Red Alert!

$10M in revenue hangs in balance
Council to debate declaring emergency
By Kenneth Todd Ruiz, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/20/2007 12:28:47 AM PDT

PASADENA -- To protect about $10 million in revenue from the possibility of litigation, the City Council on Monday will consider declaring an imminent "emergency to the public welfare."

Doing so would clear the way for a February ballot measure that, if passed, would preserve the status quo on a tax collected for the past 60 years in Pasadena from every phone bill.

But the taxpayer rights group that helped write a law giving voters the final word on all new taxes said Friday the city was misusing the law's "emergency" provision and is being misleading about how the measure is being presented on the ballot.

A tax hike should only be placed in a special election when there is a natural disaster or some other real emergency "and you need to generate some revenue to start recovery and rebuilding," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"But they're not interested in the intent of the law," Vosburgh said. "To them, having a nickel less than they think they should have is an emergency. They want to arbitrarily put this on this odd election."

Without the declaration, the city can't schedule a vote on Measure D until the next general election in March 2009.

City officials argue that the possibility of losing nearly $10 million collected through the utility user tax is a real threat to services provided under the General Fund and thus constitutes an emergency.

"The potential is that at some time, that $10million could go away in the next year," Assistant City Manager Julie Gutierrez said, adding that plans such as hiring more police officers could be affected.

The threatened portion of the utility tax would only go away if the city were legally challenged over its ability to collect the fees and lost in court. Los Angeles is currently defending such a lawsuit.

To date, no legal complaint or lawsuit has been filed against Pasadena.

Vosburgh said his organization doesn't oppose taxes or even the utility tax - it just wants to close the loopholes that keep the public from weighing in.

Media reports linking the emergency declaration with a lower threshold of votes needed to pass such measures are incorrect, he added.

Each council member will have to decide whether a declaration of emergency is warranted, said Councilman Steve Haderlein.

"That's something to wrestle with. Is this an emergency?" he said. "Everyone has a veto power because it has to be unanimous. I want to know what services will this have an impact on."

Pasadena has already set aside $6.9 million to offset the potential loss.

Despite admonishment last month from Councilman Sid Tyler that the ballot language not misrepresent the tax's purpose, the proposed wording emphasizes its application to 9-1-1 response, police, fire, low-income seniors and "gang/drug prevention."

Tyler said Friday he wasn't "going to quibble" with it at this point.

"The city always tells you that you're not going to be able to get a police officer or a firefighter if they can't get it passed," Vosburgh said. "They never say they're not going to be able to wash the sidewalks or give employees the raises they want."

But as revenues shrink and the city's need to make cuts increases, Gutierrez said, programs like youth services "go away first."

"This is why we're only asking for a continuance of the same fee people have already been paying," she said.

The 8.28 percent taken from telecommunications services accounts for about $10 million, which makes up 5 percent of the city's General Fund.

The approximately $10 million goes directly into the General Fund and does not support any specific services.

todd.ruiz@sgvn.com

(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4444

www.insidesocal.com/pasadenapolitics