Vote NO on Measure "L" the Utility Users Tax: Tell the City Back to the Drawing Board

Measure "L" Utility Users Tax: The Tax Grab Broadens its Reach

This November 4 election will not only involve a new President but many state and local measures which are making a grab for your wallet. Clearly the Utility Users Tax (UUT) "increase" (or rather broadening in reach and scope) could not come at a worse time given the current economic "meltdown".

As it typical with Lakewood city government, the city is not telling voters the whole story on the UUT tax increase in Measure "L". (Lakewood kept LAAG's "No on L" argument off the November ballot while accepting the "Yes on L" argument) They claim Measure L is simply “updating” the existing tax ordinance but in reality it is a broadening of the ordinance in order to make the tax apply to more services and utilities likes calls made over the internet. That was the whole reason why this UUT in Measure L required another vote. The City does not want to do this again so they are broadening the ordinance to not only bring in more revenue (by taxing more types of services and utilities like VOIP phone service, and other future technology like femtocells etc.) but to make it easier in the future to tax "yet unknown" or unforseen sources of revenue ...without a further vote by the taxpayers. All while duping the taxpayer into not thinking they are getting a tax increase just because the tax "rate" is not increasing.

So for right now they are claiming that internet access, email and related content and services are not being taxed under Measure L but this is only due to the fact that Federal law prevents it at this time. But if that changes in the future then Lakewood could use Measure L to tax those new services, without asking for your permission or taxpayer approval via an election.

The city claims the 3% rate will not increase without a vote but nothing in Measure L prevents them from further broadening the application of the tax to other "services" or "utilities" without taxpayer approval.

Another very sneaky tactic is telling voters that the funds will be used for a certain service, project or activity when the proposed ordinance does not mandate such use. The reason the city has done this is it knows that voters are less likely to approve a “general slush fund” tax especially when the money can be funnelled to special interests (like those entities or their representatives who signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure "L"). Voters are more likely to approve a tax that is earmarked for “specific services”. However it takes a 2/3 majority vote in order to pass a “special tax”, whereas a “general tax” (such as this proposed UUT) only needs a simple majority to pass. Deceptively, the voter booklet voters are provided with tells voters:

"Shall an ordinance be adopted to ...fund law enforcement, gang and drug prevention programs, after-school activities, senior transportation, parks, street and traffic signal maintenance and other essential services, ... regardless of technology used, annual audits, public review of expenditures, no rate increases without voter approval, and local control of revenues?"

If you want to read the entire 15 page ordinance of Measure L please click here (PDF)

Again they city has attempted to enumerate those uses that they know will garner votes for the measure but fail to explain to voters that the tax revenues can be used for what ever the city council decides to use them for. That is there the sneaky phrase "and other essential services" above comes into play. What does that mean? Only the city council will decide. For example if the city council decided to use the revenues to redecorate their offices, there is NOTHING in Measure L that prevents that.

There is nothing in Measure L that governs the use of the taxes. That includes even restricting where this tax money cold be used. For example it could be used outside the city of Lakewood. This ordinance does not change anything with respect to existing law on such matters.

Another feature the city likes to tout in Measure L is the "public review of expenditures". Nowhere in Measure L is there any change to existing law with respect to the "transparency" that they city will allow or promoting the use of the internet to increase public awareness of the use of tax dollars like this. There is nothing in Measure L that increases public review or accountability or even visibility. Ask yourself this: if the city council is so transparent why have they never posted the full city budget on line or the audits and budget expenditures of all the prior $35 million (the city's figure) collected since 1992 under the existing UUT? Because they dont want to to know where the money goes and they dont want you to know what is going on with your tax dollars. The devil is in the details! Other city’s UUT ordinances specifically allow for citizen oversight on the utilization of the new funds. Not Measure L.

There are other problems with Measure L. Lets say you use a cell phone, a land phone and VOIP all together. You will be taxed on all three devices, so there is overlap in the tax. The tax is regressive in that it is a greater burden on low or fixed income residents and the more you use the phones and other services the more you will be taxed. However as we all know utilties are now mostly taxes and have very high minimum monthly fixed charges. This tax feeds off those minimum charges. Also if your neighbor only uses a land line and not other technologies he will only be taxed once. So the fairness of Measure L is not as big a selling point as the city makes it out to be.

Also do not assume that 3% is a "low" tax rate. Take a look at your utitlty bills with 10 or so different taxes on it and see which one is higher than 3%. Likely none. So why is 3% deemed reasonable? Especially when Measure L will now be covering more of your services and utlities. The problem of course is the cumulative effect of all these "low" taxes on your overall bill. That is why utility bills are always advertised without all the taxes, which can add as much as 15% to the total. And we have all seen how these taxes are wasted.

Lets not forget the other tax increases on the horizon either; the 0.5% county and 1% state sales tax increases that combined will increase LA County’s sales tax to 9.75%, the highest in the country. This is another tax grab when voters can least afford it.

Also voting NO on Measure L leaves the old tax in place. It does not eliminate the old tax or the revenue. If this were not a chance to get more revenue why would the city and the Sheriff's department be in favor of it?

Dont buy the City's deceptive tax grab. Tell the city to get this right by increasing oversight and accountability provisions to prevent abuse of your hard earned dollars. (Just like the Federal bailouts) VOTE NO on Measure "L"

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Got Towing Fees?

Fortunately in Lakewood no ones car is ever towed as their is no parking enforcement and even when there is, LASD is not involved in it in any way, especially enforcement. It is the city civilian "parking enforcement staff" who have to call the city council to get an ok to write a parking ticket (for fear of pissing of one of the 2500 people that elects the council). This is a good idea given what we have to pay cops per hour to do this. (only problem is the parking enforcement people dont even pay for themselves with the fines collected; but I digress). Oh one other point... the parking staff leaves at 5pm when all the parking violations occur (once people come home form work). At that point you have to call LASD to complain about a parking problem. Perhaps if the violation is parking in front of a cops driveway you might get someone to respond.

The stories below are really a sad commentary on the greediness of law enforcement. Here are people who we pay very well to enforce the law yet they take advantage of their position to rip off the taxpayers even more. According to a high ranking cop I know the argument for paying police extremely high salaries in CA was to prevent corruption. Well I guess it has not worked at LASD. Even sadder is the fact that the LASD sheriff retired before being accused (caught). So he was making the top pay scale when he "allegedly" ripped off the city. What do you think the chances are this will ever get to court or that this cop will refund the money off his 100k a year pension benefits we are paying? Not likely.

LAAG hopes to revisit this story but we are pretty sure we will not hear of this story again. What is even sadder is this has likely happened before and never made it into the press. Also the LASD is also "reviewing several other internal policies" where I suppose graft and corruption could exist but that have not even been looked at yet. Very sad. I wonder if there are any investigations going on in Lakewood? Surely not (an no one in this city questions anything LASD does) and if there were you can be sure we will never know about it. Wonder if the city ever finished this "investigation"? Where are the results?

Probe of alleged theft prompts L.A. County sheriff to review impound policies
Lee Baca says he plans to have tow-truck operators collect the fees instead of department officials. Investigators are looking into the alleged theft of $400,000 by a sergeant.
By Richard Winton
October 23, 2008

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said an investigation into allegations that a sergeant stole more than $400,000 in car impound fees has prompted a review of the way his department handles such transactions for the dozens of cities it patrols.

Baca said he plans to have the towing operators collect the administrative fees directly from motorists, rather than involving sheriff's officials in the process.

"I don't see the need for the department to be a cashier," he said. "The system has to be tightened."

Sheriff's officials initiated the review after La Puente officials reported a significant shortfall in the fees that were supposed to have been collected by the Sheriff's Department, authorities said.

The sergeant retired from the department in May shortly after he was placed on leave as a result of the ongoing investigation, authorities confirmed this week. He could not be reached for comment. No charges have been filed in the case.

"Our residents have been stolen from," said La Puente Mayor Louie Lujan. "This is a large amount of money. It will have a direct impact on our city budget."

According to authorities, the sergeant supervised La Puente's car impound program and also ran the drunk driving task force and other programs that led to impounds.

John Stites, president of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said a union attorney was ready to rebut any allegations made against the sergeant.

"They have been playing around with this for about a year and they have yet to present anything," Stites said.

As part of the investigation into the missing funds, Baca said, detectives have seized money but "not enough to cover the shortfall." He did not say from whom the money was seized.

Michael Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, which serves as the Sheriff's Department watchdog, said the way the cash was handed to deputies by vehicle owners at the Industry Sheriff's Station was problematic.

"That is not a good practice. There is a need for systemic change to avoid this kind of problem," he said.

Gennaco said other stations have had issues. Compton, for example, had accounting discrepancies, but authorities did not establish that money had been stolen, Gennaco said.

Winton is a Times staff writer

richard.winton@latimes.com


Sheriff's department re-thinking towing fees
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/24/2008 10:55:17 PM PDT

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is reexamining how it collects towing fees after allegations emerged a former traffic sergeant took nearly $500,000 from the city of La Puente.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said while several potential policy changes are on the table, Sheriff Lee Baca wants to take the department out of the collection process completely.

"The sheriff has a strong feeling that the sheriff's department should not be a cashier," Whitmore said.

The department has been reviewing their policies for the past few months, Whitmore said. It stems mostly from an ongoing investigation into allegations former Industry station Sgt. Joe Dyer was stealing tow money from La Puente.

The department's Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau has been investigating Dyer since the beginning of the year.

Officials believe he was collecting towing fees intended for La Puente, but not turning over all of those fees to the city.

La Puente is supposed to receive $168 each time a car is impounded.

That fee is paid to the sheriff's Industry Station, which issues a receipt that the driver must provide to reclaim his or her vehicle at La Puente-based Haddick's towing company. The driver then pays a separate fee to Haddick's and the car is released.

La Puente Councilwoman Lola Storing said officials believe Dyer was only dropping off a portion of those fees and receipts at City Hall - which were never reconciled with the Haddick's records.

Dyer retired in May. He did not return calls seeking comment.

"Let's just say that this has been a wake-up call for the department," said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Internal Review.

The OIR is an independent agency that reviews alleged policy violations within the Sheriff's Department. They are aware of the allegations against Dyer and expect to receive a copy of the case once it is submitted to the District Attorney.

"It's still an ongoing investigation," Whitmore said. "But once it's done we will seek prosecution."

There has been one other case within the department involving mishandled tow fees, Whitmore said.

The incident took place in 2007. It involved a deputy in Compton who was suspended for 10 days after failing to follow the department's money handling procedures, Whitmore said.

Gennaco said that while there was initial concern this deputy might have stolen money, the evidence didn't bear that out.

"There was no evidence of any funds missing," Whitmore said. "Apparently he was not doing the paperwork properly. There was no money involved."

The incident is chronicled in an OIR quarterly report released earlier this year.

Gennaco said strides have already been made at the sheriff's Industry Station to reduce the potential for theft.

"The way things are done now in Industry are totally different," he said.

The department is also reviewing several other internal policies and will consult with the Board of Supervisors, Whitmore said.

Other options include taking the department to a cashless system, he said.

"One of the difficulties is we've got 40 cities and each city kind of has its own way of doing things," Whitmore said. "The whole key here is to encourage people to be honest."

La Puente officials are also reviewing their own cash handling procedures.

Staff Writer Frank C. Girardot contributed to this story.

tania.chatila@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2109

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email