I agree that we should trust the facts and reject the arguments from anyone whose facts are way off base as are those of sacresident515. The campaign disclosure records reveal that two unions, including Local 447, have contributed $99,800 to the No on Measure B campaign. Other unions contributed another $30,000. That represents about 80% of the anti-B funding. Those are the facts. While it is a fact that no city funds can LEGALLY be used for any political purposes, the city has chosen to ignore that law this year. The city has posted on it’s website an analysis of the impact that passage of Measure B would have on the city’s finances. Believe me, this is not an impartial report. It is a campaign hit piece for the anti-B effort. It tells all kinds of scary stories about how the city will collapse in ruins once Measure B is voted in. Yes, there is a far-out, remote possibility that with very bad city management, one or more of these scary predictions might come true, but it would be along the same probability of the city hall being struck by a meteor. Notice the city has not insured itself against meteor strikes. To make sure the message of impending doom gets out, the city manager sent one of his assistant managers, Patti Bisharat, out to repeat those scary stories to neighborhood associations and other groups ON CITY TIME. You, the taxpayer, have contributed about $10,000 to the No on B campaign as Ms. Bisharat bounced from group to group these last two months telling scary stories. At least she leaves out the part about the sky falling down. So much for the city not financing campaigns. Your claim the workers captured on film were employees of a contractor is puzzling. They had city DOU trucks. They were clearly DOU workers. I have know idea how someone could come to the conclusion they were contract employees. Are we paying attention? Yes we are. The city negotiated a contract with the DOU employees that did not allow for a pay or benefit increase THIS YEAR ONLY and only after Measure B qualified for the ballot. Since the city’s budget is completely independent from the DOU budget, the city being awash in red ink has zero impact on the utilities budget. The DOU is self funded and currently OVERFUNDED. Letting them keep the rate increase this year gives them more money to illegally siphon off to give to rich developers in ways that is hard to detect. By voting Yes on Measure B, you provide a strong incentive for the city council to stop doing that. By the way, do you realize that there is no money in the drainpipe replacement fund? There used to be, but the city robbed the fund to buy land to develop for an auto mall. Claiming that the rate increase is needed so the pipes can be replaced is nothing short of a lie. Your comment about e.coli infecting the water lines because the city did not install water meters fast enough is beyond irresponsible, and just stupid. The city has, very recently, upped the installation rate for water meters from 5,000 per year to over 20,000 per year. Besides, detection e.coli has nothing at all to do with whether or not a meter is present. And I agree with you that the city should be held accountable and under close vigilance, but what continuing audits are you referring to? The only audit that was ever done on the utilities department got shut down by the city attorney before the final report could be issued. The audit was initiated by the department manager (soon to be ex manager) and as soon as the city attorney got wind of it, she gathered up the draft reports and destroyed them. Since then, the city refuses to audit the department. There is now a brand new city auditor, but he also refuses to audit the utilities department, even though the department is well known to be the worst managed department in the city and a logical starting point IF your goal is to clean up the corruption in the city. Finally, if the city needs more money for the department, all it has to do is put to the voters. The voters of Sacramento are not as stupid as the anti-B forces think. They know the city is lying to them now and it would be foolish for the council to request a rate hike in the future with arguments that insult the intelligence of the voter. If a strong case can be made for a rate hike, it will pass. The anti-B people are treating you as if you were fools. The gloom-and-doom scenarios are the exact same claims made by the City of Dixon in 2006 and by Rohnert Park in 2008. But the good citizens of those cities could tell the lies from the truth and passed the rollback measures. The horrifying predictions of catastrophic failure did not come true. Sacresident515, your claims are based on nothing more than untruths. But it’s the only way your side can win. Vote Yes on Measure B tomorrow.

Where is this watchfull oversite that fifthgen thinks is in place? The city council has refused all demands for an audit of the utilities department. The city council quashed an audit (it was in progress when the council found out about it) that exposed the illiegal subsidies to rich developers.

To fifthgenerationsacramentan, I do indeed live in Carmichael, but that is as irrelevant as your own residency within city limits or Rob Kirth’s opinions. Rob Kirth wants to run for city council again and he knows he has to suck up to the unions to do it. I own no property in the city or county and pay no bills in the city. I also am a volunteer for the Yes on B campaign and do not benefit financially in any way if this measure passes. I have only have altruistic reasons for supporting Measure B. Rob Kirth has self-interest in mind in opposing it. You seem to think that only city residents should participate in the effort to free your city of corrupt influences, when actually, you should welcome all that dare. But to soothe your xenophobic mind, I have lived many years in the city as well. Mid Town, East Sac, even Oak Park. About 10 years in all, including the year 1995. I do applaud you, though, for recognizing the DOU has problems and needs to be held to strict accounting standards. We have encountered many in this city who believe you exist only to provide funding to the various levels of government and no accounting is required. The sad truth is that only the city council can demand that any accounting standards be followed and, since the members themselves are part of the problem, are totally unwilling to do so. That leaves the voters. That means passing Measure B. You will get zero accountability if it fails (a continuation of the current policy). As to the city's ability to pay for infrastructure repairs, it is very difficult to tell how much money is being spent on utilities services and how much is being hidden and diverted out of the utilities budget. That is one of the principle reasons Measure B is here. We could never get straight answers from the city. We have found all kinds of budget gimmicks that make it appear that the ratepayers are being cheated out of millions of dollars, but with no transparency in the accounting and a run-around from the city staff, we can only assume these gimmicks are as we see them and you are being cheated. Why give more money to a department that keeps it's books secret? Bring some transparency to the process. Trust is not a gift, it is earned like a paycheck. There is now no trust. I have always said the Sacramento voters are not stupid. If they see a clear need for a rate increase, they will vote for it. But right now, the city is playing Three-card Monte with the ratepayers as the victims. Let's figure out where we really stand today with the utilities budget, build some trust towards the department and then talk about more money.

fifthgen You can write all that about ethics and deception and still support the city's position that they need the money? You can't be serious.

The negative impact on services that sacresident refers to is the scare tactic the city is using to get voters worried about the quality of their utilities services. Every city that has undergone a rate rollback vote has make these claims. Rohnert Park actually claimed their rollback would force the city into bankruptcy and cause raw sewage to flow down the streets. The voters there only sought to keep the city from illegally subsidizing rich developers by not charging them fairly for the utilities services. Rohnert Park is surviving just like we are and nobody their has to wear hip boots to cross the street. It was all a scare tactic. The big lie from the city hall. It's the same thing here. Read the Grand Jury report from last January. It says the city is illegally diverting $5 million PER YEAR and has been doing so for five or six years. Some of the money has gone to illegal subsidies to developers, just as in Rohnert Park. Now the City needs to repay the utilities department AT LEAST $25 million. That alone will fund the department’s alleged need for more money for the entire year. And did the No on B folks forget to tell you about the $22 million grand it received from the federal government? It was announced by the city about a month after they voted to increase the rates. They knew it was coming, but voted for the rate increase anyway. The $22 million grant alone will fund the department’s alleged need for more money for the entire year. Labor costs for the utilities department this year will run over $150 million. The 9.2% increase in your utilities rates will increase the utilities budget by about $18 million (not $22 million). The city's refusal to cancel last years 5% pay hike and 10% benefits hike cost the department about $10 million more this year. The city did not demand labor concessions because most of the council member's re-election campaigns are financed by the city's unions. The city should have refused the wage and benefit increase last year and maintained a no raise policy this year. That alone would have funded the department’s alleged need for more money for the entire year. When you add up what the city could have saved with a postponement of the salary increase, the illegal diversions, the federal grant, the high degree of waste and mismanagement, the utilities department is OVERFUNDED this year and can survive for several years without the need for rate increases and without the need to reduce the quality or volume of the services it now provides. The city is being deceitful in telling you they need more money. The scary stories the tell are simply not true. Any budget increase will fuel the union’s demands for more benefits and higher salaries. That's what Measure B seeks to address.