Recommendations on Measures K thru M
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
Measure K – Forestville Union School District Facilities Bond.
This measure is asking voters to approve a $5.1 million bond for health and safety improvements, modernization and renovation of classrooms, energy efficiency, replacement of portables, playground improvements and technology upgrades.
The highest tax rate is estimated to be $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value. There was no indication of the Bond’s term. It requires a 55% voter approval.
Association’s Recommendation: No
Measure L – Piner-Olivet School District Facilities Bond.
This measure is asking voters to approve, with a 55% vote, a $20 million, 40 year, bond in order to acquire, construct and improve classroom and facilities, as well as expand technology. The best estimate of the highest tax rate would be between $23-$24 per $100,000 of assessed property value.
Association’s Recommendation: No
Measure M – Twin Hills School District Facilities Bond.
This measure is asking voters to approve, with a 55% vote, a $11 million, 40 year, bond in order to match state grants, provide solar energy improvements, eliminate leases, replace portables, build new libraries and provide technology. The best estimate of the highest tax rate would be $30 per $100,000 of assessed property value.
Association’s Recommendation: No
We suggest taxpayers start by asking why the School Districts needs to borrow money and raise taxes to perform predictable maintenance and replacement of major building components. When a school district proposes a bond it’s usually a sign of failure to plan adequately and to prudently manage the finances of the District.
The fact that a roof and other major building components do not last forever should surprise no one. Providing for a sound roof, functioning heating system and other elements of the physical plant should be every bit as much a part of the annual budgeting as staff salaries and utility bills. Because roofs are not replaced every year, a portion of the replacement cost should be placed in a dedicated replacement reserve fund each year so that funds will be available when the need does arise. Without an adequately funded reserve only three things can happen, and they are all bad; the District must defer maintenance, take funds from educational programs for building maintenance or raise taxes (issue bonds).
The Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association has been and continues to be a strong supporter of public education. However, taxpayers have a right to expect the officials who management our public schools to be prudent managers of the taxpayer resources accorded them. A District that has not made adequate plans nor maintained a replacement reserve fund, and has to resort to raising taxes has not met this basic requirement for prudent management.
This bond proposals are a red flag suggesting the management practices at the various School Districts need to be modified to regain taxpayers’ confidence, before they ask for more of our money. We recommend a No vote on Measures A through M.
Local Ballot Measures N thru Q
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
Measure N- Sonoma County Ordinance Change.
This measure would amend County ordinance 305A to remove responsibility for appointing the Director of Human Relations from the Civil Service Commission and give it to the Board of Supervisors.
Association’s Recommendation: This is not a tax issue, no position has been taken.
Measure O – City of Santa Rosa’s Urban Growth Boundaries.
This measure, if approved by the voters, would extend the current City’s Urban Growth Boundaries until 12/31/2035.
Association’s Recommendation: This is not a tax issue, no position has been taken.
Measure P – City of Santa Rosa Sales Tax Increase.
This measure would increase the City’s sales tax by a quarter cent (from 9.25% to 9.5%) for an eight (8) year period. The additional revenue would help maintain essential city services, including police and fire protection, violent and gang crime prevention, pedestrian safety and other public safety issues, as well as, street paving and pothole repairs, park safety and recreation/youth programs. This measure could pass with a majority vote.
Association’s Recommendation: No
Remember Measure O, a quarter cent sales tax increase that was passed by the voters in 2004 to be used exclusively for police, fire and gang prevention programs. In 2009, the City Council faced a fiscal crisis and attempted to move over $4 million of Measure O money to the General Fund. This year the City Council is asking voters to once again increase the sales tax. They want another quarter cent that would raise the rate to nine and half percent. The additional revenue would be use for police, fire and gang prevention programs, as well as other “essential city services”. Wasn’t that what Measure O money was to be used for? When it comes to proposals to increase taxes credibility is the most important element. The City Council has lost this critical element. They think since Cotati and Rohnert Park were able to raise taxes it should be a slam dunk for Santa Rosa voter to pass this tax measure. Well the City should think again. The lack of credibility makes anything said in support of increased taxes subject to suspicion. Before, asking for more money from voters, who have been negatively impacted by the worst economic recession in over 80 years, voters should expect the City to exhaust all alternatives to raising taxes. This includes renegotiating inflated retirement benefits with the police and fire bargaining units. The City simply has not made the case this is the solution that is now needed.
Measure Q – City of Cloverdale Urban Growth Boundaries
This measure would provide a 20 year Urban Growth Boundary that would protect Cloverdale from development.
Association’s Recommendation: This is not a tax issue, no position taken.
Local Measures R thru V
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
Measure R – City of Cloverdale’s City Clerk.
This measure would convert the City Clerk’s position from elected to appointed.
Association’s Recommendation: This is not a tax issue, no position taken.
Measure S – City of Cloverdale’ Treasurer.
This measure would convert the City Treasurers position from elected to appointed.
Association’s Recommendation: This is not a tax issue, no position taken.
Measure T – Petaluma’s Urban Growth Boundary.
“This measure reaffirms and readopts the City’s longstanding goal of maintaining a well defined and thriving urban community that serves and benefits from surrounding open space and agricultural resources.” This measure would extend the expiration date of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2025.
Association’s Position: This is not a tax issue, no position taken.
Measure U – Petaluma Waste Water Rate Roll Back.
This Measure would reduce the wastewater service rate back to those that were in effect on January 1, 2006. It is claimed that the Sewer Rates in Petaluma have been raised an average of 20 percent a year and will continue to do so. The Association came out against this measure two years ago because it would impact the Cities bond ratings and require the City to use General Fund money to pay the principal and interest on the new wastewater distribution system.
Association’s Position: No
The Association has recommends a no vote primarily due to the fact that the wastewater treatment facility has been already been built, financial obligations are in place and that rolling back fees to the January 2006 level would place Petaluma in a deeper fiscal mess than they currently are experiencing. We are sympathetic with those advocating the roll-back as a means to force the City’s management to control costs, but proposed method was too draconian.
Measure V – Forestville Fire Protection District Parcel Tax.
This measure is asking the voters to approve a flat rate of $75 per improved parcel to assist in meeting the costs of providing authorized services.
Association’s Recommendation: At this time, not enough information available to make an informed decision.
Measure W – Motor Vehicle Fee Increase
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority has asked the voters to approve a $10 increase in the motor vehicle registration fee. If approved, the fee (tax) would be imposed in perpetuity for bus transit, bike and walking trials. It is expected this fee will generate $5 million a year in revenue. A majority vote is required for approval.
Association’s Recommendation: No.
When is enough, enough? The voters passed Measure M, a quarter cent sales tax increase, to take care of these issues. Yes, sales tax revenues are down, but that is a temporary situation. What is being proposed is a tax in perpetuity. The County has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State. We are in a economic recession of historic proportions and yet the County wants to nickel and dime vehicle owners.
Recommendations on State Propositions
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association’s Board of Directors have made the following recommendations on the State Propositions that will appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot:
Proposition 19 – Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and allows it to be regulated and taxed.
Association’s Recommendation: No position (The Board split evenly for and against the Proposition.
Proposition 20 – Redistricting of Congressional Districts.
Association’s Recommendation: Yes. This will expand Proposition 11 passed in 2008 to create a redistricting commission to include Congressional Districts. It takes the authority away from politicians in the legislature and gives it to an independent commission.
Proposition 21 – Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge.
Association’s Recommendation: No. The primary concern is that existing state park funding will be diverted to other uses resulting in the new surcharge becoming the sole source of state park funding with no improvement in state park programs.
Proposition 22 – Prohibits the State from taking funds for transportation or local government projects and services.
Association’s Recommendation: Yes. A yes vote would prevent the state from using fuel taxes to pay debt-service on current and future transportation bonds. It would also prohibit the State from borrowing the local share of fuel taxes to balance the state’s budget. The state is using local property tax revenue to pay for schools, while starving local redevelopment agencies. Additionally, the measure would prohibit the state from using local vehicle license fees funds. This borrowing has made it difficult for local government to provide needed services.
Proposition 23 – Suspends State laws requiring major industrial concerns to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions until unemployment drops below a specified level for a full year.
Association’s Recommendation: Yes. A yes vote would place AB 32 in abeyance until unemployment rate is 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters. The Legislative analyst concludes the suspension of AB32 would result in modestly higher economic activity which translates to potentially significant increase in revenues to those industry’s affected, as well as state and local governments.
Proposition 24 – Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to carry back losses, share tax credits and use a sales based income calculation to lower taxable income.
Association’s Recommendation: No. This proposal if approved would reduce economic vitality as businesses are required to pay more to the state and that there are no guarantees the state would use the additional revenue for any particular purpose. This is an attempt by the legislature to provide more funds to the General Fund at the expense of business creation and jobs.
Proposition 25 – Changes legislative vote requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority vote.
Association’s Recommendation: No. This would give the majority party the power to pass budgets and taxes with a simply majority. It is in the taxpayers interest to keep the fence high for passage of a budget or taxes.
Proposition 26- Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for State imposed levies and fees.
Association’s Recommendation: Yes. This would force the legislature to approve levies and fees, which are in actuality taxes, with a two-thirds vote as required by Proposition 218 for any new taxes.
Proposition 27 – Eliminates State Commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting back to the state legislature.
Association’s Recommendation: No. This would repeal Proposition 11 passed in 2008 that created a redistricting commission and make null Proposition 20 which increases the redistricting commission’s responsibility to include congressional districts. This is an attempt by the state legislature to undue what the state voters wanted. That is, taking redistricting out of the hands of Sacramento who have gerrymandered districts to their political advantage.
Honesty, Not Greek Finance
Posted by scta | Filed under Ballot Measures
I do not mind supporting a well-run organization that is open and honest about its activities. I do object to being mislead by people wanting my money and thinking I am too dumb to ask “what for?”
I recently received a brochure advising a “yes” vote on Measure C, a bond issue for the Mark West Union School District. Incredibly, and perhaps suspiciously, the brochure contains no information about what we would be voting for:
n There is not even mention that it is a bond issue, much less one requiring taxpayer payments stretching out 25 years or so.
n There is no mention of its $14 million cost, much more than the District annual budget and over $10,000 per student.
n There is no mention of any real need for the money, and why an expensive bond issue was chosen over a direct parcel tax.
n Even the subsequently provided project detail is only a list of 21 very general areas where funds would be used.
Absence of the most basic financial details, no justification of need, and a slush fund approach to accountability are the bad practices behind the crashes and bankruptcies we have read about in the press. For $14 million for a small District I need more than a slogan “good for children”, so I must vote “no” until I see an honest explanation with facts and logic.
Proponents seem to be counting on political subversion and voter carelessness to push this through. How does this subversion work? Special interest groups seduce uninformed voters with “feel good” advertising that avoids discussing the real-world consequences, like higher taxes. The financial pain is further hidden by pushing it far into the future. Current problems are not addressed, so they get worse. However, as the Greeks and citizens of California are learning, this subversion cannot be sustained.
The same scheme worked just a few years ago. $11 million in bonds were authorized in 2002, the last portion issued in 2005. But, where did the money go? Why do we need more so soon? Is this something we will see every 5-7 years? Are we borrowing what should really be in the current budget, and why when enrollment has dropped 13% in the past five years? These basic questions should be addressed before blindly authorizing another $14 million.
Further suspicious is that of the 2003/2005 bonds issued for $11 million, as of June 30, 2009 the District still owes $11,605,000. How can this be? It is an example of using interest only bonds for 10 years to hide the financial costs by shoving them out to future years. Does it sound like the popular mortgage products behind the national financial crash and Greek bond overload?
Actual District data from State audit reports for the five-year period 2004-2009 show questionable financial need:
Instruction Expense up 5.4%
Site Administration up 42.5%
General Administration up 39.5%
Plant Services down 16.8%
Interest up 177.7%
Total Expense up 6.8%
Enrollment down 13%
It appears that things like maintenance have been starved to pay growing administration and the bond interest, causing a need for recurring bond issues to supplement the annual budget – poor fiscal management and unfair to future generations.
Bond issues should be limited to quantified projects with useful lives similar to those of the bonds. Ongoing current expenditures should be paid with current revenues. Such prudent financial practice will result in understandable accountability and more sustainable costs to taxpayers.
Voters should say “no” to Measure C and ask the District to be specific about bond issue needs and to clarify future budget needs in view of declining enrollment. If identified budget needs support higher revenues, then let’s be honest and go for a parcel tax instead of an expensive bond issue.
Robert G. Williamson, SCTA Member