Eureka's Measure O Extension On Ballot
The Times- Standard reports the Eureka City Council has placed the city's Measure O on the November ballot. That's the half cent sales tax increase passed a while back to cover a shortage in the city's budget.
I wouldn't have a problem with the tax if I thought it was only a one time tax increase, but I'm skeptical. I couldn't see myself voting for it, but thought I might stand aside and let everyone else decide. Then I was made aware that the tax also applies when you make large purchases outside the city. Go to Santa Rosa and buy a car or refrigerator and you have the half cent sales tax from Eureka applied.
That should be illegal. Assuming the other jurisdiction is applying their sales tax, too, that's double taxation. Besides, we shouldn't be slaves to the city we live in. For that reason alone I might well vote No on the extension. They take that provision out, maybe I'll go back to standing aside.
*****
Eureka city councilguy, Mike Newman, stopped by the other day while campaigning for Virginia Bass. Pleasant fellow who seemed to know me by reputation. I brought up the subject of Measure O and suggested much of the money from the tax was actually going to cover mounting pension and health care costs for city employees. I felt that issue was being swept under the rug and that we might well face another tax increase as those expenses continued to mount.He didn't disagree, but expressed that the situation was under control for now. He also pointed out there wasn't anything the city could legally do at this point regarding pension obligations but try and meet them. True that, but I also feel sweeping it under the rug isn't helping either.
Mike said he didn't see another tax increase in the works if he had any say in it. Problem is, he may not always be there. Never mind government pension obligations will need to be dealt with at the state level, and little is being done in that regard right now.
*******
It looks like, over at the Tuluwat Examiner- kind of a resurrected Humboldt Herald- they'll be opposing the Measure O extension. You don't often see that coming from The Left. Except I'm getting the impression this is more about their dislike of the Eureka City Council rather than the merits, or lack thereof, of the tax itself. They wrote, "Talk about asking a group of pigs if they want any slop. These agencies represent the who’s who of funding from the City!". Sounds like an argument made by some right leaning anti- tax groups. Especially strange when you consider some of the organizations they list as the bad guys: The Discovery Museum, Sequoia Park Zoo and the Clark Museum, among others.
Hmmm??? I have to wonder if they'd feel that way if this was the Arcata City Council?
*******
Got a call from someone a week or two ago. He's been involved in the Humboldt Taxpayer's League and the Eureka Finance Advisory Committee, or whatever it's called. He asked my opinion of extending Measure O. I told him pretty much what I've written here, although I was unaware at the time that the tax extended outside city limits.He was fanatical in his support of the extension, ironically pointing to some of the groups the Tuluwat Examiner pointed to as bad guys as examples of where the city could cut expenses. Kinda like both sides using the same argument. The discussion got a bit heated, despite me saying I was most likely to not vote at all on the extension, or so I felt at the time.
He kept coming back to saying he didn't want to go back to those dark days when Eureka residents had to mail in crime reports, as opposed to having someone from the police department come out and do it for them. I didn't think of it at the time, but is that really such a bad thing? Maybe we should all fill out our own crime reports unless it's something really serious?
I expect he was looking to form a committee of people to support the tax extension. We'll likely hear more from him as that campaign develops.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:18 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Placing a tax on items purchased outside of Eureka is legal because there is a line on the IRS 1040 form where one must declare purchases made in other areas where sales tax was not collected. If one goes to Oregon and makes a purchase of items where sales tax would be collected in California, then the filer needs to declare that amount. There is really no enforcement so very few people actually declare their out-of-area purchases. Car purchases are different in that the dealer needs your address for registration.
I know that. That Should NOT be legal anywhere in the country.
I watched the City Council meeting the other night, what I heard was that 79% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety. I compare this to running a home or business, if you have $100 dollars and the first $79 goes to your security lights, cameras, guard dogs, whatever... it only leaves $21 to maintain the rest of your home or business.
To me this seems so out of balance that without the increase in sales tax there will be no money for maintaining the rest of the City.
I don't see anyone stepping up and saying let's control our Public Safety Budget, that would be political suicide. What other choice is there besides increasing the sales tax to offset the huge portion of the General Fund going to Public Safety?
I know the Tuluwat Examiner wants to be the new Humboldt Herald. But until Heraldo returns to the Blogosphere, the Humboldt Herald is not rising again.
I don't speak for the TE, so all I can offer is a personal opinion. I think sometimes the TE does get a bit strident at times. But I do think the TE does speak for those of us who backed Measure O last time around and felt betrayed that part of that fund was used for other things than public safety.
It looks like the public safety card will be played again to sell the tax extension. I think it's kind of dishonest, others don't. The supporters do mention the other non-public safety spending but only in asides.
And yes, I think the Tuluwat Examiner really really really does not like the present Eureka City Council (or the BOS either).
But if the Arcata City Council ran Eureka, I'd guess there'd be no Tuluwat Examiner because they'd have no cause to push (or at least they'd focus exclusively on the BOS).
Some people advocate leaving ballots blank; but no one reports those numbers, just the winners and the losers. The vote protesters don't make the media coverage.
I advocate voting rather than passive resistance.
"I watched the City Council meeting the other night, what I heard was that 79% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety."
Unless I'm mistaken, the largest percentage of most city budgets goes to public safety. I also understand the biggest chunk of city budgets goes to employee salaries, pension and health care costs.
My concern is the pension and health care costs, specifically for public safety employees as they get the sweetheart deal of something like 90% retirement after 30 years service. In other words, once a police officer retires, the taxpayers are still on the hook for 90% of that officer's salary.
That's fine if the city can afford it, but across the state and country more and more cities are running out of money in large part because of public safety pension obligations. Exactly how much of Eureka's budget shortage is due to pension and health care costs, I don't know, but I haven't heard the council ever mention it.
" don't see anyone stepping up and saying let's control our Public Safety Budget, that would be political suicide."
Yep, but I'll admit to never having taken a close look at what that budget consists of. I suspect a ever growing part of it is pension costs. That can't be a problem everywhere else but Eureka.
Mola wrote, "It looks like the public safety card will be played again to sell the tax extension. I think it's kind of dishonest, others don't. The supporters do mention the other non-public safety spending but only in asides."
That's how you get things passed. It's worked for as long as I can remember. Say it's for public safety, or for the children.
"I also understand the biggest chunk of city budgets goes to employee salaries, pension and health care costs."
The budget is divided into many sections, the General Fund is where employees of Police, Fire, Recreation, Parks, Streets, Zoo and Facilities receive their funding. So you can see if Public Safety is taking 79% of the General Fund budget that does not leave very much for the other divisions.
You guys should regularly be googling news on CalPERS. Fred is absolutely right. Pensions are eating local government budgets right up. Bet your city councilmen never told you over the next 5 years, CalPERS is set to nearly double (DOUBLE) what it charges to local governments for these programs. Hold on to your hats, its going to be a wild ride. Sad thing is, even people like Newman either have no idea, or are too scared to tell the full truth. Even with these tax increases, your services will decline. Its true for the county services too. Yet everyone here except for Fred buries their head. I am waiting for an intrepid reporter to send in a simple FOIA request, asking the city to spell out its annually required contribution to CalPERS for the last 10 years, plus any annual payment towards pension bonds, if any - then throw in a projection of those costs 10 years into the future. You cant find this information in the budget. Why? Because I suspect it will show the city going insolvent within those ten years. Neither the "liberals" or the "conservatives" have the balls to tell you the truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home