The UUT Will Become an Inadequate Permanent Tax Under Measure C!

I say no! Now I know what you’re thinking, “This guy don’t care about our city services!” right? That’s not the case! I do care about our city services, all of our services, I care allot. What I don’t like about Measure C is that the whole thing seems to be misrepresented to the community, the taxpayers and the residents of Pinole. I think it's time for our city council and administration to suck it up, and step up! They need to level with the public, the taxpayers, residents and voters of Pinole and be honest with us instead of trying to distract voters with the importance of UUT revenue and push to make permanent a twenty year old revenue tax that voters only approved in the first place because it was temporary and easily removed by the voters! The truth is that the revenue from the current utility tax is needed at this time for City Services but with two years left before the sunset date I feel it's wrong to present Measure C as a pass it or face devastating cuts in services choice! Level with the public, explain why the taxpayers have a permanent parcel tax for "Pinole Sewer", mine was $726.60 last year and went up to $750.60 this year, but we have no reliable funding for police, fire and public works. It seems to me that it's guaranteed that I'm gonna pay $750 this year to process turds, which for the most part come from Hercules' sewers, but the City doesn't have the gumption to ask us for a reliable and stable long term funding source for public safety. Without a sufficient special use tax, city council will continue to use general fund revenue that could be used for public safety for things that they feel are more important to them, like recently $30,000 to put Measure P on the ballot or $50,000 of Measure S funds along with $36,000 of the general fund to provide the first step of a total expense,when completed, of about $500,000 to the taxpayers for the Faria House project and I'm sure taxpayer funds were used to put Measure C on the ballot as well.

When I first heard the UUT was going back on the ballot, I assumed it was renewal time again, something that long time Pinoleans have grown accustomed to, a kind of routine so to speak. I didn’t realize it was two years early until a few weeks ago when I heard it from a Pinole resident I met on the Bay Shore Trail. This is also when I found out that it was proposed without a sunset date, and the resident told me he found out during a discussion with a city council candidate who also left him believing the tax would help open valley fire station 74.

When I read either one of the two fliers I’ve received from the City, they both seem to scream out at me that this Tax is inadequate, citing city services reductions, staff reductions of 25%, staff reductions in police and fire, closure of the valley fire station, reductions in the maintenance of city roads, parks, streetlights, sidewalks and storm drains and reductions in programs. Our services incurred all of these reductions even though the UUT is and has been in full effect and with no interruption in its revenue since it’s inception in 1998.

This tax, the UUT, does not, has not and will never perform as an adequate funding source for the must have core services our administration is obligated to provide for the taxpayers nor for the additional services the administration has promised to Pinole residents.

I believe that an adequate funding program needs to be found and that the UUT needs to be renewed with a sunset date in order to avoid cuts in services until a new funding vehicle can be found and approved by the taxpayers, this would likely have to include a specific use revenue source for public safety in order to protect that funding from being redirected to other services by the administration. In the second of the City’s own fliers delivered to me, it states, "Most former RDA funded services are now paid out of the City's General Fund."; the flier fails to mention that this reduces the amount of funds available for the services that have always been paid for from the general fund like police, fire and public works.

I also feel that both of the City’s fliers are misleading in that the first flier only obscurely mentions one time that Measure C modifies the UUT into a permanent tax. and seems to imply that the voters could easily remove the tax in the future. The truth is that the voters would have to launch a sort of referendum drive in order to get a repeal of the tax on the ballot and then would have to actively campaign to ensure votes for passage. The simple way for voters to remove the UUT in its current configuration is to successfully campaign against renewal at the sunset date.

The second flier from the City also obscurely mentions “without a sunset date”, but it does mention it twice, the first time about halfway down the "Facts at a Glance" column and the second time when it says “Do you want to continue this existing funding, without a sunset date,..........or should the City make $2 million in additional cuts to our already reduced service levels? The choice is yours, on November 6.”

I don’t know about you, but this sounds like intimidation tactics to me, especially when the current UUT has two years to go. The public just told this administration no when the voters rejected measure P! It’s time to tell them no again, NO on Measure C! And insist that they put the UUT on the ballot again with an expiration date.

NO ON C!

Allen Dorsey