A tax on the March ballot could help an ailing city of Sacramento, if it’s legal | Opinion

In the March 5 election, voters in the city of Sacramento will consider a business tax increase called Measure C. But before residents vote yes or no, Sacramento County election officials and the California Secretary of State need to investigate whether this tax measure is on the ballot illegally.

The city of Sacramento is in apparent violation of its charter by failing to officially notify the public within 10 days after the Nov. 14 council vote when members placed Measure C on the ballot.

Rather than publish the notice by Nov. 24 as directed by the language of the charter, the city did not publish the notice in its official newspaper, the Sacramento Bulletin, until Wednesday. The Bee Editorial Board began inquiring about the notice’s existence on Feb. 2.

Sacramento County’s official ballot statement contains no argument against Measure C.

That the city was more than two months late in giving the public notice of the proposed tax increase deserves the immediate attention of the City Council, as well as county and state election officials.

Sacramento has long imposed a modest tax on rentals, professionals, hotels and businesses, estimated to generate $8.8 million in the city’s current annual budget. The tax is based on a formula that uses gross receipts and the number of rentals as two examples.

This tax has steadily lost its buying power for the city because its rates have not automatically kept up with inflation. Modernizing this tax structure has merits. All City Hall had to do was set up a fair process to put the issue before city voters.

At the council’s Nov. 14 meeting, staff recommended adjustments to the tax formula that would generate an additional $4.2 million in the first year and an additional $6.7 million in the fifth year.

The recommendation, as stated in the agenda, was to “Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 3.08 of the Sacramento City Code, relating to the Sacramento Business Operations Tax Update of 2024, to be published in full pursuant to Sacramento City Charter, § 32(d).”

The City Council unanimously approved the ordinance with some adjustments.

City Charter 32(d) is a single sentence that provides clear direction. “In lieu of the procedure set forth in Subsection (c) of this section, ordinances shall be published in the official newspaper of the City within ten days after adoption by the council.”

Within the same action, the City Council set a deadline of Nov. 27 for anyone to file an objection to the tax measure.

Even if the city had followed the rules, it was giving citizens little time to respond.

Sacramento lawyer Tiffany Clark did not learn of Measure C until she read a Bee story about it on Dec. 7. She said she called the city clerk to submit an argument against the measure but was told it was too late.

“All of this left me wondering if the city followed the Election Code” and its noticing requirements, she said.

After first asking the city where and when it provided public notice of its actions on Feb 2, The Bee Editorial Board asked again on Tuesday and again on Wednesday.

On Thursday, the city provided a copy of the notice that was published in the Sacramento Bulletin the previous day. We have since asked the city how such a delay complies with its charter. Assistant City Clerk Wendy Klock-Johnson responded: “Although the ordinance text was not published in the city’s official newspaper, the Sacramento Bulletin, within 10 days of council action on November 12, the city council properly placed the measure on the ballot for voter approval.”

This answer is precisely why the county and Secretary of State need to weigh in. The city is suggesting that a timely notice of a new ballot measure is a mere option as opposed to being legally essential. The opportunity for the public to have an opposing view on the ballot is dispensable. Can that possibly be right?

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident of a botched public process at Sacramento City Hall. On Dec. 12, a special meeting with scant notice was staged to grant City Manager Howard Chan a raise of about $20,000 as well as an unprecedented 10 weeks of vacation that could be cashed out for a five-figure payout. It turned out that the meeting violated state law, nullifying the council’s action.

At the same December meeting, the council lawfully approved 6% raises for police as well as rank-and-file employees for 2023 and another 4% in 2024. Chan recommended these raises in December. Then in January, he told the council that the city couldn’t afford the raises and that they weren’t “sustainable.”

The city finds itself counting on higher business taxes to help close a coming budget gap of approximately $50 million. The employee raises amount to about half of the problem.

Measure C could help the city with its budget woes, but before voters can consider it, they need to know if the last item on their March 5 ballots was placed there illegally or not.

This story was originally published February 9, 2024 at 5:00 AM.