December 18
YOUR DEPENDABLE LANDLINE PHONE MAY SOON GO AWAY
Heads-up if you still have a traditional landline telephone that works even when the power is out, because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) may soon approve an application from AT&T to get out of having to provide landline service when there are other modes available. Response from the CPUC judge is due December 22, and could trigger public hearings in February or March, 2024. After the hearings conclude, the CPUC would make a determination on AT&T’s application.
All of Santa Cruz County would be affected, as well as many larger areas throughout California. Take a look at the map
If you have questions about the process, you can contact the CPUC’s Public Advisor’s Office at: 1.415.703.1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit PublicAdvocates.cpuc.ca.gov.
This is potentially bad news for rural areas. Every time the electricity goes out, people will have no telephone service…that’s how it is in my neighborhood now. Only those with traditional landlines have phone service.
Contact the CPUC Public Advisor with your thoughts.
THE STATE BUDGET PICTURE IS GLOOMY
The State Budget is in worse shape than thought, so batten down the hatches and hold on if you plan to stay in California. According to a recent report from the State Legislative Analyst, California’s Budget faces a $68 BILLION deficit…much worse that the 2023-24 Budget’s anticipated a $14 billion shortfall. Based on the report, California will be in the red by $30 BILLION annually for the next few years.
To add to the bad news, state-funded transportation projects are likely to suffer due to an anticipated $5 billion less in gasoline and diesel tax revenue. I wonder how that will affect Highway One projects in our County?
Here is the analysis from the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) giving a clear summary of the actions the State could take to address this shocking problem:
The state has several tools available to address part of this deficit, including:
- Withdrawing up to $24 billion in reserves
- Reducing Proposition 98 spending on education by up to $16.7 billion
- Reducing $8-10 billion in one-time spending
- Loaning money from various special funds
- Increasing state revenues and/or decreasing expenditures
The LAO projects that the Legislature could rescind or delay roughly $8-10 billion in spending that was included in previous budgets, but which has not yet been spent. It is currently unclear what programs would be directly impacted, but possibilities include broadband funding, solid waste grants, bond funds, energy programs, and potentially a subset of the $750 million allocated for roughly 500 special “”Legislative Priorities” included in the FY 2023-24 budget.
The LAO projects that the Legislature could rescind or delay roughly $8-10 billion in spending that was included in previous budgets, but which has not yet been spent. It is currently unclear what programs would be directly impacted, but possibilities include broadband funding, solid waste grants, bond funds, energy programs, and potentially a subset of the $750 million allocated for roughly 500 special “”Legislative Priorities” included in the FY 2023-24 budget.
A December 12 Budget Letter declared all State agencies MUST:
- Avoid entering into new contracts or agreements to lease or purchase equipment, goods, or services
- Halt all discretionary and non-essential information technology purchases
- Halt planned vehicle replacements (other than for mission critical and emergency-related vehicles)
- Minimize the purchase of office supplies and scrutinize subscriptions, training costs, and furniture purchases
- Cancel plans for non-essential travel and participation in seminars, conferences, and trainings
- Suspend the annual leave buy-back of accrued vacation or annual leave
The letter notes that exemptions can be made for expenditures to address a declared emergency, provide 24-hour medical care, avoid significant revenue losses, and achieve significant net cost savings
https://www.rcrcnet.org/barbed-wire-december-15-2023#story-2
DON’T BE TRICKED BY THE COUNTY MEASURE K FOR A NEW FOREVER HALF-CENT SALES TAX
The County Board of Supervisors approved an initiative on December 5 to ask voters to decide on a new half-cent sales tax that will last forever, but is very vague as to how it would be spent. Just as they did in 2018 with Measure G, the Board again touts “wildland fire” and “emergency and disaster response” as items the Board and County Administrative Officer (CAO) would like you to again believe that would benefit if you vote for it.
This time, the Board’s initiative does not mention “Citizen Oversight”. Hmmmm…..
It supposedly would raise $10 million annually in future years, but only $5-$7.5 million in 2024-2025 budget year. The cavalier fiscal analysis tosses out vague $1 million crumbs in the hopes that you will again believe what the money might fund, notably first claiming
“To fund essential Santa Cruz County services, including wildfire response/prevention/recovery ….”
“The Board has identified Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 to include $1 million for housing and essential work force retention, $1 million for Countywide homeless services, $1 million to support climate resiliency and County parks, $1 million to fund road repair and infrastructure projects, and an unspecified additional amount for other identified
County services
Notice that the empty promises don’t specifically name “wildland fire” as a beneficiary, but rather it would fund the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience (OR3) that has become quite bloated since CAO Carlos Palacios, as a “cost-saving measure”, got rid of Ms. Rosemary Anderson, who had with the help of a single staff person, effectively and efficiently done the work as the County Office of Emergency Response Manager in 2020…just in time for the CZU Fire.
Measure K analysis states:
Any revenues raised from Measure K will be placed in the County’s General Fund and may be used for any lawful government purpose. This may include, but is not limited to, items identified in the ballot question such as enhancing wildfire, emergency, and disaster response, prevention, and recovery services; addressing the affordable housing crisis for workforce retention; maintaining and improving neighborhood parks; repairing roads and public facilities; supporting programs to reduce homelessness; and providing other essential services, such as mental health and substance abuse services, and improving public safety.
K – SCCO Sales Tax
What do you think the CAO will really do with that money, if approved???? Read on…
WHY IS THE CAO NOT MENTIONING $43 MILLION IN COUNTY UNFUNDED CalPERS DEBT THAT IS LOOMING?
In 2021, CAO Palacios warned the Board of Supervisors that there would be a tide of unfunded CalPERS debt hitting the County budget in 2023 or 2024. It was a gloomy picture. However now, in discussions about the need for a new half-cent sales tax as Measure K, the CAO is NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE UNFUNDED CALPERS DEBT LIABILITY ISSUE.
How come? Well, people are less likely to approve at the ballot box giving the County more money to fund employee’s retirement debt, aren’t they? Using the tried-and-true “Wildland fire and emergency response” wolf works…..but please don’t fall for this trick again on March 5.
Take a look at the unfunded CalPERS liability looming upon the County
Page 5 of the Actuarial Report for the County in 2022:
“The minimum required employer contribution towards the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) for this rate plan for FY 2024-25 is $43,290,166.”
So, why is the CAO not talking about this with the Board of Supervisors? Why isn’t any Supervisor asking????
Contact your Supervisor and ask him about the UAL problem for the County Budget…and how much of Measure K will go to pay for that instead of anything the ballot initiative promises. 831-454-2200
Many thanks to the citizen who informed me about how to access the CalPERS information.
SHOULD PEOPLE IN THE CITIES GET TO VOTE ON A TAX THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY AND WILL NOT BENEFIT THE CITY IN WHICH THEY LIVE?
The Board of Supervisors approved Measure K language and want to allow voters in all four incorporated cities in the County to vote on the new COUNTY sales tax. Hmmm…. they will not pay the tax unless purchasing something in the unincorporated area, and the city in which they live will get no money from Measure K if it is approved.
Does that seem fair? I don’t think so.
Here is the last sentence of California Tax Code 7285 that brings the Board’s action to question:
The revenues derived from the imposition of a tax pursuant to this section shall only be used for general purposes within the area for which the tax was approved by the qualified voters.
Additional Local Taxes – Section 7285
If one follows the logic of the Board, everyone in the County should also be allowed to vote on Measure L for the City of Santa Cruz sales tax increase that would also fund wildfire preparedness, homelessness, cleaning streams and rivers, and fix roads.
https://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/16/mar24/Measure%20L%20Resolution.pdf
Those issues affect voters in the unincorporated areas, too, don’t they?
I witnessed Judge Volkmann this week as he refused to make an emergency ruling for injunction relief requested by a local citizen to address this incongruity. “There is no evidence of personal harm or irreparable danger” necessary to grant an injunction, he said, however he had no concern with the pleading.
The petitioner citizen’s attorney argued that the County would potentially save $225,000 in ballot costs by NOT including the voters in city areas. It would seem that this would qualify as “harm” to County taxpayers, but maybe the Judge felt that the “harm” can be repaired with just getting more money?
It seems to me that allowing city voters to weigh-in on Measure K will dilute the votes of those whom it will affect most.
What do you think?
Please contact your Supervisor and ask him about this. 831-454-2200 or e-mail his first
YET ANOTHER ONLINE SURVEY…AESTHETIC ELEMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN APTOS
This is ridiculous. I think that the turnout to the recent public “open house” was not very good, so the RTC launched this “survey” in order to make a claim there was robust public participation…likely a requirement of the grant funding for the project.
Here is what one person had to say….
What survey? Instead of choices we get “options” (insignificant options at that) for how the already decided choices will be implemented. I mean, what kind of choice is the little pattern on the “natural” concrete sound walls anyway? I want an option to vote for NO sound walls, Why do buses on the side of the road require millions of dollars of sound walls anyway which just make the highway feel like a concrete tunnel………….Does anyone say that the freeway noise will be significantly louder with an auxiliary lane?
Sorry, I think the survey is just another trap so those who already decided on everything can proudly assert that there was “stakeholder and community participation” in the design.
Watch this video and then take a survey. Available until Dec 31
What do YOU think?
COASTAL COMMISSION IGNORES THE LEGAL DECISION OF SANTA CRUZ JUDGE AND ISSUES LARGEST FINE IN COUNTY HISTORY
How can an appointed land use body waive aside a legal decision of the Court and impose a huge fine on a project they just don’t like?
Aptos HOA fined $4.8 million by state, ordered to open blocked coastal path
It smells like another expensive lawsuit for the HOA. That is a stench even worse than the Cormorants on the Cement Ship!
SHOULD THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEIGH-IN WITH RESOLUTIONS ON INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS?
Did Supervisors Manu Koenig, Chairman Zach Friend and Bruce McPherson act with inconsistency by last week rejecting a call for a cease fire in the Middle East when they have supported similar Resolutions regarding the Ukraine and Russia?
Last week, the County Board of Supervisors, on a 3/2 vote, refused to approve a Resolution proposed by Supervisor Cummings that would have supported a permanent cease fire between Israel and Palestine. It was on the Consent Agenda as Item 28, but the Supervisor chambers was filled with people who wanted to testify on the matter, with opinions on both sides represented, but the majority in favor of the action.
“This is about asking for peace.” said Supervisor Hernandez. “We are just asking for peace.” said Supervisor Cummings. But Supervisors Friend, Koenig and McPherson disagreed.
“I just don’t see how we can pass this without it looking like we are taking sides.” said both Zach Friend and Manu Koenig. They both happen to be Jewish.
So, why did the County Board of Supervisors, which included Zach Friend. Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson at the time, take sides on March 8, 2022 with a Resolution 79-2022 proclaiming solidarity with Ukraine, and declaring they would welcome and support Ukrainian refugees here in Santa Cruz County? Supervisor Bruce McPherson made the motion to approve that.
Furthermore, why did Supervisor Manu Koenig issue and sign a Proclamation on August 24, 2023, Honoring the 32nd year of Ukraine Independence?
In my opinion, Supervisors Zach Friend, Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson acted with real inconsistency.
But, as some members of the public pointed out last week, the County Board of Supervisors should not be issuing Resolutions on International affairs over which they have no control, and urged them to focus on the problems here in the County and State.
You can listen here.
Here is the Analysis of what Supervisor Justin Cummings had requested in Consent Item #28
The call for a ceasefire is grounded in the recognition of the immediate human toll and the imperative for all parties to prioritize dialogue and peace. By formally recognizing the urgent need for a peaceful and permanent resolution to the conflict, the County of Santa Cruz would join a growing number of local jurisdictions in promoting values of international solidarity and humanitarianism and advocating for the well-being of all individuals affected by the conflict. By taking a stance on global issues, local governments contribute to fostering a culture of peace, tolerance, and cooperation within their own communities and beyond.
Would it be better for County Supervisors to host Town Hall meetings locally with Congressional Representatives to discuss international issues of great concern such as what is happening now in Israel and Palestine with the intent that those Representatives would take action in Washington, D.C.?
I think that the good discussion that came forth in the testimony at last week’s Board of Supervisor meeting is an indication that a Town Hall meeting would be a positive and helpful action for the Board to organize in order to address the tension that seems to be growing locally on the horrible situation.
What do you think?
FURTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CHANTICLEER OVERCROSSING
I really want to thank those readers who sent your thoughts to me about my recent article regarding the Chanticleer Overcrossing. While I did not intend to insinuate that Live Oak does not deserve a bike / pedestrian overcrossing, some did interpret it that way. I apologize.
What I call into question is the location of it, and the inherent safety problems the chosen location may cause when built.
The Chanticleer / Soquel Avenue Frontage Road intersection is hazardous already. Motorists on Chanticleer who are trying to turn onto Soquel Avenue Frontage Road have a limited clear line of sight distance that will be impeded further by the overcrossing structure. This intersection will also soon be much busier with truck traffic entering and exiting the PureWater Soquel Project sewage water treatment plant on that corner.
I think we will necessarily see a new traffic light at that intersection…but will it take having a pedestrian death to make that happen, such as is the case with Capitola City at Bay Avenue?
And over on the inland side of Chanticleer Avenue, pedestrian and bicyclist access will be absent any sidewalks or bike lanes, and will have to dodge the busy congestion of Grey Bears recycling trucks, forklifts and shoppers looking for a parking place.
Is Chanticleer Avenue the best location? Of course, it is too late now, but how did this decision get made?
According to one reader, CalTrans identified the location for pedestrian /bicycle overcrossings in study done in 2008 or 2009. That study also determined there should be an overcrossing at Trevethan, but I don’t think that one is going to get built.
RE: CHANTICLEER PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING. Many wonder why the overcrossing is being built there,
It’s the result of a Caltrans study many years ago, which identified this as one of three locations (the others being Mar Vista and Trevathan) for bike/ped overcrossings of Hwy 1.
RE: why the RTC is not the lead agency on any of these segments of the rail trail. If you understand it, please drop me a note.
As Rob noted, that was a decision made in conjunction with the MBSST Master Plan when various options for what agency (ies) would be responsible for future construction and maintenance were considered. At that time the RTC had never constructed (or managed construction) of a major transportation project and hence decided not take on that role for the rail trail.
Another reader had this interesting idea:
More generally I really think they missed the boat with their overall approach to Live Oak traffic (or, more to the point, lack of approach.) In my opinion, research should have gone into the possibility of an undercrossing at 17th Avenue for all modes of travel – this could potentially help traffic get on and off the freeway and provide a more direct connection for pedestrians and bikes.
Many thanks to these and other readers who took time to write me. I invite you to a discussion Friday, December 29 about this topic on the Santa Cruz Voice.com “Community Matters” online radio program 2pm-4pm. Call in at 831-265-5050 to join the discussion. santacruzvoice.com/
Many thanks to all readers and contributors!
WRITE ONE LETTER. MAKE ONE CALL. TAKE TIME TO WALK IN THE WOODS OR ON THE BEACH TO CLEAR YOUR MIND AND RECHARGE YOUR SOUL. MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.
Happy Holidays…especially Happy Winter Solstice…gardeners take delight in knowing the longer warmer days are on their way!
Cheers,
Becky
|
Becky Steinbruner is a 30+ year resident of Aptos. She has fought for water, fire, emergency preparedness, and for road repair. She ran for Second District County Supervisor in 2016 on a shoestring and got nearly 20% of the votes. She ran again in 2020 on a slightly bigger shoestring and got 1/3 of the votes.
Email Becky at KI6TKB@yahoo.com |