Criticism of Measure G is overblown. Why Sacramento youth programs deserve a boost

Measure G is far from perfect. It’s an example of “lockbox budgeting” – which means it asks voters to lock down part of the city’s budget instead of letting the Sacramento City Council do its job. While the measure aims to provide more money for youth programs and mental health services, it contains no provision to ensure spending by nonprofits that benefit gets audited.

Yet no one disputes the fact that Measure G seeks to elevate, and invest in, Sacramento’s youth. That’s one place the City Council has long fallen short. For this reason, the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board urges you to vote yes on Measure G.

Measure G, also called the Sacramento Children’s Fund, aims to reverse Sacramento’s neglect of its youth by earmarking 2.5 percent of unrestricted city revenues for youth-oriented after school programs, summer programs, mental health resources and other youth services. That’s about $12.5 million annually of an expected $500 million in revenue for fiscal year 2019-20.

Measure G, which would stay in effect for 12 years, is not supported by a new revenue stream, and so limits how the City Council can allocate its annual budget. It would establish a commission to help decide which nonprofits and city programs get youth funding.

Opponents – including Mayor Darrell Steinberg, Councilmembers Jeff Harris and Angelique Ashby, and Sacramento Public Library Director Rivkah Sass – say the measure takes budgeting authority away from City Council and financial experts. But the council will get a yes or no on the commission’s recommendation.

Besides, the commission’s 17 members, half of them young people, would be appointees of the mayor and council. Surely, City Hall will figure out a way to interact with – and influence – the committee.

When Sacramento voters passed Measure U in 2018, they thought the half-cent tax increase would help economically struggling communities. Yet, in May 2019, the city released a budget projection showing that Measure U funds would pay for pensions and other existing obligations.

In response, Mayor Steinberg proposed securitizing Measure U revenue, using bonds to fund things like affordable housing, free public transportation for youth and summer camps for kids. The Sacramento City Council is in the process of bonding $125 million.

Measure G’s supporters say kids need to be a bigger, and more permanent, budget priority. But the measure’s opponents say Measure G could jeopardize Measure U’s chances of success by preventing qualification of the bonds.

[Editorial continues below background information box.]

Asked if Measure G would disrupt the city’s Measure U bond plans, City Treasurer John Colville said, “I can’t say it necessarily will. I’m going to say it’s going to make the stress test more difficult to pass.”

The purpose of the stress test, he said, is to determine if the general fund can support a $7 to $7.5 million annual service debt payment required to pay off the $125 million bond debt. The city is forecasted to have a $33.4 million dollar surplus in fiscal year 2019-20, a $2.7 million surplus in fiscal year 2020-21, followed by deficits between $21 million and $28 million the subsequent three years.

No one can agree on how much Sacramento spends on youth every year. Both sides rely on different estimates. Both sides, however, agree it’s not enough.

Measure G’s opponents depict it as a money grab by nonprofits, but the city has long relied on nonprofits to serve youth and economically disadvantaged communities. Still, the spending proposed by Measure G would need auditing and oversight, especially since nonprofits can sometimes fall short of their fiscal responsibilities.

One of Measure G’s main proponents, the Roberts Family Development Center, was sued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for misspending taxpayer funds. The state agency had hired the nonprofit to run three migrant housing complexes, but the money for the project allegedly paid for “$7,000 in restaurant meals, $25,000 in tax payments to the IRS, and $1,000 on hotels in Yosemite and Los Angeles,” according to CBS 13.

A court later dismissed the suit, but the nonprofit was forced to establish a payment plan to repay $400,000 in state funds. The scandal undermines confidence in the nonprofit sector, but voters should keep in mind that many nonprofits do critical, necessary work in our city.

Measure G’s detractors say the city can’t afford the additional 2.5 percent of the general fund to support underserved youth. Yet the city recently found funding for a $14.4 million for the North Natomas Community Center and Aquatics Center and for a $27 million loan to the city’s private Major League Soccer investment group.

In late January, Mayor Steinberg proposed an alternate plan to Measure G. It would require the city to allocate a minimum of about $2.5 million to $3 million to youth nonprofits annually. It would also mandate that cuts to youth services in a bad year not exceed cuts to other programs.

The mayor plans to put his proposal on the November ballot regardless of whether voters pass Measure G. If the mayor’s ballot measure passes, it would repeal Measure G. The good news: kids win either way.

The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board advises a “yes” vote on Measure G to make sure our children are a top priority in our city.

This story was originally published February 6, 2020 at 5:00 AM.