PG&E TAKES ON SMUD FOR EXCLUDING SACRAMENTO VOTERS ON ANNEXATION OF PG&E YOLO COUNTY ELECTICAL CUSTOMERS

Since March, the Taxpayers League has objected to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's (SMUD) plan to annex part of Yolo County for electrical service to about 70,000 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers from the standpoint that SMUD wants to submit the vote on annexation to potential Yolo County customers, but wants to exclude present Sacramento and Placer County customers from voting on the decision. SMUD has asked the Sacramento Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) to proceed with annexation.

On October 19th A Sacramento Bee article, "PG&E ups the ante in battle over annexation" advised that PG&E has launched an Initiative election campaign to ask SMUD ratepayers what they think about adding service to Yolo County, and is gathering signatures to put the Initiative on the June 2006 ballot. The PG&E plan is supported by Sacramento labor unions, homeowners associations, and taxpayer organizations, including the Taxpayers League. It will take about 35,000 signatures to qualify the Initiative for the June ballot.

READING THE SMALL PRINT IN SMUD'S ANNEXATION MANEUVER

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in examining SMUD's application to LAFCo to annex part of Yolo County for electric power service, pointed out to LAFCo that the jurisdictions to be annexed currently receive franchise fees and property tax revenues from PG&E. SMUD is exempt from such levies. To spare these jurisdictions from holding separate utility tax elections, SMUD proposes to enter agreements with them whereby SMUD would levy its own "mitigation fee" on the Yolo customers, and pass the revenue to the jurisdictions in the same amount they would have received from PG&E.

While Proposition 218 exempt "fees for the electrical and gas service" the proposed mitigation fee would not be for provision of electrical or gas service. The fee would go to generate revenue to give to other agencies to spend on other things. Since it will fall outside the exemption, such a fee would be subject to Proposition 218. As a "fee" it would be barred by Proposition 218, which prohibits fees that "exceed the funds required to provide the property related service." A levy such as this is usually considered a tax, and when levied by a special district such as SMUD they become "special taxes", and would require a two-thirds voter approval. It would appear that each jurisdiction would have to tax itself to replace the revenue loss if SMUD became their power provider.

The Devil is always in the details!

UNION PUPPET MASTERS
By Joe Sullivan

The public, and Sacramento County Taxpayers League, is fed up watching dancing puppet elected official's strings being pulled by union puppet masters. Union influence on politicians throughout the state is a major problem. Their ability to buy access to, and support from, elected officials is demonstrated daily.

Examples abound. The Bee reported Sacramento City Unified School District trustees voted 5-1 for a "project stabilization agreement" requiring contractors bidding on school construction projects use union workers, or provide union-like conditions, making such contracts non-competitive. The Bee wrote that three trustees voting in favor were endorsed and financed in last November's election "by the 25,000 member Sacramento Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council, the main organization supporting the plan." Other trustees voting for the agreement received financial support from labor unions. The same maneuver is under way at the San Juan Unified School District.

The Sacramento Bee became upset as Service Employees International Union puppeteers jiggled the strings of the Sacramento City Council to regulate hospital facilities expansion, and "become arbitrators of whether a hospital has fair billing and debt collection practices and appropriate nurse staffing." City Councilman Steve Cohn crafted the Resolution, and placed it on the agenda. The Bee reported that there was no staff report to accompany this resolution, no analysis by City Attorney Samuel Jackson on its legality, and that Mayor Fargo intervened and made clear that the council needed a staff report and a legal analysis. But The Bee also cautioned that the union would be back.

Unions find that putting decision-making puppets on boards is an easy way to win benefits.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL IS PART-TIME, WHY NOT THE LEGISLATURE?
By Joe Sullivan

1998 and 1999 were interesting years in Sacramento City politics. Campaign financing came to a head in 1999, in anticipation of the most expensive Mayor's race in City history, and included public financing of political campaigns. Funding limits set during Mayor Ann Rudin's reign in 1992 was replaced by the City Council in 1997 with limits contained in a stricter state law. The state law was overturned by the courts, and the City was left facing the 2000 election with no controls on campaign contributions. As large amounts of money began to flow to candidates, the City Council formed a Campaign Finance Advisory Committee in 1999 to make financing recommendations. It did so, recommending City taxpayers partially finance the races, but voted not to recommend a public vote on the recommendation. The Taxpayers League and others protested using public money without a vote. The up-shot was that the City Council passed an Ordinance limiting campaign financing, but ducked a decision on use of public money. However, in 2003 the Council passed a Resolution without a public vote, to use matching public funds in City political campaigns, despite its own staff's recommendation against it. This move would enabled budding politicians to dip into the trough of the City General Fund to help finance their campaigns.

In 2002 former Mayors Phil Isenberg and Ann Rudin succeeded putting Measure S on the November ballot to make the Mayor's position a full time job, and to raise the pay of City Council members. Polls showed the public was supportive of a full-time Mayor, but not full-time City Council members. Measure S did not expand Mayoral duties, nor change the 1921 City Charter, which established a strong City Manager - weak City Mayor relationship. Measure S was approved by the voters, and Mayor Fargo became Sacramento City's first full-time Mayor. Measure S also provided for a Commission to determine what the Mayor's compensation should be. During its deliberations, which also included compensation for City Council members, the question of whether the Commission could consider the eight Council members to be full-time arose. Former City Manager Bill Edgar, a Commission member pointed out that the City Charter listed the Council as part-time, and that Measure S did not give the Commission authority to make the change.

During April 2003 discussions on duties and salaries for the Mayor and City Council, the possibility of making Council members full time again arose. The rationale was that they put in 35 or more hours a week, and their commitment is comparable to the full-time County Supervisors. Historically, the same question of a part-time versus a full-time City Council has been raised a number of times since 1921. In each case, a full-time Council was turned down by Council members, or voters. When it was broached in 1998 City Councilman Steve Cohn was reported to have said, "Full-time duties have not improved the performance of the state Legislature or the County Board either, so I'm not sure it would do anything to improve the performance of the City Council." I agree with Steve wholeheartedly, and hope to someday also see a part-time Legislature.

ELECTION OF THE YEAR 2006 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The insert is the Ballot slate of the Board of Directors recommended by the present Board as the future Leaders of the League in 2006, the League's 45th year. Please return the ballot during November, adding any recommendations you may have, including yourself or your business, if you have a desire to serve, or want a representative on the Board. Our Bylaws require that we have at least 20 Members, but no more than 50. The Board's Officers will be selected at the first meeting of the new Board in January 2006.

LOCAL TAXPAYER ORGANIZATION'S STILL SUPPORT GOVERNOR'S REFORMS

In his State of the State Address to the Legislature on January 5, 2005, new Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threw down the gauntlet, declaring the way state money is managed and spent is out of control, and that methods used for budgeting are not workable and must be changed. He declared the problem is not that the state doesn't have enough revenue, but rather that it spends too much. He called reduced spending, for changes to government organizational structure, the way government political boundaries are drawn, and overhaul of the state's retirement system.

On February 25, 2005, local taxpayer organizations rallied on the steps of the State Capitol in support of the Governor's aims. Jonathan Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and President Ken Payne and Director Joe Sullivan of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, spoke in support of the Governor. Carl Burton of the People's Advocate provided the logistic support at the Capitol. The group called for government reforms to solve California's multiple financial problems, denounced the unrealistic "status quo" demands of special interests, and emphasized the need for significant change to start immediately.

The event and people who attended, demonstrated that Californians welcome meaningful reforms to the state government, and that Sacramento taxpayers, and their organizations, intended to play an active role to improve California's future.

Now, 10-months later, the Special Election on November 8th, called by the Governor, presents the citizens of California the opportunity to back the Governor in his quest. He knew when he began that he would be attacked with huge sums of money in the hands of the very people whom have created the problems he must overcome to return to its former grandeur. And that is precisely what has occurred. The local taxpayers organizations still stand firmly with the Governor, and call on all voters to end the "status quo" BY VOTING YES ON HIS PROPOSALS.

PROPOSITIONS
By Joe Sullivan

The Special Election called by the Governor is being regaled by elected politicians who quarrel that the use of Propositions to change the law or the state's procedures by the people is a subjugation of their "right to govern."
In a way they are right. As a people we can't vote individually on all issues regarding our safety and well being. Our founders recognized that, and established the United States as a Republic, defined as, "A state in which the sovereignty resides in the people, and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by them."

However, the framers of the California State Constitution recognized that coalitions of politicians can combine to do things not in the best interests of the citizenry, and wisely put the 2/3rds vote requirement for increases in property taxes, and the Proposition capability in the State's Constitution. And by those actions reserved for us the right to take democratic action to establish, or overturn, bad political decisions. By doing so they preserved our sovereignty, as exhibited when the Proposition process was used by Taxpayer Advocates, during times when fiscal constraints were needed, to give us voter approved Propositions 13, 62, and 218, the main legal weapons in our arsenals. Tax and Spend Legislators, and some Special Interest Groups, hate all such taxpayer protections. But as has been demonstrated by immature actions by both, once again we have had to turn to the Proposition process to correct miscreant's activities.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with 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 telephone number is (916) 921-5991. Our fax number is (916) 567-1279. And our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1804 Tribute Road, Suite 207
Sacramento, CA 95815.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

According to a SurveyUSA poll completed October 17th, the Governor's Initiatives (including Proposition 76) will likely pass. The survey shows that:

All 5 California Ballot Propositions Still Leading…But 3 Are Narrowing: In an election today, 10/18/05, 3 weeks to the 11/8/05 vote, Californians voters approve Proposition 73, Proposition 74, Proposition 75, Proposition 76, and Proposition 77, according to an exclusive SurveyUSA poll of 613 likely voters. Proposition 73, on parental notification for abortion on minors, passes by 22 points. In an identical SurveyUSA poll 2 weeks ago, Proposition 73 passed by 20 points. Proposition 74 on teacher tenure, passes by 8 points today. 2 weeks ago it passed by 11 points. Propositions 75, 76, and 77 have lost support: 2 weeks ago Proposition 75 passed by 23 points, today by 14 points. 2 weeks ago, Proposition 76 passed by 22 points, today by 13 points (significant movement among men and among voters over 65). Two weeks ago, Proposition 77 passed by 23 points, today by 13 points. Republicans support all 5 propositions by at least a 54-point margin. Democrats oppose Proposition 73 by 10 points and oppose Propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77 by at least 28 points. Support for all 5 measures is strongly tied to approval of Governor Schwarzenegger. Those who approve of the job the Governor is doing, vote overwhelmingly "Yes" on all 5 Propositions. Those who disapprove of the job the Governor is doing oppose all 5 Propositions. Interest in ballot measures intensifies as the election approaches and ad dollars are spent to influence voters. These numbers can and should be expected to fluctuate, perhaps significantly.

Filtering: 1,200 California adults were interviewed between October 15, 2005 and 17, 2005. Of them 963 were registered voters. Of them, 609 were judged to be "likely" voters on Proposition 73. 613 were judged to be "likely" voters on Proposition 74. 609 were judged to be "likely" voters on Proposition 75. 594 were judged to be "likely" voters on Proposition 76. 600 were judged to be "likely" voters on Proposition 77. Crosstabs reflect "likely" voters. Voter interest in this election has increased. In an identical poll of 1200 California voters 2 weeks ago, at most 529 voters were judged to be "likely" to vote on any question. No change was made to the way voters were filtered or the way questions were asked.

Bruce Lee

VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 75
Your YES vote will make Public Unions get permission from their members before using their dues for political purposes.
Understand that a Yes vote ends the automatic collection of political money from a member's paycheck.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 76
Your YES vote limits annual spending to the prior year's level, plus three previous years' average revenue growth.
Understand that a Yes vote leads to an end of the annual shortfalls in the State's budget due to over spending.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 77
Your YES vote ends the Legislature's capability to shape political boundaries to assure their own re-election.
Understand that a Yes vote puts selection of state political boundaries under control of three retired judges, instead of incumbent elected officials, and the Governor.

<< Back to Index

Officers