PD Editorial: Finding the right fix for Measure O

The Santa Rosa City Council is finally rolling up its sleeves to fix a broken pipe in its complex financial system - a leak that’s been an annoyance for more than 10 years.

The infrastructure flaw concerns Measure O, the quarter-cent sales tax approved by Santa Rosa voters in 2004 to bolster funding for police and fire services as well as gang prevention programs. Given growing concerns about gang violence at the time, the measure passed with 70 percent of the vote.

But soon after, the economy went in the tank, exposing a problem with the wording of the measure that continues to vex Santa Rosa’s budget to this day.

As a protection against city officials cutting public safety budgets and backfilling with Measure O funds, the ballot proposition specified that police and fire budgets could not go below 2004 levels. It also had a built-in guarantee that those levels would increase with inflation each year. The only bypass was a vote of six of seven council members.

But when city revenues plummeted with the recession in 2008, the wording became a mandatory funding mechanism that largely protected public safety while all other departments suffered cuts.

Most years, the City Council wisely overrode the Measure O mandate to prevent a fully lop-sided situation. But that changed last year when the c ouncil voted to add an additional $1.4 million to the Police Department budget not because it was needed but because it was required by Measure O. That was general fund money that could have been used in other areas, such as park maintenance.

The City Council had an opportunity to fix this problem in 2012 when the city went to voters for routine changes in the city charter. But for reasons that still defy explanation, it failed to do so.

But now the city has an administration and a City Council majority in place that is not only willing to acknowledge that a problem exists but is proposing a fix.

A financial policy subcommittee, made up of Mayor John Sawyer and City Councilmen Chris Coursey and Gary Wysocky, has recommended that Measure O funding be tied to a percentage of the city’s general fund budget as opposed to a precise amount. This solution has promise, although the challenge will be in agreeing on what year should be the baseline. The City Council is slated to discuss it tonight.

The subcommittee is proposing that the baseline be set at 2015-16 levels, which means public safety, going forward, would receive no less than 58 percent of the general fund, not including the roughly $8 million a year from Measure O funds. City officials are calling it a “fair and equitable” solution, one that would have to receive voter approval before it could take effect. When considering original voter intent, a more equitable baseline might be to use 2004-05 levels or, as is one option considered by the subcommittee, a baseline that is equal to a three-year average of budget years 2004-05, 2015-16 and one other year in between. But in either case, the city appears on the right track in plugging this nagging leak, one that promises to only get worse with time. At least, for once, it appears to have the tools in place. Let’s get it done.