Going through the City's budget history tells us all we need to understand about Measure T and those trying to push it through. Several folks, including Council members, have complained about declining revenues and having to take from the reserve. But looking at the numbers since 1998 tells a completely different story. You see, the City's budget has done nothing but grow.....and grow....AND GROW.  And the City has spent....and spent....AND SPENT:

 Year          Revenue         Spending
1998         $11.8 mil         $9.6 mil 
1999         $12.6               $9.7
2000         $14.5               $10.5
2001         $16.6               $11.2
2002        $15.9                $13.4
2003        $16.0                $13.9
2004        $16.1                $14.7
2005        $17.1                $15.6
2006        $18.7                $16.0
2007        $20.4                $17.5
2008        $30.9                $29.3
2009        $28.3                $28.2

AND NOW THEY WANT MORE. LET'S TELL THEM NO!

Contra Costa Times editorial: We recommend Jack Weir and Terri Williamson for Pleasant Hill City Council  PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL: Incumbent and newcomer have a better grasp on the city's new fiscal reality

MediaNews editorial

Posted: 10/06/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT


PLEASANT HILL faces a new fiscal reality -- and it needs City Council members who understand that. For that reason, of the five candidates running for two seats in the Nov. 2 election, we endorse Jack Weir and incumbent Terri Williamson.

The city's current two-year budget spends $1.2 million more than it takes in. Sales tax, on which the city is highly dependent, was down about 15 percent from expectations last year. To help make up the shortfall, the city is seeking voter approval on Nov. 2 for a utility tax increase.

Yet, at the same time, the city, with a tradition of generous employee benefits, provides nearly free health care and completely free pensions to its workers.

City workers pay $55 a month for medical coverage, regardless of the number of dependents. The city pays the rest, which works out to about $1,000 per employee per month. As for retirement, the city not only pays the employer share of payments to the state retirement system, it also picks up the employee share. As a result, for every dollar of payroll, the city pays another 37 cents for police pensions and 19 cents for the retirement of other workers.

That was bad policy when the city was flush with cash; it's horrible now that revenues have shrunk. As the city enters negotiations next year with all of its employee unions, the council needs to remember that its first obligation is to provide services while being mindful of the taxpayer burden.

Interestingly, if the city required employees to pay their share of retirement, it would free up nearly as much money as the utility tax increase would generate. The pension change wouldn't solve the city's fiscal problems, but it's an obvious move that could save substantial money.

Credit business consultant Weir with pointing that out. He stands above the other candidates in his critical analysis of the city budget. That's not surprising. Weir brings an impressive resume: Founder of the Pleasant Hill Taxpayers Association; board member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association; and member of the citizen oversight committees for bond measures in the John Swett and Mt. Diablo school districts and the Contra Costa Community College District. Weir understands numbers and the seriousness of the city's fiscal plight.

For the second council seat, we endorse Williamson because she clearly understands the city faces troubling financial times and needs to restructure its employee benefits. First elected to the council in 1985, Williamson was a driving force behind the wonderful redevelopment of the city's downtown. As the only council member to oppose the city's latest two-year budget, she correctly questioned its optimistic assumptions that city revenues will rise next fiscal year.

In making these endorsements, we pass over incumbent Michael Harris, a smart and thoughtful guy who, unfortunately, seems badly torn between pleasing city employees and making the tough changes that are badly needed. As for challenger Michael Flake, he needs to build a constituency in the community and think more carefully about some of his proposals, such as using the city economic development director to encourage high school students to patronize an In-N-Out Burger to be built on Contra Costa Boulevard.

Finally, there's former Councilwoman Suzanne Angeli. While she has a long record of service in Pleasant Hill, Angeli is also well-known as a longtime union president representing BART workers. In what could be a very tough upcoming year of negotiations for the city, the last thing taxpayers need is a labor leader on their side of the table.

 

 

Your Turn: Pleasant Hill's Measure T is the wrong tax at the wrong time
By Wendy Lack
Guest Commentary
Posted: 09/27/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT

Pleasant Hill's Measure T will add a 1.5 percent tax on most utilities including cell phones and telecommunication services, electricity, gas, cable, water and sewer on top of the tax currently charged on land line intrastate phone bills.

The city estimates this new tax will generate $870,000 annually from those living and operating businesses in Pleasant Hill.

Pleasant Hill's City Council rushed to get Measure T on the November ballot because city income from sales tax and other sources has declined due to the poor economy. But what has the city done to substantially reduce costs? How can higher taxes paid by residents and businesses benefit the local economy?

The city of Pleasant Hill (population 33,000) has 22 employees -- about 20 percent of its workforce -- whose annual base pay exceeds $100,000. Employees pay nothing toward their PERS pension benefits but if they did so city pension costs could be cut by one-third.

Renegotiating labor contracts to reflect the customary employee pension contributions (9 percent for police, 7 percent for non-police) could save taxpayers over $840,000 annually, which is nearly the same amount that Measure T will generate. Cities throughout the state are revisiting labor agreements to increase employees' pension plan contributions and Pleasant Hill should, too.

Voters should reject Measure T because it is unnecessary and unaffordable for residents and small businesses during

the current economic slump. Why should residents pay higher taxes while the city operates "business as usual"? Raising taxes now will remove any incentive for government to live within its means. Why would the city reduce costs once it is addicted to getting over $1 million of your hard-earned tax dollars every year?

Raising taxes on basic household necessities will hit hardest on seniors and businesses with high utility use at a time when fixed-income residents and businesses are least able to afford it. While city officials are fond of minimizing Measure T's potential impacts, this tax will place an additional strain on taxpayers' overstretched budgets and grow over time as utility rates increase. Good thing the city made sure this new tax also applies to late fees.

The effective unemployment rate in California is 17 percent. Raising taxes on seniors, families and small businesses now simply adds insult to injury. Residents will pay this tax twice -- once at home and again when they shop in Pleasant Hill and pay higher prices that reflect the inevitable pass-through of this tax to customers.

Increasing the numbers of empty storefronts in town will do nothing to boost Pleasant Hill's sales tax receipts.

Pleasant Hill -- with approximately $8 million in cash reserves -- has infinitely more ways to reduce its expenses than do residents. Voters should reject Measure T and tell city officials to do their fair share by getting serious about reducing expenses to ensure Pleasant Hill's long-term financial security and economic vitality.

Wendy Lack is a resident of Pleasant Hill.

Cell phone service is taxed, Pleasant Hill admits
By Lisa P. White
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 10/03/2010 12:00:00 AM PDT


PLEASANT HILL -- For months, Pleasant Hill has been telling residents the city charges a utility tax only on landline telephone service.

But city leaders acknowledged last week, and several residents' wireless bills prove, that cell phone service also is taxed.

A July 19 city staff report stated that Pleasant Hill levies the existing 1 percent utility tax on intrastate, landline phone service only. The 1983 ordinance, however, says the tax applies to intrastate telephone service.

"Not everybody is as familiar with the language of the ordinance as others, and somehow that got slipped in (the staff report) that it applied to landlines only, and that's not correct," City Attorney Debra Margolis said.

The city has spread the same incorrect utility tax information in other ways. The September-October issue of the Outlook city newsletter repeated the claim that, currently, only landline phone service is taxed. That information also appeared in two places on the Pleasant Hill website until city staff members corrected it about two weeks ago.

And Redevelopment Agency administrator Bob Stewart's statement during a July 19 presentation to the council shows some city staff members didn't know Pleasant Hill is collecting tax revenue on cell phone service.

"The advantages of the (utility users tax) include expanding it to treat all taxpayers equally," Stewart said July 19. "For example, those residents using only landline telephones are subject to the current (users tax), while those using mobile phones are not."

At that meeting, the City Council voted to place Measure T on the ballot. Measure T would raise the tax to 1.5 percent and expand it to most utilities, including cable, electricity, gas, water and sewer bills.

Questions about whether Pleasant Hill taxes cell phone service arose during a Sept. 22 election forum, when council candidate Jack Weir -- who opposes the tax hike -- asked the incumbents to explain why the city utility tax appeared on his AT&T Wireless bill.

Wireless companies have for many years interpreted older utility tax ordinances, such as Pleasant Hill's, to apply to cell phone service, said Verizon spokeswoman Heidi Flato. She could not say when the company started charging Pleasant Hill residents the utility tax, but she said it probably has been levied since the company was created in 2000.

Weir later said he was disappointed to learn the city had misinformed voters.

"They should be better about doing their homework. That's the root of this problem," Weir said. "This is just very sloppy staff work, pure and simple. They made a statement that is patently untrue."

According to Margolis and City Manager June Catalano, the estimates of the revenue the city collects now from the utility tax and the projections for future revenue, if voters approve Measure T, are accurate.

On Thursday, Margolis and Catalano said they didn't think the city needed to act to get the right information about the utility tax to voters before the election.

"We're not sure what to correct because there's no effect, it doesn't change anything," Margolis said. "We have communicated to the voters that we currently tax intrastate telephone services, so why is it so important that voters understand that it applies to both landlines and cell phones?"

But in an e-mail Friday, Catalano said the city apologizes for any confusion, and that a "clarifying statement" will be made at Monday's council meeting.

Kris Hunt, executive director of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, said she is disturbed that the city changed the website without acknowledging the mistake.

"This makes everybody nervous about government," said Hunt, whose organization opposes Measure T. "That's the wrong way to handle it. They should be daylighting this. They should have explained, 'Yes we've given you wrong information.' "

Lisa P. White covers Martinez and Pleasant Hill. Contact her at 925-943-8011. Follow her at Twitter.com/lisa_p_white.