New Sebastopol budget will squander $280k in new tax revenue on consultants and new hires

At tomorrow's City Council meeting, starting at 7 p.m., the budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 will be reviewed and discussed. Here is a copy of my public comment regarding the proposed spending plan:


As a taxpaying citizen and the founder of Progressive Sebastopol, I have reviewed Sebastopol’s proposed budget for 2015-2016 beginning July 1. I am surprised and concerned to learn that our City Council has added, or intends to add, four new hires and consultants, costing a total of about $280,000 per year, to our annual budget. This amounts to more money than the $245,000 per year than will be raised by the four new taxes the City passed last November. Yet at the time of the election, voters were never informed that the new taxes would be used for this purpose. Given the fact that Sebastopol’s population has dropped by about 5%, or 400 people, and that our city government no longer has any major projects to administer, or land to annex, I cannot understand why our elected representatives believe it is appropriate to push four regressive new taxes and then use these funds--without any public review--to hire new employees and consultants--people whose livelihoods Sebastopol residents are required to fund.

Last November the City Council urged voters to pass Measure R. Some 60% said yes. Earlier this year, four new 3.5% tax surcharges were added to every citizen’s cable, garbage, phone and mobile phone bills.

I am requesting, in writing and for the record, that the City Council not approve an additional $60,000 to hire a half-time consultant to be its “economic development coordinator,” or $40,000 for yet another year’s consulting fees for a “communications outreach coordinator.”

Instead, on behalf of hundreds of seniors and other low income residents who are our neighbors, I request that the City use the surplus funds from the four new “utility” taxes to provide the low income tax exemption that was promised as part of the new Measure R taxes during the last election, but never provided. This is an entirely regressive tax that is costing low income residents $50 to $100 per year. The funds from these new taxes are going to pay a new consultant to help attract new businesses to a few empty storefronts downtown, presumably in a manner that the landlords have not already attempted. I see no direct service, or benefit, to residents, while I see considerable harm done by redistributing money, in the form of taxes deceptively marketed to voters, from the poorest among us, to fatten the wallets of unneeded consultants.

Last November, during an Election in which I ran for City Council, I opposed and criticized Measure R (in this WaccoBB.net post here) which added four new 3.5% tax surcharges to Sebastopol’s utility tax. I noted that the measure was being promoted with a false urgency, and that, despite the Measures’ assurances that the funds were desperately needed to maintain city parks, public safety, roads, and even bike lanes, the new funds are would in reality go to large pay raises for city employees, new consulting gigs and new hires. In response, Mayor Robert Jacob told the Press Democrat that “Jonathan would put our city in a horrible position financially…He recklessly attacks our staff and budget, and regularly makes irresponsible and inaccurate statements.”

Robert Jacob's own statement about how the new taxes would be used can be seen on the flier below. Mr. Jacob said: “Yes on R will help keep our roads in repair, maintain city services and will help us put in bike lanes and improve our parks. Please join me and other community leaders in voting Yes on R.”

In opposing the four new taxes (which were deceptively marketed as a "modernization" of the utility tax), I was especially concerned that although the fliers distributed to all households by incumbent candidates and Craig Litwin (the consultant hired to promote this tax measure) stated there would be an exemption to these new taxes for low income tenants, this was not true. In fact, as City Counil members only acknowledged AFTER the Measure had passed on November 4, there was no low income exemption, or plan to create one, for the four new taxes. Although all five of Sebastopol's City Council members handed out these deceptive fliers to voters or actively advocated for these new taxes, not one of them has publicly apologized, or attempted to remedy, this mistake.

So now we come to budget time and the City Council will be voting to add an administrative assistant to the City Manager and clerks office, at a cost of $89,000 per year. As well as making a Planning Department assistant planner position that did not exist until a few years ago a permanent and full time position costing another $90,000 or so. Add in the Economic Development Consultant ($60,000), and the Communications Outreach Coordinator ($40,000), and you get $280,000 of new expenses for positions that are new or recently created, and that have nothing to do with what voters were told their new taxes would go to.

Some three years ago, I suggested that, as part of an effort to enhance responsive government, the Council fund a new Web 2.0 back channel to allow citizens to register their opinions on budgetary and policy decisions. Since then, other cities likke Vallejo have employed such a direct democracy tool that is known as Participatory Budgeting (more here). I also suggested that the City provide a professional video about why citizens love the Sebastopol community as a tool for citizens to easily spread the word and attract residents and businesses.

Instead the City Council voted $40,000 for each of the past two years for a Communications Outreach consulting position that assists the city’s office in disseminating its press releases.

I see that the new budget also contains a proposed allocation of $40,000 for a new city website (also never mentioned as a use of funds for the new Measure R taxes). I suggest that this deliverable contain a Participatory Budgeting functionality, as well as a video that can be used for business and employee attraction. This would attract business—and enhance transparency and accountability by asking taxpayers how we would prefer our surplus tax revenue to be utilized. Empowering our citizens in this way could, I think, avoid a budget like this one—a budget that spends $280,000 of new money to increase the number of city employees , and consultants, without providing any measurable service to taxpayers.

I further suggest that the city save $100,000 for the business consulting and communications outreach coordinator, and use those funds to provide low income taxpayers with the exemption that voters were falsely advised would be offered.

Finally, I support the proposed allocation of funds to advance much needed--and and long overdue--safe bike lanes. I also support testing painted lanes on connecting streets like Morris Avenue within months, not years, from now.

$280,000...i don't mean to laugh, but to those people that is a drop in the bucket....monopoly money...
here is another example...
amongst the many recommendations, for example, that the Task Force sent to the Board of Supervisors was to put resource officers in schools, like only two of them, to the tune of over $200,000 for each of them....it comes to over $40,000 more when all the perks are thrown in like city vehicle, and navigation system yadyyadyyah...
just remember these folks throw money AWAY unless it's for important stuff, like social projects, or low income housing, or shelters, etc....they never seem to have it then!! so don't quibble about the $$$, they sure never will...
Just look at Measure A they conveniently shoved down our throats today, under the guise that our roads are going to be improved....geez...start holding your breath everyone!!
that $$ goes into the general fund...then go follow the $$$! but you WILL be following it on bumpy roads..be
sure of That!!
beshiva

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

... I am surprised and concerned to learn that our City Council has added, or intends to add, four new hires and consultants, costing a total of about $280,000 per year, to our annual budget. ...

---

Jonathan, you mention in passing that the populartion of Sebastopol has dropped by about 5%, or 400 people. That kind of surprised me. At the same time it made sense. I know several people who have moved out of the area because it is too expensive; when they retired they were no longer able to make ends meet. I wonder if you have any observations as to why the population has gone down? Is it specific to a particular age range? Is it correlated with rising costs of property? or other factors? My suspicion is that the lack of affordable housing in Sebastopol is a major factor, but I don't have the stats to back that up, just anecdotal observations.

Thanks,

Jim

Tuesday 6 pm--same time as the Warriors basketball game (!), the City council will take public comment on the coming year's budget. After reading the agenda from last week's meeting here, it seems the Council remains unwilling to honor the promise it made to voters that the city would provide a low income exemption for the four new Utility taxes that were voted on last November. Instead, it will use its new tax revenue to add personnel and consultants to the city's expense sheet.

In response to the question below, I do not know why the city's population decreased by 400. But I do agree that the way to bring it back up would be to add more affordable housing. In my view, the fastest and cheapest way to achieve this is to reduce the expensive regulatory hurdles required to convert garages and add tiny homes and granny units to peoples' yards.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

Jonathan, you mention in passing that the populartion of Sebastopol has dropped by about 5%, or 400 people. That kind of surprised me. At the same time it made sense. I know several people who have moved out of the area because it is too expensive; when they retired they were no longer able to make ends meet. I wonder if you have any observations as to why the population has gone down? Is it specific to a particular age range? Is it correlated with rising costs of property? or other factors? My suspicion is that the lack of affordable housing in Sebastopol is a major factor, but I don't have the stats to back that up, just anecdotal observations.

Thanks,

Jim

---