Tim Schaefer speaks at a rally opposing Measure M in 2020, held outside City Hall. // CH Sentinel
By Tim Schaefer–
As I watched the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce Candidates Forum last month, City Council Candidate MariJane Lopez-Taff brought up the Citrus Heights Police Department budget cuts that were included in the 2021/22 budget that was passed by a 3-2 vote. Then-Mayor Steve Miller, Vice Mayor Porsche Middleton and Councilmember Jeanie Bruins voted in favor of the budget cuts while Councilmember Bret Daniels and I voted to oppose the cuts.
City Council Candidate Natalee Price echoed Mrs. Lopez-Taff’s observation. However, former council member and City Council Candidate Al Fox, claiming that he is the most experienced on the panel, said “I don’t think we ever de-funded the Police Department.” Mr. Fox is either misinformed, out of touch or simply hasn’t been paying attention.
It doesn’t matter if you call it “budget cuts” or “de-funding”, the result is the same. That very controversial vote collapsed critical units in the Police Department that directly affected our public safety, the safety of our school age children and the quality of life in Citrus Heights.
The following month after the passing the budget that cut the CHPD funding by $3M, the Council allocated $5.3M to CHPD. But unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Chief Lawrence and City Manager Boyd had already collapsed the Traffic, School Resource Officers (aka SRO), Gang and Problem Oriented Police (a.k.a POP) units. After 18 months of CHPD has restored a dedicated Traffic enforcement unit.
Councilmember Daniels and I implored the rest of the Council not to accept the budget that included these cuts.
In the final review after year end, the City had $6.2M more revenues than anticipated, resulting in a $3.6M budget surplus. No budget crisis ever existed.
Prior to news about the surplus, it was clear to me and Councilmember Daniels that the numbers did not add up. Yet our current Mayor, Porsche Middleton was so committed to this false narrative that she lead the Yes on Measure M Campaign. Helping raise more than $47,000 in an attempt to raise the taxes of everyone that lives and shops in Citrus Heights.
Believe what you like, but I believe the cuts and consolidation of CHPD critical police units were nothing more than retaliation for the failure of Measure M in 2020, the City’s attempt at adding a never-ending 1% sales tax in Citrus Heights.
Tim Schaefer
So, this week the ballots are being mailed to voters. I ask that voters remember the actions of their elected council members and make an informed, mindful decision. We need city council members and school board trustees that are loyal to their constituents and not to special interest groups or executive staff.
Tim Schaefer is currently serving as Vice Mayor of the City of Citrus Heights. He can be contacted at: tschaefer@citrusheights.net.
Want to share your thoughts on this topic or another local issue? The Sentinel welcomes guest opinions of any viewpoint. Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here
The final vote count for Measure M was certified Dec. 1 by Sacramento County elections officials.
Sentinel staff report– In the city’s first public statement following the defeat of a $12 million sales tax proposal in Citrus Heights, the city manager acknowledged the decision of voters and said community involvement will be invited in upcoming budget considerations.
The city’s statement came Wednesday, following Sacramento County election officials certifying the vote on Dec. 1st. Measure M was defeated after falling short of the majority support needed to pass.
Out of a total of 40,295 votes cast in the Measure M contest, 47% voted in favor of the one-cent-per-dollar sales tax, falling about 2,000 votes short. The measure still fared better than the city’s Measure K tax proposal did eight years ago, which received just 44% support.
“We are grateful to the residents who participated in this unique election, and our dedicated staff will continue to work closely with the community as important budget decisions are considered,” said City Manager Chris Boyd in the statement. “As we head into strategic planning and budget updates, we will look to balance and align with what our community prioritizes.”
Boyd cited priorities determined by a community survey the city conducted over the past year, where residents said they wanted to see priorities focus on crime investigation and prevention, school safety and security, street maintenance and pothole repair, homelessness reduction programs, and support for local businesses and jobs.
The city had cited the survey as a key reason for placing Measure M on the ballot, noting that budget projections show shortfalls over the next 10 years without cuts or new sources of revenue.
A screenshot from the Sacramento County Elections website shows the latest vote count for Measure M, as of Nov. 10, 2020.
Sentinel staff report– Following the latest vote count update released on Tuesday, Measure M is now trailing by nearly 1,000 votes.
The tax measure, which would have increased the sales tax by 1% to boost the city’s struggling General Fund by an estimated $12 million per year, initially was poised to pass on election night with 51% of the vote. However, as votes continued to be counted, the measure fell behind.
A total of 29,967 votes have been counted so far, with 15,469 cast against Measure M and 14,498 in support of the measure. Polling presented by the city from EMC Research initially showed the measure would pass easily, with up to 71% support.
No on Measure M spokesman Bruce Lee told The Sentinel on Wednesday that his campaign is “delighted in the results.” He said ballots mailed in early were expected to favor Measure M due to his campaign getting off to a slow start. Advertising, signage and mailers for the opposition largely didn’t appear until mid-October.
The Yes on M campaign did not respond to an email request for a statement sent on Tuesday, but the campaign has not conceded. Lee said the measure had been “soundly defeated,” although thousands more votes have yet to be counted, including provisional ballots cast on Election Day and ballots mailed in on or close to November 3.
Measure M sought to add a one-cent-per-dollar sales tax, bringing the sales tax rate in Citrus Heights to 8.75%. If the measure fails, the tax rate will remain at 7.75%, but city leaders have said “serious cuts” will have to be made to grapple with looming budget deficits.
During the campaign, Measure M proponents said the tax was needed to raise an estimated $12 million annually to cover services like escalating road repair costs and public safety, while opponents claimed the city had mismanaged its current funds and said the wording of the tax measure would allow funds to be spent on anything.
According to Sacramento County election officials, a total of 544,000 ballots have been counted countywide, with approximately 171,000 still remaining to be counted — meaning around 75% of ballots have been counted.
Sacramento County Registrar of Voters Courtney Bailey-Kanelos told The Sentinel last week that her office hopes to conclude the count before Thanksgiving Day. She said mail-in ballots can be received up to 17 days after the election, as long as they were post-marked by Nov. 3. Provisional ballots will be last to be counted.
The next vote count update will be released on Friday, Nov. 13, by 4 p.m.
Citrus Heights Council District 3 candidate Tim Schaefer speaks outside City Hall during a rally against Measure M on Friday. // CH Sentinel
Sentinel staff report– A group of about 50 Measure M opponents gathered in the parking lot of City Hall in Citrus Heights Friday to protest a $12 million sales tax increase, saying “there’s room to cut” instead.
The group held signs against Measure M, including a display listing total compensation packages for five of the city’s top positions last year. The data, taken from publicpay.ca.gov, shows the city manager’s total pay plus benefits equaled over $400,000, total compensation for the chief of police was over $300,000, and several other positions were listed over $200,000.
“I’m pretty confident I could find someone for $200,000 to do the same job,” said Bruce Lee, president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, referring to the city manager’s compensation and calling staff salaries “enormous.” He was joined at a podium by Councilman Bret Daniels, who is running for the city’s District 1 seat this year, along with council District 3 candidate Tim Schaefer and Cathy Cook, who is running against Ken Cooley for California’s 8th Assembly District.
Daniels, the only current member of the council to vote against placing Measure M on the ballot, blamed the city’s budget troubles on “this building,” pointing to City Hall behind him and noting its cost of $22 million. The city had paid for the hall using cash reserves in 2016, which have now dwindled.
“They want more money for their mistake,” said Daniels, referring to the City Hall expense. “I don’t think we should have to pay for their mistake.”
Defenders of the new hall have said its net impact on the city’s general fund is projected to be only about $8.9 million after 15 years, largely due to $6.9 million in lease payments coming from the medical building now occupying the old City Hall property, as well as projected energy savings from the new, more efficient facility.
If passed by voters in November, Measure M will increase the sales tax rate from 7.75% up to 8.75% in Citrus Heights. The tax is projected to add $12 million to the city’s General Fund budget, which had expenditures of around $31 million last year and is projected to have shortfalls over the next decade.
Advocates say the tax is needed to fill vacant positions in the police department, repave roads and pay for other city services, while opponents point to the measure’s wording that allows for tax revenues to go towards “any lawful municipal purpose.”
Comment from City Hall was sought during the rally, but doors were closed to the public due to COVID-19, except to allow for voting in the community room. An email to the city manager’s office offering opportunity to respond to claims made during the rally was not returned.
Assembly candidate Cathy Cook during the rally called city salaries “way out of touch” and advocated that city staff take a pay cut. She said the 1% sales tax increase, though small, would come on top of already-high taxes residents pay like income and property tax. Mentioning impacts of COVID-19, she said “a little tax reduction” would be more appropriate.
A Sentinel analysis of 2019 city salaries from California’s Public Pay website found total pay to city staff amounted to $19 million, meaning an across-the-board pay cut of 10% would have saved about $1.9 million last year.
Speakers at the rally also said the city’s budget troubles are only short term, due to the city beginning to receive property tax revenue in two years, which will boost the city’s general fund by an estimated $6 million. Proponents, however, say the city will still have shortfalls even when factoring in property tax revenue, and the city says at least $7.6 million in additional funding per year is needed to maintain deteriorating roads.
Rally attendee James Remick, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, told The Sentinel the long tenure of some members of the council has led to repeated approvals of pay increases for “their buddies.”
“It’s ridiculous how much we’re paying these people,” said Remick, who previously ran twice for City Council.
The 45-minute event concluded with a message to residents to get involved in local government, and not “abdicate responsibility” after delegating responsibility to local leaders through the voting process. Attendees were urged to vote, get friends to vote, and pray for leaders and the election.
The Sentinel reached out to the Yes on M campaign with an opportunity to respond to claims made at the rally regarding city salaries and expenditures. Their statement is included below:
Public officials’ compensation is posted on a government website. These 2019 figures don’t reflect that the Assistant Police Chief position was for one year while our Police Chief served as President of the CA Police Chief’s Association, requiring him to be out of town extensively. When the Assistant Chief Gina Anderson became the police chief in Newark, the position was reclassified to lieutenant – saving $50,000 per year.
This past year the city manager has shaved off about $1 million in expenses, mostly in salary savings. When Chris Boyd took over as city manager, he inherited 6 department heads. He has cut that in half by combining departments, and taking on extra duties himself. Today, the city runs an even leaner shop than we have had historically. Police Chief Ron Lawrence runs the police department. Assistant City Manager Ronda Rivera directs HR and finance, and Director Colleen McDuffee directs community development. City Manager Chris Boyd directs all other departments including IT and economic development.
It is disingenuous of the No on Measure M committee, headed by Councilmember Bret Daniels, to publish these statistics without telling the whole story. The city has responded proactively to the declining revenues that resulted from the decline of Sunrise Mall, increased Internet sales and then the effects of COVID19.
This is typical of the rhetoric of the No on Measure M committee. They are deceiving people by twisting the truth, such as the true cost to build city hall ($8 million for a $23 million building) because Dignity Health bought the old city hall property. Add to that the cost savings that result from no longer throwing tax payer money down the sink hole of maintaining old leaky, uninsulated and moldy buildings. They ignore the strides the city continues to make on a very slim budget.
Sentinel staff report– Supporters and opponents of the controversial Measure M sales tax proposed in Citrus Heights have each made conflicting claims regarding the estimated cost per household that the 1% extra sales tax would incur.
Tim Schaefer, a current planning commissioner and opponent of Measure M, recently claimed in a Facebook post that the cost of Measure M for households would equal around $367 per year, while Vice Mayor Steve Miller replied that “the average cost to households would be less than $60/year.”
Each used data showing roughly 34,000 households in Citrus Heights and a figure of $12 million that the city anticipates would be generated annually from Measure M, if passed by voters on Nov. 3. But each came up with significantly different numbers.
So what does the data show the actual cost to residents would be? We asked former CSUS business professor Terence Pitre, who earned his Ph.D. in accounting, to provide an independent assessment of the claims.
Pitre, who now serves as department chair at Bowling Green State University’s college of business, said it’s hard to say due to some unknown factors, but he pointed out oversights made by each side.
One oversight made by Schaefer was to not account for the fact that non-residents shop in Citrus Heights and would contribute to the estimated $12 million in sales tax to be generated by Measure M. According to Schaefer, he calculated his $367 annual figure by simply dividing $12 million by the number of households in Citrus Heights.
However, a report from HDL tax consultants estimated 40% of sales tax in Citrus Heights is paid for by non-residents, meaning that a significant portion of the $12 million in sales tax would be paid for by shoppers who live outside of the city but who shop in Citrus Heights. (See report)
“If assumed that 40% of the sales in Citrus Heights are from non-residents, then that means that 60% or $7.2 million of the $12 million cost is carried by residents of Citrus Heights,” the professor said in his assessment. Spreading that amount over the 34,343 households in Citrus Heights gives a household cost of about $209 annually or $17.50 per month — significantly lower than the cost presented by Schaefer, but still more than triple the $60 cost estimated by Miller.
Pitre said the problem with Miller’s $60 figure is that it only accounts for about $2 million of the tax being paid for by local households ($60 x 34,342), and doesn’t answer who would pay for the remaining amount.
Asked by email if there were other entities besides households that would be contributing to the $12 million tax revenue, Miller only responded to say that residents can run their own calculations by looking at their actual household expenditures to tally taxable purchases and then calculate what an extra 1% on those purchases would be. He said his own tally found Measure M would only cost his household of two an average of $2.91 more per month.
Councilwoman Jeannie Bruins also said in a guest column published on The Sentinel last month that she reviewed her personal budget for 2020 and found she’d pay about $7.23 more per month. However, critics on social media noted that such averages likely don’t take into account large purchases like appliances that may only occur every five years or more.
A $2,500 refrigerator purchased at Lowe’s, for example, would cost an extra $25 with the extra 1% Measure M tax. A kitchen remodel with all new appliances could cost over $100 more in sales tax. Schaefer has noted that the extra cost could send shoppers outside the city limits to make larger purchases.
Those calculations still don’t account for where the remaining tax revenue would come from, to get to the projected $12 million more in revenue per year. City Spokeswoman Nichole Baxter said the estimated total of $12 million is a solid figure, based on the city’s actual portion of tax revenue received in prior years.
The city currently only receives 1% of the sales tax, and Measure M would double that to 2%. The statewide base sales tax rate is 7.25%, with an existing Measure A transportation tax raising the rate up another half-percent in Sacramento County, including Citrus Heights.
Baxter didn’t provide a breakdown of how the $12 million is derived, but said the city received just under $12 million in fiscal year 2018-19, from its current 1% share of the sales tax. For fiscal year 2019-20, the city saw a drop of nearly $1 million in its sales tax revenue, due to COVID-19 shutdowns.
Pitre said businesses are likely the largest other entity contributing to the sales tax, besides households and non-residents. But the actual amount of purchases made by businesses is unknown, which makes the projected impact to households difficult to account for.
“Non-residential entities could likely bear the brunt of the tax burden, especially the small business owner who makes large purchases from retail stores or discount stores like Costco,” said Pitre. “[T]he tax burden bore by small businesses could inevitably make its way back to the residential consumer by way of increased prices of goods.”
That indirect increase in costs to the consumer is also difficult to account for in determining the added household cost of Measure M. However, business purchases subject to sales tax are a factor that would lower the direct household burden of the tax paid to less than $17.50 per month.
Other factors include potential for more shoppers to be attracted to Citrus Heights, if the tax measure’s funds contributed towards a revitalized Sunrise Mall area, along with better streets, decreased homelessness and reduced crime, as advocates claim. Alternatively, the effects of COVID-19 or an economic downturn could result in less shopping and also influence the percent of non-residents shopping in the city.
HDL noted some of these unknowns in its August 2020 report, stating that its assessment of the amount of tax paid by non-residents was based on pre-COVID-19 data: “The impact of the current global pandemic has not yet been fully realized or documented in the commercial marketplace as it relates to revenue generation and the impact to resident and non-resident contributions.”
By Bill Van Duker– As we approach the election, I am reflecting back on the last 36 years in Citrus Heights.
In Citrus Heights in 1984, Montgomery Ward was where Lowe’s is, and Macy’s was located where Target is now. The Post Office was near Sylvan Corners, and there was nothing north of Fountain Square except fields.
In November 1984, a few business people and others met to explore the idea of forming a new city. Past attempts to incorporate had never materialized.
Why incorporate? Well, we were a “cash cow” for the county; we generated more in dollars than we received in services. Our supervisor represented other communities like Folsom, Orangevale, and Fair Oaks, with interests that sometimes conflicted with ours.
Our law enforcement was a joke. At times we had less than one Deputy Sheriff patrolling Citrus Heights at night. Further, we had no control over local land use decisions.
For those and other reasons, the Citrus Heights Incorporation Project (CHIP) was launched under the leadership of Chamber President Rich Wagner, CPA. The Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce endorsed the project, and stayed involved to the end.
In the next year (1985), CHIP went before the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which allowed CHIP to develop the first financial feasibility study, to gather signatures (12,000) and to raise money for the election effort.
LAFCO endorsed cityhood and sent the measure to the Board of Supervisors to set the ballot date. We believed that we would be on the ballot in 1986, and be incorporated on Jan. 2, 1987, but the County Board of Supervisors refused to put the measure on the ballot, and the lawsuits began.
Those were bleak years – first the Superior Court in Sacramento, then the Third District Court of Appeals, then the California Supreme Court. We prevailed at the California Supreme Court.
Sixty-seven cities in California filed Amicus briefs supporting our lawsuit. But the county appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court who declined to hear the appeal and sent the matter back to the California courts.
It’s a matter of trust When Citrus Heights voters in 1996 faced the choice of whether to incorporate, they were facing a big risk with many unknowns. Where would City Hall be? Who would be our City Council? Who would provide law enforcement services?
Would we be better off as a city? Would the new City Council do the right thing?
The battle had gone on for 12 years. Would that effort and all that pain be wasted? On that election night in 1996, over 62% of the voters voted our new city into existence.
Now we are facing another important vote for our future: Measure M.
I have great confidence in our city leadership. Over the years the professional staff and our friends and neighbors whom we have elected to the City Council have demonstrated trust, vision, insight, and determination. By and large they have done a superb job.
The Community Center, the award-winning Police Department and its facility, City Hall, Auburn Boulevard revitalization, major reduction in crimes are just a few of the long list of accomplishments.
City leadership says we need Measure M to thrive, and I believe them.
For those of you who are on the fence regarding Measure M, I ask you to look at the track record of our city’s leadership. For 23 years we have “made do” without our property taxes. The first projection was that we would cross over into deficit spending in year 9. Then year 13. Actually it was around year 20 of Cityhood that it happened. Moving the crossover 11 years beyond the first projection is leadership of the best kind.
Since we will be receiving our property tax in 2023, some say “Let’s wait”. The property tax amount is about half of what we need each year to fix our roads. It will not cover roads and the 17 vacant positions in the Police Department, let alone the other needs that we have told the city that we want them to address.
For those of you who don’t like taxes, I understand. I don’t like them either. But to add an additional dollar to a $100 purchase to ensure the future of our city is something I will support. And I trust the City Council to do what they have said they will do with the money. Their track record speaks loudly for being excellent stewards of the money we have entrusted them with.
I am saddened by the intensity of the attacks on the backers of Measure M. We should be able to advocate diverse positions without resorting to attacks on the motives and character of those with whom one disagrees.
I am also dismayed by some of the very businesses who have benefited significantly from city assistance who have come out against Measure M.
This is the most important ballot measure facing Citrus Heights since the incorporation vote. We have the opportunity to soar going forward, or to slowly decline into one of those cities we read about too often. I know which choice works for me.
I urge you to continue the vision that brought us our city and vote “Yes” on Measure M.
Bill Van Duker is a local business owner and former chair of the Citrus Heights Incorporation Project for 6 years. He was also co-chair of the Measure R incorporation effort in 1996.
By Ted Gaines– Coronavirus disruptions are inspiring governments to employ every tactic available to ward off a Great Depression-style economic collapse. Whether it’s stimulus funds, Paycheck Protection Program loans, increased unemployment benefits, or rent forbearance, all the policies share the same goal of putting more money into consumer or business pockets so our weakened economy can regain its strength. Why is Citrus Heights doing the exact opposite with its proposed tax increase, Measure M?
The short answer is the city is facing a two-year budget problem. The good news is, despite today’s fiscal challenges, in two years, the city will begin to receive six million a year in additional, annual property tax revenues that currently go to the county. That money, if used wisely, should put Citrus Heights back on solid fiscal ground.
In the meantime, Measure M is not a wise solution and it is definitely not a two-year solution. It is an endless money grab, a tax with no sunset. This additional sales tax burden will fall on businesses and consumers indefinitely and will permanently diminish the city’s competitiveness.
M would double the city’s share of sales tax from one to two percent, with the intent of raising $12 million annually. That’s a lot of money out of the pockets of residents and local business. And, with the city budget currently at $34 million, that would be a massive 35-percent increase!
It’s no secret that California businesses, crushed by high taxes and costly regulations, are leaving the state as fast as they can relocate, fleeing to lower-tax, lower-cost-of-living, and more simply regulated states. That’s a government failure that’s driving out entrepreneurs and weakening our state.
The same phenomenon can happen among cities. With Measure M, Citrus Heights would saddle its businesses with higher taxes than Roseville or Folsom, for example, making it more difficult for the city’s merchants to keep customers at home, and making it more likely that business owners would relocate or expand in those competing areas, instead of Citrus Heights. Measure M would also fly directly counter to Sunrise Mall revitalization efforts, which are important to the city’s economic vitality.
To climb out of the COVID crater, Citrus Heights should be lowering taxes. They should be taking every step to make the city more attractive to businesses and more affordable to consumers. A healthy city budget starts with a powerful private-sector economy.
Even a healthy economy is not enough on its own, though. No amount of tax revenues will balance a municipal budget without spending discipline. Citrus Heights, a city of about 89,000 residents, has an estimated 10 or more public employees with annual compensations packages above $200,000, including one employee whose pay and benefits add up to more than $400,000 per year (see source).
That is a troubling sign for a city in economic distress. Lavish public employee salaries are an immediate budget problem but they portend higher pension spending for decades to come.
Despite the claims of Measure M proponents that the additional revenue will go to core city services, the truth is the money goes directly to the city’s general fund and could be spent on salary increases or the inevitable increases in pension payments that will flow from today’s inflated salaries. And, whatever promises local politicians make now, with no written guarantees in the measure, those promises won’t be enforced by their successors…one or two years from now, much less 20 years down the road.
The city needs to realize that its residents are already overtaxed. Californians already pay the highest gasoline taxes, highest state sales tax, highest personal income tax, and some of the highest property taxes in the nation, despite Prop. 13. Measure M is an unneeded pile-on, putting pressure on businesses and pushing consumers to neighboring cities.
And, with a sales tax being the most regressive of all taxes, hurting the poor and disadvantaged disproportionately, the NAACP and others strongly oppose Measure M. More than 12-percent of Citrus Heights residents live below the poverty level, and that was before the pandemic drove up unemployment and reduced worker hours.
Don’t sacrifice the city’s long-term future for a short-term problem. Don’t sacrifice your fellow residents. Don’t sacrifice your local businesses. Vote NO on Measure M.
Ted Gaines was elected to represent the Board of Equalization’s First District, made up of nearly ten million constituents in 30 counties of northern, eastern, and southern California. For more, visit www.boe.ca.gov/Gaines.
Sentinel staff report– As the Nov. 3 election date draws near and controversy stirs around a proposed sales tax increase in Citrus Heights, campaigns on both sides of the measure say their signs have been stolen, damaged, or defaced.
In a statement with photos submitted to The Sentinel by the Yes on Measure M campaign this week, spokeswoman Porsche Middleton said handmade signs were stapled on top of a large “Yes on M” sign on Sunday, making the sign instead read “No on M.”
The sign was displayed on Antelope Road outside A-Applied Mailing, which has endorsed Measure M. The shop’s owner, Ray Riehle, also provided photos of a separate incident he said occurred Wednesday morning, involving a “NO” sign being glued to one side of the “Yes on M” sign placed outside of his shop.
Middleton said there have also been reports of “smaller lawn signs being taken from private property,” and provided photos of one of her campaign’s large signs outside Walmart on Auburn Boulevard that had been cut in half, which she said occurred around Sept. 28.
In its statement on Tuesday, the Yes on M campaign did not accuse the official “No on M” campaign of orchestrating or supporting damage to political signs, but said such actions by individuals go “against the very nature of the democratic process that protects everyone’s right to express their opinion.”
Riehle also said he didn’t think anyone from the No on Measure M committee is responsible and said he believes “that they would all honor the political process and respect our rights as we respect theirs.”
No on M spokesman Bruce Lee said Thursday he was unaware of the damage to “Yes on M” campaign signs, but condemned theft or defacing of political signs as “immature behavior” that is “never appropriate.” He said some of his campaign’s signs have also been stolen or damaged.
Lee acknowledged “outrage” among some residents over the proposed tax increase, but said “this is never a justification for vandalism” and said the behavior “is never condoned by the ‘No on M’ campaign.”
The Yes on M campaign in its statement called vandalism of signs “outrageous, unnecessary and criminal,” and said it encourages law enforcement “to do everything within their power to respond to and punish these crimes.”
As of Oct. 14, police spokesman Michael Wells said in an email that the police department was not aware of any reports of vandalism to political signs from any campaign. Riehle later said he made a report to police on Oct. 15, but said he did not have video cameras covering the area where the sign is located.
Wells did not include a response to a question asking what relevant laws could apply to incidents of damage or theft involving political signs.
In 2009, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed proposed legislation, AB 362, which sought to “make it a crime for a person to knowingly take, possess, damage, reuse, or move any political sign without the authorization from the owner of the sign,” due to reports that such incidents were becoming more prevalent. In vetoing the bill, Schwarzenegger called it unnecessary, “because current law already prohibits acts of vandalism or theft.”
California Penal Code Section 594 says defacement, damage or destruction involving value of less than $400 is considered vandalism and is “punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”
Signs in support and opposition to Measure M can be seen around Citrus Heights. // M. Hazlip
Sentinel staff report– Campaign finance disclosures filed last month reveal tens of thousands of dollars in contributions are flowing into the fight over Measure M in Citrus Heights, with proponents of the sales tax increase reporting more than 30 times the amount of contributions than the opposing campaign.
Measure M seeks to add a 1-cent-per-dollar sales tax in Citrus Heights to boost the city’s general fund budget by an estimated $12 million a year, up from the current $32 million (excluding property tax revenue). Proponents say the tax is needed to cover services like escalating road repair costs and public safety, while opponents claim the city has mismanaged its current funds and say the wording of the tax measure allows funds to be spent on anything.
Disclosures filed by the Sept. 24 deadline show the Yes on Measure M campaign brought in a total of $34,607.56 in contributions from 14 listed donors, while the “No on CH Measure M” campaign reported only receiving $986.50 from a total of two listed donors.
The legally required disclosures cover the period of Jan. 1 through Sept. 19, 2020, and include cash, loans and nonmonetary contributions.
Top donors for the “Yes” campaign include $10,000 from King’s Casino Management Corporation (the parent company of Stones Casino), $5,000 from Coastline Water Resources, Inc., and $5,000 from longtime resident Ted Mitchell. Donations in the amount of $1,000 or more also came from Stephan Biondi of Biondi Paving, Inc., John Gard of Fehr & Peers, as well as corporate donations from MCE Corporation and Dokken Engineering,
Councilmembers Jeannie Bruins, Steve Miller and Jeff Slowey also contributed a combined total of $3,000 to the “Yes” campaign, and Councilwoman Porsche Middleton provided about $355 in nonmonetary contributions, the disclosure shows.
The only two donors listed for the “No on M” campaign are Sacramento Taxpayers Association President Bruce Lee, who gave $200, and Tim Schaefer, a City Council candidate for District 3 who provided a loan of $578 to the campaign. Miscellaneous small-dollar donation totals are also listed, but names are not required to be reported when under $100.
Opponents of Measure M quickly jumped on the campaign disclosures and described the race as a “David versus Goliath” fight. Opposition leader Bruce Lee said his campaign was “funded by small donations and hundreds of hours of volunteer service,” while proponents pointed to their large fundraising totals as a sign of strong support from the community.
In a statement to The Sentinel, Lee accused the “Yes on M” campaign of being “funded primarily by business interests outside Citrus Heights with city connections working the political ‘pay to play’ system with the city.” He described key funders as being “a casino that depends on happy relations with the city to operate; and political insiders – such as three council members.”
Stones Gambling Hall issued a statement in response to an inquiry from The Sentinel about the reason for its parent company’s donation, saying: “Throughout our history as a Citrus Heights business, we have always supported initiatives that are for the betterment of the community we serve, our support of Measure M is consistent with that objective.”
MCE corporation, which lists a Concord address, currently has a $150,000 annual contract with the city for sign maintenance, Dokken Engineering and Fehr & Peers have both contracted with the city in recent years, and Biondi was a recent bidder for a paving contract.
The Yes on Measure M campaign committee issued a brief statement regarding its contributions, calling the level of support “very encouraging” and stating that contributions “have been made by local community members, local businesses and organizations that genuinely care about Citrus Heights.”
Out-of-town involvement on both sides has come up as an issue during the campaign, with Lee being prevented from speaking at a Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce forum due to him not being a resident of the city. Lee has responded that the taxpayers association he heads has members in Citrus Heights, whom he represents.
The next financial disclosure statements from both sides are due Oct. 22, with the exception of donations over $1,000 which must be reported individually within 24 hours of receipt.
Campaign expenditures Expenditures are also listed on the disclosure documents, with the “No on M” campaign reporting just $135.46 in miscellaneous small-dollar expenses and the “Yes on M” campaign reporting $12,837.78 in expenditures for advertising and postage-related expenses.
The “Yes on M” campaign has already sent out one mailer, reaching mailboxes over the past week. The City of Citrus Heights also sent out a mailer about Measure M and has posted information about the measure on its website, drawing criticism from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
In a two-page letter to the city dated Oct. 1 obtained by The Sentinel, the association said the city has been making “misleading” claims about the tax measure and accused the city of unlawfully “using public resources to disseminate communications that are not neutral, but are instead argumentative and designed to influence the electorate.”
City Manager Chris Boyd responded to the accusation in a statement to The Sentinel on Saturday:
“As the election approaches, the City provides education to our community about what’s new for Citrus Heights voters, including districting, the local measure, and how to vote safely during the pandemic. We do not engage in advocacy activity.”
Read the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association letter: click here
Want to follow local election news in Citrus Heights? Sign up for The Sentinel’s free e-Edition and you’ll get two emails a week with all local news and zero spam. Click here to sign up.
Randy Pastor stands outside his gas station convenience store at the corner of Old Auburn Road and Sunrise Boulevard. // CH Sentinel
By Randy Pastor– Citrus Heights businesses are in serious trouble right now, and in the foreseeable future.
We, small businesses, struggle daily to keep operating with conditions such as they are, as hundreds in the region have been forced to shut down temporarily or permanently since March. This has left thousands of people without a job and spiking local homelessness.
There has never been a worse time to impose an enormous local sales tax in Citrus Heights, and I am pleading you to oppose Measure M.
Pastor’s Commercial Center, which operates Pastor Auto Care Center and Pastor’s Valero, has been a family run business since 1975. Now in our third generation, we employ 22 people whose families depend upon our business –- many, due to the pandemic, live paycheck to paycheck.
Speaking for myself and my family, it is a crazy idea to impose a new one percent sales tax on Citrus Heights business and residents. Some may think one percent is nothing, but it is HUGE!
The pandemic created a 65 percent drop in our business during those first months, and even now we are still well below what our normal business should be.
I have observed consumer behavior for decades, having operated through the economic downturns following 9/11 and the Great Recession – I see that during times of fiscal stress that cash sales go down, while EBT and credit card sales climb steadily. This is exactly what I see happening now.
And with Measure M designed to last forever and providing no guarantee that it will be spent on anything for which it is promised, this is the worst of all times to punish the residents of Citrus Heights.
Based on the Citrus Heights business owners with whom I interact and have spoken, the overwhelming majority do not want Measure M. That’s because if it passes, our sales tax will be higher than our neighboring cities. Why would a customer shop and do business with us in Citrus Heights when they could easily go to Roseville or Folsom and save money due to lower local sales tax?
Sunrise Marketplace businesses, which make up over 400 businesses along Sunrise Boulevard, did a survey recently and found that a clear majority of business owners who responded are opposed to Measure M.
The sad truth of the matter is that even if things opened back up fully tomorrow, our businesses still have a long road ahead to get our community back to anywhere close to normalcy.
A much publicized report released this month by Yelp determined that around 60% of business closures since March are actually permanent – a staggering statistic.
Citrus Heights may have a problem with their budget that needs to be fixed. But, our local businesses expect the City of Citrus Heights to tighten their own budget and try to look inwards to find solutions, just as we are having to do.
Asking the Citrus Heights taxpayers for more tax money during this COVID-19 crisis is extremely poor timing. Please join with me and oppose Measure M.
Randy Pastor is the owner of Pastor’s Commercial Center in Citrus Heights, located at the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Old Auburn Road.
Want to share your own thoughts on this topic or another local issue? Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here
