Bed tax receipts for the month of June were five percent lower than expected, coming in a full 20 percent lower than last June’s bed taxes. In real dollars, that’s a drop in revenues of $250,000.
City budget planners had been bracing for bad news, but not quite this bad. According to the recent budget approved by the Santa Barbara City Council, City Hall had projected bed tax receipts 15 percent lower than the previous year. Santa Barbara’s tourist trade typically kicks into gear in June and then really hits it stride for the months of July and August. June’s poor showing was especially discouraging for city administrators and bean counters who were hoping and praying to see some tangible evidence that the economy was starting to improve.
In addition, the city’s percentage of property tax receipts collected by the County of Santa Barbara is threatening to come in far less than projected. As a result, Santa Barbara budget analysts are now predicting that the budget approved three weeks ago by the City Council might be as much as $2.5 million out-of-whack. On the night the budget was adopted, City Budget Czar Robert Peirson declared it was already $1.5 million short.
The implications of the new numbers could be significant. City budget planners are already looking at a new round of cuts and fee increases. Already, councilmembers, administrators and department heads spent months scrambling to bridge a $10.5 million shortfall. This was achieved by exacting substantial concessions from several of the main bargaining units representing city workers, primarily Service Employees International Union Local 620. In exchange for these concessions, city administrators fashioned a budget in which no city employees were laid off against their will.
With the new numbers looming large, those agreements may be subject to re-examination. Likewise, the city police and firefighters got off relatively unscathed in the budget adopted by the City Council. If City Hall opts to pursue more cuts, police and fire services will inevitably receive closer scrutiny.
Adding to the complexity of the problem, the City of Santa Barbara is bracing for elections this November to determine who the new mayor will be as well as the make up of the new council. In all, four of the council’s seven seats are up for grabs. Given the significant political influence wielded by certain city employee unions - the Police Officers Association, for instance, and the Fire Fighters Association - the election year pressures could complicate any efforts to revisit the city’s budget, which even under the best of circumstances would be an unenviable task.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Good for the Independent to report this story first. The City budget is a tangible statement of fundamental values and beliefs, where political rhetoric meets fiscal reality.
This next round of City spending cuts needs to be fair and objective to spread the pain and benefit, but the revenue side of the budget also needs to be examined.
To balance the budget in consideration of the recessed revenue, the next class of City Councilmembers will be exceptionally challenged to maintain service levels to the public.
During the budget revisions by Council for the current year (fiscal year 2010-11), the easy financial shifts and personnel transfers already have occurred, often to gain a one-time savings. The re-interpretation of what kinds of expenses are properly charged to Enterprise Funds instead of the General Fund was especially creative.
Revenue enhancements may be the most opportunity for budgetary enhancements while maintaining public service levels for new budget revisions. Marijuana stores in the City should be taxed heavily. Decentralized and off-record lodging also should be found and the TOT (12% lodging tax) properly collected. Also, the alcohol-fueled lower State Street "Old Town" area needs to be assessed properly to compensate for the disproportionate share of Police coverage and public expenditures required for safety in that area. Fees for building permits and plan reviews also need to be raised at a progressive scale to come closer to the actual costs of the City.
The public employee labor unions serving the City have been good to propose their own ways to enhance revenue and cut expenses. More innovative suggestions like that will need to occur again.
Programs and projects in the City budget need to be effective and I will review them objectively on how effective they are for the intended purpose and how they maintain or enhance the quality of life in the neighborhoods.
If elected to the City Council this year, I will listen to all City residents and stakeholders about how to cut expenses and enhance revenue to keep the City budget balanced.
I can be contacted via my City Council election campaign website: www.DavidPritchett.org
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 20, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
first of all, thanks for the shameless plug. second, revenue enhancements? try taxes, mr. pritchett. you just lost my vote.
sbdude (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who has followed Pritchett's blog postings should recognize him as a union appeaser and tax and spender. Just vote no.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, Pritchett wants to tax the pot stores in Santa Barbara to enhance the City revenue for crazy things like Police patrols, public swimming pools, and zoning and code enforcement in the neighborhoods where the pot stores are located.
The voters in Oakland tomorrow are most likely going to approve such a municipal pot tax measure there; see articles:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/200...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 20, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote NO for Pritchett
We need leaders that are going to cut cost and reform the union contracts.
Good luck taxing off-record lodging (vacation rentals), they are in the same high vacancy boat as hotels
loneranger (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! Looks like someone needs to inhale. City council candidate Pritchett seems to have lost the vote of the anti-government Teabaggers, not that he ever had it.
Personally, me and my buddies like a candidate who actually has some realistic ideas for fixing the Santa Barbara city budget mess besides bitching about taxes, labor unions, and the fees catching up with scofflaws.
A balanced budget is how I save up enough money for my herb, the same way the city can save up for police and swimming pools and libraries that the people of Santa Barbara need. I don't mind paying a little extra tax for my ganja as long as I know that the city is clean and helpful to its people with that extra dough.
BongHit (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
David I think this was a really bad idea to pitch your agenda and political plug here. If you want to capture the audience do an article that we may comment on and discuss.
Stop whatever this is you were attempting to do here.
I am on the fence about the issues you brought up in your defence of this tactic.
Taxing marijuana is not just a vote its a responsiblitity to the community in how we tax it and for what reasons we tax it.
Promoting your campaign here in this format is in my opinion just irresponsible. It also bring up concerns for mypart that even if you are a proponent of marijuana taxation, you are not necessarily the right champion to stand up as a representative of the people...or at least this person.
Just my opinion.
Jhern (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I may be stoned, but jhern just blows my mind complaining that a city council candidate is writing about his fiscal management ideas for the city, for all the voters to see about that this candidate stands for if elected. I wonder what jhern thinks is so "irresponsible" about communicating with the public when the comment is about the subject of the article here?
I would rather read the comment directly from the politicians fingers than through the filter of some biased news reporter, editorial or junk mail advertising.
This candidate has a campaign website with how to call him or email so why don't jhern just use that? Otherwise it just seems like jhern is trying to shut down the discussion. If jhern doesnt agree with this type of tax thats fine but shooting the messenger isnt cool and saying the message shouldnt be written in the first place.
Just don't bogart that joint while trying to do that.
BongHit (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)