The results are in and Measure U failed in San Carlos by a little more than 600 votes. The city council will now be faced with the unenviable taskof making even deeper cuts into city services and costs. Privately, some of the Measure U supporters will tell you that the vote was much closer than they had anticipated. Passing any type of tax increase, no matter what the overall benefit may be, is always a tough proposition, especially in a difficult economy. As has been the case recently in San Carlos, tax measures have failed the first time through, but tend to be successful on the second or third attempt. This was the case with Measure S and the parcel tax. I would not be surprised to see the sales tax hike back on a the ballot in the very near future.
As for city council, San Carlos has returned Bob Grassilli and Matt Grocott to the city council along with newcomer, Andy Klein.
8 Comments
If the whole point of this was just to “set up a second or third attempt” at more taxes, then we can be sure that services will not be cut, and in fact only expanded to see the “crisis” be made even more dire. This, of course, runs completely contrary to the sound beating Measure U took — despite outspending the competition more than 5-1.
According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, Mayor Grassilli’s next steps are ‘figuring out why it failed and the effect on the city’s finances.’ Mr. Mayor, I’ll save you the trouble and tell you why it failed: your constituents believe that San Carlos has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I hope you got the message.
And is anyone else a bit concerned that our Council didn’t even consider the possibility that the Measure might fail and have a plan accordingly? He’s only now going to look at the effect on city finances?
Bob, I agree with you that the Council will seek additional taxes. I also think that it misses the point of what this vote was. The sales tax has risen from 5% to 6% to 6.25% to 7.25% to 7.75% to 8.75% to 9.25% — but apparently it is never enough. Those of us who voted this down sent a clear message. Hopefully it will be heard.
Hey everybody,
Call Matt Grocott if you need anything. Antonia we’ll call you too. You guys said you’d volunteer when services get cut. Get ready. Do you know CPR? Can you clear a sewer line? Do you have a set of tools? How about a hose to put out fires? Go get one. After all, The sales tax is still 9.25%!
Extreme cuts will happen. And folks will not be happy. They are not idle threats. Talk all you want. It’s action time. Trust me, the council got the message, and they will now implement the voters will. Be careful what you wish for. Because your wish is about to come true. Congratulations.
If the City Council wishes to be punitive to the voters for rejecting their sales tax plan, then so be it — that is their choice. But no one’s house is going to burn because this Measure was defeated.
The silliest thing about this is that the City could have taken action earlier. Mark Weiss identified $800K in cuts in non-essential services back in May. (This was at that ‘town hall’ meeting where no one was allowed to speak.) But he didn’t make those cuts then because he wanted to ‘let the voters decide.’ OK, well, we decided. But if had made those choices back then then we’d be at least $400K ahead of the game now.
Laura, please stop with the scare tactics. I’d like to see somebody’s house burn down “because the city council cut fire services.” Then there’d be some REAL outrage about management salaries, dontcha think?
And somebody pointed out on another blog that we already pay a sewer assessment. So, please explain why my sewer will back up and I’ll need to clear it myself (seriously – I don’t understand).
I started off sort of in favor of U. But all the comments I read turned me from a yea to a nay. Sorry.
Scare tactics? Really? The no voters are getting their way. City employees will get cut, salaries and benfits packages have to be renegotiated (by law) and that will take time. And as we tried to make clear in the campaign, services will get cut as well. So this isn’t “tactics”. This is reality. The council will now have to carry out what the voters supported. I’m sorry you think this is ALL about salaries; that’s what Grocott and his team focused on. And while it’s a valid issue, it’s not the only issue. Those who are involved in this community get that. I have volunteered and raised money for San Carlos for years. I will now have to do more of that. But make no mistake, having to cut services was explained and but the majority voted no anyway.
I read on another comment on this site, that the San Carlos Parks and Rec commissioner makes 173K per year. Like other govt employees, I assume this includes pretty nice benefits as well.
Without knowing that person, does this seem reasonable? Seriously, what does the job entail? What are the requirements? Are there a lot a high pressure days as Parks and Rec commissioner of a 30K person city?
I am happy that measure U was defeated.
Hi CPABOY,
I think if you researched the salaries of park and rec directors for most other towns of similar size, you would see similar salaries. I spent 3 years on the park and rec commission in San Carlos and I can tell you that the director’s job is more involved that it may seem on the surface. Additionally, knowing our former director quite well….I’m pretty sure he aged about 20 years over the 7 years that the synthetic turf issue was being bounced around San Carlos.
Bob
Laura
I voted in favor of U but even so I understand the arguments made by the opponents to U as to the salary and bonus issue. I think it would have gone a long way if council members had presented a united front from the beginning and made a collective promise to either return the bonuses they most recently collected or to immediately enter contract re-negotiations in order to expedite a pay cut. I understand things don’t move as quickly outside the private sector, but those of us in it are all too acutely aware that survival of jobs and businesses requires swift, immediate and sometimes painful action. I do not for one minute believe that compensation cuts for the council would have solved the entire problem but what it may have done was sway enough of those opposed to the measure to come around and commit themselves to doing their part.