Advocates pushing for a possible ballot measure asking voter approval on a new community service district to fund parks could succeed if they keep the effort focused, but must resist the temptation to squeeze in other public entities such as the library or fire services.
County parks officials for years have broached the idea of creating a community service district to help fund local parks. Particularly in light of the city’s six-year sewer moratorium and subsequent housing-market decline, the developer impact fees that once paid a brunt of the costs for new parks and maintenance have all but dried up. That means any significant funds to pay for park upgrades would have to come from the general fund – which is suffering from its own $5.3 million annual deficit, meaning discretionary dollars are as scarce as benitoite.
So it is fair to ask local voters – as economically challenged as the area may be – whether they want to spend more of their money to improve the parks and related programs, to invest in the current and future well-being of citizens, to prevent pushing away homeowners and businesses attracted to such quality-of-life amenities. It is also fair to ask voters at the same time whether they would spend even more of their money on other existing tax-funded activities. Officials have talked about adding the library, and the county administrative officer asked about the prospect of later adding fire services to the sources receiving funds from a prospective district.
Taxpayers are smart enough to understand that a down economy equates to curtailed revenue and, thus, the need to either cut services or find more money. They are also smart enough to recognize desperation when they see it. In these cautious times, they will tend to lean toward distrusting any hodgepodge of services lumped into a bond measure that screams “Miscellaneous Funding” and, “We couldn’t manage a responsible enough budget to keep paying for these items.”
County leaders don’t have to look far for an example of why a multi-service tax district won’t work. The Hollister School District’s 2011 bond measure to pay for a bushel of services fell flat with voters despite its self-orchestrated advantages – such as holding the election in June when voters are generally apathetic and allowing seniors to opt out.
Additionally, supporters would be facing competition from the City of Hollister, which is set to float a Measure T sales tax extension on the November ballot; and the San Benito High School District, which is preparing to possibly float its own bond measure to pay for expansion.
In other words, if you’re going to get in line and ask voters for more of their hard-earned money, the investment better be as focused as possible and you better give citizens a reason to feel like their money will be spent responsibly, like they’re getting something back in return.
If the county and others move ahead and ask voters to approve a community service district, they would be wise to start small and with a narrow focus. Ask if voters will approve funding solely intended to boost the parks system. If they get on board, then nothing stops them from going back and asking if taxpayers will invest more for libraries or other services.
Most important, it would give voters a chance to see how the newly formed district handles their money – to feel at ease about a clearly defined investment.
