Thursday 31 December 2020

San Marino Tribune "Letter to the Editor": Measure E is an Unending Tax


 

2021 NO on E for San Marino PERMANENT school parcel tax

I started this blog back in 2008/2009 under the title "No on E" and here we go again.


The March 2nd Special Election for the San Marino Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure E is NOT a simple renewal for a set number of years like the 2015 Measure E renewal was "for six (6) years."  

This Measure E has no end date and continues in perpetuity.  Measure E on the March 2, 2021 ballot will make it in effect permanent unless ended by voters.  That means someone has to qualify a voter initiative to put it on the ballot to end it.   

The attached ballot question you will receive states, in part:

"... shall San Marino Unified School District continue to levy a $968 education parcel tax, with exemptions for seniors, raising approximately $4 million annually, to be assessed in each fiscal year with annual inflation adjustments until ended by voters?

An un-ending school parcel tax with built in annual increases will, in time, result in property owners paying hundreds of dollars more a year than the starting $968.   

The attached March 2015 Measure E ballot statement for renewing Measure E stated clearly it is "for six(6) years."  No parcel tax should become permanent; it is supposed to help SMUSD get through a rough patch with declining enrollment.  SMUSD needs a paradigm shift and learn new methods to work more efficiently and eliminate waste when possible.  A parcel tax is not a blank check that keeps on giving.

With a school parcel tax in perpetuity means there are no future renewals where SMUSD has to explain to the community why the parcel tax is still needed after the last renewal.  An un-ending parcel tax is like giving free drugs to an addict; the addict never has to change his ways to learn to live without drugs.  

Measure E should not pass because only a voter initiative in a future election can end it.  The voter initiative process is complicated and expensive.  Proponents wanting to end Measure E will spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to prepare/submit the initiative to the Attorney General. If approved, hundreds of signatures still have to be collected to qualify the measure for an election.    

 No Transparency:  Campaign to “renew” the parcel tax was announced after deadlines to file Argument Against (Dec 11) and Rebuttal (Dec 21) to supporting statement.  Voters against a tax in perpetuity would likely have filed opposition statements.   

Tax Will Be In Perpetuity:  Current tax renewed for 6 years.  Measure E will be in effect forever without an end date.  SMUSD will never have to explain why tax is still needed. 

Extremely Difficult To Change:  Tax can only be ended by a voter initiative following a very complex process requiring hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to qualify a voter initiative for an election.  If passed, this Measure E school parcel tax will survive all of us and our heirs.

Vote No on Measure E.  Let SMUSD revise Measure E back to a reasonable renewal for a set number of years.

This is NOT a renewal but a parcel tax in perpetuity: VOTE NO on E

The ballot statement presented to voters in the Mail-In Ballot has no end-date for the Measure E parcel tax.  This tax will survive all of us and our heirs.

https://www.scribd.com/document/489515378/San-Marino-Unified-School-District-March-2021-Parcel-Tax-Ballot-Statement

San Marino Unified School District March 2021 Parcel Tax Ballot Statement on Scribd


In March, 2015, it was a renewal for six (6) years with an end-date to the tax

https://www.scribd.com/document/489515538/San-Marino-Unified-School-District-March-2015-Measure-E-Renewal-Ballot-Statement

San Marino Unified School District March 2015 Measure E Renewal Ballot Statement on Scribd



Crane No-Bid contract: Response to Steve Talt Esq. to read San Marino City Ordinance 02.05.06 in its entirety.

Merry Christmas Steve.  I'm finally getting around to your suggestion below that I read 02.05.06 in its entirety.

I could not find Ordinance 02.05.06 in the City's website.  What I was referring to in my email was 02.06.05  I'll assume yours is a typo.

O-02-06-05 was amended by O-20-1366 in June, 2020.  This was mentioned by Mayor ShepherdRomney during a CC meeting.

I would like to reciprocate and ask that you read O-20-1366 that amended O-02-06-05.

Section B. Procurement Of Goods And Services Other Than Public Projects: Procurement of goods and services, but excluding contracts for public projects, shall comply with the following procedures:

2.b. Waiver Of Bidding: Bidding required by this subsection B for procurements of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) or less may only be dispensed with when the City Manager or the Director of the department undertaking the procurement determines in writing that the goods or services are only available from one (1) source or that the best interests of the City are served by dispensing with competitive bids. Bidding required by this subsection B for procurements over thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) may only be dispensed with when the Finance Officer determines in writing that the goods or services are only available from one (1) source or that the best interests of the City are served by dispensing with competitive bids and are authorized by the City Council.

Attached is the response to my Public Records Act request for the Finance Officer's written determination that waived the bidding requirement.  My exact request is in City's the response.

The Finance Director only "reviewed" the July 31, 2020 Staff Report titled "Award of a Professional Design Services Agreement in the amount of $349,660...."

Therefore, I received a "Staff Routing Slip" where the Finance Director did not indicate under "Review" column that his comments were attached.  Since no Finance Director written determination exists to satisfy the requirement in B2.b., the City could  not provide me a copy of the written determination required  to waive bidding for procurement of services over $30,000.

Unless I am reading the above section incorrectly, it seems like the Finance Officer's written determination is required under O-20-1366 Section B.2.b in order to invoke the "Waiver of Bidding."  Since none exists after "research and review of the documents in the City's possession," waiving competitive bidding to award Crane a services contract is a violation of San Marino local ordinance, i.e. law.

Wishing you a Happy and Healthy New Year.