Riverside voters to determine fate of longtime revenue stream

Voting will end today on a citywide measure thatRiverside officials say is critical to maintain current levels of service,while opponents argue the city is resorting to scare tactics and exaggerationsto continue collecting what amounts to an an illegal tax.

Measure A seeks to carry on a municipal policy — in effect for morethan a century — in which the city annually transfers 11.5 percent of revenuecollected from water customers into the general fund.

The measure was placed on the June 4 primary election ballot because ofa lawsuit filed by residents Vivian and Javier Moreno, who sued to stop thecity’s practice of mixing utility fund and general fund money because, theyargued, it violated Proposition 218, a statewide measure ratified by voters in1996.

Under 218, any proposed increase in local taxes must be approved by amajority of voters affected by it, and any assessment, or fee, must be leviedwith the intent of covering only those services that it’s implemented to cover.

The Morenos argued the revenue transfers were leading the city to chargean ever-increasing utility user tax — now at 18 percent — without givingratepayers the benefit of deciding whether the upward adjustments werejustified.

In the face of the legal challenge, Riverside officials halted waterfund transfers last July. City attorneys settled the Morenos’ suit last month.

Under the agreement, from which the Morenos — who identify themselvesas civic watchdogs — did not gain a cent, the city agreed to return $10million to the water fund over three years if voters approve Measure A.

If voters don’t agree to Measure A, the payments will be made over 10years because costs will be more difficult to recoup.

Utility customers may realize a few cents’ reduction in their waterbills because of the lawsuit, according to city officials.

The “Yes on Measure A” campaign warns that “essential city services”could be affected and layoffs may ensue if the proposal doesn’t receive amajority of votes, all of which are being cast by mail. Initial electionreturns will be posted after 7 p.m. on the Riverside County Registrar ofVoters’ website.

“We are taking this very seriously,” Riverside Mayor Rusty Baileysaid. “Measure A provides a critical source of revenue … and if that revenueis off the table, the city council will need to be prepared to make somedifficult decisions.”

According to the city manager’s office, water fund transfers last yeartotaled $6.7 million, or 3 percent of discretionary income.

The money supports 79 full-time positions, including 21 police officersand firefighters, city officials said.

The police department would take a direct $1.4 million hit to its budgetif the measure doesn’t pass, according to the city manager’s office.

Up to a dozen firefighters may have to be laid off, while the Departmentof Public Works might be faced with eliminating 30 jobs, according to the city.

Programs and services that might need to be scaled down if the revenuestream ceases:

— Department of Code Enforcement operations;
— City Broadcasting Division — televising council meetings;
— Department of Animal Services, loss of two officers;
— Library Department book acquisitions;
— Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services’ youthswimming programs and annual fireworks shows; and
— citywide graffiti abatement operations.

Measure A opponents accused the city, which has spent around $63,000 onpromotional fliers and literature, of running what amounts to a misinformationcampaign to confuse the issue and frighten voters into supporting the proposal. “They’re lying to ratepayers,” Vivian Moreno told City News Service.”They want to just keep taking and taking. But when does it stop?”

Riverside Citizens Against Measure A wrote that the city is failing tobe candid with voters by not acknowledging that Measure A isn’t simply aboutauthorizing an inter-fund transfer; it’s establishing a tax, as defined underProp 218.

“This should be put to the voters as a tax and not a reauthorization ofa charter amendment,” the opponents stated. “The city also does not keep aseparate accounting of this money, so they cannot prove how it will be spent.The citizens of Riverside are being misled!”

The anti-A campaign noted that the city “claims to have … $460million in cash reserves and investments, (so) why do they need more money fromout water utility bills?”