The major issue is San Anselmo’s continued financial viability. The primary source of the Town’s money depends on property taxes, which are declining. The primary draw on such resources is the cost of personnel in the form of salaries and benefits, most particularly pensions and medical plans, the cost of which is increasing. Addressing the burden imposed by the weight of supporting pension is complicated. The bottom line is that the system is not sustainable. While the situation is nobody’s fault (because it was created by the Legislature’s give-away in 1999 that left the taxpayer holding the bag) it is everybody’s problem. My view is that each of the interest groups involved – the municipality, the employee, and the taxpayer – has to bear a fair share of the burden. Employees’ contractual expectations should be honored. In addition, employees in the past have negotiated less raises in monthly salaries in exchange for better pension terms. Municipalities must develop innovative ways of reducing the cost of doing business. Taxpayers have to pay some of the cost if we decide it is sufficiently in our benefit to do so.
Since 2006 San Anselmo has started to address the pension burden by implementing a two-tiered system whereby the second tier applies to new hires. The second tier decreases the pension percentage and the increase the age at which it accrues. In addition, we have negotiated contracts with Police and Fire whereby the employee is starting to bear 3% of the 9% pension payments in contrast with the former approach wherein the Town bore the burden of the pension contribution. Finally, our Police Department has recently entered an agreement with the Twin Cities Police Authority to share services which will provide substantial savings.
Additional approaches that we have not implemented, but can, and probably should implement, is to remove San Anselmo from participating in the Social Security system and to implement a third tier that would be based on a defined contribution plan, rather than a defined benefit plan.
One of the most important impacts of the lack of money is infrastructure deterioration that is particularly evident in street decay. The taxpayers can authorize an increase in taxes according to at least two schemes that Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, imposes. If the tax increase is earmarked for a particular purpose, it must receive authorization by 2/3’s of the voting electorate, a high standard. If the taxes increase is for general purposes, it requires a mere majority of the electorate’s approval. Thus, if the People want to authorize a tax increase earmarked for street repair, for example, the 2/3’s standard must be satisfied. Such approval would require a focused effort of concerned citizens.
Additional issues include doing our part to address climate change. While I supported San Anselmo’s membership in the Marin Energy Authority, we need to do more. Part of that responsibility is to use our cars less.