Bah

Utility-tax issue delayed
Pasadena council unable to untangle ballot language
By Kenneth Todd Ruiz, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/23/2007 08:48:37 PM PDT

PASADENA -- Despite the City Council's readiness to declare an emergency in Pasadena late Monday night, a semantic debate about ballot language prevented members from taking any action.

As wildfires displaced hundreds of thousands throughout Southern California, the council approved a unanimous declaration of [was poised to unanimously declare] an imminent risk to "the public welfare" in Pasadena to protect the city's Utility User Tax from legal challenge.

But after the city's legal team warned against certain changes to the ballot language, the entire debate was put on hold until Nov.5.

"It will not be the first time language has been complicated at the advice of lawyers," said Mayor Bill Bogaard to laughter at Monday night's meeting.

Whether changing the tax code amounted to modernization - or modification - was a sticking point for several, particularly Councilman Sid Tyler.

"`Modernize' has a connotation, if you think about it - at least to me - that we're changing the language to provide an opportunity to apply the tax to services in the future that are not now taxed," Tyler said Tuesday. "That's not the case."

Tyler, along with Councilwoman Margaret McAustin, also raised objection to how the ballot would describe the impact of the $10.4million collected through the telecommunications portion of the tax, as paid by telephone customers at a rate of 8.28percent.

Instead of emphasizing the potential impact on critical public safety services - such as fire, police and 9-1-1 - the language will more accurately reflect the money's role in the General Fund.

"It was misleading and it's very important we honor and respect the residents of Pasadena," McAustin said Tuesday. "We have an obligation to the taxpayers to be honest."

The tax code change is also designed to bring the 60-year-old code up to speed with changing technology - specifically the Internet.

City officials have made it clear they're not interested in creating any type of Internet tax and only want to maintain the status quo while making a pre-emptive move against possible litigation.

"My sense is they're trying to create the wording of today for the technology of tomorrow," McAustin said. "I was specifically told: Not Internet."

However the proposed changes to the municipal code are less clear.

"Telephone communication services" is defined under those changes as including the transmission, conveyance, or routing of voice, data, audio, video or any other information whatever the technology used.

Assistant City Manager Julie Gutierrez said Tuesday it would be up to the service providers to make the distinction between what was telephony and what was not.

"Our intent is to capture telephone service by whatever means it's provided," she said.

Holding the special election will cost $432,000, according to City Clerk Jane Rodriguez. That includes $305,000 to the county, $82,000 for translations and voter materials and $45,000 to "provide additional information on the measure."

Before the matter returned to the council Monday, City Hall had already hired a communications consultant and created a "Frequently Asked Questions" section on its Web site.

Gutierrez said it was purely for informational purposes and not to initiate a public-relations campaign.

Holding the election in February, as opposed to waiting until March 2009, will still depend on the emergency declaration come Nov.5.

Although city staff avoided using the word, council members Steve Haderlein and McAustin expressed reservations about the need to declare an emergency.

The city's legal consultant told them that state law gave considerable "deference" to local council as to what they determined to be an emergency.

In Pasadena's case, city officials have said, it's the potential that someone might sue the city next year over the tax and if they prevail, the General Fund could take a $10.4million hit.

City Hall has already sacked away $7million as a contingency for that, and according to a financial audit last year, the General Fund had an unreserved fund balance of $72.4million.

todd.ruiz@sgvn.com
(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4444
www.insidesocal.com/pasadenapolitics