League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Contra Costa County, CA November 2, 2010 Election
	Measure T Utility Users Tax City of Pleasant Hill Majority Approval Required Fail: 5237 / 43.98% Yes votes ...... 6672 / 56.02% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure T

Arguments Against Measure T

Vote YES on Measure T to protect rapid emergency response times, neighborhood police patrols, road repair and other vital services that make Pleasant Hill a safe and desirable place to live. Just this year, the State of California took more than $2 million from the City of Pleasant Hill, and more takeaways are expected. As a result, services have been cut and 19 staff positions (including police) remain unfilled. Measure T will provide stable funding that cannot be taken away by Sacramento. These locally-controlled funds will be used to prevent further cuts to the most important services that protect our safety and quality of life, including: Maintaining emergency response times Preserving neighborhood police patrols Repairing roads and fixing potholes Maintaining storm drains and sewers Protecting library hours and services Keeping our city clean and free of graffiti Maintaining youth and teen crime prevention programs Every single penny from this measure will stay right here in Pleasant Hill. No funds will go to the State or other communities. Exemptions are available to ensure this measure is not a burden to low-income seniors and other residents. Measure T requires mandatory financial audits and reports to the public to ensure the funds are spent as promised. No changes can be made to the measure without approval from Pleasant Hill voters. Most of us moved to Pleasant Hill because it is a safe community with good schools and an outstanding quality of life. Measure T will help ensure that the ongoing budget crisis and mismanagement in Sacramento does not take a toll on our local neighborhoods. Measure T will protect our property values. Please join Pleasant Hill's Police Chief, Mayor, City Council members, school and community leaders and seniors in voting Yes on T. Karen Mitchoff, Mayor, City of Pleasant Hill Tim Flaherty, Chair, Pleasant Hill Civic Action Commission Peter Dunbar, Pleasant Hill Chief of Police Ted Winslow, Pleasant Hill Resident Liz Kim, Elementary School Principal Rebuttal to Arguments For Who doesn't want a safe, clean community, and a desirable place to live and work? We all do. Fiscal responsibility is essential to achieve these goals. Measure T is not the answer. Another permanent tax + hidden from view, buried within utility bills + is a knee-jerk, copycat reaction to economic conditions. The city should instead be pursuing long-term solvency by reducing overhead costs. Currently: Employees pay NOTHING towards retirement benefits; Employees pay only $55 monthly toward group health premiums; The top five employees - about 4% of the workforce - receive collectively about $1 million in compensation (not including benefits), or 10% of total payroll. The city should conserve before asking for more of our hard-earned money. A NO vote on Measure T will: Help keep businesses in Pleasant Hill; Hold city leaders accountable to streamline government and enact reasonable employee cost-sharing for pensions and benefits; Protect property values and quality of life over the long term. This tax poses a hardship for many, if not most, seniors, struggling families and small businesses already overburdened by taxes. The city must cut costs, just as families and businesses do when faced with limited financial resources. A NO VOTE WILL FINALLY HOLD CITY LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING THE OVERDUE SPENDING CUTS NECESSARY FOR THE LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH OF PLEASANT HILL. Don't be fooled by the misleading propaganda in favor of Measure T. Vote NO to ensure the economic vitality of our city for many years to come. Pleasant Hill Taxpayers Association, Mauna Wagner, Vice-President Keith Hunt, Former Pleasant Hill Police Officer and City Code Investigator Jessica A. Braverman, Pleasant Hill Local Business Owner Daniel J. Leer, Tax Attorney Norman Vanhole, Former Pleasant Hill Planning Commissioner

The city council's decision to propose this measure is irresponsible. It's not necessary, and it's not affordable. We're eating into our meager reserves, yet the city has taken only token action to reduce costs. Eliminating vacant positions saves no money, and only a few part-time employees were laid off. City employees, including 34 who earn over $90K, pay nothing into their pension plans, a luxury long ago abandoned in the private sector. Requiring a reasonable contribution would significantly reduce our deficit, now and in the future. Even other public agencies are moving in that direction. The city's payroll list reveals that employees make substantially more than taxpayers in comparable private sector jobs. Pleasant Hill is small and stable, yet the two top managers each earn over $200K in salary, or about $290K with benefits. Also, there is no reason why our employees should earn the same as their counterparts in much larger cities in our region. The city spent tens of thousands of dollars to hire outside attorneys and consultants for work that our staff should be able to perform. Also, we have full-time employees performing non-essential work that should be eliminated, or farmed out to qualified local contractors. Do we really need employees mowing and watering the weed patches in our medians? Homeowners, renters and businesses, cannot afford any increase in taxes. They already struggle to pay higher state income taxes, bridge tolls, school district bonds, utility and water bills, and so on. This measure would permanently raise the UUT by ten times the current tax, hardly a "modest" increase. Our families and businesses are forced to live within their means during these tough times. Our city government and employees should shoulder their share of that burden, and not pass the buck to taxpayers. Pleasant Hill Taxpayer Association, Jack Weir, President Charles Escover, Former Mayor of Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth, Mary M. Eisenhour, Vice-President Kevin Gregory, Resident of Pleasant Hill Alicia Minyen, Certified Public Accountant Rebuttal to Arguments Against REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE T Measure T asks Pleasant Hill voters a simple question: Do we want to continue to live in a city with rapid emergency response, safe neighborhoods, good roads and quality services? Here are the facts: Pleasant Hill only receives six cents from every dollar collected in property taxes + half the average for other cities Sacramento has taken over $2 million in funding from Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill's funding sources have decreased and continue to decline The city council has made deep cuts, including reducing the number of city positions by 20%, and continues to look for other ways to reduce expenses Over 50% of Pleasant Hill's budget goes to police protection to keep our community safe. We cannot continue to absorb deep cuts without a decline in the services that keep us safe and maintain our quality of life. Pleasant Hill currently has the lowest utility users tax in the Bay Area at 1%. If approved, Measure T would increase the rate to 1.5% and it would still be the second lowest in the Bay Area. The locally-controlled funding from Measure T will be used to avoid cuts to vital services like rapid emergency response, neighborhood police patrols, library hours, and road repair. No funds from Measure T can be taken away by Sacramento. Every single penny will stay right here in Pleasant Hill for local services we count on. Mandatory annual financial audits will ensure the funds are spent as promised. Please vote Yes on T to keep Pleasant Hill safe and secure and to preserve our community. Carol Somerton, Librarian Shirley Huyck, Community Volunteer Mark Celio, City Treasurer Ron Dallimonti, Local Business Owner Dennis Donaghu, Retiree/Community Volunteer