HomeMy WebLinkAboutA- 3 Adoption of Proposed Ballot Measure •
("41111
!f
tirrj s`.
ZUSA,'
•c
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 25th, 2002
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE
RECOMMENDATION
Because of court decisions indirectly affecting the collection of the City's Utility Users
Tax, staff recommended that the Council consider a ballot measure to be placed on
the March ballot that would:
➢ Reduce the rate for residential electric, water and gas from 5% to 4%
Increase the rate for commercial electric water and gas from 5% to 8%
-ppl I he commereial-rate • • - - -p ones an• wire ess se v.ces--)
After a public hearing last week, Council directed staff to meet with representatives of
the Azusa Chamber of Commerce and the Azusa Downtown Business Association to
address their concerns with the proposal. As a result of that meeting, staff
recommends that we drop the aspect of the proposal that would extend the tax to
telephones and wireless devices and proceed with the rest of the measure as
originally recommended.
It is also clear that there is strong support from business leaders to actively participate
in the community "Tax Review Task Force" the Council will be appointing to work with
the Council and staff on a broader tax reform plan to be put before voters in
November 2003. Staff recommends that this task force be organized to begin work in
January.
BACKGROUND
Business leaders recognize the need to support city services. But they have
expressed a clear desire to participate in tax decisions that affect them. While
acknowledging the low costs of utility services from Azusa Light and Water .(electric
rates average 30% lower than Edison and the second lowest water rates in the San
Gabriel Valley) they are concerned about increased costs in the current uncertain
business climate. Particularly with increased reliance on phones and wireless devices
The passage of Proposition 218 by California voters forced the City to put the Fire
Assessment District to a new vote, not of residents, but of property owners according
to the dollar volume of their holdings. Despite majority approval of city residents, the
Funding for fire service in the city was repealed by the votes of business and
apartment landlords. The city's budget has had to fund an annual burden of $2.5
million a year (which rise next year due to expiration of $300,000 in annual credits as
a result of a previous overcharge in the County's formula.)
To offset these annual losses of $3.5 million a year, Azusa has not been idle. But
working within the "arcane, incomprehensible, and sometimes biased" legal
framework controlling city finances has been difficult:
D Voters turned down three out of five revenue measures to partially replace the
Fire Assessment fee. Of the two that passed, one (quarry tax) led to lengthy
and expensive litigation before a settlement agreement. The other (swap meet
admission and vendor tax) produced $300,000 a year, but that ended last year
when the long-standing requirement for also showing movies at the Drive-in led
the operator to shift to Citrus College.
D At a time when cities have been driven to ruthless competition for sales tax
generators, Azusa was forced to cut a deal with Costco to keep them from
relocating to another community. The deal gives a rebate back to Costco of
nearly half a million a year in sales tax revenue that would otherwise go to the
City. Despite a similar deal with Bert's Motorcycle, they relocated two years
ago to Covina to expand into a vacant big box. And Azusa lost $3 million in a
tug of war with West Covina for Mission Chrysler.
Voters approved a hike in business license taxes for apartments because of the
gap between service costs and tax revenue from apartments. When landlords
again raised rents, many told their tenants that the city was to blame, despite
the increases running far in excess of the additional tax burden.
In this adverse climate, Azusa has safeguarded city services and in the last three
budget years, regained ground lost in the immediate aftermath of the ERAF shift and
Fire Assessment loss. The Council has unfrozen vacancies and added staff in priority
areas like Police, Code Enforcement and Human Relations. The Council has acquired
or shifted funding to address long-standing problems of deferred maintenance and
growth needs for city facilities, including expanding the Police headquarters, repairing
streets and improving parks.
Nonetheless, as I have warned repeatedly during the past three years, we must either
secure significant additional recurring revenue or make significant cuts in the services
offered to residents and businesses. This year's budget (FY 2003) was balanced using
one-time savings from the budget a year ago (FY 2001 .) But good planning and good
fortune cannot be counted on to continue indefinitely.
The Council adopted this year's budget recognizing the need to secure an additional
$ 1 -2 million in recurring funding. But now we face an additional complication. Two
State initiative measures(Propositions 62 and 218) have produced a series of court
➢ 500 new homes being built, raising overall property values and creating a
stronger base for attracting first-tier retailers
➢ Building a new library for the future
➢ Filling nearly 500,000 square feet of new light industrial "flex" space
➢ Fixing all of our streets over the next decade, with an emphasis on raising from
9 to 80% of our streets to excellent condition in the next five years
➢ Rebuilding our aging sewer system
➢ Supporting neighborhood revitalization, one neighborhood at a time
➢ Upgrading and expanding our neglected parks and restoring our degraded
riverfront
➢ Confronting a disturbing pattern of gang violence and hate crimes with both
effective law enforcement and prevention efforts
Beyond the necessity of resolving the status of the Utility Users Tax is the
responsibility to openly and fairly look at the City's current and potential revenue,
taking into consideration the burden on both residents and business. Azusa has made
significant progress by involving residents and business people in creating a new
General Plan vision for the community as well as participating in shaping a wide range
of development and other issues. A fresh look at the current tax structure with a
commitment to tax reform can lay the foundation for long-term fiscal growth and a
continued healthy business climate. The current Business License Tax, for example,
falls more heavily on small businesses than large ones. Addressing this inequity may
offset the impact of the increase in the Utility Users Tax.
Because this would involve lengthy and detailed public participation, it is not feasible
to make these choices in time for the March election. Thus it makes sense to plan a
year-long effort that would involve the community in a comprehensive look at the
City's finances. Such a "Tax Review Task Force" will thoroughly examine alternatives
in light of:
The Council's goal of adding additional Police officers and support staff for a
growing population and the threat of gang violence and hate crimes.
The community's goal of building a new Library, contingent on State matching
funds, which will require additional staff for the expanded collection and
programs.
The potential for further diversion of local funds due to_the State fiscal crisis.
The need to look at service or cost reductions from our existing budget to
offset the need for additional tax revenue.
Attached is a schedule for public consideration of the recommendation for placement
on the March ballot. A sample of ballot language for such a measure is attached.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-C 136
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A
MEASURE TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY TO
AFFIRM AND AMEND THE UTILITY USER TAX WITHIN THE
CITY OF AZUSA ON MARCH 04, 2003
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9222, the City
Council may submit to the qualified electors of the City a proposition, without a petition
therefore, by ordinance or resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to hold an election on March 4, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the qualified electors of the
City a resolution asking whether to amend the Azusa Municipal Code by adopting an
ordinance to affirm and amend the utility user tax within the City of Azusa.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES FIND AND DECLARE THAT:
SECTION 1 . Question Submitted to Voters. The City Council, pursuant to
Elections Code Section 9222, hereby orders that the following question be submitted to
the qualified electors of the City of Azusa at the election to be held on March 4, 2003:
Utility User Tax
"Measure L: Shall the voters of the City of Azusa adopt
Ordinance No. 2003 - Ia. affirming the Utility User Tax and
reducing the existing residential tax from 5% to 4% and
increasing the existing commercial tax from 5% to 8%?"
SECTION 2. Impartial Analysis by City Attorney. The City Clerk is hereby
directed to transmit a copy of the measure set forth in Section I above to the City
Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure in accordance with
Section 9280 of the Elections Code.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon its
adoption.
ORANGE\SRC\2833
-1-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November 2002.
Cristina Cruz-Madrid
Mayor
ATTEST:
Vera Mendoza
City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of
November, 2002, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, CHAGNON
MADRID
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
•
Vera Mendoza
City Clerk
ORANGE\SRC2R)}
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING, APPROVING,
VALIDATING AND CONTINUING THE CITY'S
UTILITY USERS' TAX WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, Azusa residents have repeatedly indicated their desire for a well maintained
community and availability of quality services to all citizens regardless of socio-economic status;and
WHEREAS, in 1992, in response to a decline in revenue and the community's demand for
quality municipal services, the City investigated alternative revenue sources and taxation options;
and
WHEREAS,in accordance with its police powers and California Government Code Section
37100.5, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 92-031 imposing a utility user's tax, which
ordinance has been codified as Article VII of Chapter 70 of the Azusa Municipal Code(the"UUT");
and
WHEREAS, the City Council lawfully adopted the UUT without voter approval based on
case law, namelyin accordance with the case ofcourt's rulinu in City of Woodlake v. Logan (1991)
230 Cal.App.3rd 1058; and
WHEREAS, in September of 1995 the California Supreme Court overruled the Woodlake
<ecisie�� itshei�ie���f��J���aseefcrcate�l anihi( uines in the assessment and collection of utility
users taxes when it rendered its decision Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Carl
Guardino (1995) 11 Ca1.4th 220; and
WI I ER[AS, the Citi Council has adopted Resolution No. which has placed on the
ballot for the City's March 4, 2003 general election the question as to whether the voters shall
approve of the City validating and continuing to collect the UUT, with amendments to reduce the
residential tax and increase the commercial tax; and
WI l lRI:AS, the:A/_us iter -a1prov 1 }pis-Orth-n -nee shall bedeen dplac mrnt or this
ordinance oil the [allot and subsequent approval by the voters.of Arusa is an attempt will satisfy the
legal rcyunements C011CC111111g voter approval oI taxes as set forth in Article 3./ o1 Chapter 4 of Part
I
oh I)iy Kion 2 oh I itic > of the California Government Code (Proposition 02) and address any
amhi citiescreated by the ( ivardino decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF TI-1E CITY OF AZUSA DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SE( TION 1 . TArtiu Ie VII, Chapter 71i ofthe Aiusa :Mn:ncipal Code is hereby amended-by
()Rnnci:u+nMKv29s2
• - - • - - - - • . • - Ca eleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"ARTICLE VII.: UTILITY USER'S TAX
Sections:
• Sec. 70-261 Definitions
Sec. 70-262_ Operative date
Sec. 70-263_ Exemptions
Sec. 70-264 Electricity
Sec. 70-265 Cogenerated electricity
Sec. 70-266 Fuel
Sec. 70-267 Service users receiving direct purchase of
fuel or electricity
Sec. 70-268 Water
Sec. 70-269 [Intentionally omitted]
Sec. 70-270_ Reporting and remitting
Sec. 70-271 Interest and penalty
Sec. 70-272 Actions to collect
• Sec. 70-273 Attorneys' fees
Sec. 70-274 Duty to collect; procedures
Sec. 70-275 Additional power and duties of tax
administrator
Sec. 70-276 Assessment; administrative remedy
Sec. 70-277 Records
Sec. 70-278 Refunds
Sec. 70-279 Termination or suspension
Sec. 70-261. Definitions. The following words,terms and phrases,when used in this article,
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Cogc ncrntor means any corporation, including an electrical corporation. or person employing
cogeneration technology Ior producing power from other than a conventional power source for the
generation of electricity.
Eleciricul coi/)orution, gas corporation, water corporation unci cable television co//)oration
mean the same as defined in the California Public Utilities Code sections 234, 218, 222, 241 and
215-5,respectively,as such sections existed on July 1, 1992,except the term "electrical corporation"
includes any franchised agency or cogenerator, and the terms "electrical corporation," "gas
corporation" and "water corporation" include any municipality, public agency, broker/marketer Or
OKANGEAJMK\29S?
v3v
exemptions provided for in this section and shall be charged with the responsibility for developing
forms and procedures and processing applications for exemptions.
(d) The light and water department shall determine the eligibility of any person who
asserts a right to exemption from the tax imposed by this article. The light and water department
shall provide the tax administrator with the name of any person it determines is exempt from the tax
imposed by this article,together with the address and account number to which service is supplied to
any such exempt person. The tax administrator shall certify the information and shall provide it to
the service provider. The tax administrator shall also notify the service supplier of the termination of
any person's right to exemption under this article or the change of any address to which service is
supplied to any exempt person.
Sec. 70-264. Electricity.
(a) There is imposed a tax upon every person in the city using electrical energy in the
city. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of five percent following rates:
For residential electrical utility users, the rate shall be four percent (4%)of the
charges made for such encrgyelectricity and shall be paid by the person paying for
such energy. electricity.
For commercial and industrial electrical utility users, the rate shall be eight percent
(MO of the charges made for such electricity and shall be paid by the person paving
for such electricity.
---- -- -- --._ — ---
The charges referred to in this section shall include charges made for:
(1) Metered energy;
(2) Transmission and distribution charges: and
(3) Demand charges, service charges, customer charges, minimum charges,
annual and monthly charges, fuel cost adjustments and any other charge
authorized by the state public utilities commission or the federal energy
regulatory commission.
(b) As used in this section, the term "using electrical energy" shall not he construed to
mean the storage of such energy by a person in a battery owned or possessed by him for use in an
automobile or other machinery or device apart From the premises tion which the energy was
received; provided, however, the term shall include the receiving of such energy for the purpose of
using it in the charging of batteries. The term shall not include.electricity used and consumed by an
electric utility supplier in the conduct of its business as an electric public utility nor shall the term
include the mere receiving of such energy by an electric public utility or government agency at a
point within the city for resale or the use of such energy in the production or distribution of water by
a public utility or a governmental agency nor shall the base on which the tax imposed in this section
is computed include reconnect charges, late payment charges, returned check charges, penalties,
oRnN(iEAr3MK,2952
`5v
include the following:
(1) That billed for fuel which is delivered through a gas pipeline distribution
system or mobile transport;
(2) Fuel transportation charges; and
(3) Demand charges, service charges, customer charges, minimum charges,
annual and monthly charges, fuel cost adjustments and any other charge
authorized by the state public utilities commission or the federal energy
regulatory commission.
(b) The following shall be excluded from the base on which the tax imposed in this
section is computed:
(1) Charges made for gas which is to be resold and delivered through mains or
pipes;
(2) Charges made for gas sold for use in production or distribution of water by a
public utility or governmental agency;
(3) Charges made by a gas public utility for gas used and consumed in the
conduct of the business of gas public utilities;
(4) Charges made for gas used by a cogenerator or fuel cell or in the propulsion
of a motor vehicle, as that phrase is defined in the state Vehicle Code,
utilizing natural gas; and
(5) Reconnect charges, late payment charges, returned check charges,penalties,
broken meter charges, etc.
(c) The tax imposed by this section shall he collected from the service user by the person
selling the gas. The person selling the gas shall, on or before the 20th of each calendar month, make
a return to the tax administrator stating the amount of taxes billed during the preceding calendar
month. At the time such returns are filed, the person selling the gas shall remit tax payments to the
tax administrator in accordance with schedules established or approved by the tax administrator.
Sec. 70-267. _Service users receiving direct purchase of fuel or electricity.
(a) Notwithstanding any other section of this article, a service user receiving fuel or
electricity directly from a nonutility supplier not under the jurisdiction of this article or otherwise not
having the full tax due on the use of fuel or electricity in the city (unincorporated/incorporated)
directly billed and collected by the service supplier shall report the fact to the tax administrator
within 30 days of such use and shall directly remit to the city the amount of tay due.
(b) The tax administrator may require the service user to provide, subject to audit, filed
tax returns or other satisfactory evidence documenting the quantity of gas or electricity used and the
actual price thereof.
Sec. 70-268. Water.
(IRANGr\IRMK\2952
-7-
(a) Under this article,taxes collected from a service user which are not remitted to the tax
administrator on or before the due dates provided in this article are delinquent. Should the due date
occur on a weekend or legal holiday, the return may be postmarked the first regular working day
following a Saturday/Sunday or legal holiday.
(b) Penalties for delinquency in remittance of any tax collected or any deficiency
determination pursuant to this article shall attach to and be paid by the person required to collect and
remit at the rate of 15 percent per month (prorated for periods less than one month)of the total tax
collected or imposed by this article.
(c) The tax administrator is empowered to impose additional penalties for fraud or
negligence in reporting or remitting at the rate of 15 percent per month(prorated for periods less than
one month) of the amount of the tax collected or as recomputed by the tax administrator.
(d) Every penalty imposed under this section shall become a part of the tax required to be
remitted.
Sec. 70-272. Actions to collect. Any tax required to be paid by a service user under this
article shall be deemed a debt owed by the service user to the city. Any such tax received from a
service user which has willfully been withheld from the tax administrator shall be deemed a debt
owed to the city by the person required to collect and remit. Any person holding such money
contrary to this article shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the recovery of
such amount.
Sec. 70-273. Attorneys' fees. The city shall be entitled to recovery of its attorney fees in any
action to enforce this article.
Sec. 70-274. Duty to collect; procedures. The duty to collect and remit the taxes imposed
by this article shall be performed as follows:
(I) Notwithstanding section 70-266(c), the tax shall be collected insofar as practicable at
the same time as and along with the charges made in accordance with the regular billing practices of
the service supplier. Where the amount paid by a service user to a service supplier is less than the
Dull amount of the utility charge and tax which has accrued for the billing period, such amount and
any subsequent payments by a service user shall be applied to the utility charge first until such charge
has been hilly satisfied. Any remaining balance shall he applied to tares due. If a service user has
roti lied the service supplier of his refusal to pav the tax imposed on the utility charges. section
274(c) will apply.
(2) ' The duty to collect tax from a service user shall commence with the beginning of the
first full regular billing period applicable to the service user where all charges normally included in
such regular billing are subject to this article. Where a person receives more than one billing,one or
more being for different periods than another, the duty to collect shall arise separately for each
billing.
<)KANGf vHMK\_2 2
shall be imposed, but not less than $5.00. The penalty shall become part of the tax required to be
paid under this article.
Sec.70-277. Records. It shall be the duty of every person required to collect and remit to the
city any tax imposed by this article to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as
may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he may have been liable for the collection
of and remittance to the tax administrator,which records the tax administrator shall have the right to
inspect at city hall at all reasonable times. Failure to provide the tax administrator with documents
requested by the times specified by the tax administrator shall result in a penalty of$250.00 per day
for each day after the date the documents were requested to be produced by the tax administrator that
the documents are withheld.
Sec. 70-278. Refunds.
(a) Whenever the amount of any tax has been overpaid or paid more than once or has
been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the tax administrator under this article, it may
be refunded as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, provided a claim in writing
therefor, stating under penalty ofperjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is based,is filed
with the tax administrator within three years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms
furnished by the tax administrator.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection(a)of this section, a service supplier may claim a refund
or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted the amount overpaid, paid more than once or
erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established that the service user from whom
the tax has been collected did not owe the tax; provided, however,neither a refund nor a credit shall
he allowed unless the amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to the service user or
credited to charges subsequently payable by the service user to the person required to collect and
remit. A service supplier that has collected any amount of tax in excess of the amount of tax
imposed by this article and actually due from a service user may refund such amount to the service
user and claim credit for such overpayment aainst the amount of tax which is due upon any other
monthly returns, provided such credit is claimed in a return dated no later than three years from the
date of overpayment.
(c) No refund shall be paid under this section, unless the claimant establishes his right
thereto by written record showing entitlement thereto to the satisfaction of the tax administrator.
(d) Notwithstandin)e other provisions of this section, whenever a service supplier,
pursuant to an order of the state public utilities commission or a court of competent jurisdiction
makes a refund to service users of-charges for past utility services, the taxes paid pursuant to this
article on the amount of such refunded charges shall also he refunded to service users, and the
service supplier shall be entitled to claim a credit for such refunded taxes against the amount of tax
which is due upon the next monthly return. If this article is repealed, the amounts ofany refundable
taxes will he borne by the city.
uc.nr,eAlmr ,,s,
-II..
NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER
WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST CITY
MEASURES MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK
NOTICE IS GIVEN that the General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Azusa on March 4,
2003, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure:
Measure L: Shall the voters of the City of Azusa adopt Ordinance No. 2003-la, affirming the Utility
User Tax and reducing the existing residential tax from 5% to 4% and increasing the existing
commercial tax from 5% to 8%?"
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Article 4,Chapter 3,Division 9 of the Elections Code of
the State of California,the legislative body of the City,or any member or members thereof authorized by the body,
or any individual voter or bona fide association of citizens,or any combination of voters and associations,may file a
written argument, not to exceed 300 words in length, accompanied by the printed names and signatures of the
persons submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed
name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, for or against the City Measure.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the
arguments and sample ballots for the election, the City Clerk has fixed December12, 2002, during normal office
hours,as posted,as the reasonable date prior to the election after which no arguments for or against the City measure
may be submitted to the clerk for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in the Article 4. Arguments
shall be submitted to the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed names and signatures of the persons submitting it,
or if submitted on behalf of an organization,the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at
least one of its principal officers, at the City Hall, Azusa, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn
until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the city council had determined that rebuttal arguments,as submitted
by the authors of the opposing direct arguments,may be filed with the clerk, accompanied by the printed names and
signatures of the person submitting it,or if submitted on behalf of an organization,the name of the organization,and
the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for
filing direct arguments.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any ordinance, impartial analysis,or direct argument filed under the
authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-
calendar days from the deadline for the filing of the arguments and analysis. Any rebuttal argument filed under the
authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10-
calendar days from the deadline for filing rebuttal arguments.
41014,00,1Holaytt...,
Vera Mendoza, City Clerk
Dated: November 27, 2002
w ra
a
. m i
C) c)
o H
C7
v�
Argument Against Measure "L"
c•
je
5�
The recommendation from the City of Azusa is to place e"L"to
increase the commercial Utility Use Tax on electric, water, gas from 5%to 8%. At the
same time this measure will reduce the Utility Use Tax on residential electric, water and
gas from 5% to 4%. Currently, the Use Tax base is 5% for ALL residential or
commercial uses. This ballot initiative"L"will raise business utility use taxes by 3%and
decrease the residential utility use taxes by 1%.
If this ballot initiative is successful, it would mean 3% increase on your business
electric, 3% increase on your water, 3% increase on your gas. Depending on the size of
your business, by simply adding all the percentage increases, you will end up paying a
combined rate increase that is far more than 3%. Do your own calculation from your
electric, water and gas bill separately and determine how much more you will end up
paying. For example, if your average business electric bill is $300.00, at 5%you are
paying $15.00 per month and with the 3% tax increase, you will be paying additional
$9.00 per month for a total of$24.00 per month. The same calculation method of 3%
increase applies to your water and gas bills separately.
This tax increase has the potential to overburden small businesses and the
business sector as a whole. If the intent of the measure is to raise revenue, then it should
be shared equally between residents and businesses. By decreasing the utility use tax for
residents by 1%, for every $100.00 of electric, water and gas usage, a saving of $1.00 per
month will be passed on to the residents of Azusa and at same time penalize the business
sector with 3% increase in taxes. Vote NO on measure "L".
Philip Jara 7
ZU-CTY-CLFRK
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "L"
2 pE� 02 17: 21 Measure L is the next step forward for Azusa! Residents will get a 20% cut in
utility tax rates! It protects our vital police, fire, library and recreation services.
Home ownership is the cornerstone of recent improvements in Azusa. The families
of Azusa have made a commitment to improving our schools, our parks and our
neighborhoods. After years of hard work, we're seeing improvement.
Measure L is the next step. Tax reform will give Azusa families a much-needed tax
cut that will continue to support the growth of home ownership. It will also provide
additional revenue to protect vital services by replacing lost funds from the Federal and
State government.
Businesses will pay only a little more. Today, Azusa has the second lowest cost of
doing business out of all 88 cities in the County. Our electric rates are the lowest in
San Gabriel Valley. Our water rates are the second lowest. The large industrial
businesses that occupy one-third of the city currently provide little revenue that supports
the local roads, police and fire that business and residents rely on.
The Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Business Association understand this
responsibility. That's why they do not oppose this long-overdue tax reform. They
understand the need to promote new business, especially retail businesses. Retail stores
need safe streets, prosperous neighborhoods and an attractive community.
Ten years ago, the State government began diverting millions in local property tax
revenue from all cities, including Azusa. Sacramento's tax grab costs Azusa nearly Sl
million dollars a year. To protect your services, Azusa needs additional revenue.
Measure L ensures business pays their fair share.
Vote for tax fairness! ote for a sensible tax t for residents! Vote for business
paying their fair—share Vote_YES on Measur L.
Mayor Ina ruz-M id
Mayor Pro Tem Dave Hardison
Comic iInlem )Z--Didnl
EfCebe-C hagnOn
C uncilme ber Joe Rocha
/LP 2-1. /
Councilmembcr Dick Stanford
PER ITA RGUS!C-!�1%, /il/
.9/
FA VCR O/ lY1 S v«6- L
"-L!
f
Measure"L"will deter businesses willing to start a newthysin s o 'refO
at toi 79,
Azusa. Don'; n e�d by the 1% savings that at.'aierage is *7 month
compared wit- xcessi e burden that this measure will place on local businesses -
regardless of their size.
Businesses already pay and will continue to pay more than "a little more"
considering meter size, rate and usage. If a decrease of 1%from 5%to 4%for residents
is a"20%cut in utility tax rates"then a 3%increase from 5%to 8%on businesses is 60%
increase.
We simply cannot afford to loose more businesses by overburdening them with
additional taxation! Think what is right not only for residents but businesses as well.
We are a community that respects all sect ys o.ft�Ppr ociety including values in sharing
Azusa's needs to pay and protect-for outrvi6es:
Vote for tax fairness that is equal. If we need a tax reform, let us together find a fair
and equitable way for businesses and residents each paying their equal fair share.
Vote NO on Measure L.
Philip Jam
•
3 rjc, 02 172 24
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure"L"
Measure "L" will deter businesses willing to start a new business or relocate to
Azusa.Don't be mislead by the 1% savings that at on average is about$1.00 a month
compared with the excessive burden that this measure will place on local businesses
regardless of their size.
Businesses already pay and will continue to pay more than "a little more"
considering meter size, rate and usage. If a decrease of 1% from 5%to 4% for residents is
a"20%cut in tax rates"then a 3% increase from 5%to 8%on businesses is 60%
increase.
We simply cannot afford to loose more businesses by overburdening them with
additional taxation! Think what is right not only for residents but businesses as well.
We are a community that respects all sectors of our society including values in sharing
Azusa's needs to pay and protect our city services.
Vote for tax fairness that is equal. If we need a tax reform,let us together find a fair
and equitable way for businesses and residents each paying their equal fair share.
Vote NO on Measure L.
Philip Jara
4' PAAd
•
The undersigned proponents or authors of rebuttal to argument in favor ob ballot
Measure "L" at the General Municipal Election for the City of Azusa to be held on
March 4, 2003, hereby state that this argument is true and correct to the best of their
knowledge and belief.
Signed: Date:
•
-1L. 46) /C-7/0A-C1
/0_y0 c.-
604) tilitte9/)---- 26-tC-
AZU-CITY-Cr,ER
23 LEO 02 ..',1 24
REBUTTAL TO AUGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "L"
Why would someone oppose cutting utility taxes for residents by 20%?
Political candidate Phil Jara claims Measure L will deter new businesses. Here are the
facts:
- Azusa electric rates on business are the lowest in the San Gabriel Valley-
businesses in Azusa pay 30% less than businesses served by Edison in other
cities.
➢ Our water rates on business are the second lowest in the San Gabriel Valley.
➢ AZUSA HAS THE SECOND LOWEST COST OF DOING BUSINESS OUT
OF ALL 88 CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY!
That's why in just three years, more than half a million square feet of new light industrial
space has been built in Azusa-all of it sold or leased before completion! That's why a
developer is proposing a new first-class supermarket for Azusa. That's why Downtown
has seen its first new commercial construction in 30 years. That's why the LA Times and
the San Gabriel Tribune have praised Azusa for promoting business growth. The San
Gabriel Valley Tribune called Azusa, "the most improved city in the San Gabriel
Valley."
The Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Business Association understand the
need for fiscal responsibility. That's why they do not oppose this long-overdue tax
reform. They understand the need to promote new business, especially retail businesses.
New retail stores need safe streets, prosperous neighborhoods and an attractive
community.
Vote for tax fairness! Vote for a sensible tax cut for residents! Vote for business
paying their fair share! Vote YES on Measure L.
Leoteeta
//'
•
Mayor C a Cruz-Madrid
a /411 41.464-".2;
Mayor Pro Tern Dave Hardison
•`-' .(19,./taL .- V AA
Councilmember Diane Beebe-Chagnon
l /�
/Councilmember Joe Rocha
44.41x frr
Councilmember Dick Stan_ord /
MEASURE "L"
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
Under Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, general law cities, such as the City of
Azusa, are authorized to affirm existing, impose new or increase existing general taxes, if
a proposed new levy or increase is approved by a majority of the voters.
The passage of Measure "L" by a majority of voters in the City would enact Ordinance
No. 2003-la. This ordinance affirms the existing utility user tax and authorizes the City
to:
• Reduce the existing utility user tax rate for residential electric, water and gas from
5% to 4%; and
• Increase the existing utility user tax rate for commercial electric, water and gas
from 5% to 8%.
The revenue from the utility user tax will generate approximately $465,000. This
measure simultaneously reduces and increases existing taxes and does not establish new
taxes. The existing rules and regulations concerning the collection of the tax and
exemptions from payment of the utility user tax will still apply. The proceeds from these
taxes will go into the City's General Fund to reduce the anticipated $1 million shortfall in
next year's operating budget. The general tax revenue can be used to finance all types of
general municipal services, including, but, not limited to, parks and recreation, library,
senior citizen program, building, planning, public works and emergency and safety
services.
If approved, the measure will add the necessary authorizing provisions to the Azusa
Municipal Code. In the future, the tax rates can only be changed or increased by a
majority vote of the voters. However, the measure will authorize the City Council to
implement any necessary procedures for collection of the taxes.
A "yes" vote on the Measure is a vote to affirm the utility user tax and authorize the City
to reduce the residential tax from 5%to 4% and to increase the commercial tax from 5%
to 8%. A "no" vote is a vote against a change to the existing utility user tax rate.
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2003-Ia. IF
YOU DESIRE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT
(626) 812-5233 AND A COPY WILL BE MAILED AT NO COST TO YOU.
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
City of Azusa