dev.citrusheightssentinel.com

Tag: Measure M

  • Guest Opinion: 7 myths about Measure M

    Guest Opinion: 7 myths about Measure M

    By Bret Daniels–
    As a citizen of Citrus Heights for many years and serving on the City Council for ten years, I am very familiar with the inner workings of City Hall and how things are done. In this position, I have become very knowledgeable about the current and future financial status of the city, as well as Measure M – a full percent increase in the sales tax for the city to 8.75% – greater than all of our neighbors and equal to Sacramento City.

    This increase would greatly harm the residents and business community of Citrus Heights. I urge you to vote NO on M.

    A sales tax is the most regressive and hurtful tax to our residents, and it makes no sense to increase the tax burden upon residents during our current economic crisis and pandemic when thousands are out of work. Plus, this tax has no expiration date.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    And, since the proponents of this measure use a lot of flawed reasoning in the attempt to justify this flawed tax, let me expose seven of these myths!

    MYTH #1: Citrus Heights is in desperate need of money.

    FACT: Incorrect. 1.) In two years, the city will receive an estimated $6,000,000 of new funds annually from Sacramento County property taxes. It has a two-year problem but is proposing an immediate “forever tax.”

    2.) The city has a spending problem. For example, according to salary information posted on publicpay.ca.gov, there are city staff in Citrus Heights who are already paid more than the Governor!

    MYTH #2: Measure M is unique in providing local control that cannot be seized by other governments.

    FACT: The city always has complete control over all general fund tax revenues it receives – property tax, sales tax, etc. None of its general fund resources can be arbitrarily seized. The city is saying give us more money and we can stay in control. Whereas, they are already in control. They just want more money to do the things they want to do.

    MYTH #3: Citrus Heights has a long history of fiscal prudence.

    FACT: Citrus Heights HAD a long history of fiscal prudence. Until a few years ago the city carried $30,000,000 in reserves. Now the city is millions in debt! Overspending, high salaries, new city facilities, and the list goes on!

    MYTH #4: Measure M prevents devastating cuts.

    FACT: Untrue, the city just needs to reprioritize its spending, just as we do and any family does. Residents are not a bottomless pit of money. Plus, the city will receive millions in new property tax revenues in two years. They need fiscal prudence like they had a few years ago!

    MYTH #5: The tax money will go to pay for police services, homelessness, roads, etc.

    FACT: The promised list of “feel-good” spending is useless unless there are guarantees. There are no guarantees and politicians break promises. Read the measure. All funds go into the general fund and are “available for any lawful municipal purpose.” Funds can be used for salary increases, pensions, or whatever! If the city wanted all of the tax money to go to particular purposes, why didn’t they design the tax that way?

    MYTH #6: Measure M will have citizen oversight.

    FACT: Citizen oversight is after the fact, has no authority, and is a joke. The oversight committee is appointed by the City Council, almost certainly to their political insider friends. The measure says the tax revenues can be spent on any lawful purpose, which means it can be spent on anything! An annual report after the fact is mere window dressing.

    Another view: Guest Opinion: Why I’m supporting Measure M

    MYTH #7: The tax was developed with over a year of civic input.

    FACT: The city spent a year asking a limited sample of people what they would like without discussing costs! A wish list. Want doughnuts for breakfast? Sure! How about other feel-good causes? Sure!

    The reality is the city rammed through this tax at literally the last legal moment with extremely short notice and limited debate. And, the tax has no direct tie or guarantee to any of the proposed feel-good causes… such as homelessness, police services, and the like.

    Let me implore you to vote NO on Measure M. Don’t let the city fool you into burdening yourselves and your neighbors during a national pandemic and economic crisis.

    Bret Daniels currently serves on the Citrus Heights City Council and is a candidate for the District 1 council seat this year.

    The Sentinel welcomes guest columns and letters about local issues. To submit one for publication: Click here

  • Guest Opinion: A pandemic is the worst time imaginable for Citrus Heights to raise taxes

    Guest Opinion: A pandemic is the worst time imaginable for Citrus Heights to raise taxes

    By Jim Monteton–
    In the November election, Citrus Heights residents will be tasked with voting on Measure M, a proposed sales tax increase that, if passed, will take in millions of dollars every single year with no roadmap for where the money will be spent.

    In the midst of a global pandemic with residents and businesses struggling to figure out how to make it, this is the worst time imaginable for the City of Citrus Heights to increase your taxes.

    As a veteran and member of the American Legion Post here in Citrus Heights, I have seen how veterans who are living on fixed incomes struggle to make ends meet. Having served years in the United States Army Intelligence, I was proud to sacrifice for my country and am blessed to live in Citrus Heights, but the mismanagement of city resources is a burden upon myself and all of my veteran brothers and sisters.

    Politicians are constantly making false promises of where taxes will be spent. They raised our gas tax and promised to fix our roads. They raised income taxes and promised to deal with mental health and homelessness. They collected millions of dollars, but the problems got worse because the money gets moved around. We should not give politicians even more of our tax dollars unless they guarantee where the money will be spent.

    Guest Opinion: Why I’m supporting Measure M

    Unfortunately, with the way Measure M was written, there is absolutely zero guarantee that the money will be spent on the programs they claim. Citrus Heights could have made this a specific tax to ensure the funds would go to public safety and police, street repairs, and homeless programs. But they didn’t. They made it so they could just as easily spend it on pensions, and you have to ask yourself why.

    Citrus Heights needs to be encouraging businesses to operate here, instead of choosing to operate in one of our neighboring jurisdictions. Measure M would bring our sales tax higher than Folsom and Roseville, and in line with the City of Sacramento.

    Right now, business owners across the country are taking a long hard look at their business operations to figure out what makes the most sense for them. We simply cannot afford to lose our local businesses to our neighboring cities.

    We are at a pivotal moment regarding the future of Sunrise Mall. There is a huge revitalization effort being made, and Measure M will kill all of our progress. In a recent survey of hundreds businesses that operate in the Sunrise Marketplace, a large majority of those who responded voted to oppose.

    No one knows when the COVID-19 shutdowns will end, but we do know that people are struggling every day. Businesses cannot open and their employees are laid off — and many cannot even get unemployment benefits. But bills are still coming, and deferred rent payments are adding up and will eventually have to be paid.

    The bottom line for our city is: stop spending and start managing. We need our leaders to work on getting people back to work and earning a living, not piling on new taxes. I urge you to vote NO on Measure M.

    Jim Monteton is a longtime resident of Citrus Heights, a veteran and an active member in the local American Legion Post 637.

    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

  • LETTERS: Measure M is ‘penny wise and dollar strong’

    LETTERS: Measure M is ‘penny wise and dollar strong’

    By Tolya L. Thompson–
    As a small business owner, I support Measure M on this November’s ballot. I have been in business in Citrus Heights for 16 years, and I know the value of economic growth and opportunity for our community. Voting YES on Measure M will allow the City of Citrus Heights to maintain the essential city services we all count on and support local economic development.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted our personal lives and our small businesses, resulting in a devastating economic emergency greater than any we have seen in our lifetimes. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our community. They provide good-paying jobs and sales tax revenue that support public infrastructure and core municipal services.

    Every business and resident in Citrus Heights will benefit from Measure M and the improved services and infrastructure it will fund.

    Locally-controlled funds are more important than ever. Without local funds on the table, our city is not eligible to compete for most federal and state matching funds needed for road repair and other infrastructure improvements.

    I have poured everything I have into my business and this community. As a resident and business owner, my support of Measure M is not lightly given. I will stay engaged with the city to ensure that that the new revenue is spent in the manner proposed and serves the community as a whole by keeping our tax dollars local.

    If you support our small business community and want to see us make it through this economic crisis, please vote YES on Measure M.

    MORE LETTERS:

    Measure M is important
    Measure M is very important. I will lose my place to live being on Social Security, I know people working who can’t afford it.
    We need this. Even the Bay Area has it. The next thing you’re going to find is everyone moving out of state.
    -Carol Toffey, Citrus Heights

    Measure M will help preserve our quality of life
    The City of Citrus Heights rightfully prides itself on prudent fiscal management and its ability to deliver quality public services that the community relies on. Locally-controlled funding is critical to maintain these services – especially during these uncertain times.

    Measure M on this November’s ballot will help preserve Citrus Height’s quality of life, prevent property crimes, and maintain our roads. Every penny of will stay in Citrus Heights and will be used for essential city services and programs.

    It will provide additional funding for law enforcement personnel to reduce property crimes and keep neighborhoods safe, ensuring that Citrus Heights remains a desirable place to live, work and raise a family.

    The city will be able to expand services for our seniors who use the community center and our youth who receive meals, educational support and participate in summer programs at the Sayonara Center.

    Measure M will be a critical source of local funding that will be protected by ironclad taxpayer safeguards, including an independent citizens’ oversight committee and annual audits which will ensure that our tax dollars are appropriately spent to improve our city
    -Erika Smith, Citrus Heights

    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

  • Guest Opinion: A revealing week regarding business & Measure M

    By Bruce Lee–
    The week of Aug. 31 was a revealing week on how business feels about Measure M – the one percent sales tax proposed by the City of Citrus Heights on the November 2020 ballot! The new tax can legally be used for any purpose and has no end date … so it’s in essence a forever tax!

    The biggest news is that Kathilynn Carpenter, executive director of the Sunrise Marketplace, did a surprise survey of 310 of its members regarding the new proposed tax. According to her summary email that was sent to several council members and Chamber members:

    “(A)lthough we generally steer clear of campaigns …. we thought it would be interesting to see if our businesses had an opinion regarding the proposed (tax) increase. Please note, we did not send out any opposition information, just the City Council’s presentation.”

    She received a very respectable reply rate of over 16 percent, compared with the city’s survey of residents which only received responses from less than half-a-percent of the city’s 89,000 residents — when the city announced how much everyone would love this new tax increase.

    Of the Sunrise MarketPlace survey, a huge 54% opposed the new tax with scathing comments attached, compared to 36% in favor with lukewarm comments, such as, “1% won’t kill us. Being out of work as a hairstylist is what is killing me.” Or, “If it’s to help the schools, I’m for it, but I don’t want the taxes raised.” (Note – Measure M does not support the schools.)

    The 54% opposing wrote much harsher and four to five times more comments: “In a struggling climate it just adds insults to injury. The backers should be ashamed to put this out at this time!” Or, “We don’t need any other reasons (for) our customers to go to Folsom or Roseville for their shopping needs.” Or, “The request to increase sales tax a whole 1% in this areas is outrageous, especially during this unprecedented times. This is going to hurt people ….” Other comments were more colorful. And, that’s without any opposition material.

    And, with this tone of outrage, nobody should be surprised that local Citrus Heights businesses signed the petitions to oppose Measure M by the dozens last week, and the types of businesses covered all segments. A small sampling includes Chase Cleaners, Easter’s Catholic Books, Van Maren Barber, Rosa’s Restaurant, Grocery Outlet, Citrus Heights Smog and Wash, City Market, IB Tan, Alonzo’s Pizza Depot, Pastor Auto Care, Healthy Beauty, Mizuki Sushi, and the list goes on!

    So, I think we are getting a good idea that local business is not very happy with the idea of raising the sales tax for any reason … especially if there is no guaranteed purpose for the tax and it lasts forever – particularly during a pandemic and business is struggling to survive!

    But, the local Chamber of Commerce missed the point. After the MarketPlace poll was released, the Chamber voted to favor Measure M. You see, the Chamber apparently never bothered to ask its own members how they felt about this tax increase before voting. Plus, the Chamber forum, billed as fair hearing of all points of view, was tainted. Oh, and by the way, the City gives thousands of dollars to the Chamber annually.

    Ten days prior to debate the Chamber announced the place, date, format, and who of the opposition would be allowed to speak (nonresidents could not participate). The coalition of opposition (including the Sacramento Taxpayers Association; Ted Gaines, Board of Equalization; County Supervisor Sue Frost; social welfare groups; Councilmember Bret Daniels; Planning Commissioner Tim Schaefer; and others) asked to discuss the format, the date, and who our opposition speakers would be? The Chamber replied, “No changes allowed.”

    It was not the desire or intent of the opposition to boycott the debate; we just couldn’t manage the Chamber’s arbitrary guidelines. Bret Daniels was working that evening, and I (a nonresident) was not allowed to speak, even though the City and County Registrar of Voters accepted me as an approved signer on the ballot arguments.

    As planned, I arrived at the Chamber forum about 6 p.m. to drop off a written opposition statement (since I could not speak) before the 6:30 p.m. forum was to begin on August 31. Tim Schaefer accompanied me.

    I was clearly advised by Diane Riehle (interim executive director for the Chamber and wife of Ray Riehle, debate organizer) that I was not welcome and should leave. In addition, they told Tim Schaefer that he could not speak on behalf of the opposition, since he had not notified Mr. Riehle at least six hours in advance.

    So, with two of the three opposition chairs literally empty, Tim and I left. The third opposition chair had been filled by Mr. Riehle when he allowed Mr. David Warren to speak against Measure M. I’m sure Mr. Warren did a good job, but as he said, he was speaking just for himself and not for the organized opposition.

    The whole thing seemed odd and unnecessarily arbitrary … particularly to tell the opposition who their speakers could or could not be.

    Then, guess what was discovered two days later? The Treasurer for the “Yes on M” political action committee (PAC) is Diane Riehle, the Executive Director for the Chamber and wife of Ray, the moderator. And, she filed the PAC organizing statement on August 10 … three days before the City Council even gave final approval to this crazy tax on August 13. I will let you read the “tea leaves” on that one!

    Bruce Lee is president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, and a spokesman for the No on Measure M campaign.

    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

  • Guest Opinion: Why I’m supporting Measure M

    Guest Opinion: Why I’m supporting Measure M

    By Bill Van Duker–
    For more than a year, the senior city officials have studied the issue of revenue needs for the Citrus Heights going forward in the 21st Century. They recognized the need to do something about our streets, the need to continue to build and enhance the finest law enforcement organization in the region, and the responsibility to address in a new way the issue of homelessness in our community.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    Further, they saw the need for the City to have the resources to invest in attracting businesses and restoring the viability of Sunrise Mall and build an economic base that would make us, once again, a commercial hub for the region.

    They asked us, the citizens of the Citrus Heights, if we would support a measure that would give the City these resources. The answer was a resounding “yes”.

    But there are those who oppose this measure. They have been early and loud in their opposition.

    They say that politicians can’t be trusted. I would point out that the four Council Members who voted to put this measure on the ballot have collectively served you and me for an aggregate of 50 years total.

    They have shown that they can be trusted to do the right thing. Have all their decisions been perfect? Of course not. I haven’t risen to the level of perfection either.

    But they have done the right thing for our city. And Measure M is the right thing.

    Guest Opinion: a new ‘forever tax’ isn’t the answer for Citrus Heights

    The opponents say that Measure M will drive people to the Galleria. Perhaps the opponents haven’t noticed that the shoppers have already left. Measure M will help bring them back through the renewal of Sunrise Mall and the establishment of other centers of interest and activities in the community.

    The opponents say that politicians have broken promises elsewhere. They are forced to go “elsewhere” for the examples, because our City Council has kept its word throughout the city’s history.

    Let’s look at the seven official opponents to Measure M for a moment. Three of the seven don’t even live in Citrus Heights, and, I believe, one doesn’t even live in Sacramento County.

    We fought for 12 years clear to the U. S. Supreme Court to get Cityhood on the ballot because those who lived outside Citrus Heights did not want us to become a city. It appears that those who live outside the city don’t want us to thrive.

    I suggest that those three should go home and let us decide our own destiny.

    Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost’s opposition is a puzzle to me. Her political career was born in Citrus Heights, and she was coached and nurtured by fellow council members in her time on the City Council and rose to hold the position of mayor. I am surprised she signed her name to the unfair and incorrect arguments of the opposition.

    The question before us is whether we want our city to thrive, or whether we will allow it to drift down into mediocrity and decline.

    For me, I want our city to thrive. I want to see a vibrant economic center at Sunrise Mall. I want to see a landmark development at Sylvan Corners, the geographical center of our city. I want our streets to be safe and well maintained, and greater safety for all our residents and guests.

    That’s why I am supporting Measure M. I urge you to support it, too.

    Bill Van Duker was an active player in Citrus Heights incorporation efforts and is the owner of All Star Printing.

  • Guest Opinion: Prop 15 is a better solution than Measure M

    Guest Opinion: Prop 15 is a better solution than Measure M

    By David Warren–
    As the city places Measure M to increase the municipal sales and use tax in the amount of 1% on the ballot, The Sentinel has published guest opinions in support and opposition to the proposal.

    It is ironic that if State ballot Proposition 15 is successful, there will be no need for Measure M taxes, something not commented upon by either the supporters or opponents of Measure M.

    Generally speaking, Proposition 13 in 1978 limited real estate property tax assessment increases on residential, commercial and agricultural real property to (1) the result of a sale or (2) 2% per annum. The ballot proposition was sold to the public as a method to prevent seniors and low-income families from being forced to sell their homes and family farms because they could not afford to pay increases in property taxes.

    However, in order to obtain business interest support, commercial property and large agribusiness farms were granted special provisions which has insured that using tax shelter transactions would not result in an increase in property tax assessments.

    Since 1978, the cost of providing municipal services has increased annually at a rate greater than 2% per annum. The need for better trained and more public safety officers, police and fire, is self-evident by examining current events, as is the need to repair and replace roads and the physical structure of municipal buildings and schools.

    The dramatic need for more funding for schools is made only that more obvious as the COVID-19 pandemic has required the implementation of distance learning, either in the form of home schooling or safe spacing on school grounds.

    The un-repaired potholes in our streets is solely the result of the inability of all state, county and municipal governments to receive sufficient funds for maintenance over the past 30-plus years because revenues remained in too many instances based upon 1978 values.

    By way of example, a senior whose residence was appraised at $30,000 in 1978, but which value had appreciated to $600,000 in 2020, is still paying taxes based upon the 1978 assessment limited to 2% per annum increases, although it is fair to assume as the homeowners have aged, their need for fire, ambulance, health and public safety services is greater with no concomitant increase in revenue to the municipality.

    To ensure that seniors remain in their homes, younger individuals subsidizing senior citizens is morally reasonable. When a senior sells his/her home, the purchaser will be assessed, and pay property taxes, based upon the new purchase price.

    In some instances, there is an exception to a new assessment for seniors who then purchase a new residential parcel.

    Attorneys for commercial property purchasers have utilized a tax dodge contained in Proposition 13 to avoid an increase in assessment. As a consequence, commercial property owners have not in the past and continue to this date fail to pay their fair share of taxes to support municipal services, despite their use of police and fire services at current prices.

    It is the middle-class home purchasers who must therefore carry the burden of being called upon to pay a disproportionate share of the costs for municipal services through sales and use taxes, or go without.

    Proposition 15 remedies this disparity by removing the tax loophole for only commercial because it requires a reassessment for property tax purposes of the parcels. Proposition 15 will amend the California Constitution and require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, be taxed based upon market value.

    Residential properties will continue to be assessed and taxed based upon the purchase price. This is known as split tax assessment roll.

    Driving down almost any street in Citrus Heights is an unpleasant experience because of the deteriorated streets. Repairs based upon SB 1 gas and registration fee taxes have had to be delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic which has resulted in a dramatic drop in fuel consumption.

    Related Article: Plan to repave Madison Ave delayed due to revenue shortfall in COVID-19 economy

    One street repair in Citrus Heights was estimated to cost more than $1 million dollars for less than a mile. Municipal repairs beyond street repairs have had to be deferred due to a lack of funds. The city has significant unfilled municipal staff vacancies, including 16 at the police department.

    Instead of the two municipal “power broker” factions arguing over a 1 cent sales tax, it will be better for the supporters and opponents of Measure M to endorse Proposition 15 so that not only the city, but also the San Juan Unified School District and Sacramento County would benefit from a split property tax roll which would base commercial property tax revenues on current values, not 1978, commercial property values.

    As a resident, I want to be assured that the city municipal staff does not have necessary positions vacant because of lack of funding. I want to make sure that the CHPD has no vacant but unfunded positions.

    As a crime victim, intellectually I understand that the excellent individuals who staff the CHPD cannot resolve all crimes due to the lack of staffing compared with the number of crimes reported, even as I emotionally want a resolution of the crime I reported. It is not rocket science to realize that an increase in CHPD staffing will result in an increased number of investigators resolving an increased number of criminal complaints.

    Municipal services are not free, they are only as good as what we are willing to pay. No one purchases a Cadillac if one is only willing to pay the price for a Yugo.

    It is time for all of us to bring our municipal tax base to 21st century values, a superior solution to a 1 cent sales tax increase.

    David Warren

    David Warren is a legislative advocate at the State Capitol with Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, and can be reached at David@forpublicsafety.com. His commentary here is not an endorsement of any ballot proposition or measure by Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety.

    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

  • Measure M sales tax opponents to boycott Citrus Heights Chamber forum

    Measure M sales tax opponents to boycott Citrus Heights Chamber forum

    Sentinel staff report–
    A Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce forum intended to allow both sides of the controversial Measure M sales tax to present their case will likely only have one side present on Monday night after opponents of the proposed tax increase said they are boycotting the event.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    “No on Measure M” spokesman Tim Schaefer, who is also running for a seat on the City Council, said in an email to forum organizer and moderator Ray Riehle that “extreme short notice” and “lack of flexibility” were reasons for the decision to not participate in the forum.

    Riehle said he had given a “heads up” about the forum to Councilman Bret Daniels, a key opponent of the measure, on the evening of August 16. Emails shared with The Sentinel showed a formal invite being sent to the entire City Council on Aug. 19, followed by an email to several opponents of the measure on Aug. 20, with a response from Schaefer on Aug. 25.

    As of Saturday evening, Riehle said no Measure M opponents had confirmed participation in the Aug. 31 forum. Schaefer confirmed Saturday as well that he knew of “nobody from No on Measure M that would appear there.” He also said Councilman Daniels would be out of town for work and unable to attend.

    Emails show Schaefer requested a rescheduling of the forum to mid-September, but that request was denied by Riehle who said delaying would conflict with other Chamber events.

    Riehle said the forum was organized at the request of the Chamber’s board of directors in order to give the board an opportunity to hear from both sides before voting on whether to endorse, oppose, or take a neutral position on the measure. He said in an email to Schaefer that the Aug. 31 date was selected as the best day for the Chamber’s availability and would also be early enough to allow both sides to use the Chamber’s potential endorsement in their campaigns.

    Schaefer said in light of circumstances and “unreasonable” lack of flexibility, the No on M side would be boycotting the event. He also noted concern about whether No on M would “get a fair shake” at the forum.

    Schaefer called the Chamber’s restriction of only allowing residents of Citrus Heights to participate in the forum “unreasonable,” noting that Riehle is not a Citrus Heights resident and the Chamber is made up of local business owners who do not necessarily live in the city.

    The residency restriction prevents Bruce Lee, president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, from representing the No on M side in the forum. Lee has been a vocal opponent of Measure M and his organization reportedly has “strong membership” in Citrus Heights, according to Schaefer.

    Riehle acknowledged not being a resident of Citrus Heights himself, but noted he owns a business in the city and has “been a member of the Chamber for more than 20 years and [is] the current chair of the Government Issues Committee.”

    Election 2020: Who’s running for Citrus Heights City Council?

    Riehle confirmed on Saturday that the forum will take place as scheduled, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 31, at City Hall. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, a cap of 10 people will be in place. Chamber board members will participate via Zoom, followed by a vote from the board on what position to take on the measure.

    Measure M is a proposed one-cent sales tax increase that will appear on the November ballot. If passed by a majority of voters, the measure would raise an estimated $12 million per year and bring the sales tax rate in Citrus Heights to 8.75%, up from the current 7.75%.

    Proponents say the city is in need of additional revenue to maintain local control and fund city services, citing a drop in sales tax revenue and demand from residents in a citywide survey. Opponents say the city has mismanaged funds and can wait until an additional $5-6 million in property tax revenues come to the city in fiscal year 2022-23, following the expiration of a “revenue neutrality” agreement with the county.

    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

  • Guest Opinion: Measure M tax is needed for the future of Citrus Heights

    Guest Opinion: Measure M tax is needed for the future of Citrus Heights

    By Albert J. Fox–
    Reading recent guest articles and social media content regarding the Citrus Heights proposed Measure M has been concerning. It appears some of our residents are not seeing the positive benefits or future growth potential of Measure M.

    Many were residents who were against cityhood, against starting our own Police Department, against building the Community Center and finally the City Hall and the Dignity Health Medical Office Building projects. But we have now seen how these successful endeavors have brought benefits and positive change in the social and economic growth to Citrus Heights.

    I had hoped those issues were behind us. But ironically, life in the Rearview Mirror tends to blur our focus and prohibits a vision for future growth and economic stability.

    Measure M is a tax proposal that completely benefits the City of Citrus Heights. The funding is not shared with, controlled or managed by any outside group or government agency.

    It is one-cent tax paid by residents and non-residents who shop and dine in our city. It is not a regional tax and funds cannot be spent projects outside Citrus Heights.

    This is completely opposite of county-wide sales tax propositions such as Measure A. Those tax dollars went into a fund managed by the Sacramento Transportation Authority and we should in theory have received 50-60 cents of each dollar we paid.

    However, we never received the bulk of the funds due us and are now looking at fiscal year 2025 before we receive full funding. Yet we continue to pay the half-cent sales taxes towards that measure.

    Guest Opinion: a new ‘forever tax’ isn’t the answer for Citrus Heights

    In a newspaper article a taxpayer advocate outlined several regional transportation tax proposals, including a new measure in Sacramento County, that have been removed from the ballot. The key to the argument is these were regional road tax funding proposals. The simple fact is those and prior tax measures failed to provide road repair funding the communities being taxed were promised.

    A former Citrus Heights council member recently wrote that based upon their experience on the council there is no need for the proposed tax measure. What is not said is that those experiences were from a time when the Sunrise Mall and other major big retailers provided significant sales tax income that allowed Citrus Heights to build the savings surplus that carried our city through several years without loans or tax increases. A view from The Rearview Mirror.

    Now is the time for viewing our city through The Windshield. Measure M will generate the funding necessary to build for the future of our community.

    In studies and outreach sessions undertaken by the city, the residents have responded with a wish list of projects, shopping, entertainment and recreational facilities that are important for Citrus Heights families.

    The Sunrise Mall property is just one such multi-use proposal on the list and the city has responded. The future of the Sunrise Mall under new ownership and with significant efforts by our city leadership promises to once again be a focal point of economic, recreational and residential growth and stability for Citrus Heights.

    Measure M tax dollars will provide funding to build the envisioned public venues, help meet the needs for road repair and resurfacing projects in our neighborhoods, provide matching funds required to apply for state and federal grants, and save funds for future projects like an animal shelter or community recreational complex.

    As voters we ask for accountability. The city proposes an Independent Citizen Oversight, mandatory financial audits and transparency for Measure M funding expenditures.

    Measure M is a long-term view for the future of Citrus Heights. Let’s look at our future through the Windshield of possibilities and not the Rearview Mirror presented by some. We need to stay #CITRUS HEIGHTS STRONG!

    Al Fox
    Albert Fox

    Albert Fox is a former member of the Citrus Heights City Council, appointed in 2017 to fill the vacancy left by the late Councilman Mel Turner.

    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

  • Guest Opinion: ‘M’ is for Misleading

    By Jayna Karpinski-Costa–
    When I was in law school at Santa Clara, I recall reading a definition of the terrific Yiddish word “chutzpah:” when someone murders both parents and throws himself or herself on the mercy of the court for being an orphan.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    The City of Citrus Heights has shown such “chutzpah” in offering the voters an opportunity to show mercy on its plight of indebtedness, clearly a result of its own lack of vigilance. They want you to pay more sales tax when you shop in Citrus Heights, like it’s YOUR fault because you want police protection, emergency services or paved streets.

    When I served on the City Council from 2004-2012, the city showed sound financial management. Our former city manager, Henry Tingle, was an incredible and notorious tightwad, prioritizing spending and keeping us not only in the black, but creating a surplus (around $32 million).

    EDITORIAL: Council should re-watch tribute to ‘Tightwad Tingle’ before $12M vote

    The “crossover” point (when expenses exceeded income), steadily moved from somewhere about 2015-16 when I started, towards 2021-22 when I left.

    The city knew this crossover was looming. But after Henry left, so did the reins that tightened spending. Even though our population has remained somewhat stable, the “appropriations limit” (the amount the city can spend from tax revenues) has grown from about $20 million at incorporation to nearly $58 million for FY 20-21.

    Some people blame poor land use decisions and acquisitions, e.g. practically donating the Fountain Square property to Dignity Health for its Medical Office Building, buying Sayonara (still not developed) or Sylvan Corners (a dubious investment). Other people blame the building of the new city hall. But these decisions benefit the community in one way or another – better land use, more future property taxes.

    What gripes my gizzard (a phrase of my former neighbor Naomi) are the high salaries we pay – with no more benefit to the community than a workforce at half the price. I urge you all to go to www.publicpay.ca.gov (data thru 2019) or www.transparentcalifornia.com (data thru 2018).

    In salaries and benefits, our top eight dedicated employees each earn more than Governor Newsom! While the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court only makes $267,000, our city manager in 2019 was given $411,610 in salary and benefits (add 4 exclamation marks)!!!!

    And on the very same day (March 26) that the council formally declared a state of emergency in Citrus Heights due to the coronavirus pandemic, they passed a resolution giving pay raises to some employees. All this while other California cities are laying off employees and/or taking pay cuts!

    Why not set priorities, tighten the belt, trim the fat, think outside the box and amend the current budget. Why not have that “citizens oversight committee” get to work NOW with the current tax revenues.

    Yes, Citrus Heights is a great place to shop and dine, but only if the proposed sales tax increase fails. And Citrus Heights is a great place to work – if you work for the city.

    Jayna Karpinski-Costa
    Jayna Karpinski-Costa

    Jayna Karpinski-Costa is a former Citrus Heights councilwoman and current president of the Sunrise Old Auburn Road neighborhood association.

    The Sentinel welcomes guest columns about local issues of concern to Citrus Heights residents.  Click here to submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication.