Santa Cruz Grand Jury Board of Supervisors' response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report "Words Matter..."

Measure G’s ballot language made the tax appear to be a special tax: the language emphasized multiple services that Measure G could be used for, which overshadowed the final clause, “and other general county services.” __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Measure G’s ballot language did not make the tax appear to be a special tax. A “general tax” is defined as “any tax imposed for general government purposes. (California Constitution, Article XIIIC, § 1(a); Government Code § 53721.) A “special tax” is defined as “any tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.” (California Constitution, Article XIIIC, § 1(d); Government Code § 53721.) A special tax may only be spent specifically on the things the voters approved the tax to be spent on. General tax revenues have no such restrictions. The measure listed a variety of items that Measure G funds could be spent on, including “other general county services”. The inclusion of the term “other general county services” clearly communicated to the electorate that Measure G revenues were not restricted to specific uses. As required by California Elections Code section 13119, the ballot language was a “true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the measure” and it was written “in language that “is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.” Moreover, the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors when placing the measure on the ballot clearly described that the proposed tax would be used for general government purposes. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022

County staff did not have compelling reasons to include several provisions contained in its consultant’s proposed Measure G ballot language— specifically the annual audit, citizens oversight, and 12-year expiration date—which also made Measure G appear to be a special tax. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): County staff had significant and compelling reasons to include the referenced provisions in the ballot measure. First, it was important for the voters to know that General Fund revenues are annually reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subject to all auditing requirements with which the County is charged with complying. Second, it was important for the public to be aware that it maintains constant oversight of the expenditure of Measure G revenue, through the opportunity to obtain information on how it is being used and provide input to the Board of Supervisors both throughout the year and during budget hearings. Third, under Elections Code section 13119(b), the County was legally required to state the duration of the tax. None of these provisions made Measure G appear to be a special tax. Per Elections Code sections 9051 and 13247, ballot language is limited to 75 words, which is extremely small given the complexity of the issues and ideas that underlie a tax measure. Voters are always encouraged to supplement their understanding of the measure by read all of the associated materials supporting it, including the arguments for and against the measure, as well as the rebuttals to each, the fiscal analysis, the impartial analysis, the resolution calling for the election, and any other related documents. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved the Measure G ballot language at its August 7, 2018, meeting without seeking clarification as to how the provisions for an “annual audit” and “independent citizens oversight” would operate. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Although this finding requires no response, it is important to note that the language approved by the Board is common for similar measures, and there was no need for the Board to seek clarification. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022

The Measure G Financial Summary, which is included in the County’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021–22, can be expanded with detail showing Measure G revenues and expenditures to support the Measure G independent citizens oversight provisions. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Theoretically, it would be possible to provide such expanded detail, but no other General Fund revenues are subject to such treatment and the County questions the utility of providing that level of detail for General Fund monies. Once again, Measure G is not a special tax; it is a general tax, the revenues of which are mixed with all General Fund monies and spent on County services as prioritized by the Board of Supervisors. The Board prioritizes its spending of General Fund monies on an on- going and continually shifting basis as different needs, including emergencies, arise. All of the Board’s work in spending money is conducted in public, after receiving public input. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022

The County Government’s current reliance on over 50 percent of Measure G revenue to support ongoing and recurring expenses for the County’s provision of essential services means the Measure G 12-year expiration date may present a serious risk to the County’s future fiscal health. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): This finding is confusing and internally inconsistent, as it appears to assert that the County is actually worsening its financial position by obtaining permission from the voters to adopt a tax measure that will continue to fund essential public services, on the grounds that the measure is time-bound. It seems to assert that unless a tax is implemented with no termination date, the County is placing its future fiscal health in “serious risk” and that the County would be in a better financial position if no tax had been adopted at all. Interpreted as written, this finding indicates a significant lack of understanding about basic principles of government finance, election procedures, and the County’s implied contract with the electorate to be prudent in the amount of money it is asking for and the amount of money it is spending. It is important to note that the County is structurally underfunded. The majority of its residents live in unincorporated areas requiring city-like services such as parks and planning, while the County is also mandated to provide countywide services such as social services, public health and elections. Additionally, the County receives a much lower per-capita property tax revenue to provide these services compared to its peers as noted in the report. The approval of Measure G has strengthened the County’s fiscal position and allowed the County to invest in projects, programs and services desired by the public including the creation of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience, the Housing for Health Division, improved parks maintenance and capital projects, such as LEO’s Haven at Chanticleer Park and Simpkins Family Swim Center renovations, affordable housing development, and homelessness and mental health services, while also providing flexibility to respond to the unprecedented disasters of the COVID-19 pandemic and the CZU wildfires. By providing a small supplement to the County’s General Fund, Measure G has fostered many positive investments in the community. It was appropriate to place a time limit on this tax such that its impacts and burdens may be reanalyzed at a time in the future when the County’s financial outlook may not require the County to continue to collect it. It is unfortunate that this effort to demonstrate fiscal prudency appears to be misunderstood. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022

Other California cities and counties have demonstrated that Santa Cruz County can honor its promise for citizens oversight of Measure G expenditures. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The premise of this finding is fundamentally flawed, in that argumentatively asserts that the County is not “honoring” a promise for citizen’s oversight of Measure G expenditures. As previously noted, members of the public have regular oversight of General Fund expenditures through their ability to determine how General Fund monies are being spent and their ability to provide public input to the Board of Supervisors when the Board creates and approves budgets and approves expenditures. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? Due by September 19, 2022