Local
Measure G on the Sacramento ballot: What you need to know about the youth services measure
Voters in the city of Sacramento will consider a measure on the March 3 ballot that would require the city to set aside an estimated $12 million a year for new youth programs. But what would it mean for the rest of the services the city provides, as the city approaches a potential budget deficit?
Here’s what you need to know about Measure G, who’s supporting it, who’s opposing it and who’s funding each of those efforts.
What would Measure G do?
Last year, a slew of local nonprofit organizations and teens canvassed the city and collected more than 38,000 signatures in favor of the measure. In November, the City Council agreed to place it on the March ballot.
Measure G would require the city to set aside 2.5 percent of the unrestricted general fund each year for youth programs and services, starting in July 2021. The general fund pays for most core city services, including police and fire protection.
The 2.5 percent set aside would equal an estimated roughly $12 million in new funding for youth each year, until 2034, when it would expire and voters could reconsider the measure.
If it passes, the council and mayor would appoint 17 people to an unpaid committee, half under the age of 24, to recommend how the money would be spent each year. The committee’s recommendations would ultimately go to the council for approval. The money could go to either nonprofits or city departments that serve youth, but must be for new programs or services.
What the opposition says
The main argument against Measure G centers around “ballot-box budgeting,” or forcing the government to spend specific amounts of taxpayer money on select programs and services. This takes the power away from elected officials to set spending priorities, they contend.
Opponents say when the city hits tough financial times, officials would be forced to cut core services to fund the Measure G mandate, leading to the closure of fire stations, pools, libraries, community centers and parks programs. They also say it would leave limited resources for addressing other pressing city issues, such as homelessness and affordable housing.
“With Measure G, we would be constrained,” Councilman Jeff Harris said. “We would actually have to cut essential services that we already provide.”
The city already spends $36.2 million on youth programs and services, including $22.6 million from the general fund, according to an analysis by the city’s finance department. That means 7.6 percent of the unrestricted general fund is currently spent on programs and services supporting youth, staff found.
Such services include community center programs, city internships, skate parks, movie nights, scholarship funds and a gang prevention grant program. It also includes new services recently funded with new Measure U sales tax revenue, such as $2.5 million given to nonprofits to host “pop up” activity nights for teens citywide on Friday and Saturday nights.
Measure G would require the city to add another 2.5 percent of the budget to current spending on youth programs, ensuring at least that much is spent in any given year, even if the city is running a deficit. The city is facing sharply rising pension payments in the coming years. New city budget projections released last month show the city could be facing a deficit in the fiscal year starting July 1, 2021.
Mayor Darrell Steinberg, as well as Councilmembers Harris, Angelique Ashby and Larry Carr, oppose the measure. Fire Chief Gary Loesch, Former Mayors Heather Fargo and Jimmie Yee and library director Rivkah Sass have also expressed opposition.
Sacramento firefighters started a PAC to oppose the measure, which has so far collected $70,000. The firefighters’ union has given $40,000, the police officers association has given $25,000 and Ashby’s campaign has given $5,000, city filings show.
What supporters say
Facebook video ads posted by the Measure G supporters feature mothers, fathers, a former police officer and a youth tutor saying why they support the measure. They talk about new after school and summer programs, mental health services and homeless prevention programs.
“Measure G supports kids and does NOT raise taxes,” the video ads end.
The heads of two Sacramento nonprofits – Derrell Roberts, co-founder of the Roberts Family Development Center, and Jim Keddy, executive director of Youth Forward – have been leading the effort. The Oakland-based East Bay Asian Youth Center has also been heavily involved in crafting and promoting the measure, modeling it partly after a version in Oakland.
Assemblyman Kevin McCarty of Sacramento; the Sacramento City Teachers Association; and Councilmen Jay Schenirer, Eric Guerra and Allen Warren also support the measure.
Supporters say the claim that Sacramento youth programs already are well funded is based partly on faulty information. Schenirer, who spearheaded a different youth measure in 2016 that failed, said he believes the city actually spends significantly less than 7.6 percent of its general fund on youth, as the city’s finance department has claimed.
“I read through it and I don’t think they classified a lot of things the right way,” Schenirer said.
Included in the 7.6 percent figure is city funding for an upcoming homeless shelter for adult women, the North Natomas Jibe bus, bike trails/bike parking, and programs that hire young people to remove graffiti and clean up illegal dumping. It also includes funding for traffic and pedestrian signals and library book collection, adjusted for the percentages city officials say is spent specifically on youth.
The list, which city staff compiled at the City Council’s request, is a snapshot in time that will continue to be updated, with items being added and subtracted, said city spokesman Tim Swanson. Staff will remove the shelter item (the shelter was previously going to include children), and will update the Jibe bus figure to reflect only funding related to its youth services, Swanson said.
Even when it’s updated, Keddy said the list includes many items it shouldn’t.
“A lot of this doesn’t contribute to youth development, it’s just part of the basic infrastructure of the city,” Keddy said. “Some of the stuff the city would be doing anyway. Measure G prioritizes kids most impacted by poverty, violence and trauma.”
Addressing the claim that Measure G could hurt city services like libraries, Roberts said the libraries in undeserved neighborhoods like North Sacramento, Oak Park and Del Paso Heights do not have nearly as many amenities as those in more wealthy areas like Natomas.
“We have antiquated libraries in our neighborhood,” Roberts said. “When you look at the libraries there, you’re not going to miss a lot.”
A PAC to support the measure created by the East Bay Asian Youth Center has so far raised about $322,000 in cash from 2018 through Jan. 19, according to an attorney handling the account.
Steinberg’s alternative proposal
Steinberg on Tuesday detailed to The Sacramento Bee an alternate proposal to Measure G, which bases funding on the city’s year-over-year revenue growth. He plans to ask the council to place his version on the November ballot, regardless of whether Measure G is approved in March.
“What we’re doing is guaranteeing even in the bad years, even in tougher years, a maintenance-of-effort, which is several million dollars that will guarantee that our priorities, like the ‘pop-ups,’ remain in perpetuity,” Steinberg said.
Based on city budget projections for the next four years, Steinberg’s proposal would require the city to allocate a minimum of $2.5 million to $3 million in each of the next four years to youth nonprofits. In more prosperous years, though, as the city grows, the mayor’s version could require the city to give $12 million or more to the nonprofits, Steinberg said.
Keddy said the mayor’s counter-proposal would not set aside enough money for youth, calling it “business as usual.”
“Measure G, in our view, represents a significant step forward and supports particularly poor children and kids of color, while the mayor’s proposal continues the status quo,” Keddy said.
Keddy said Measure G already takes into account the city’s financial status in any given year because it’s calculated based on 2.5 percent of the general fund.
The lawsuit
Harris, the councilman, said part of his concern with Measure G stems from a lawsuit the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development filed in 2017 against The Roberts Family Development Center, one of the measure’s top promoters.
The lawsuit alleged the organization misspent funding from a state grant. The nonprofit settled the lawsuit last year for $400,000, to be paid in increments until Dec. 1, 2022, court records show.
The city has given the nonprofit about $1.6 million in funding since 2010, and it has another $550,000 in pending requests, Swanson said. City officials are conducting a review to ensure money was used appropriately, and will not be considering additional funding requests until the review is completed.
“The City of Sacramento stresses that there has been no determination of any wrongdoing,” Swanson said in a statement. “Nevertheless, the city manager feels this course of action is prudent.”
Harris said he was “very incensed” about the allegations in the lawsuit.
“I’m concerned that he may well be using city or school district funds to pay that debt so we’ve initiated an audit to look at this,” Harris said. “What that tells me is that we have not been keeping a close enough eye on our nonprofits.”
The city does not currently have the ability to access the bank statements and financial information for the nonprofits it funds, Harris said.
Roberts said he welcomes the city audit of his nonprofit’s finances and encourages others to do the same.
“We are proud to be fully cooperating with the city as it also audits our non-profit agency and its financial operations,” Derrell and Tina Roberts said in a statement.
“We regularly engage outside independent auditors to conduct audits of our operations. All non- profits should accept this scrutiny. ... The real story is that our well established, highly regarded, and quality organization has now been targeted for public defamation in a disgraceful attempt to defeat Measure G.”
Keddy said the council would have full control over which nonprofits received city money, and there is no guarantee Roberts’ nonprofit would be chosen.
“Maybe they wouldn’t even apply, who knows,” Keddy said. “The commission could pick priorities that the Roberts Family Development Center doesn’t do.”