City defends Measure G information

BY ERIC LINDBERG
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

City officials are denying allegations that they improperly used public funds to support Measure G, a ballot measure that will update the city’s utility users tax.
A group known as the Committee Against Measure G based in Santa Barbara sent a complaint to state officials yesterday alleging the city broke elections law by printing and sending out fliers and brochures discussing the measure.

City Attorney Steve Wiley dismissed the claims, pointing to a government code section allowing municipalities to disseminate information regarding the potential impact of the ballot measure on the city’s operations as long as it remains accurate and impartial.
“We’re pretty careful to stick pretty closely to that,” Wiley said. “…I know there isn’t anything wrong with it. It’s just informational material.”
The documents in question include several fliers included in city water bills, a notice published in the city’s Parks and Recreation activity guide, and a brochure distributed by the city.
Jan Evans, former president of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association who signed the argument against Measure G, said state law is clear when it comes to the use of public funds for promoting ballot items.
“The city, in my estimation, has stepped over the line,” she said. “…When this material is sent inside of bills — water bills — that the city bills for and sends out, it’s highly questionable as to whether that is appropriate.”
In a letter to the enforcement division of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the group argues that the documents represent a “systematic attempt” by the city to get Measure G passed.
In particular, the letter cites similarities between the mailers and ballot arguments made by those supporting the measure.
“With respect to style, materials prepared by the city are virtually indistinguishable from standard campaign materials used to pass ballot measures,” the letter states. “Indeed, the wording of some of the city of Santa Barbara’s materials is almost identical to the wording in the ballot argument rebuttal on behalf of Measure G.”
That wording includes the fact that funds raised by the city’s current utility users tax support city services such as police, fire, emergency communications, parks, recreation, library services, and streets and pothole repairs.
“It specifies how the money will be used,” Evans said. “It is promoting their own argument as to why voters should approve Measure G.”
However, government code section regulating improper expenditures states that it “does not prohibit the expenditure of local agency funds to provide information to the public about the possible effects of a ballot measure on the activities, operations, or policies of the local agency…”
That holds true only if the information presented is “an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation of relevant facts” that will aid voters in reaching an informed judgment on the ballot measure, according to the statute.
Mayor Marty Blum said the city did just that, explaining how the utility users tax is used and why it is being updated.
“It’s a normal thing that governments do, to put information out there,” she said. “I don’t think there is anything in there that supports the argument either way.”
Wiley also pointed out that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not involved in that particular area of elections law, but instead handles primarily conflicts of interest and campaign financing violations.
“I’m sure they’ll respond and say it’s not in their jurisdiction,” he said.
The city’s utility users tax is levied on six utilities and brings in approximately $13 million each year. The section being updated by Measure G relates specifically to telecommunications utilities, including phone and cable service.
That section alone brings in $5.3 million annually, City Finance Director Bob Peirson said. Due to changes in federal legislation, the portion of the tax involving telephone or voice services — which pencils out to approximately $4 million a year — is facing potential legal challenges, he said, explaining that other cities have been sued over their outdated utility users taxes.
“While that litigation is still pending and not resolved, more and more cities are feeling like rather than await the outcome … to instead be proactive, to go ask the voters to approve an updated telecommunications ordinance,” he said.
Peirson said in addition to bring its ordinance into compliance, the city decided to include new technologies not covered by the decades-old tax under its umbrella in order to level the playing field for telecommunications companies.
Evans criticized that component of the tax measure, arguing that it represents an attempt by the city to increase taxes.
“They want to tax cell phones, they want to tax text messaging — in other words, they are going after all the new communication technology and trying to pull everything under the former phone utility tax,” she said. “…It gets very complicated and what I see is just another layer of bureaucracy going after a minimal amount of money.”
Peirson disputed the argument that the measure would implement a new tax on cell phones, suggesting residents check their phone bills to confirm that cell phones are already being taxed.
In addition, he has noted the city is dropping the taxation rate from 6 percent to 5.75 percent in order to bring in new technologies and yet remain revenue-neutral — that is, the city should not bring in more money should Measure G pass.