LA WATCHDOG – For several more hours, we will go to the polls to vote on Prop. A, the permanent half-cent increase that will raise our sales tax to a whopping 9½ percent, one of the highest rates in the nation.
Rushed to the ballot in less than two weeks without any public hearings, Prop. A is expected to raise over $200 million a year to fund only a portion of the budget-busting $750 million increase in salaries, benefits, and pension contributions over the next four years. This is in addition to the $1.4 billion increase during the first seven years of the Villaraigosa Era of profligacy.
This ill-conceived sales tax increase is chump change compared to the $1.5 to $2 billion that will be needed each year on average over the next 30 years to fund the $30 to $40 billion (excluding interest expense) required to finance the County Flood Control District’s yet-to-be-defined plan to curb pollution associated with storm water and urban runoff.
Of this amount, property owners in the City of Los Angeles will be clobbered with a tax increase of about $500 to $750 million, representing an increase in our property taxes of 12 percent to 18 percent.
At this time, the Flood Control District is proposing a $300 million “Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure.” This low-ball, bait-and-switch deal that involves a complicated parcel tax and a confusing vote-by-mail approval process was not well received. Nearly 200 speakers overwhelmingly expressed opposition during the Jan. 15 public hearing.
As a result of the outrage, the County Supervisors extended the protest process 56 days, to next Tuesday, and requested the Director of Public Works to revise the draft ordinance, to make recommendations as to whether to set a date for an election, and to report back on placing this initiative on the general election ballot, a possible sunset provision for this initiative, a specific list of projects, and alternative sources of funding.
Look at What They Skipped
Unfortunately, the Supervisors did not request more information on the total cost of the storm water project over the next 20 years. The ticket is estimated to be $30 billion to $40 billion, not including interest expense.
Nor did the Supervisors request detailed financial projections that would outline the financing, operating and maintenance costs of this new gigantic bureaucracy that would be created.
Nor did the Supervisors address the governance of the Flood Control District, relying on a politically appointed Oversight Board to hold public hearings and to make findings and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Water Quality Improvement Plan.
Nor did the Supervisors address the need for audited financial statements based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Nor did the Supervisors address the appointment of an independent third party to review and analyze the operations, finances, and management of the Flood Control District, similar to the Ratepayers Advocate, for the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power that was approved by 78 percent of the voters in the City of Los Angeles.
Nor did the Supervisors address the ability of the municipalities to skim money off the top to pay for expenses that are normally the responsibility of their General Fund, as was the case with Measure R, the half-cent increase in the sales tax to fund large scale transportation projects.
Transparency Badly Needed
Nor did the Supervisors address excessive administrative costs of the Watershed Advisory Groups and the Municipalities despite the recommendation of the County Business Federation to reduce such fees to 5 percent of expenditures from the current level of 10 percent.
Finally, the citizens of the City of Los Angeles want to know if they are getting taken to the cleaners by the County as a result of the City Council’s dumping of its $8 billion Storm Water / Urban Runoff Master Plan onto the County because it knew that city voters would not approve the quadrupling of the Stormwater Pollution Abatement Charge.
Under the proposed measure, parcel owners in the City of Los Angeles will foot 31 percent of the parcel fee. Yet, the city comprises less than 12 percent of the County’s landmass and 18 percent of the area impacted by the proposed parcel tax, but 36 percent of the parcels, 39 percent of the population, and 40 percent of the assessed value.
While the Clean Water and Clean Beaches are apple pie and motherhood, the County is pushing water uphill because property owners are “drowning in fees, not storm water.” The sales tax has been increased twice in the last four years (Measure R and Prop. A), and again, heaven forbid, today if Prop. A passes.
The County is being too cute in trying to fund its Storm Water Program through a bait-and-switch, low-ball plan and an unfamiliar voting process confusing to parcel owners.
Rather, the County needs to be open and transparent in its deliberations.
The County needs to develop a full, complete financial plan, define the projects in detail, prevent the skimming of funds by local governments, consider funding alternatives including the County’s General Fund, and obtain the approval of the property owners or the voters in a more open, transparent manner.
As a result of the County’s shenanigans, it is no wonder that overflow crowd at the public hearing two months ago roared with approval at Santa Clarita Councilmember Tim Ben Boydston’s comment: “God gave us rain, and you figured out how to tax it.”
Mr. Humphreville, who writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch, is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, the Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Mr. Humphreville is the publisher of the Recycler Classifieds, www.recycler.com, and he may be contacted at lajack@gmail.com
