It seems virtually every time we have an election, we have a new tax or bond measure on the ballot. That won't change this time around, either. Los Altos has Measures H and I on the Nov. 2 ballot, initiatives that would raise the city's utility-user tax from 3.5 to 6.25 percent.
As we mentioned in an earlier editorial, this is an opportunity for voters to decide whether they want enhanced town services that befit a modern city, or if they want to keep things the way they are.
We support the measures, not because they are funding frivolous enhancements, but because they are providing money for services that really matter.
Take 911 dispatchers, for instance. Currently, the city has only one dispatcher on a 12-hour shift. Considering the vast majority of calls are medical emergencies, having more than one person on board to field multiple calls could mean the difference between life and death for some residents.
The additional $1.1 million per year expected from the tax also would address needed street repairs. Los Altos has 120 miles of streets and only 11 miles have been addressed this year with local money and funds from county measures A and B. Potholes and other road scars are more than unsightly - they're also potentials for accidents.
Traffic enforcement also would get a boost, continuing funding for two officers who were appointed in January for full-time traffic work. A third officer would also be funded. Considering the increasing number of families with young children in town, this traffic safety benefit should not be underestimated.
Speaking of families, city parks would also get a boost from the increased utility tax. Funding would help realize ambitious visions for the 5.5-acre Rosita property, which could include a new indoor gym.
Those against the tax say it's unfair because it hits residents on things that aren't options for them - water and electricity. We think this tax is entirely fair because it is a "pay-as-you-use" philosophy, hitting hardest those who may tend to overuse their utilities for such items as extravagant landscaping. Also, the tax can be reduced at some point, as it has been in the past, when the council sees services met.
Other opponents say there's a better way for the city to get revenue, such as collecting from AT&T on use of city right-of-ways. But most other fund-raising options would not produce the revenue Los Altos needs.
The council didn't decide themselves that there was a need for more services. The tax proposal results from staff review, citizen input and council decisions on what the city needs.
But just as there is no free lunch, requested services must be paid for. That's where all residents come in. And from what we see, the services provided by the tax increase will be money well spent.