We commend the Prescott City Council for correcting the problem of “Public Safety” not being defined at a recent Council meeting. However, there are still serious concerns about Proposition 478 that need to be considered.
The Council at the same meeting created a line item within the budget for the Public Safety funds. Unfortunately, a line item within the general budget can earmark money raised for a specific purpose, however, they cannot “bind the hands” of future Councils to honor that line item and dedicate those funds only to Public Safety. Going forward there would be effectively two- line items each for both Police and Fire.
While we agree the line items for any sales tax (or any other funding mechanism) raised would go to Police and Fire, it DOES NOT PREVENT money currently budgeted in the General Fund from being reduced and used for other purposes deemed more important by a future Council!
Our group largely comes from other states, mostly but not exclusively states west of Arizona over the last decade, where we saw problems of politicians that would promise whatever tax increase or pot of money raised was guaranteed to be used exclusively to solve a particular problem. A well-known example is California where the legislators pledged that all lottery monies raised would be dedicated to the public school system. The money did, indeed, go to the schools, BUT the money that had been previously budgeted in the General Fund no longer went to the schools and instead was spent on other programs. California’s elected officials claimed the lottery monies “all went to the schools!” when in reality the schools got the SAME money as before while that “other” line-item money was being siphoned off for other purposes.
This is a concern because we don’t believe this problem can be rectified by the Council. A certain percentage of the city revenues, in addition to any new revenue, must be spent solely on Police and Fire going forward. Perhaps the City attorney could comment publicly on this and suggest a way that ALL funds, those newly raised funds and our current funding, can be preserved for Public Safety going forward.
Overall, we believe we’re headed in the right direction to make sure our future is safe and secure. However, the above remains a concern. Also, we still question the funding mechanism. Read below for a detailed description of the problem and our recommendations.
Bottomline, because growth is responsible for creating this need, it should be largely funded with impact fees, sparing the bulk of sales tax burden on lower- and middle-class veterans, seniors and families who already live here. A smaller temporary increase in sales tax should handle short-term Public Safety needs, while impact fees would build for our secure future.
AT THIS TIME, WE STILL RECOMMEND A NO VOTE ON PROPOSITION 478
We received a complaint from the PAC promoting the measure. Given the heightened political tensions that are prevalent in our city, we wish to remain anonymous to avoid an “us v them” mentality. Many of you will recall the treatment of mayoral recall proponent Stan Goligowski who received threats. Keep in mind that there is a long history of anonymity in American politics, going as far back as before our Founding Fathers, of writing under pen names to remain anonymous.
We offer these suggestions only to improve our community, not to denigrate anyone promoting the measure. We respect the hard work of those who brought it forward and we would hope the opposition would respect our wishes to remain anonymous. We simply believe there’s a better way to accomplish the same objective.
NoTo 478
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.