With both School Board and City Council races being decided by the time the qualification period for candidates closed – San Carlos residents look at two items on the ballot:

Measure V

Measure V: Shall the office of City Clerk be appointive?
YES

There have been no arguments submitted to oppose this move. The role of City Clerk is a professional one. If one were to hire a police chief, city manager or auditor it makes sense to look for people with the best professional credentials and experience to fill those jobs. The City Clerk position is set with significant regulation and a level of detail that would have most folks reaching for the aspirin every ten minutes.

Quoted from the ballot arguments, “Statewide, the trend has moved towards appointed rather than elected City Clerks. Seventy-six percent of California cities appoint their City Clerks. We join many groups and individuals in California committed to quality local government and encourage you to support this logical and necessary change.

Your yes vote ensures the duties of the City Clerk are performed by a qualified professional selected on experience, education, and training, not by popular vote.”

Measure U:

Measure U: …shall the City of San Carlos adopt an ordinance enacting a one-half cent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for six years with independent annual audits and all funds staying local?
YES

You have no doubt seen the signs, received a few phone calls and read the mail. I am supporting the measure for the following reasons:

1. Our budget issues are of a structural nature. “Spending” did not get us here, the revenues for the city have been constitutionally restrained since 1978. The mandates and obligations upon the city have grown over time
2. Our revenues are subject to take-aways by the state far too often. Our city needs local revenue to stay local for local priorities.
3. Our city needs a sustainable budget which will include reliable revenues and reductions in expenses. One is not exclusive of the other – it will take both.
4. Our city’s work in taking on employee costs was cited as exemplary by the Grand Jury. Our city is doing the right things and addressing the tough issues few in California have dared. Our city has made real cuts. Our work is not done – but those who would say our city has avoided the hard work are simply ignoring the data.

Passionate arguments surround this issue. A broad coalition of community and business leaders have come together to support Measure U. The opponents of U went to out-of-town groups to fund robo-calls and mailers. It was surprising to see these tactics utilized until one realizes dogma is the issue of primary concern. Facts, the budget and the hard work which has been done to date will not deter a dogmatic argument centered around:

• “morals” and “philosophy”
• use of ad-hominum verbage “us vs them”
• use of selective data

Here are a few link to my blog with more information. I hope you will take time to look at the data and support Measure U.

• Presentation of July 13 Slides
• I Support Measure U
• Signal to Noise: Why Measure U? Let’s Raid Measure G!!!
• Signal to Noise: The Employees are to blame!
• Signal to Noise: What is Measure U going to fund?

Measure U funds will be put into the General Fund. Uses of the General Fund are the most publicly discussed and reported of any in our budget A few key things this fund pays for:

• Police
• Fire
• Capital improvements
• Park & Recreation programs
• Unfunded State and Federal mandates.

Measure U will provide local funding for local priorities without interference from the state. The resulting revenue will fund vital local services while the work of streamlining government and reducing expenses continues.

The City of San Carlos needs to reduce salary, benefits & pensions like most of the other cities instead of asking us for a tax increase!! I know so many people in San Carlos who have lost their jobs or taken major pay cuts. It is absurd for the City to threaten us with park closures, etc. if we don’t pass this when their citizens have lost their jobs or taken major pay cuts. Shame on the city for even asking!

A popular refrain is that city employees providing vital city services should bear the burden of budget cuts exclusively. Employee costs are a concern for all and our city has taken the following actions:

• Implemented a “two-tier” system of compensation and benefits, where new employees receive fewer benefits than their peers with more seniority
• Held employee pay to less than the average of 15 cities to which we compare ourselves
• Mandated employee furloughs (unpaid days off) for the last six years
• Increased city employee contribution to health insurance premiums, thus reducing the City’s share (and expense)
• Eliminated a “retiree medical benefit” for many city employees

These are just a few of the points the City of San Carlos has negotiated with our employees in order to reduce expense. This progress has been made through ongoing, cooperative, and good- faith efforts.

Measure U should not be passed. It’s a crime that the City Council does not tell the good, hardworking, citizens of San Carlos that there is exactly $2 million dollars left from measure “G”. These are the very funds that the citizens have already paid. Shouldn’t these funds be re-voted instead of yet… another tax?
Cross-posted from “San Carlos Blog”

###

Some are engaged in litigation against the city regarding the installation of an all-weather surface at Highlands City Park. This particular argument is not about saving the city, but stopping a project. The assertion of criminal behavior is clear hyperbole, and the description of Measure G is misleading.

The funds in Measure G are not “left” nor are they available to serve any purpose the city may desire. The citizens of San Carlos approved Measure G for specific purposes. Those monies have been gathered over years, audited and maintained according to law. The project which will use these funds is in accordance with the law and demands made by the citizens who approved this measure.

While the true intent of this question is to further a litigation goal, let’s play the scenario out: if funds could be re-assigned, the general fund would get less than 1 year of one-time budget relief. Our city faces a structural issue in the budget requiring a long-term fix with local control.

Measure G is about to sunset.  To my knowledge there is no intent to renew the initiative and it should underscore the point when measure are set to sunset – they sunset.