San Clemente Voters Will Decide on Tax

SAN CLEMENTE —  The city’s voters will decide in a special election June 3 whether to raise their utility tax by 2.5% to offset the revenue loss that resulted from the passage of Proposition 218.

The City Council voted unanimously Wednesday night to put the issue on the June ballot. If it is approved, it would raise funds to make up part of a projected $2.8-million shortfall in the city’s $21-million budget for fiscal 1997-98.

If it fails, officials said, program cuts and layoffs of city workers in addition to those already made would follow.

“I’m truly sorry about the tax, but I really don’t see another way out,” Councilwoman Lois R. Berg said.

Proposition 218, which won overwhelming approval in November from voters statewide, sharply limits how cities may raise money for various services such as street lighting and maintenance of parks and beaches.

Cities that had levied taxes to pay for such services must now seek voter approval to continue collecting the money. That has left several Orange County cities scrambling for funds to cover existing programs and services.

San Clemente officials have already cut several community programs for a projected savings of $1.8 million. Four street maintenance workers already have been laid off, and part-time lifeguards at the beach have had their hours reduced.

Officials also are considering an increase in fees at the municipal golf course and at city parking meters.

If the utility tax passes in June, it would bring in another $1 million a year so that further fee increases and program cuts would not be necessary to balance the budget.

The tax increase, which would be added to natural gas, electric, water, sewer, telephone and cable-TV bills, would cost the average household about $49.80 a year. It would partially replace a lighting and landscaping fee averaging $93 a month that was abolished by Proposition 218.

The plan would include a tax exemption for seniors and others with low incomes.

Some residents have expressed strong opposition to the tax proposal, however. One of them, Jim Hill, said Wednesday that putting the issue to a vote “was a dumb thing for the council to do.”

“If the city would show us the pros and cons of all the deductions, rather than rhetoric, we would support a tax,” he said. “But we are not convinced that they have done everything they can do.”

Others spoke in favor of a new levy. “I intend to support a tax increase. I will do my darndest to get my friends to vote for it too,” resident Tom Byrd said. “It’s the lesser of two evils the way I see it.”