack Atkin, President, Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association
Water and Waste Water Reuse
Posted by scta | Filed under Uncategorized
No single issue impacts Sonoma County’s long term economic viability thatn the availablity of water for homes, agriculture and business, as well as the appropriate use and distribution of waste water which is an intergral part of our water supply. Recent discussions by the Board of Supervisors and the County Water Agency translate into a need for all impacted agencies and especially municipal water utilities and waste water treatment and distribution entities along with conservation and fish preservation interests, planning and economic development agencies, wine grape growers and other agricultural interests and those interested in necessary growth and development to get together to design a strategy to deal with the issue.
Each Agency cannot pursue stand alone actions, be it rate increases, conservation off and on, costly litigation and mutual finger pointing. Some current positions on Ele River diversions or fish protection may need to be modified. Likewise many utility or City and County General Plans may be in part obsolete. Utility rates and developer fees along with supporting plans may no longer be valid. The public and private sections need to get together and develop a concensus where we are heading and the alternatives to get there in order for the appropriate public policy discussions can be put on the table. I suggest the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association call for and co-sponsor such a summit.
Kurt Hahn
County School District Consolidation
Posted by scta | Filed under Uncategorized
The guest speaker at the Association’s July 16, 2009 Board luncheon meeting was Dr. Carl Wong, Superintendent, Sonoma County Office of Education. Dr. Wong has been in this elective office for 6 years. His duties include helping the 40 school Districts in meeting legal mandates and operate cost effectively by providing financial oversight to the $680 million education budget , as well as providing specialized educational programs. Although the K-12 school population in the County has decreased yearly over the past five years, Dr. Wong claims that student achievement has outpaced both state and national SAT scores. Dr. Wong’s primary topic at today’s meeting was District re-organization. Dr. Wong contends there are three ways school districts can achieve re-organization to provide a better educational experience for students and possibly lower costs. These are increased use of Charter Schools, Shared Services and Consolidation of some districts. There are currently 33 Charter Schools out of a total of over 180 public schools in the County. Charter Schools can provide the District with flexibility with labor contracts, provide a choice for parents and a specialized learning experience for students. Dr. Wong indicated that currently many school districts are sharing services to reduce costs. Examples include; transportation, cafeteria, special education, business services, purchasing and nursing to mention a few. The most controversial issue centers around consolidation of school districts. State education codes establish the process for school district re-organization. It is a long drawn out process that could take from 2 to 4 years. Dr. Wong thinks there is no “traction” for a countywide feasibility study to determine the pros and cons of consolidation. Although there may be benefits for consolidating all or some of the 40 school districts and 200 Board of Trustee members, such as fiscal and programmatic effectiveness and economies of scale. There are also detriments such as labor issues, loss of local control and taxing issues. There maybe interest in looking at consolidation on a regional basis. For example, if the seven school districts in and around Santa Rosa got together for a feasibility study it might work. The current problem is lack of funding for such a study and local opposition.
Proposition 1A’s Promise
Posted by scta | Filed under Uncategorized
The main promise of Proposition 1-A is that, at long last, it will put a limit on spending by the State Legislature and the Governor. All the voters have to do in return for the promised limit on spending is allow the State Government to tax them an additional $16 billion in 2012-2013. ($16 billion amounts to about $1,700 for every family of four in California.)
But how reliable is Prop. 1-A’s promise? A reading of the text of Prop. 1-A reveals that it allows the lawmakers plenty of wiggle room for whatever they may regard as an “emergency”. In fact, the neutral Legislative Analyst states in the Official Voter Information Guide for the May 19 Election as follows:
“Restriction on Revenues and Spending. In any given year, Proposition 1A does not strictly limit the amount of revenues that could be collected by the state or the amount of spending that could occur. The measure does not restrict the ability of the Legislature and the Governor to approve tax increases to collect on top of existing revenues. Regarding spending, while the measure could make it harder to approve spending increases in some years by restricting the access to revenues, it would not cap the total level of spending that could be authorized in any year if alternative revenues were approved.”
Beyond the phrasing of Prop 1-A’s text, the over-arching question is, can we trust our lawmakers to curb their spending in keeping with the spirit of Prop. 1-A? I don’t think so. The California Constitution, the highest law in the State, requires the Legislature to balance the budget at the beginning of each fiscal year. Proposition 58, passed in 2004, also requires a balanced budget requirement. So why should we expect them to honor the promise or spirit of Prop. 1-A?
One of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association’s learned Board members, has urged the other Board members to “hold our noses” and vote for Prop. 1A. This Board member warns that, if the voters reject Prop. 1-A, then the incumbent Democrats will take action to punish the voters by cutting support for police and fire, releasing prisoners from State prisons and otherwise dealing out some nasty retaliations.
My thoughts are these: There is already a serious disconnection between the State Government and the voters. The Legislature’s public approval rating is somewhere in the teens. If the taxpayers pass Prop. 1-A, agreeing to be taxed another $16 billion in return for false promises (and haven’t we had enough of those already), then the taxpayers will only be enabling the lawmakers to continue spending excessively. Let’s defeat Prop. 1-A, and then let the Democrats retaliate if they dare. This State is overdue for another showdown between the State Government and the taxpayers who are forced to support it. We taxpayers need another occasion to send the politicos in Sacramento a message as powerful as Prop. 13 was in 1978. We ought to defeat Prop. 1-A, and then welcome any subsequent opportunity to put the politicians back in their place.
Timothy Hannan, Vice President