Santa Cruz Good Times

Friday
Aug 22nd
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Seeking Balance

news1Measure H promises to maintain public safety funding with an increased utility tax. Is there a catch?
The City of Santa Cruz has been in reduction mode for 10 years. They employ 110 fewer full-time staff than they did in 2000, and most of the current employees have taken voluntary 10 percent pay cuts, not to mention furloughs. The city has cut spending across the board, and altogether axed funding for services like the Teen Center, Beach Flats Community Center and Harvey West Park.

And yet they continue to face a massive budget deficit.

Before retiring earlier this year, former City Manager Richard Wilson issued a budget memorandum to the city council predicting a $2 million deficit for the 2011 Fiscal Year. But that figure has continued to grow and is now closer to $5 million, says new City Manager Martin Bernal.

The $5 million is missing from the city’s general fund—its coffer of tax revenues—of which police and fire make up more than 60 percent of the spending. This presents an especially sticky situation for city officials: how to balance the budget without implicating public safety, which has become an urgent community concern over the last two years.

“Public safety has reached a priority level that we haven’t seen in Santa Cruz before,” says City Councilmember Cynthia Mathews, citing recent gang violence, the deaths of two teenagers, and the May 1 attacks on downtown businesses. “If we’re facing a $5 million deficit, we’re going to protect public safety to the extent we can.”

The city is looking at a variety of ways to address the financial gap, such as reforming pensions and approving new economic development projects. But their most specific plan—the one aimed at protecting funding for public safety specifically—rests in the hands of voters. The initiative, Measure H, will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.

If passed, Measure H would increase the existing utility tax for city residents by 1.5 percent, raising it from the current 7 percent to 8.5 percent.

It would also redefine which utilities could be taxed—an update city officials say is overdue.

“We’re trying to just protect that revenue stream as technology changes—for technologies we don’t even know of yet,” says Finance Director Jack Dilles, adding that they don’t expect this redefinition to bring in significant profit. It will merely maintain the current level of revenue as more people move off of landlines, says Dilles.

But the 1.5 percent increase itself will indeed bring in a generous sum. According to Mathews, Measure H would generate in excess of $1.5 million for the city general fund annually—just enough to maintain funding levels for public safety services.

This would mean additional police officers, although the total number of sworn officers would still fall short of previous levels. “Staffing for us is 94,” says Deputy Chief of Police Rick Martinez. “In 2000 we were staffed at 104 officers, so that’s 10 officers short, and we’re handling about 16,000 more calls for service now than we were then.”

Earlier this year, the Santa Cruz Police Department had only 86 of the 94 positions filled; there was simply no funding to fill the remaining eight positions. But then “the community came unglued,” says Mathews, because of recent crime and violence. “We didn’t have the money but we said ‘OK, fill those positions,’” she says. The city received some federal stimulus money that helped pay for the four (out of eight) positions the SCPD filled; however, the grants last for only two years.

“We have short-term money that will cover those costs, but not money into the future,” says Mathews. “So that was the idea behind [Measure H]—to give us good solid funding for our public safety positions. It would allow us to sustain staffing amid cuts.”

Martinez says that the police department is in the process of interviewing applicants for the remaining positions, and that having eight additional officers will help bolster the force’s ability to both respond to calls for service (which have been increasing with each passing year) and problem solve in the community.

However, not everyone in the community is on board with Measure H. One of the main arguments against it is that it is not a designated tax: the revenue collected from the tax increase will land in the general fund where, legally, it can be used for anything—not necessarily public safety costs.

“The Measure provides no guarantees that the money will be spent on specific causes or for specific purposes,” says Sean Patrick Tario, a local entrepreneur and co-signer of the argument against Measure H on the public Voter’s Pamphlet. The opposition also points to the fact that there is no “sunset clause” in the measure, which means the tax raise is permanent rather than temporary.

“Our structural deficit is at least $5 million and it grows over time, so there’s no way we can do a temporary measure from a financial perspective,” says Bernal. As for the designation of funds, he admits that, technically, the city would not have to spend the money on public safety. And even if they do, a future council could legally direct those funds elsewhere.

However, Mathews says that the measure was designed as a general fund tax (rather than a designated tax) not because of any ulterior motive, but because a general fund tax is easier to pass. It requires 51 percent voter approval, whereas a designated tax would require a two-thirds majority.

In an attempt to soothe these concerns, the city council has passed a resolution of intent pledging to use the money for public safety as advertised. “It’s a promise to the people,” says Mathews. The council has come through on similar promises, she says, such as to use money brought in by the 2006 Measure H for streets and park security.

Another point of contention surrounding the measure is its treatment of low-income and senior residents. “Contrary to the ballot question, there are no exemptions in this ordinance for senior citizens … Low-income residents are not exempted either,” reads the rebuttal to the argument for Measure H. According to Bernal, this is misinformation: because of new and expanded utility tax rebates included in Measure H, such residents would actually end up paying less than they do now, despite higher initial rates.

Local businesses are another faction of the community that feels unfairly targeted by the Measure. Bill Tysseling, executive director of the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, says that it was a tough decision for the Chamber whether or not to endorse the measure. On the one hand, he says, public safety is vital for a healthy business environment. On the other, businesses—especially those whose business relies on telephone traffic, requires many telephone lines, or uses a lot of electricity—will be faced with a hefty increase.

“The cost of this may be substantial for some businesses,” says Tysseling. “It’s a good deal more than the $6 per month per household [that the city has estimated]. Businesses have much higher utility bills than [residences] do.”

When polled, the Chamber’s membership was split on the issue. But ultimately, says Tysseling, most felt now is just not a good time to raise taxes. “Business people are doing layoffs, reducing employee wages and benefits, and making less money as owners,” he says.

Tario, from the No on Measure H campaign, says the same goes for private residences. “The last thing our citizens need right now is higher taxes,” he says.

Although Tario believes the city and its current leaders are more than capable, he says that, “over the past few decades our city has become addicted to following the easy path of acquiring more debt and raising taxes every time it needs to justify further spending.”

Councilmember Mathews attributes such opposition to a simple anti-tax, anti-government mentality—one that she feels isn’t deserved. “It’s mind-blowing what this little city does, and we’re very effective at bringing in grant money, and being creative,” she says. Time and options for balancing the budget are running out, Mathews adds.

“Here we have the whole community up in arms about public safety,” says Mathews. “We have a budget where expenses and income don’t fit, and here’s one way we can help solve it. Public, what is it? What do you decide? If it doesn’t pass there will be cuts that people are not going to like.” 

Comments (4)Add Comment
Measure H is for Suckers
written by Steve Hartman, October 20, 2010
The Santa Cruz economy and your property taxes are supposed to pay for the following: Police, Fire, Street Maintenance and Upkeep, Water, Sewers, Garbage, Ambulance services, and if I've overlooked something it wasn't much.

Progressives, voted to power by academia, UCSC students from elsewhere, city employees, and union members who live within the city, have been conning the rest of the community for three decades. They have blown our money and paid off their own for everything from non-profit directorships to six figure city retirements. Besides that, none of our media tell the whole truth. The truth is Santa Cruz had twice to three times as many city employees as any other city of similar size in the state. This, to create a bureaucracy that rules over us-not within us. We have become "serfs" to the kingdom, not equal individuals.

The city has enough money to provide the "essential: services listed above. If you want to fund the rest you can ask; but please quite threatening the safety of an entire community just so you can have play money to fund your buddies. I say Vote NO on H.

Incidentally, for those of you who don't remember me, I am the guy who ran the utility tax repeal initiative in 2002. I told you then that if you didn't dump the utility tax they would come back and take more. The first taking was when they approved the new "enterprise" tax so that city residents would tax themselves on their own totally owned susidiaries of water, sewers, and garbage. That for 3%, 3% and 12% respectively on top of your already paid 7% utility tax. Now they're back for more.

It has to stop somewhere. Now is the time. Let them cut now, and when the economy returns they will be in a better position to handle the cuts the cuts they've made. If you give in again, they will just continue to spend and spend until they will be back for even mo' of yo' money!
Vote No
written by Mickey Dora, October 16, 2010
Vote No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
written by Dyann Lauter, October 14, 2010
Huh? Tario outlines a thoughtful, rational explanation of the position against Measure H and Cynthia Matthews dismisses it as anti-government, anti-tax? She's outlived her political usefulness if it was ever there in the first place.

And to top it off, Tario - a Nexter, is comfortable pulling away from the tax and spend liberal crowd? Looks like I might have to re-think the possibilities of Next.


Cynthia's nose is gonna grow...
written by Steve Hartman, October 13, 2010
The consequences of a prevarication is a longer nose, and Cynthia Matthews may well exceed Pinoccio's before it's all over. FACT: In 2002 under Measure P, the city attorney stated in his revue of Measure P (Utility Tax Repeal) that the city would lose $8.4 million if the tax of 7% ($1.2 million per percentage point) was repealed. In 2010 that figure should be about $10 million (less than 25% increase). Therefore, 1.5% is way more than $1.5 million - more like $1.8 million in 2002. FACT: At the time, Santa Cruz had the 2nd highest number of city emplyees in the state.

Regardless, if the city were to hire 10 police officers for this Measure H increase, that would be $180,000 per officer, per year. That sounds like an aweful lot of money to me.

Of course, since the money is going into the general fund, where no one can really keep track of anything, if they were to hire those ten officers and meet payroll, they'd still be able to shift the other $0.8 million to other areas and say it was for safety merely by taking from Peter to pay Paul once again.

Measure H is a sham. And, while I love saying "I told ya so!" if you had passed Measure P in 2002, you'd be rid of the utilty tax now, with things right about where they are now, and a $1.5% tax wouldn't be so bad.

The problem with Measure H, like all city taxes, is that they are "FOREVER" taxes. Before I would consider even a hint of supporting Measue H it would have to have a sunset clause.

Finally, I predict the passage of Measure H. Why? First, because students at UCSC don't have to see it or pay it. Then the SEIU will have a forceful hand for city emplyees and like-minded ilk. So once again, local residents with families will have to pony up for the increase. I am sorry...

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Trending Now

Whether you live by the Vogue bible or choose to go into your day wearing what you slept in, odds are you wear clothes.

 

The Thought Form of Solution

It’s our last week of Leo before the sun enters Virgo (next Friday/Saturday). The planets this week make complex patterns and relationships (vibrational cadences and rhythms) with the outer planets, mainly Neptune—the planet that veils, obscures, protects and finally refines us. Neptune offers us entrance into a deeply spiritual sense of comfort and solace. Neptune is the personality ruler of Pisces (saviors of the world) and soul ruler of Cancer (world mother). “The fish goddesses who leapt from earth (Virgo) to water (Pisces) unitedly give birth to the Fish God (Christ, the Soul) who introduces the waters of life  (Neptune & Aquarius) into the ocean of substance (matter, mother bringing light to the world. Thus does Neptune work.” (Esoteric Astrology).

 

Final Cut

Cedar Street Video to close after 10 years at downtown location

 

Cultures Collide

No surprises, but lots to savor in foodie film ‘The Hundred-Foot Journey’
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

 

Foodie File: Kauboi

Japanese-Western themed unites sushi with whiskey and beefgrill

 

How should Santa Cruz develop downtown around the San Lorenzo River?

Santa Cruz | Artist/Show Promoter

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Have Mercy!

Looking for a frisky summer wine at a reasonable price? Look no further than Mercy Vineyards’ 2013 Sauvignon Blanc ($20). Richly textured “with an exotic flavor profile,” the wine reveals aromas of honeydew melon and honeysuckle, with anise appearing as a star attraction. Smidgeons of pineapple and honeycomb add a touch of sexiness to this well-balanced, easy-drinking wine, which pairs well with a variety of cuisine —especially ceviche, calamari and other not-too-heavy foods.