Tag Cloud
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
STORYLINE Measure U --Essential Protection Measure
This storyline has only one article
Viewing thru of
Measure U -- Essential Protection Measure
by Steve Cohn, published on September 26, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Storyline: Measure U --Essential Protection Measure
Loading images
Measure U – City of Sacramento
“To restore and protect essential public safety services, including 9-1-1 response, police officers, gang/youth violence prevention, fire protection/emergency medical response, and other essential services including park maintenance, youth/senior services, and libraries, shall the City enact a one-half cent sales tax for six years with all revenue legally required to stay in the City’s General Fund, none for the State, with independent annual financial audits and citizen oversight?”
Why:
This half-cent sales tax is vitally important to restore the cuts that have devastated our City.
We have been forced to cut over $100 million from our City budget over the last five years. This means over 150 police officers lost, community policing programs and gang prevention programs eliminated, three fire station brownouts and reduced coverage by our firefighters. It has also meant the elimination of most youth and senior services, reduced library hours, drastic cutbacks to park maintenance and safety, partial closure of community centers and clubhouses, and the closure next year of all community pools. We have no way to predict what will happen at the state level, but without additional local revenue, we will have to make even deeper cuts.
The City Council unanimously voted to place Measure U on the ballot. Seven councilmembers have expressly endorsed it. Measure U incorporates suggestions by the business community, such as independent citizen oversight, independent annual audits, and a six-year sunset provision so the tax expires automatically without a second vote of the people.
Ballot Statement:
Vote Yes on Measure U to restore and protect vital public safety programs. Over the past few years, Sacramento has already cut over $100 million. Without additional revenue we will be forced to make even deeper cuts. Vote Yes on U to restore 9-1-1 response times and bring them closer to the national standards. Since 2008 Sacramento has cut over $35 million from the police department and lost over 150 officers. Today only 8% of home burglaries are investigated. Community policing, narcotics units, gang units and traffic safety teams have been cut or eliminated. Measure U will restore these critical services.
Vote Yes on U to ensure that all our fire engines are fully staffed and operational seven days a week. Sacramento has continued to grow and call volume has increased 220% since 1985. Unfortunately, budget cuts have reduced our fire department staffing to pre-1980 levels. Measure U will increase fire protection and reduce response times.
Vote Yes on U to help keep our neighborhoods safe by restoring gang prevention programs and after school programs that target at-risk youth. Youth services have been cut, sport camps and youth employment programs eliminated, U will help restore these programs and keep community centers open.
Park staff and services have been cut in half. Measure U will restore community centers, senior centers, pools and libraries. Measure U will help Sacramento maintain parks and keep facilities clean. Measure U is a temporary tax that expires after six years and requires independent audits to ensure that these funds are spent as promised.
Vote Yes on Measure U to ensure that our local tax dollars stay in our community.
Please join community leaders, small businesses, police officers, firefighters and neighborhood groups and vote Yes on U to restore key services and stabilize our city.
Supporters (partial list):
Steve Cohn, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Darrell Fong, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Rob Fong, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Kevin McCarty, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Bonnie Pannell, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Jay Schenirer , Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Sandy Sheedy, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem, California State Senate
Rick Braziel, Police Chief, City of Sacramento
Ray Jones, Fire Chief, City of Sacramento
Araceli Mercado, Parks Commissioner, City of Sacramento
Mark Abrahams, President, Land Park Neighborhood Association*
Phil Pluckebaum, President, River Park Neighborhood Association*
Randall Selland, Small Business Owner / Restauranteur
Sacramento County Central Labor Council
Sacramento County Democratic Party
Sacramento Association of Realtors
Sacramento Area Congregations Together (ACT)
Committee Information
Yes on U—Restore City Services
2244 Ione Street, Sacramento, CA 95864
ID# 1350980
Campaign Information: Acosta Consulting, 916.444.8897
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Real leadership would be working on behalf of Sacramentans and pushing the police and firefighters unions against the wall every year you are on the city council.
Open negotiations with Sacramento Sheriffs as a warning signal that you mean business. Push the SPOA to the point they start their blue flu and union playbook games, and let media have a field day with scummy union tactics. Instead of backing a cop-out sales tax measure, how about city council show true leadership by sponsoring a measure that transforms public employees to a 401K program and pay increases capped at inflation (like San Jose).
As usual, Steve Cohn will do whatever it takes to keep getting those police and fire campaign donations rolling in.
And he wants us to increase the sales tax....right....
The revenue from U is required to go into General Fund and it can't go to the State.
I am not a lawyer but I don't see a requirement that the funds be used for police, firefighters and parks. There is intent language but no requirement.
And that's the part that scares me frankly because I can totally see a situation where, if we get the wrong people on the Council, that the Council decides that this new General Fund moneys can be used for... an SUV-sized Hearst Castle replica downtown. Because.. you know.. it will be a job creator that "will put Sacramento on the map".
Any group not stepping up would be solely responsible for forcing the lay-offs of their fellow employees, it would not be pushed onto other employee groups.
The city came a long way to achieving that goal with what appeared to be 2 exceptions…police and fire. Ultimately Fire agreed to paying 3% effective 6/30/2012 and the remaining 6% effective 12/29/2012, at the same time they will also be seeing a 5% pay increase 1/1/2013 as compared to the rates in effect 1/1/2012. However SPOA , for the second straight year, walked away from the table, even though they have rec’d via 3 increments, a total pay increase of 6 ½% over the last 18 months , ending 6/30/2012.
So that action resulted in SPD sending the 19 lowest officers packing and decreasing our city-wide police presence.
Something else that plays into my distaste for all this, comes from the maps that show where 218 of these officers reside. Remember that Audit of take home vehicle useage in 2011? And the staggering number that SPD takes home? Well here is the link to the audit report
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/auditor/documents/audit_reports/AuditofCityLight-DutyVehicleUse.pdf
Look at the map on page 34. That’s an awful lot of personnel, living outside the city limits, mostly in already lower taxed areas, that will not feel one iota of shared sacrifice if this ½ % measure were to pass. We will still be paying the full 32% of their pension cost, which have also gone up 6 ½% these last 18 months in association with their pay raises. And the intent is to bring more officers back without these issues being resolved?
And one last thing, the fallout of SPOA’s action is now having a ripple effect. Did anyone notice the item on the consent calendar last week, regarding the plumber & pipe-fitters contract negotiation?
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=389607&view=&showpdf=1
“Employee payment of full amount of the employer pick-up of the employee’s share of
retirement costs (100% of the required member contribution), effective at such time as
PERS-covered employees in bargaining units represented by the Sacramento Area Fire
Fighters, Local 522, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (Local 522) and
the Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA) pay the equivalent of 100% of the
required member contribution to PERS”
“Rationale for Recommendation: Approval of this action will establish a new agreement between the City and Local 447, through June 24, 2016. It will also generate long-term savings for the City IF and WHEN Local 447 members start paying the full employee share of retirement. The
adoption of this agreement will also eliminate furloughs for bargaining unit employees.
In addition, the settlement of the Rotz/Local 447 lawsuit avoids the possibility of protracted
litigation and the potential for an adverse judgment that could have had a dramatic negative
impact on the General Fund. “
Had I known about these pension agreements back during the two, not so distant, utility tax proposals, my yes vote would have been signifigantly more difficult to cast.
Without already penned and agreed concessions from ALL BARGAINIG UNITS, with regards to pension contributions, you are kidding right?
With all concessions I could have voted for a ¼%....not a ½%...but given SPOA’s position and lack of participation…
IT’s NO!!!