City of Riverside Local Services & Clean Water charter amendment, Measure A (June 2013)
A City of Riverside Local Services & Clean Water charter amendment, Measure A ballot question was on the June 4, 2013 ballot for voters in the City of Riverside in Riverside County, where it was approved.
Measure A authorized the continued transfer of funds from the city water utility revenue to the general fund. This transfer was originally approved by voters in 1968 and twice again since then.
This was an all mail election with ballots going out to voters on May 6th and due back by June 4th.
- These results are from the Riverside County elections office.
Text of measure
The question on the ballot:
This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
|Riverside Local Services and Clean Water Measure. To maintain general fund services such as 9-1-1- response; police patrols/fire protection; children's after-school and senior/disabled services; and protect supplies of clean drinking water from contamination; shall Section 1204.1 be added to the Charter continuing the annual transfer of funds from the City water utility to the general fund approved by City voters in 1968, with independent audits, funds staying local and no increase in taxes.|
The Raincross Group public policy advocacy group supported Measure A and encouraged people to vote for it. Collette Lee of Raincross Group said, "Riverside residents voted overwhelmingly for local control of our locally generated revenues to support utility services and (...) the general fund transfer to the city."
In his report to the city council, Finance Director Brent Mason wrote that the loss of the water fund transfer money would mean "significant budget cuts" to police, fire, parks and other city services.
Some residents were opposed to how the city used public money to advertise for Measure A. The city spend nearly $73,000 to poll voters and disseminate information about the negative consequences of defeating Measure A. Others believe that the utility fund transfer was illegal according to a 1996 state law, Proposition 218.
A lawsuit against the city was filed in 2012 by residents Vivian and Javier Moreno and argues that the transfer of money from the water utility revenue to the general fund of the city violates state Proposition 218, which was passed in 1996 and requires a public vote on most new taxes and fees and restricts how taxes charged for services can be used.