Candidates Answer: UUT and Police Spending Questions

Patch asked readers in Sierra Madre to submit questions they have for the seven candidates running for City Council.

The most popular question was: Where do you stand on Measures 12-1 and 12-2? These will be on the upcoming April ballot and, if approved, will extend the Utility Users Tax increase.

Under current law, City Council members have the ability to set the UUT rate. It can be collected at a rate up to 12% until the end of June 2014. Currently the Council has the UUT set at 10%.

If Measures 12-1 and 12-2 pass, the UUT would be set at 10% until July 2013, when the max collection amount would rise to 12%. The Council could choose to collect it at 12% until 2018. They could also choose to set a lower rate (like they currently do).

All UUT money goes into the city's general fund.

There were also some questions about where the candidates stand on police spending.

Public Safety spending currently accounts for just over 50% of the city's general fund. For the 2011-2012 year, the city budgeted $3.8 million for police spending. For fiscal year ending 2008, the city spent just over $2.5 million on the police department.

We were able to obtain answers from five out of the seven candidates for this article. If Bill Tice and Mary Ann MacGillivray get back to us, we’ll be sure to update you with their answers.

Note: There are three seats up for election: one two-year seat and two four-year seats.

Q: Where do you stand on Measures 12-1 and 12-2 (the proposed Utility Users Tax Increase Extension)?

Colin Braudrick: (running for the two-year seat)

“My concern is that if the extended UUT (propositions 12-1 and 12-2) fail to pass in this vote it will create uncertainty about future revenues. There is nothing worse for a market, commodity or a bond rating than the uncertainty of future value or revenues. This uncertainty will undoubtedly negatively impact our bond rating and I believe will result in another downgrade. If our bond rating plummets, the cost of borrowing money would leave the City hamstrung. This threat will be the greatest to the City in times of a natural disaster when we would have no choice but [to] borrow money for infrastructure repair.

“In addition, the argument that has been recently bantered about that… as the cost of utilities increase over time that it will bring in greater revenue is fundamentally flawed. The increase cost of utilities should follow the rise in the consumer price index (inflation) and any revenue gains are lost to an increase in prices the City must pay for services due to inflation. So this promise of future increases in revenues through a potential increase in utility costs is merely smoke and mirrors and should be discounted.

“My decision about the UUT is based upon the threat to our bond rating and combined with the potential impact the loss of future revenues would have on our already severely slashed budget. At this juncture I see no choice but to approve measure 12-1 and 12-2.

“However, if elected, as a member of the City Council I am committed to keeping the rate of the UUT as low as possible to ensure that we do not spend the people’s money unwisely.”

John Capoccia: (running for a four-year seat)

“I recommend a NO vote on Measures 12-1 and 12-2.  The current 10% Utility User Tax (UUT) does not sunset until June 30, 2015.  That’s more than one year after the next municipal election in 2014. Since voters will have another chance to extend the sunset dates, there is no need to do it now.  The council is already authorized to increase the rate to 12% under the existing ordinance.  Should they decide to do so, the 12% rate would not sunset until June 30, 2014, which again, is after the April 2014 municipal election. 

“The bottom line is that there is no need whatsoever to do this now.  I recommend that the voters keep the pressure on the city council to reduce expenses first before institutionalizing higher UUT rates. 

“I’ve elaborated on this topic extensively – see my Patch blog.

Gene Goss: (running for a four-year seat)

Excerpts from his blog

“The City is facing daunting fiscal challenges because of the loss of CRA funds, the rising cost of living, especially rising energy costs, and due to the costs of the recent windstorm. After a very thorough and exhaustive review of the City budget I have concluded that the extension of our existing Utility User Tax is a prudent and necessary action which will enable our City Council to plan for the provision of essential public services for Sierra Madre for the coming years. Therefore I support Measures 12-1 and 12-2.

“We should extend the UUT now because planning for the police, fire and paramedics programs and for other essential City services is generally not something that can be done well in the short term… If we allow the UUT to sunset we would be sending the wrong signal to bond rating firms and bond markets, who are looking for certainty and predictability, and it could have a negative consequence on our credit rating.

“Some of my opponents seem to believe that being opposed to the extension of this tax somehow makes them the taxpayers’ heroes at election time. What they are not saying is exactly what services and programs they would cut should the UUT sunset and not be extended.”

Read more about Goss’ stance

John Harabedian: (running for a four-year seat)

“I am in support of extending the sunset date of the UUT because it ensures that the City will be able to continue to provide vital services to our residents through these tough economic times.  Putting this to a fair and open vote of all Sierra Madre is the best way to decide.”

Chris Koerber: (running for the two-year seat)

An excerpt from his blog,

“A ‘Yes’ vote on measure 12-1 will allow a top UUT tax rate of 12% (a full 20% increase from the current 10% rate) starting July 1, 2013  and continuing through June 30, 2018 – unless City Council lowers the rate. However, with natural increases in utility prices, revenues from the UUT will continue to grow – even at the current rate of 10%.  An increase to 12% only takes more money out of your pocket.

“Sierra Madreans are on a fixed income or working a job without a raise for the last few years. As one Canyon resident shared with me, ‘I haven’t had a raise in 5 years. If you raise my taxes, what bill don’t you want me to pay? I don’t have anything left!'

“Finally, there is no reason to push through the UUT tax hike now. The city certainly does have some challenges to meet. However, I believe these challenges can be met without an unnecessary tax increase. Under the current law, the rate won’t drop below 10% until June 30, 2015 – that’s three full years from today!

“You and your household are on a tight budget – shouldn’t your city live within its means as well?”

Q: Do you think it’s appropriate for our city to allocate over fifty percent of its general fund spending to the police department especially since we have virtually no crime?

Colin Braudrick: (running for the two-year seat)

Declined to comment- for now. Braudrick indicated he would prefer to write a Patch blog with his answer. We'll post it as soon as it's available.

John Capoccia: (running for a four-year seat)

"First, I’d ask the question a different way – How much should we spend on our police department to achieve the level of safety and security that our citizens expect? 

"Given that providing safety and security is one of the most, if not the most important function of city government, it would be irresponsible to offer a hard dollar figure without a thorough analysis, and without receiving input from the public and other knowledgeable subject matter experts.  I would first look at the cost per capita of police services in Sierra Madre and compare to other cities.  A preliminary look suggests that there is an opportunity for savings – Sierra Madre’s costs are higher than other full-service cities such as South Pasadena, Arcadia and Glendora, some of which is easily explained by economies of scale.  Since we’re much smaller, we can’t spread the fixed costs over a large population base. 

"After analysis to 'normalize' the difference in the per-capita cost, I would then look at other factors that influence costs, and at how public safety is perceived and actually measured compared to other cities, i.e., what is the burglary rate per capita?  How many arrests result in convictions?  How many moving violations are issued per capita?  Finally I would then try to identify “best practices”; what are other cities doing that result in cost savings while maintaining effectiveness?  Perhaps an expansion of the neighborhood watch program might reduce the need for full-time paid patrols?

"Bill Coburn, our Chamber of Commerce Executive Director mentioned a great quote from Linus Pauling:  “The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas”.  We need to work closely with Chief Giannone and the Police Department to come up with more ideas on how to maximize safety while reducing the burden on taxpayers."

Gene Goss: (running for a four-year seat)

“Setting a percentage, whatever it may be, as a benchmark for spending is imprudent and it’s not practical…. I wouldn’t commit myself to any percentage… we need a police force that’s up to the task. What we need to do is provide the level of services people expect.” 

John Harabedian: (running for a four-year seat)

“Keeping Sierra Madre safe is the most important issue for me and it’s the only way we will continue to retain our quality of life. And it makes economic sense as well.   By maintaining a high level of public safety, we preserve our property values.  And property values vis-a-vis property taxes are what fund our City's services in large part. We cannot preserve our village without these services.

"This is not the time to be penny wise and pound foolish.  The question is are we paying a fair price for the level of public safety we receive.  I do think we always need to keep our eye on every penny the City spends.  That is why I want to create a citizen-run Public Safety Commission to work with our public safety departments to see how things may be done better and more efficiently.”

Chris Koerber: (running for the two-year seat)

Declined to comment.