by Richard Mersereau, SCTL President

More than a quarter century ago, I was what in another time you called a “Bee Boy,” an act of ideological apostasy required of a teenager who needed to pay for high school tuition, let alone buy his first car and have spending money for dates and baseball cards (not necessarily in that order). I still have my “Honor Carrier” pin, two sets of Bee-logo canvas bags that are great for “literature drops” and precinct walks (to spread the good word about Measure T, for example), and far too many memories of early morning weekend deliveries (yes, the Bee was the afternoon paper back then, but weekends we went head-to-head with the Union to see who hit the porch first). So I can say with absolute certainty that I’ve been reading the Bee editorial pages since before I was a teenager.

NEVER have I read an editorial like the one that graced the pages of the Bee on October 17th. NEVER. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the Bee — the very bastion of Sacramento liberalism — would ever, COULD ever, see fit to endorse the Fair Utility Tax Act. And NEVER, EVER could I have conceived of the degree to which a Bee editorial would both utterly eviscerate the arguments which have been perpetrated against Measure T, let alone state so clearly and so convincingly why Measure T is the right measure at the right time.

So now that the initial surprise has worn off, let me be the first to say something I thought I would never say: “Thank You.”

To begin, thank you for the time that your editorial board gave to Joe Sullivan, Jon Coupal and myself to “state the case” for the Fair Utility Tax Act. At no time did we feel either patronized or hustled along.

Thank you for doing your homework before the interview, and taking both the issue and the proponents of the measure seriously...not to mention seeing through the distortions, and at times outright lies of the opponents of Measure T.

Thank you for your continued coverage of the profound and entirely unacceptable waste, mismanagement and inefficiency that has become the hallmark of the current membership of the Sacramento City Council. Together, we must be the watchdogs who protect the taxpayers, and ensure that every dollar that comes from the hard-working men and women of Sacramento is either well and appropriately spent, or returned to those who earned it.

Thank you for providing Council Member David Jones with yet another opportunity to learn what a “regressive tax” actually is; although he had the good grace to abstain on placing his own pay raise on the ballot. He (and all his colleagues) have more than a few things to learn about basic economics and public budgeting.

I could go on, but lastly, thank you for holding true to the classic liberal tradition of “supporting the little guy” and seeing that Measure T is about fairness. Interestingly enough, nowhere in the editorial was the expanded rebate — and the fact that 47,000 of Sacramento’s poorest will no longer pay ANY utility tax — ever mentioned, but in a very real act of intellectual honesty, the Bee editorial pages got it right: Measure T is about fairness, without harming essential city services.

As a longtime observer and equally harsh critic, let me merely end as I began: “Thank You.” And please don’t make me wait another 25 years.

The entire text of the editorial is on page 7, and it, and the history of the tax may be found on the League’s website at www.sactax.org. See Click Here.

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO’S BUDGET WORKSHOPS

By Joe Sullivan, SCTL Executive Director

The City of Sacramento conducted ten special budget workshops, one in each of the Council Member’s districts (two in Councilman Jones’ district), 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 was at City Hall on October 22nd, just 14 days before the November 4th elections. I attended all the “workshops”, often accompanied by League Treasurer Carl Burton or Director Pat Kelly, a City resident who is a professional budget analyst.

Each “workshop” was a thinly veiled campaign ploy 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 was judicious in advertising and using their material as “educational”, and refrained from making recommendations regarding any elements during their presentation. However, at the 4th meeting a County publication was available to attendees. The cute part was that there were two County fliers slipped under the covers of each, that I’m sure the City people were not aware of. One urged yes votes on Measures G and H, and the other urged yes votes on Measures G and H, and a no vote on Measure T. This would seem a possible violation of the Elections Code, which prohibits public agencies from advocating positions on ballot actions. But I’m convinced the City was blind-sided, and may not even know now that the fliers were there.

It was obvious the intent of the “workshops” was to scare city residents into believing that all operations in the city would be drastically reduced if the UUT was lowered, along with unknown reductions by the state as a result of its budget deficiencies, and a lowering of sales taxes resulting from a slowing of the economy.

During briefings the staff used 5-year projections to amplify their pitch, bombing the Utility User Tax (UUT) reduction, by 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!

The timing of the “workshop” exercise is suspect, as the “workshop” meetings occurred during a strange period in budget planning. The City just came through many similar hearings since May on its 2002-2003 budget, approved as balanced. New planning and hearings would normally begin in April 2003. Yet now, just before the election, much time, activity, and City money was spent asking community members what should be cut from city services, based on possible reductions in future income.

The attendees, except for staff, the local council member at each, and League representatives, by-and-large demonstrated they had 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 comments at the “workshops” were aimed at either protecting money received from the City in the past, or an attempt to get projects or services either started or improved, reminiscent of hearings just completed for next year’s budget. Very few suggestions covered how to improve use of taxpayer’s money, or what to adjust in future budgets.

But the travesty was the final “workshop” in the City Council Chambers on October 22nd. The “workshop” charade collapsed completely, and the Chambers became scene of a blatant, orchestrated campaign rally, aimed specifically at defeating Measure T, as its organizers paraded people and groups before the Council Members urging a “no” vote.

I watched the reaction of the Council Members carefully, and most seemed highly embarrassed when they realized what the “workshop” had degenerated into. But, being politicians, they smiled their way through the proceedings, and let the game go on. They couldn’t do otherwise. As I sat there, oddly, I really felt sorry for them. The carefully contrived City run “workshop” ploy to frighten people dissolved right before their eyes, and became a purely political campaign exercise, which it really had been from the very beginning.

THE MEASURE T “INSIDER” OPPONENTS

The City contends the Taxpayers League is a group of “outsiders”, notwithstanding our maintaining a full time office in the City, not a postal box, for 40 of our 41years of existence. We have been in our present City office for 14 years. Our beginning in City oversight was addressed in an Editorial on May 10, 1967 by The Sacramento Bee that welcomed League oversight of the City by stating, “the League performs a needed public service by scrutinizing the spending by governmental agencies and by directing a spotlight on how government officials are using the public’s money. Up to now it has focused most of it’s attention on county spending. Now it desires - in fact has been asked - to engage in studies of the financial operations of the city government and the 130 special districts throughout the county. — Whether all citizens agree with the findings of the taxpayers league is not important. What does matter is that there exists a vigorous organization which can at least serve a watch dog role to better inform the taxpayers about what their money is buying.” At that time, then City Mayor Walter Christensen said he welcome League oversight in the City. And we have spent the last 35 years doing just that!

To find those the City considers “insiders”, i.e., well-funded unions, organizational elements receiving City provided taxpayer dollars, millionaires, and commercial enterprises whom HAVE BEEN and WILL BE, RECIPIENTS OF MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF CITY TAXPAYER’S DOLLARS TO FURTHER THEIR ENTERPRISES, visit the City website. On the Home page click On-Line Campaign Finance, click Search Campaign Financial Data Base, click contributions, scroll All Committees to No on Measure T, A Community Based Committee —, hit Do Search and watched all the moneyed “insiders” who have poured over $156,000 appear. These GREEDY donors are intent on DEFEAT OF MEASURE T, TO DENY A TAX REDUCTION FOR ALL OTHER TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY, AND ALL IT’S COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTIAL TAXPAYERS. If ever voters should remember the adage “FOLLOW THE MONEY” before they vote on Measure T, the time is now. Vote Yes on T as recommended by The Sacramento Bee and the League, and move toward a Fair Utility Tax, rather than continuing to pay three times more than the rest of the taxpayers in the County! Or Vote No on T, and continue to feed an exorbitant amount of tax money to those wealthy “insider” friends of the City Council.

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO’S BUDGET

The City’s $674 million new budget is balanced, and contains a $19 million reserve. It describes millions of dollars to be spent in 2002 through 2003, but nowhere, as we reported last month, does it describe cost overruns; loans made or extended to faltering enterprises; tax exemptions for developers; lack of oversight of money spent; the effect of approving work without contracts; bonds for theater and Music Circus improvements which had 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. Each day we encounter more such stories. The latest are planning 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. We repeat that perhaps the new complex behind City Hall should be named “The City of Sacramento Taxpayer’s Banking and Loan Building.”

NO “FOR A FAIR UTILITY, YES ON MEASURE T” SIGNS ALLOWED

As is the case in all political, initiative, and bond campaigns, volunteers are erecting signs and passing out literature for individual political wannabes, and incumbents; for and against statewide initiatives and local measures; and for and against bond measures. And the League is no different. Our volunteers use weekends to put out “FOR A FAIR UTILITY TAX, YES ON T” signs, and to distribute fliers. And the press by everyone increases dramatically in the last two weeks leading to any election Tuesday. On the 19th and 20th our volunteers were at work, and on the 21st the League office was called by the City. We were advised we had put up signs illegally on a City right-of-way, alongside a City sidewalk, along the East side of Truxel road. The City’s representative politely asked that we remove them. Our Executive Director went to Truxel, and pulled the seven signs. They were aligned in open fields, paralleling the sidewalk, among other signs for a State Senator, an Assemblyman, local office seekers, firefighters signs urging No on Measure T, one very professional sign urging a No vote on a school bond, and about 30 or 40 wooden stakes professional real estate sign “placers” put permanently in place so that they can quickly slip special For Sale Signs over the stakes on the weekends, and remove them early Monday morning.

On the morning of the 22nd, at the early City Council Meeting, the agenda included a Resolution to expand the City’s UUT rebate program to all City taxpayers whose incomes are less than $25,000 a year. It is identical to the rebate expansion contained in the League’s Measure T. At the meeting Executive Director Sullivan voiced agreement with the Resolution, which assures even if Measure T is defeated, that about 47,000 low-income City taxpayers would become eligible to recover the utility tax money they paid. He also told the City Council the story about the removal of the signs, and advised he had left all others in place. Mayor Fargo then asked about the signs posted alongside Garden Highway. Sullivan said he would check, kept his word, and removed them the next day.

The message is clear, the City “don’t want no stink’en League signs” that can be seen. Maybe we better tell our City Members who have our signs on their lawns to hide them in the back yards, so they can’t be seen! Wonder who else has been told by City officials to pull their signs?

ELECTION OF THE YEAR 2003 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The insert is the ballot slate of the Board of Directors recommended by the present Board as the Leaders of the League in 2003, our 42nd year. Please return the Ballot to the League Office during November, adding any recommendations you may have for future Board Members. The Board’s Officers will be elected at the first meeting of the new Board during its January 2003 meeting.

MEMBERSHIP

Our Members constitute the League’s strength and Members provide coverage on many issues we try to resolve.

Over 120 taxing and rate based agencies in Sacramento County and its six Cities handle billions of taxpayers’ dollars yearly. The League’s constant surveillance of their activities has been our mission for 41 years. We have been successful in rooting out many illegal uses of taxpayers’ money, and have defeated the last three attempts to raise sales taxes in the city and county of Sacramento. The last alone has kept $120 million in the pockets of taxpayers over the last four years. It is estimated that our work during the past year offset $15 million in rate costs alone for County and Cities services. We encourage all readers of the Tax Fax, who are not Members to join our League, and help us continue to serve the interests of the taxpayers of Sacramento County.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from members on present projects and issues on which we are working, and recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is Sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our fax number is (916) 921-5991, and our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1832 Tribute Road, #210
Sacramento, CA 95815

SELLING THE CITY

I watch the City of Sacramento Leaders, who spend their time preaching fear, like Chicken Little, trying to convince everyone “the sky is falling” if they vote Yes on Measure T, The Fair Utility Tax. Even more alarming is their Recipient Committee and it’s consultant, who evidently convinced a number of moneyed interests, and others who feed from the public trough, to throw money at Measure T with both hands to protect their ability to benefit from City Council decisions. The intent may be to keep many failing enterprises in operation, or have changes made in zoning and other requirements that may result in immense future profit.

The money comes in lumps ranging from $20,000 to $100, depending, possibly, on how much future benefits are worth. It must be plenty, as the total gathered may exceed a quarter of a million dollars. And all of this is to try to convince City taxpayers not to lower their unfair utility tax, which is three times higher than anywhere else in the County, to parity with the County, Citrus Heights, and Elk Grove, at 2.5 %. In this game of big spenders, those individual taxpayers we try to represent don’t appear to count. They are just expected to fill the pot.

I’ve read campaign pieces mailed to City residents, resplendent with misinformation and some outright lies. Our opponents are using the threat of reductions in police and fire protection to frighten the citizenry, when we all know that will not happen if Measure T passes. Opponents use “9-11” emotion as a political tool, attempting to get votes. And I personally resent that. My father and uncle were policemen, my bother’s identical twin sons, one recalled a year ago, are AF security police, and my grandfather was a volunteer fireman his whole working life. None would have stood still for being made part of such a shallow political ploy. It is reprehensible.

The Bee editorial on the next page, recommending a Yes Vote on Measure T, punched a hole through the opponent’s sham that you could drive a truck through. Follow the Bee. Vote Yes on T.

Joe Sullivan

<< Back to Index

Officers