Meeting Time: December 19, 2023 at 6:00pm PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

17. 23-0555 Consideration of a Resolution in Support of the Storm Drain Measure (City Manager Moe). (Estimated Time: 20 Mins.) DISCUSS AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION

  • Default_avatar
    Gary Osterhout 9 months ago

    That you put the measure before the voters already implies support and defies claims of neutrality. Instead of honesty and history, I got neither. The 1996 formation was totally council-driven, never endorsed by the voters. The 1996 measure was for "projects" only, not the annual activity costs, nor claimed to cover 100% of costs. You hide the history of our street sweeping costs, once free, then deemed unconstitutional when a fee was imposed. You ignore issues of indirect costs coverage. The rollout ignored Measure W. You quibble about tax v. fee when the ballot language is almost exact to Measure W. None of you would support a UUT, but the incidence is the same. You use the same "pothole" fear language of the Public Safety TOT measure. You claim it "pains" you to ask for a new levy, and storm water is imperiled, but you know neither is true. No unrelated project has gone unfunded to ensure adequate storm drain funds. This is a pure general fund/staff salary cash grab.