They say that when your opponent goes personal, they have lost the arguement. Well, I guess the "yes on T" folks figure they have lost, because they are resorting to stealing our signs. Overnight Saturday there was a rash of thefts of "No on T" signs all over Pleasant Hill. I guess they figure that if people don't see the signs on the last 2 days before the election, they might forget about how to vote! All I can say is NICE TRY!
“First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.”
-Ghandi
Going through the City's budget history tells us all we need to understand about Measure T and those trying to push it through. Several folks, including Council members, have complained about declining revenues and having to take from the reserve. But looking at the numbers since 1998 tells a completely different story. You see, the City's budget has done nothing but grow.....and grow....AND GROW. And the City has spent....and spent....AND SPENT:
Year Revenue Spending
1998 $11.8 mil $9.6 mil
1999 $12.6 $9.7
2000 $14.5 $10.5
2001 $16.6 $11.2
2002 $15.9 $13.4
2003 $16.0 $13.9
2004 $16.1 $14.7
2005 $17.1 $15.6
2006 $18.7 $16.0
2007 $20.4 $17.5
2008 $30.9 $29.3
2009 $28.3 $28.2
AND NOW THEY WANT MORE. LET'S TELL THEM NO!
We couldn't have said it better! Great letter Dave!
No on Measure T
"At a time when many Pleasant Hill residents are really feeling the pinch of the recession and have had to make their own budget cuts, now is not the time to raise taxes via Measure T.
The City Council should be ashamed of itself for even considering asking the public to approve this unnecessary tax hike. The city should use the rainy day fund to make up shortfalls and also cut bloated city overhead.
The scare tactic the council is using is disingenuous; i.e. police services will have to be cut. This should be and will be the last service that gets cut.
City employees should first be asked to contribute toward their own retirement fund. This alone would make up a large percentage of the budget shortfall.
Enough is enough! Manage the city properly and not on the backs of the public and local businesses. There are no more extra dollars to be extracted from cash-strapped residents. Taxing essential utility services is wrong."
Dave Lueders
Pleasant Hil
So the City Council must have lots of free time on their hands, as they continue to write editorials supporting Measure T. This time it is David Durant, who's "Your Turn" editorial was printed in this weekends Contra Costa Times. We analyze it here: (our comments are in black)
Your Turn: Measure T will protect Pleasant Hill
By David Durant
Guest Commentary
Posted: 10/16/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
Pleasant Hill's Measure T offers voters a simple but important choice. Do we want to take matters into our own hands and ensure that we continue to live in a safe community with rapid emergency response, a strong police force, well-maintained roads and quality services? Or will we stand by while Sacramento take-aways and a slow economy erode funds available for vital services?
Each year the state takes away our funding -- $2 million this year alone from our Redevelopment Agency and general fund combined.
...according to the City Manager in response to a question about the budget, the $2 million state take-away was ONLY from redevelopment funds, and did not take anything from the General Fund.
Pleasant Hill only receives 6 cents from every dollar of property taxes -- half of what most cities receive. And, the recession has hit Pleasant Hill hard. Pleasant Hill's limited local revenue sources have declined for three years.
...we argue that the recession has hit EVERYONE hard, THAT'S THE POINT!!! PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD MORE TAXES!
To challenge Measure T, some pick at elements of city employee benefit packages or take budget items out of context. But, your city leadership has made strong efforts to be prudent and to operate in a cost-effective way.
...if discovering and talking about the fact that City employees pay NOTHING towards their retirement when almost everyone in the public sector pays a majority to fund their retirement is "picking at" benefits packages, then he's right. "Taking budget items out of context" is in reference to our pointing out that despite crying broke, the City still offers up money to lend for installing solar panels. Although we all know these items are paid for out of redevelopment money (of which $2 million was taken back by the State- so are we not concerned about that?) we suggest it is BAD FORM to complain that you don't have enough money to protect Grandma and fill pot holes, and then turn around to loan money for SOLAR PANELS!!!.....jeez, you can't make this stuff up.....
Our city doesn't borrow money to make ends meet. It saved and built up healthy reserves. For years, Pleasant Hill has carefully cut expenses and frozen positions.
For example, city staff positions were cut by 20 percent. But, we protected vital services (more than 50 percent of Pleasant Hill's budget goes to police protection). We prudently drew down reserves.
...here is an interesting statement that deserves a moment of scrutiny. "We prudently drew down reserves"...when exactly did that happen? After reviewing budget records since 1997, the City's reserve has never been larger, and stands today at $10.4 million. That is $2 million ABOVE the minimum reserve set by the Council of $8.3 million. As far as we can tell, the city has not been "drawing down reserves", but has been quietly building them up. But we would say that now IS the time to draw on the reserve, rather than raise taxes.
Yes, we must trim expenses more and have our employees bear far more of the cost of their health care and pensions.
But, cost-cutting alone is not the solution.
...well in reality, if city employees paid thier "employee part" of their retirement, it has been determined that it would make up for the projected deficits, saving as much money as would be raised by the new tax. So we would say that, yes, that alone IS the solution, if the solution is to balance the budget.
Measure T seeks modest revenue that provides stable funding that cannot be taken away by Sacramento. Measure T would expand Pleasant Hill's existing utility users tax (UUT) (which has not been updated since 1983)
...actually the tax was modified in 2006 to include cell phone service...
and increase the rate to 1.5 percent (the second lowest rate for cities in the Bay Area that have a UUT). For a household with utility bills of $1,000 per month (for things like water, PG&E, sewer, telephone and cable), that means a total UUT cost of about 49 cents per day. This small investment does not add or enhance services; but it protects vital services. Measure T provides exemptions for seniors and low-income residents -- those who generally can least afford even small increases. It ensures accountability by requiring mandatory financial audits and reports to the public. At any time, the City Council can vote to lower the UUT again when the revenue is no longer needed. And, you have my word that I will do so.
We have a safe community with good schools and an outstanding quality of life. Do you want to keep police response times low? Do you want to keep our well-maintained streets and roads? Do you want our library to remain a safe harbor for children after school? If you answer yes to any of these, please vote yes on Measure T.
Of course we all want those things...we just differ on how to provide them. Our arguement is that the Council do everything it can on the expense side, by reducing employee benefit payments, and drawing on the reserve specifically put in place for times like these, to address budget shortfalls.
The Contra Costa Times has endorsed the "No on T" campaign by recommending a NO vote on Measure T. From the paper:
Contra Costa Times editorial: Utility tax endorsements
MEASURES T, S, u AND o: Pleasant Hill voters should reject their city's measure while Pinole, Newark and Albany voters should show support
MediaNews editorial
Posted: 10/12/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
FOUR EAST Bay cities have utility tax measures on the Nov. 2 ballot, all of which require majority approval for passage. We urge Pleasant Hill voters to reject the measure on their ballot and recommend that voters in Pinole, Newark and Albany support their measures.
No on Pleasant Hill Measure T: Since 1983, the city has collected a 1 percent tax on telephone service. This measure would increase the tax to 1.5 percent and greatly expand the services covered to include cable television, electricity, gas, water and sewer services.
This really isn't an extension of an existing tax as it's being billed. It's essentially a new tax because the changes represent a sixfold increase, raising the annual amount collected from about $190,000 to $1.2 million. While the tax was proposed to make up for funding cuts from the economic downturn, it's a permanent tax with no sunset date and no review when the economy improves.
Before officials propose increasing taxes, they could trim employee benefit costs to raise at least as much money. Currently, city workers pay $55 a month for medical coverage, regardless of the number of dependents. The city pays the rest, costing taxpayers about $1,000 per employee per month.
As for retirement, the city not only pays the employer share of payments to the state retirement system, it also picks up the employee share. As a result, for every dollar of payroll, the city pays another 37 cents for police pensions and 19 cents for the retirement of other workers.
So far so good! Now the winning line:
The money provides generous benefits unavailable to most Pleasant Hill taxpayers. It's unfair to ask residents to pay more while city employee benefit costs go unchecked.
We have said all along that the City employees benefit package is unsustainable. What is needed is for the City employees to pay their portion of the CalPers retirement payment, not raise taxes on everyone in Pleasant Hill. Well Santa Barbara has made the first step in getting their employees to do just that:
From the CC Times Endorsement of Jack Weir for City Council, we find this gem:
..."The city's current two-year budget spends $1.2 million more than it takes in. Sales tax, on which the city is highly dependent, was down about 15 percent from expectations last year. To help make up the shortfall, the city is seeking voter approval on Nov. 2 for a utility tax increase.
That would be Measure "T"...
..."Yet, at the same time, the city, with a tradition of generous employee benefits, provides nearly free health care and completely free pensions to its workers." (emphasis ours)
"City workers pay $55 a month for medical coverage, regardless of the number of dependents. The city pays the rest, which works out to about $1,000 per employee per month. As for retirement, the city not only pays the employer share of payments to the state retirement system, it also picks up the employee share. As a result, for every dollar of payroll, the city pays another 37 cents for police pensions and 19 cents for the retirement of other workers."
Wow, where do we sign up? The company I work for doesn't even have 401k matching anymore!
"That was bad policy when the city was flush with cash; it's horrible now that revenues have shrunk. As the city enters negotiations next year with all of its employee unions, the council needs to remember that its first obligation is to provide services while being mindful of the taxpayer burden."
Get the "rim shot" ready.......
"Interestingly, if the city required employees to pay their share of retirement, it would free up nearly as much money as the utility tax increase would generate. The pension change wouldn't solve the city's fiscal problems, but it's an obvious move that could save substantial money." (again, emphasis ours)
So the City's decision Monday night is to endorse the tax increase and hope people forget they have $2 million above and beyond the baseline reserve which is supposed to be used "in case there is a recession"?
Monday evening Pleasant Hill's City Council chose to ignore its own budget language describing the use of the budget reserve in the case of economic recession, and unanimously endorsed the Utility Users Tax increase known as Measure T. See the story in the CC Times:
Pleasant Hill council pledges support for utility tax hike
By Lisa P. White
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 10/05/2010 02:24:56 PM PDT
Updated: 10/05/2010 02:24:56 PM PDT
PLEASANT HILL -- The Pleasant Hill City Council on Monday unanimously approved a resolution supporting Measure T, which would raise the utility tax to 1.5 percent and expand it to most utilities, including cable, electricity, gas, water and sewer bills.
The proposal has generated plenty of heat this election season. Opponents say the council should nix the tax increase and instead cut employee health care and pension benefits, which cost the city a combined $2.2 million in the 2009 fiscal year. Supporters argue that the tax hike would provide a stable source of revenue to pay for police, library hours and road maintenance.
On Monday, several residents urged the council to reject the resolution. Kevin Gregory said the utility tax would come on top of possible state and federal tax increases and higher property tax bills to repay bonds for the Mt. Diablo Unified School District.
"When it all adds up, it is a big deal," Gregory said.
Councilman David Durant said he is sensitive to the fact that residents are struggling and the economic recovery remains sluggish. Still, he said Pleasant Hill probably faces another two to three years of declining sales tax revenue, so it's better to have a stable source of funding.
"Do we wait until two years from now to see how bad it is before we turn to the public?" he asked.
Durant also said city workers will have to pay more of their health care premiums and pension contributions, even if voters approve Measure T. Contracts with the city's four employee bargaining groups expire next year.
City Manager June Catalano took the opportunity Monday to correct an error the city has repeated in documents and on the website. For months, the city had been telling residents the current 1 percent utility tax applied only to intrastate landline phone service. However, cell phone service also is taxed.
Although Councilman Michael Harris called the error "regrettable," he said people make mistakes, adding that the city had done the right thing by admitting it and correcting the misinformation.
The city estimates the higher utility tax would generate about $1.2 million annually. Critics question the accuracy of the revenue projections and suggest that the city may reap much more.
The utility tax would apply to residential and business customers, but public schools, Diablo Valley College and residents participating in utility rate reduction programs for low-income households would be exempt. The ordinance also gives the council the authority to reduce or suspend the tax without voter approval.
Vice Mayor John Hanecak said initially he opposed the measure because it would establish a long-term tax to cover a short-term revenue shortfall. He changed his mind, he said, when the council included a provision in the ordinance requiring an annual audit to figure out if the city needs to collect the utility tax.
Contra Costa Times editorial: We recommend Jack Weir and Terri Williamson for Pleasant Hill City Council PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL: Incumbent and newcomer have a better grasp on the city's new fiscal reality
MediaNews editorial
Posted: 10/06/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
PLEASANT HILL faces a new fiscal reality -- and it needs City Council members who understand that. For that reason, of the five candidates running for two seats in the Nov. 2 election, we endorse Jack Weir and incumbent Terri Williamson.
The city's current two-year budget spends $1.2 million more than it takes in. Sales tax, on which the city is highly dependent, was down about 15 percent from expectations last year. To help make up the shortfall, the city is seeking voter approval on Nov. 2 for a utility tax increase.
Yet, at the same time, the city, with a tradition of generous employee benefits, provides nearly free health care and completely free pensions to its workers.
City workers pay $55 a month for medical coverage, regardless of the number of dependents. The city pays the rest, which works out to about $1,000 per employee per month. As for retirement, the city not only pays the employer share of payments to the state retirement system, it also picks up the employee share. As a result, for every dollar of payroll, the city pays another 37 cents for police pensions and 19 cents for the retirement of other workers.
That was bad policy when the city was flush with cash; it's horrible now that revenues have shrunk. As the city enters negotiations next year with all of its employee unions, the council needs to remember that its first obligation is to provide services while being mindful of the taxpayer burden.
Interestingly, if the city required employees to pay their share of retirement, it would free up nearly as much money as the utility tax increase would generate. The pension change wouldn't solve the city's fiscal problems, but it's an obvious move that could save substantial money.
Credit business consultant Weir with pointing that out. He stands above the other candidates in his critical analysis of the city budget. That's not surprising. Weir brings an impressive resume: Founder of the Pleasant Hill Taxpayers Association; board member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association; and member of the citizen oversight committees for bond measures in the John Swett and Mt. Diablo school districts and the Contra Costa Community College District. Weir understands numbers and the seriousness of the city's fiscal plight.
For the second council seat, we endorse Williamson because she clearly understands the city faces troubling financial times and needs to restructure its employee benefits. First elected to the council in 1985, Williamson was a driving force behind the wonderful redevelopment of the city's downtown. As the only council member to oppose the city's latest two-year budget, she correctly questioned its optimistic assumptions that city revenues will rise next fiscal year.
In making these endorsements, we pass over incumbent Michael Harris, a smart and thoughtful guy who, unfortunately, seems badly torn between pleasing city employees and making the tough changes that are badly needed. As for challenger Michael Flake, he needs to build a constituency in the community and think more carefully about some of his proposals, such as using the city economic development director to encourage high school students to patronize an In-N-Out Burger to be built on Contra Costa Boulevard.
Finally, there's former Councilwoman Suzanne Angeli. While she has a long record of service in Pleasant Hill, Angeli is also well-known as a longtime union president representing BART workers. In what could be a very tough upcoming year of negotiations for the city, the last thing taxpayers need is a labor leader on their side of the table.