Sacramento is trying to sneak a tax raise onto the ballot, Sacramentans must vote no | Opinion

Measure C on the Sacramento ballot is a proposal to increase the business operations tax by about 75% in the coming years. It deserves to go down to defeat because it stands too great a chance of being downright illegal by excluding public input from the ballot’s creation.

Sacramento city management failed to comply with a public transparency requirement of its own charter. The city council approved the ordinance containing the tax proposal on Nov. 14. That action triggered a charter requirement to publicly give notice in 10 days of what the council had done in case any citizen in the city wished to object in writing on the ballot.

But the city failed to give notice within 10 days. And it didn’t fail by a little — it failed by more than two months, finally publishing a notice on Feb. 7. It only gave notice after repeated inquiries earlier this month by The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, and it only gave notice in one of the least-read publications in town: the Sacramento Bulletin.

City staff and council members may have reasons as to why a tax last adjusted in 1991 should be increased now. But at this point, none of those reasons matter.

Measure C is now about whether the city has to abide by its own transparency rules when it places a measure on the local ballot.

Voting no is the only way the public can send the following message to a dysfunctional City Hall: When it comes to important financial matters, stop violating the law.

City’s rigged process

Things have only gotten worse since that Nov. 14 vote: All city staff had to do was to promptly publish a copy of the business operations tax ordinance in its designated “official newspaper.” The city curiously picked a local publication of low readership, the Sacramento Bulletin.

The city devised election deadlines that were hardly public-friendly. The city could have given public notice as late as the Friday after Thanksgiving, Nov. 24. And it set a deadline for public opposition comments for the ballot on Monday, Nov. 27.

City Hall couldn’t even get its rigged process right.

The Sacramento Taxpayers Association said it hoped to officially object on the ballot but it missed the deadline. Sacramento lawyer Tiffany Clark contacted the clerk’s office to do the same, and she was told she missed the deadline as well.

The city fully admits it blew its deadline to notify the public of the measure. But it seems to be suggesting that its city charter simply doesn’t matter. Assistant City Clerk Wendy Klock-Johnson told the Bee: “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.”

Translation: The public has to comply with key election deadlines. We do not.

It soon became clear why the city was desperate for more tax money: On Dec. 12, the city council unanimously approved 6% raises for police and staff for 2023 and another 4% for 2024. City Manager Howard Chan tried to board the gravy train himself with a raise of about $20,000 and a stunning 10 weeks vacation, but that derailed.

All the raises were rushed onto a “special” meeting agenda with barely 24 hours’ notice. But as The Bee later uncovered, Chan violated California’s Brown Act by giving the public such little notice when it comes to his pay raise.

Chan has lost out — for now — on his big compensation bump. He has since described the employee raises that the council unanimously approved as costs “we cannot afford” and that they are “unsustainable.”

Measure C is now a referendum on whether the public wants to be treated as an afterthought by the city. Vote No and tell your neighbors. It’s the quickest way to kill an improperly-noticed local measure. The city doesn’t want this mess getting to a judge.

Coming next: A legal expert weighs in.

This story was originally published February 12, 2024 at 11:30 AM.