City Council opts to forego November public safety tax measure

April 15, 2005
Santa Paula City Council

The possibility of another try to garner public support for enhanced public safety funding was put off by the City Council, which said it would rather wait until next year to address another tax ballot initiative.

By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe possibility of another try to garner public support for enhanced public safety funding was put off by the City Council, which said it would rather wait until next year to address another tax ballot initiative. The council asked City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz at the April 11 meeting to investigate the possibility of seeking another tax measure in March or November 2006.Measures J and K failed to garner voter approval in November with a flat utility tax that would have cost most households $24 a month. Measure J would have raised about $2.2 million for the fire and police departments; Measure K was to form an oversight committee on the expenditure of Measure J funds.Although pre-election polling by the city’s consultant determined that voters favored Measure J, 61 percent rejected it in November; 39 percent voted in favor, far short of the simple majority required.Bobkiewicz told the council that the city would “rethink strategies for going back to the voters,” and stopgap measures – including hiring limited personnel to open the city’s second fire station 24-7 by replacing the paid-call volunteer system to reserves – are far from long-term public safety fixes. Added revenue must also be found for boosted police services, he added, and the council could rethink combining the fire and police service enhancement measure, concentrating on one or another.
“I think the citizens spoke loud” in their rejection of the previous measures, although now the city has embarked on deep cost costing to maintain public safety services, noted Vice Mayor Rick Cook.“The silent majority spoke up during the last election; I was against combining police and fire and still think we should put an initiative on the ballot,” possibly to benefit fire services in the upcoming election followed by police services later, said Councilman Ray Luna.Councilman John Procter said it is important for the council to move ahead. “There are a number of reasons why people think it failed…a lot of measures were competing for people’s wallets,” causing voters to “throw up their hands” and reject all funding measures across the board.“The form that the tax (Measure J) took, a flat tax didn’t work. We have to look at other structures” that don’t require low-income residents to pay the same amount. Procter suggested examining the benefits of a new measure being combined with others or the possibility of a special election for same.“I would support looking into it, but for the following March; give us more time to give us a realistic” overview, noted Mayor Mary Ann Krause. The cost of Measure J was too high for voters themselves or in the interest of financial impacts on others. “We need to take a cautious, measured approach to this,” unlike the first measure that was tackled and presented to voters under a tight deadline, she added.



Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster