By Jeff Schwartz
In the wake of the defeat of Measure L, Saratoga's utility users' tax, there are two crucial questions which demand answers from the City Council and the staff.
First, who was responsible for the decision to withhold information from the public in an effort to sway the election? The second question is, who was involved in the decision to place an extension of the utility tax on the ballot rather than letting the Saratogans vote on the utility tax itself?
Some background: the utility tax has been generating over $800,000 per year for the city. Additionally, the city receives over $600,000 from various state sources that may be threatened because these other monies carry prohibitions against using them to substitute for existing taxes. (Interestingly, the city manager maintained that these additional funds would absolutely be lost if Measure L failed, but he now says that they may be lost and that the city has avenues to try to maintain this money.)
The total impact of Measure L's defeat will be very substantial, probably a loss in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent of the city's operating budget. However, this was revenue that the city should have not been receiving in the first place, revenue collected pursuant to a tax imposed in direct violation of Proposition 62. The extra revenue generated by the utility tax has been able to maintain $2.5 million in reserves, and Saratoga is in better financial condition than many comparable California cities.
It is important to recognize why Measure L failed and who is responsible for that failure. Measure L failed for two reasons. The first reason is that when Measure L was originally imposed, the council made two promises: The tax would sunset in five years, and the revenue would be exclusively for pavement management. Both promises were broken. The second and more important reason is that the council earlier this year promised to put the utility tax to a vote, as required by law, and then broke that promise.
Instead of putting that tax on the ballot, they put a six-month extension of the current five-year tax on the ballot, hoping that no one would notice the difference. A few people did notice and they raised a hue and cry. Measure L failed by less than 75 votes out of more than 12,000 votes cast. The campaign against Measure L centered on the city's failure to put the tax on the ballot as promised. It is inconceivable the Measure L would not have garnered more than 75 additional votes had the city actually placed the actual tax on the ballot.
During the election campaign the council gave three or four different and contradictory explanations as to why Measure L was a vote on the extension of the tax, variously suggesting that it was the result of the city attorney's research. The city attorney had said it was a council decision.
The story that the council had not read the ballot measure or the city attorney's impartial analysis is all but impossible to believe since the council wrote the ballot argument in favor of Measure L. It is time for the City Council and the senior city staff to tell us who participated in the decision and who was aware of the decision to keep the utility tax off the ballot and instead place an extension of the tax on the ballot.
The second question that remains unanswered is more disturbing. The San Jose Mercury News article discussing Measure L's failure quoted the city manager as saying there would be little impact this year because new construction has resulted in over $600,000 of extra fees to the city. Obviously, senior city staff have known about this additional revenue for some time. Yet, residents were never informed prior to the election, and the information was completely withheld during gloom-and-doom predictions that staff and councilmembers made about Measure L. Someone decided to withhold public information from the voters in order to try and sway this election. That is a most serious violation of the integrity of our elective process. If the city manager failed to disclose that information to the City Council, the council should hold him responsible. If, instead, he informed the council and they chose to withhold this information from the public, the three remaining members of the council should consider resigning.
Who made the decision about substance of the utility tax ballot measure, and who decided to withhold information about the city's extra revenue from the voters until after the election? Residents need and deserve answers to both these questions.
Jeff Schwartz is a Saratoga resident.
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, November 27, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved