Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA- 5 Consideration of Potential Ballot Measure 010 di. • ' 1ZUSA TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 4TH, 2002 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE RECOMMENDATION Because of court decisions indirectly affecting the collection of the City's Utility Users Tax, it is recommended that the Council schedule public consideration of 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% ➢ Apply the commercial rate to commercial telephones and wireless devices It is also recommended that the City appoint a community "Tax Review Task Force" to work with the Council and staff on a broader tax reform plan to be put before voters in November 2003. BACKGROUND Since the passage of Proposition 13 nearly 25 years ago, California cities have scrambled to adjust to a series of voter initiatives, legislative changes and court decisions that have completely reshaped how communities pay for basic services like police, fire, library and parks. Where once property taxes were the backbone of support for local services, today our city receives only 15 cents out of the property tax dollar. The service demand has not gone away, but the funding has had to come from other sources. Without any statewide plan or principles to guide this evolution, the result is that "local finance sources are unstable, uncertain, often inadequate, and subject to unpredictable revisions by the Legislature" within a legal framework that "is commonly viewed as arcane, incomprehensible, and sometimes biased," according to the State's own Commission on Local Governance for the 215` Century. The impact on Azusa is particularly acute. The infamous "ERAF" decision by the Governor and Legislature to balance the 1992 budget by diverting local property tax revenue from cities to school districts has cost our city over $7 million dollars so far, at a rate that has grown to nearly $1 million a year. Four years ago, Governor Gray Davis declared that the State "stole" the money, saying "we've got to get it back. I promise to do just that. It will be over a period of time, but we will give the money back because it wasn't ours to start with." Yet despite record State surpluses, the funding was not even partially restored and the "emergency" diversion continues to this day. 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: ➢ 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. ➢ 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 decisions interpreting them that has dramatically changed the authority for local taxes. After long assuming that Azusa's Utility Users Tax was valid, because of indirectly related court decisions, it now appears the tax would be subject to legal challenge without reauthorization from voters. With $1.7 million at risk, the City cannot wait for a test case and the costs and uncertainty such a lawsuit would entail. As a result, the City Attorney, City Manager and Azusa Light &Water Director strongly recommend the City Council place a measure before voters at the next election to validate the existing tax. As in any crisis, this offers both "danger" and "opportunity." The necessity of a new vote on the tax offers the opportunity to restructure the tax for greater fairness and greater revenue to support vital city services. In terms of fairness, the recommendation offers the opportunity to: ➢ Reduce the burden on city residents, particularly homeowners, of a tax that is tied to utility consumption rather than residents' ability to pay ➢ Allocate a larger share of the cost of city services to the largely industrial and warehouse sector of business that does not generate sales tax revenue to the city and enjoys the second lowest cost of doing business out of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County ➢ Close the loophole on taxing of commercial phone services which are taxed by virtually every other city besides Azusa that has a Utility Users Tax In terms of additional revenue, the net result of the cut in residential tax rate and the increase in the business rate (including telephone) would be $1 million annually. Clearly, at a time of economic uncertainty, the resident tax relief will strengthen the City's commitment to home ownership. By the same token, an increased rate for business must be carefully weighed so as not to adversely affect the climate for business in Azusa. But industrial and warehouse businesses currently enjoy the lowest electric rates in the San Gabriel Valley, averaging 20-40% less than Edison rates, depending on the time of year. Throughout the County, the only city with comparable utility rates and lower business taxes is the industrial city of Vernon. That city, however, recently imposed a significant business license increase on all warehousing businesses in the city. Also our water rates are the second lowest in the San Gabriel Valley. Moreover, these added costs must be weighed on the other side against the impact on businesses of cutting services without additional revenue. The projected $1 million annual net revenue does not provide funding for new programs - it simply fills the revenue shortfall that this year is being filled by previous savings. Without this funding, services must be reduced. The only other alternative (short-term belt tightening measures like hiring freezes, equipment purchase deferral, postponing capital reinvestment) has been tried and after many years left the organization's ability to provide quality services severely threatened. To start that cycle again would squander not only the progress we have made, but the progress the Council has worked so hard to bring: > 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" could 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. 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. The staff also looks to Council direction on discussion of the recommendation with the residents and businesses affected prior to a final Council decision, including letters, meetings and surveys. FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation is estimated to generate net additional revenue to the City's General Fund of $1 million annually to replace the $1 million in previous years savings allocated to balance this year's budget. MEASURE x Shall Ordinance No. 2003-X be adopted to cut the residential Utility Users Tax to 4% and raise the commercial Utility Users Tax to 8%, including business telephone and wireless devices? YES NO ORDINANCE NO. AD®3-r AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE AZUSA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE SALE AND DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS WITHIN THE CITY OF AZUSA WHEREAS, in 2002 the City of Azusa was one of many California communities severely impacted by wildfires which destroyed many homes and hundreds of acres of forest area; and WHEREAS, in light of these recent fire-related tragedies, the City Council determined that it is necessary to reduce the risk of fires and fire related injuries in and around sensitive and high fire hazard areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council also determined that the best method to reduce the risk of fires and fire related injuries is to prohibit the sale and discharge of fireworks; and CU.—(j?-7 WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. wnich has placed on the ballot for the City's general election on March 4, 2003 the question as to whether the voters shall approve ordinance to prohibit the sale and discharge of safe and sane fireworks within the City of Azusa. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-101 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated to read as follows: "Section 30-101. 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: "Fireworks" includes the classifications and definitions of"dangerous fireworks," "exempt fireworks," "fireworks kit," "pyrotechnic device," "safe and sane fireworks" and any other type of fireworks or pyrotechnic devices as classified and defined in the State Fireworks Law (Health and Safety Code § 12500, et seq.). SECTION 2. Chapter 30,Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-102 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated to read as follows: —1— "Section 30-102. Restrictions on sale or discharge. Except as provided in this article, the storage, use, handling, possession, sale, offering for sale or the discharge of fireworks of any kind, nature or description within the city is prohibited." SECTION 3. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-103 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 4. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-104 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated to read as follows: "Section 30-104. Public displays. Fireworks may be discharged at any celebration of a public or semi-public nature if a permit authorizing the discharge of fireworks is obtained in advance of the celebration from the fire chief or the city council. Any such permit shall be issued in accordance with the Fire Code of the County of Los Angeles, the regulations of the State Fire Marshal, and the conditions of the permit as approved by the fire chief or the city council." SECTION 5. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-105 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 6. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 1, Section 30-106 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 7. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 2, Section 30-131 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 8. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 2, Section 30-132 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 9. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 2, Section 30-133 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 10. Chapter 30, Article IV, Division 2, Section 30-134 of the Azusa Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 11. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with law after its adoption by the voters. SECTION 12. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in the manner required by law. —2— PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2003. Cristina Cruz-Madrid, Mayor ATTEST: Vera Mendoza, City Clerk —3— 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,, Shall the voter of the City of Azusa adopt Ordinance No. 2003-I, prohibiting the sale and discharge of fireworks within the City of Azusa? 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 November 18, 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. Vera Mendoza, City Clerk Dated: November 6, 2002 _