« Quercetin Rules | Home | 5 Cities Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman Back in Montebello »
Sir Eric Maundry: Thursday Update
By Eric Maundry | January 10, 2008
In the discussion of my Monday column there has been considerable comment about what the User Utility Tax hike in Sierra Madre would mean as far as payments per household. As the city has yet to supply the exact information, speculation is all over the place. Nick in particular has contested the $3,000 figure, the one I cited as the highest possible increase, and then to only the wealthiest of households. And if you read his posts I’m afraid to say he does raise a valid point.
However, in the process of digging into this stuff, an issue has come up.
It has been reported widely in our vigilant local media that the UUT rate hike will take us from a 6% to a 12% rate. That is, if the voters approve. Nick quotes it, I quote it, and until now that has been accepted knowledge. And why not? In an official City Of Sierra Madre press release (City Of Sierra Madre And POA Reach Agreement, Pending Voter Approval - 12/20/07) the following is stated:
“The proposed UUT measure increases the UUT over three years from the current 6 percent to a maximum figure of 12 percent…” http://www.cityofsierramadre.com/index.php?mod=news_detail&id=259
But is this really a 6% hike in actual taxable UUT dollars? And does this hike take us to 12% Or is it really more?
Currently our UUT payments come from the following categories: Phone, Electricity. Gas, and Water. That is what our current 6% is based on. If that were to go to 12% the net gain to the city would be $827,391. But under the proposed UUT hike three additional categories are added: CATV (cable television and all that goes with it), Sewer, and Refuse. At 12% the net gain in revenue from those new taxable categories alone comes to $582,004.
According to the matrix supplied on the City Of Sierra Madre site (Totals per utilities FY 07/08 & 08/09), the total increase in revenue from a 6% increase (”net gain”) would come to $1,579,780. Fiscal year 06/07 shows a UUT revenue figure of $959,400. Do these figures really indicate a 6% rate increase? Under the current system using the 4 categories of Phone, Electricity, Gas and Water, the net gain from a 6% increase would actually be $827,391. In percentages using dollars, to get to the $1,579,780 figure you would be required to increase the UUT rate to 8.5%, bringing the actual UUT rate to 14.5%. Much higher percentages than what has been shared by the city to date.
In my opinion adding new categories is just another way of upping the take. A 6% increase on the original 4 categories, coupled with a new 12% rate on the 3 brand new UUT categories, is not a 6% increase. To say that the new rate will be 12% despite the addition of 3 brand new categories and the revenue they would produce seems incorrect.
Anyone care to shed some light on this?
Last 5 posts in Sierra Madre
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Brush Fire near Upper Hasting's Ranch - July 18th, 2008
- Sierra Madre's Michelle Keith Leaving - June 26th, 2008
- Don Watts, Conspiracies, and Overspending: Jae on Sierra Madre - June 13th, 2008
- Mudslides in Sierra Madre and TORNADOES in the Southland - May 23rd, 2008
Topics: Sierra Madre |
January 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Sir Eric,
By now you should know that using actual math when discussing local government is a big no-no.
2+2 can indeed equal 5, or 3, if it suits the local government’s purpose.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
At the end of the day, it’s a tax increase. The RATE doubles; the base on which the rate is applied is broadened. So, for most households, in real dollars, it’s more than a doubling of the UUT you guys will pay.
In some cities that do UUT increases, sometimes the increase in graduated over a few years. I’m assuming the SM UUT happens in a single jump. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to explain SM’s revenue estimates, other than they are estimates and maybe they’re making assumptions that don’t add up. But as a taxpayer, you’ll be paying double what you are now for the existing utility base, plus 12% on the new items. But still, $3,000 a year in UUT for a household seems to assume an enormous amount of utility usage.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Looks like all the math here is correct. Like I said on the other post, it’s basically the same thing as when they started charging sales tax for snack foods. The 8.25% rate was still the same, but we were paying for it on more things.
In that case, I think the city’s accurate in the way the proposed UUT is being described. I looked through the city’s documents (they wouldn’t load last night) and they don’t try to hide or obscure any of the categories that would be taxed. The information is there pretty clearly if you go to look for it.
But I agree with the point that most people in town are going to make the (very reasonable) assumption that the tax is taking us from 6% to 12% when there’s more going on than that. “The truth, but not the whole truth,” I guess we could say.
Good discussion, btw. Can you write all your columns like this? Please!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
You know Nick, the conversation you and I have been having these last 12 hours is a good one, and I’ve learned a bunch.
Thanks!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I’m confused now.
I thought I understood it to be in yearly increases with the final increase adding up to a total of 6%
I hope that makes sense?
Will Sir Eric or Nick please comment?
Thanks
January 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Still, you guys, no one has mentioned cuts.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose deep cuts to hundreds of state programs and declare a fiscal emergency Thursday as the state begins to grapple with an estimated $14 billion budget shortfall.
Attention city councilmembers!
And you think Sierra Madre has problems!
January 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
HC — the proposal is to increase the existing tax from 6% to 12%.
Where it gets more confusing is that the tax is also being expanded to include additional utilities (cable TV, sewer and trash). They’ll ALSO be taxed at 12%, but are currently NOT being taxed.
The city isn’t hiding that, but when everyone talks about the tax, it’s generally only getting discussed as an increase to 12%. That’s true, it’s just that there’s a little more to it than that.
Certainly, this isn’t a problem limited to Sierra Madre (as I mentioned before, several other cities are floating UUT increases), to the area, or even the state. Things are going to be tough for everyone.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Handicapper - All the figures I have indicate that the UUT tax hike is for more than advertised. Bringing in 3 new categories and adding them at 12% sends the 6% overall UUT math out the window.
This is a bigger tax hike than anyone has been saying up until now.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Thank you Sir Eric for reminding everyone about the new catagories that will now be taxed.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
What I don’t like is that once the tax is instated it remains in perpetuity.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Some cities have a sunset. South Pasadena, for example, actually has two UUTs, both of which have, I think, 5 year sunsets. Then, they go back to the voters for renewal. I think it’s a good approach: forces the city to actually do good stuff with the UUT revenue so they can “earn” a renewal. It’s been renewed 3 or 4 times since it was originally voted in.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Citizens for Responsible Government has obtained video of Sandra Levin, partner in Colantuono & Levin and author of Pasadena’s Measure D, explaining to the Sierra Madre City Council that the language in Sierra Madre’s proposed telephone tax ordinance that prevents taxation of “digital downloads” isn’t in Pasadena’s Measure D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJXh5GEEUY
January 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
So Sandra can go 0 for 2 this spring?
Priceless.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Wes makes a good point.
If they have a sunset….it keeps ‘em honest!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I haven’t seen the language of the proposed tax, however I suspect it actually will have a built in yearly increase…something tied to cost of living index, etc. This is a favority technique of Colantuono & Levin…the tax will simply go up each and every year with no future need for voter approval?
January 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The sunset wording is a must!
January 11th, 2008 at 7:31 am
There isnt a sunset clause. When the first UUT tax was proposed,without a sunset clause, it had a maximum cap of 6% with hopes (and promises) that we may sometimes pay less than the 6%. That never happened. Go figure! And as a side note, that happened under some of your beloved Maryann MacGillivry’s watch….not that that even matters.
Then when Measure F was proposed, 2 or 3 years ago, it didnt have a sunset clause either. If you’ll remember, Measure F was vey similar to the present UUT, and it failed to pass.
The current UUT is not tied to anything other than a maximum percentage that can be charged. Of course we could be charged less than the max but that isnt likely, especially in light of the police wanting more money. And they will constantly be asking for more, year after year, as they and all employees always do.
Keep in mind though, these percentages do not need to be tied to other index meters because they are in effect tied to the economy already. As utility rates increase to match raises in the economy, the amount generated in tax dollars increases accordingly. Its still 6%, but 6% of $100 generates more tax dollars than 6% OF $90. So, in a sense, by its nature, its tied to cost of living increases.
Read my Lips, “No new taxes.”
January 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
How about your watch “handicrapper” when a big chunk of the money was spent on consultants, attorneys etc?
The simple disturbing fact is our money was not used wisely,some of it was used to promote the DSP, high paid jobs created for dirts and other development traps.
This is an interesting thread.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I’m not sure what you mean by my watch, but if you must know, I wear a fake Rolex I bought for $40 in Jakarta from a street vendor named Jinjura.
But what really makes me curious is those high paid jobs created for dirts. Specifically, what jobs, because I need me one of those.
Bloody hell, I need a beer.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
this is a good conversation going on. i did not know about all of this stuff. i checked on the city’s website and did some of my own research.
the uut will expand to include cable and sewer which was not covered by the uut now.
the new tax goes from 6 % to 12 % over three years. It moves up 2% each year. The effective tax is higher because you are include two more areas: cable and sewer.
i live in a regular size house and have a family of 5. from my math, it looks like in three years, i will be paying about $35 more each month. This is based on my current charges. The charges may go up in three years so the $35 may be higher in three years too.
there is a sunset clause on it.
i am not against taxes for my community, but i do need to know more about what this money is going for.
does anyone have more information for me? where can i find more information?
January 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
That is an excellent question , t.p.
I think your concerns are on the minds of majority of residents in Sierra Madre.
Keep reading all you can. And keep asking questions.
Thanks for posting. There are a lot of people who have good opinions and know facts on board here.
We’ll report…..you decide.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
t.p.
Is trash also taxed? The tax is a general tax. That means the money CAN be used for anything. On the ballot there is an advisory vote. The voters can say if passed, they want the tax to be use for public safety. However it is entirely up to the City Council how the money is spent. Will all the money be used for safety? Who knows.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I’m voting NO!
This is a bad idea. Myself and many others agree that the police are already paid fairly for this size city and the actual duties performed.
Are no other departments getting raises? This isn’t fair to the others who work hard hours and are being ignored.
Are we going to receive improved police servies? No - it’s going to be the same.
Our police department patrols outside of Sierra Madre - according to the blotters, they are doing routine traffic stops down on Foothill and on Rosemead.
I thought this tax was just on electricty - now its on more services and new taxes? NO WAY
The special committee and council took the easy way out - they didn’t explore contracting out with the Sheriff’s Department or Pasadena or Arcadia.
I just can’t support the tax.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
who is getting or received what jobs, what is your proof? what are their names? how are they benefiting? isn’t that against the law, why were no charges filed and why only on this blog is it mentioned, i would think the whole twon should know that bart doyle runs sierra madre! i am new here in town, who is he?
January 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
rosie comments:
It also depends who is on the city council.
If Buchanan and Joffe get retired as did Tonja Torres, and we get a new makeup of the council.
Well……I have confidence the money will be used wisely and for a change all the waste will be carefully looked at and appropriately dealt with.
Blank……. We’re trying to keep Sierra Madre the nice small town you want to live in.That is why we bought our homes here and paid too much money for them. That is why people pay high rent to live here.
Our neighboring communities ,which for the most part are over developed and now the residents are trying to turn it around.
We were headed down that road of no return the past few years, but the good people of Sierra Madre found a way to turn around on that road of no return. Two of our councilmembers, Kurt Zimmerman and Don Watts promised the people they would fight over development for them, and they have kept their promise. In spite of some $170,000 given by out of town Building Industy Association ( Bart Doyle ) and the Association of Realtors, the people won the Measure V election. In spite of one candidate, Mosca (who had a No on V sign in his yard after promising the voters he would protect them from overdevelopment of downtown.He quickly flip flopped as soon as he was sworn in.He was insurance just in case unpopular candidate, Torres, who also betrayed her supporters, lost. She got the lowest vote for an incumbent in the city’s history.
The good people of Sierra Madre deserve better.
I pray in April we will get our prayer answered.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Well, I’m having trouble getting my mind around the utility tax revenues in the first place. In 2001-02, the amount was over $900,000, then when the State produced its City Filing on revenue, the amount reported in ‘05-06 was only $850K and change. Now I am having a very difficult time comprehending this. We’ve had utility increases in electricity and cell phones abound. And more to the point, the water rates increase automatically increased the utility tax because it is just a percentage of the underlying figures. The entire issue about what are the figures is a mind game because it is only a percentage of figures that are completely out of the control of the City Council. They are trying to manipulate the figures to demonstrate that the tax is needed and that it will be very helpful. There is one obvious thing that can be said, however. It is 6% now of the total utilities of the City and after the implementation of this measure it will be 12% of the total utilities billed in the City. What that figure is cannot be predicted with any clarity, just a general estimate. Any specific statement is just meant to manipulate the voters.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Damn right Bart Doyle runs this town. If you ever go into the city managers office you’ll see the red Bart phone. A direct link to Bart Doyle. Its kind of like the Bat-phone but better. Bart is part of the tri-lateral commission in charge of the western sector and has its headquarters right here in the basement of Sierra Madre city hall. There are even tunnels that run from the basement straight to his house. All that excavating on northern baldwin was actually a continuation of more tunnels to connect Barts home to his new mansion in 1 Carter that the Arabs are giving him for free just because he made it possible for them to develop 1 Carter. Damn you Bart Doyle. Damn you all to hell.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Hey Steve,
Traffic stops at Rosemead/Foothill are probably, though not always, the result of violations in S.M. On top of that it’s a common practice that agencies patrol the areas bordering their town and at times make traffic and pedestrian stops outside of their actual jurisdiction. The fact is though officers can make a stop anywhere, they have that authority by law. Just f.y.i.
That being said with a Democratic majority running our state, including Arnold who is no more a Republican than Davis was and has Davis’s chief of staff as his chief of staff and relying on a few of Davis’s senior advisers also on his payroll, is it any wonder we’re spending 33% more than when Davis was in officer with a 29% increase in revenues? Arnold and everyone else has seen this coming for at least two years, been warned about it by guys like Tom McClintock, and done nothing…NOTHING!!!
Blame the state and quit electing the idiots we keep electing.
Local Boy
January 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Bart Doyle made the papers about a month ago.
He was down in El Monte trying to tout eminent domain.
Made the comment that “there is nothing wrong with eminent domain”
Not the kind of dude we want running our city.
Get rid of the bums!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
but isn’t he out of this city? i don’t see his name at city hall or the police dept
January 11th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
YIKES! blank.
!!!!!! 
You’re right……not at the police dept. (Bart wants to get rid of the police, btw.)
Not at city hall.
Let’s try the post office…..WANTED POSTERS!
January 12th, 2008 at 6:39 am
HandicRapper is hilarious. Of course there is no red phone, but then again it’s not needed. When Bart Doyle sits behind the city manager at a public forum and whispers in his ear and the words come out of the city manager’s mouth, you know that he’s the Man behind the Curtain. He enjoys the confidence of 3 City Council Members and is consulted (either directly or indirectly) by them on a regular basis. The agenda he announced to his supporters when he was first elected is still being pursued. If you’re going around looking for actual fingerprints, you’re wasting your time. He’s still a very powerful force in this town and just look at the development agenda and the way the town is managed–the budget is being used to pay consultants that will later provide support for the city council members to advance their political careers. They are the same consultants that were used when Bart came in and Fortunately he so alienated his constituents that he was unable to advance his political career. Then there’s the plan to add benefit assessment districts and special taxes so that the budget doesn’t have to work. Well, the defeat of Measure F confounded that. And adding additional services into the “utilities” that are being assessed is part of this process. Heaven forbid the government should ever be accountable for the money it spends. There’s something very fishy going on. Don’t believe that Bart Doyle isn’t involved. Big error. But if you do believe it, it doesn’t much matter–the same principles are still being played out — all to the expense of the city.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Roia!
:))
Thanks for posting!
Anyone who is reading the board and is serious about learning or confirming the truth…..you just read it in Roia’s post.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:40 am
It just goes to show the public that these elected officials can to add 2+2 together and arrive at the same value as taught in MATH classes.
I wonder if they really graduated from the 3-R’s in school?
Some time it makes a person wonder if the elected officials are not criminials out of prision on a work release program?
January 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Remember people…..Bart Doyle is an attorney for the Building Industry Association (the developers).
January 12th, 2008 at 8:05 am
What does Bart Doyle look like, if I run into him I want to know who I’m taking to. Is there a link to a photo of him?
January 12th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I don’t think he talks to people on the street much, Ron.
The dirts hid him out after the very NEGATIVE feedback their paid phone research companies got from citizens.
The left him off their “ex-mayors” after the first card went out….and the SMRRD canvassers carried it around door to door to get signatures for YES on V.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
there still is no proof of this bart doyle, all you keep repeating are opinions, i am guessing quite a few of you are applying to be on city council or to work at city hall to keep an eye on things
January 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
this whole situation is very confusing to a new person
January 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
It is confusing to a new person, blank.
Just keep reading Sir Eric threads, you’ll get both sides.
Roia’s last post is the gospel truth, far as I know. But you keep reading. You’ll be hearing the candidates for the next City Council election (who would not have the time to be posting on this board, btw).
You decide for yourself.
Welcome to Sierra Madre!
January 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Don’t forget Bart was fined $1500 by the Political Fair Practices Committee.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Sky .. now there’s a coincidence. Enid Joffe also had a little run-in with those folks.
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Agendas/November01/joffeX.pdf
January 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Well, Paddy, this really shocks me. Really does.
I had never heard about this before, but there you have it, right on the fppc website.
Can’t make these things up.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Roia
OMG, you are so right about that damn Bart Doyle and his campaign agenda when he was first elected. I mean just look at his record. While working on the General Plan in 1997, he helped down-zone the entire city so that developers cant build condos everywhere. Then he immediately statred the work to establish a tree ordinance so that those greedy developers cant cut all our trees down. Then that damn Bart Doyle got a demolition ordinance approved so those developers cant just tear down all the historical buildings, or any building for that matter. Then that damn Bart Doyle got Sierra Madre’s own CEQA guigelines approved so that developers have to go thru higher levels of environmental analysis in order to build. Then that damn Bart Doyle went and worked to obtain several million dollars in Federal and state grant money to rebuild our water reservoirs and water infrastructure. Then the nerve of that greedy SOB to push for and approve an Arts Commission.
Damn you Bart Doyle. Damn you all to hell!
But dont let any of that fool you. Its all just smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from what he is really all about. He’s an opperative for those damn Dubai developers. Be careful because he’ll eminent domain your house right out from under your feet and have those Arcadia style starter castles built all up Windsor and Brookside Lanes. He’s not just the man behind the curtain, he’s the Wizard himself.
Damn you Bart Doyle
January 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I want to know what this guy looks like. I don’t know how he has the nerve to show his face in town.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
i thought the deal at one carter fell thru, why talk about old buyers of a property. doesn’t this town like to look forward, and if there were mistakes made ,the new people that want to get involved can correct the past. maybe run for a council seat. at least that is how things were done up north. how long can you live here before you can run?
January 12th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Blank,
Tonja Torres and Judas (oops, I mean Joe) Mosca only lived here about 8 months.
Both lied to the voters. Tonja was voted out of office with a very low number.
Judas (oops, there I go again) Mosca had so many enemies of people who gave him money and worked on his campaign that they had a recall last summer and over 1500 people signed it. Unfortunately, due to some very bad luck, 4 holiday weekends, they needed about 400 more.
It was ill timed or Judas would be out looking for another job. The people who did the recall were encouraged by residents who were very angry at Mosca. Rightfully, so.
He is a dishonest person, in my book, just like Tonja, he lied to get elected.
I think it’s too late for you to file and run this time around, blank, but there will always be spots open, start going to meetings, and go for it!
January 12th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Bart Doyle is COO of the Titan Group, one of the biggest redevelopment outfits in the region. Do we need to say anything more? For people like him a nice little village such as Sierra Madre offers potential for windfall profit, and nothing else. The kind of guy who would gut this place like a fat chicken if we should ever let down our guard. And the sad part of it is that we actually have jerks in this town who would cheer him on as he did the deed.
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=43041648
January 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Handicrapper, you have apparently not read the things that Bart Doyle lead the council putting into place. While claiming that he was tightening the tree ordinance, he created a hole in that ordinance that you could drive a bulldozer through and many many trees were destroyed outside the development process (by doing it more than 6 months before applying for a permit) at the Krafft Estate and elsewhere. Of course, the Doyle influenced council did nothing about requiring the fence that hid all this stuff from the public eye from going on.
The CEQA guidelines he put in place were so relaxed that they permitted things to be done that would not have been permissible, but oops!! they’re in the guidelines as below the threshold so it’s a big fight to try and get even an initial study for some of these things.
And don’t make me laugh about downzoning the entire city–the general plan may have been adopted, but he personally stopped the re-zoning to make the zoning ordinances consistent with the general plan because ‘it was taking too long’ Well, 8 years later, it’s taken even longer. Give me a break. Some property, such as his own, was never re-zoned. Hmmmmm. And of course, he was fined by the FPPC for voting on something he had a direct interest in (electrical undergrounding on North Baldwin). I heard him telling Willis that he would make sure that One Carter would be developed for something really worth while so he could get some $$ out of it.
He is a development devotee and still wields a lot of power. It’s all about politics for him.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Oh, and P.S., after promising a group of “supporters” that he would get rid of historic protection (it’s such a burden on development) he proceeded to hatch the brain child of Measure I-97-1 which the city tried to use to establish a precedent for a city-sponsored (as opposed to citizen sponsored) initiative placed on the ballot to avoid CEQA review. $500,000 later in attorney’s fees the Supreme Court of Calif said this was a big No No. Of course, the hilarity of the whole situation was that the measure was intended to save the city $72,000 in CEQA review costs (which wasn’t all that clearly owed in the first place). It’s worse than smoke and mirrors.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Anyone with any integrity just read the above two posts by roia and knew instantly they were reading the TRUTH.
Thanks roia.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
[…] allow Sir Eric and others to post here because they help kickstart conversation. For instance, his post on the proposed Sierra Madre Utility Tax was a substantive contribution to a conversation that […]