Editor's note - From what I can tell, Lionel Emde is trying to stop the city from levying taxes via third parties like Recology. He feels the city is doing this to avoid the requirement that Pacifica residents be allowed to vote on, or protest, taxes imposed by the city. I'm sure the city's defense will be that these are "fees" rather than "taxes."
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Another city of Pacifica lawsuit
Editor's note - From what I can tell, Lionel Emde is trying to stop the city from levying taxes via third parties like Recology. He feels the city is doing this to avoid the requirement that Pacifica residents be allowed to vote on, or protest, taxes imposed by the city. I'm sure the city's defense will be that these are "fees" rather than "taxes."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
The problem with these taxes is that any agency can levy them and call them a fee. Everyone wants to help the schools elementary, highschool, college. My kids did not even go to school here. Each school district can levy another tax and before you know it, your 4,000 tax bill is 7,000 and then add the ever rising sewer fees...(oh and by the way the company I worked for went bankrupt.,,ie no job.) I was careful when I bought my house and because I still try to make my payments, I am under water. Just keep taxing our society into caos!
Another city of Pacifica Lawsuit compliments of Mr. Emde's preoccupation with "getting" the city. Who gets to pay the legal bills for this? You and me. Sorry, Whistleblower.
The City Council of Pacifica needs to get inside in one of the big green containers and be recycled immediately. Enough is enough. They keep making mistakes and they don't care. Because Pacifica is INC and they get away with murder.
Wake up Pacificans more law suits are on the way.
Time for a change. Vote out in Nov.
Anonymous, do you think that any government agency should be able to levy any fee(tax) without the support of the people who have to pay the tax. A lot of people are out of work or working less hours due to cut backs.
Why would there be a lawsuit?
"Why would there be a lawsuit?"
There is a lawsuit because the city of Pacifica has decided to exclude taxpayers from their right to be noticed about garbage collection rate increases, and to protest under the rubric of Prop 218, which is part of the California Constitution.
The city of Pacifica has embraced a legal theory which says that because they have outsourced the contract to Recology, all is well, and public noticing is not required.
But the city is drawing almost $1 million in fees from the contract, it also controls the rate increases, and it negotiates terms of the contract.
So our contention is that the city must notice the ratepayers, and allow them to protest the increase if they so choose. Email protests should be allowed as well.
It would be far better for the city to say: "OK, we screwed up and we'll send out notices, as we do for sewer rate increases." It would save taxpayer's money and time and get on with the process.
Mr. Emde, thank you for your response. I am in total agreement with what you said. I do not know you, but I must thank you for keeping an eye on what is happening in Pacifica. Having read many incoherent posts on Pacifica BLOGS, I must commend you on your well written and professional responses. Pacifica is so beautiful and we need smart people to keep it going!
Prop 218 was passed back in the 1990's. The City has not had to go through Prop 218 procedures when raising the fees in the past. Why now? 218 applies in some cases -- some of it depends on how much of process of providing the service is under the city's control. But does not apply in others.
@Whistleblower and other fiscal conservatives:
No one likes paying taxes. However, how are we ever going to have those things we all depend on for a healthy, reasonably well-ordered and stable society? If we hamstring our government by making it so difficult to raise revenue (2/3 super-majority in many cases), government in California will continue to be less and less functional.
Much of the 2/3 super-majority requirements come from the sacrosanct Prop 13. But don't be fooled by Prop 13 it is ultimately screwing us all.
Prop 13 was not brought to the ballot to protect little old homeowning ladies in Pasadena. Howard Jarvis was a wealthy property owner, who owned many apartment buildings. He did not give a lick about elderly homeowners. The little old ladies were a way to make the measure populist. And now we are all paying the price.
For instance, did you know that the corporation that owns Disneyland pays about $0.05 a square foot in state real property taxes. Compare that to an individual in 2009 who purchased the median California home (1,600 sq ft) for $330,000 (median price). That individual would pay $2.06 a square foot.
Disneyland has not retired. It is not on a fixed income. Why should it paying such low property taxes?
What if a new group of investors wanted to start up an amusement park and had to start from scratch -- i.e. buy a large parcel of land. The property taxes that new entity would have to pay would be many, many times higher than what the existing park (Disneyland) had to pay. Is that fair?
Why should Disneyland that, again, as a corporation that does not necessarily face a future where it will be able to bring in less income (like us mere mortals) be able to pay so much less to support the streets, and police, and fire protection, and other infrastructure that allows it to exist and thrive.
That is discriminatory and anti-competitive. Where's the free market in that. Prop 13 is not protecting you and me so much is it is making it easier for the existing large property owners able to hold onto to their property and make it harder for new entrepreneurs to enter the business.
The simplistic viewpoint that we should just tax businesses more is what has led to the flight of so many industries from our state and the resulting overall decline in tax revenue. It's not at all surprising that someone with a viewpoint so antagonistic towards business would support Pacifica's current council.
Scotty, you're right its easier and cheaper to do business outside California-- and Pacifica.
City council economic plan for Pacifica:
1. Measure D tax - failed last year.
2. 3 new taxes planned (1 per year) for the ballot. Expect those to fail too.
3. Sewer tax big "fee" hike to pay for city collection pipes.
Note: 2 and 3 above will occur going forward from 2011 (this year you won't hear about these taxes from incumbents-- its election year).
Proposition 13 grew out of a citizen tax revolt more than 30 years ago when property owners paid something like 57% higher property taxes. Anti-prop 13 Anonymous (above) may long for the old days.
Actually after this city council came into office they gave us the temporary 5 year sewer tax, and passed the cost of sewer lateral replacement to property owners (most qualified and didn't pay prior). Clue to the future in retrospect.
This city council threw away all its significant opportunities to build an economically sustainable city--
quarry twice, Palmetto more than that.
And, beyond their politics of "duck and cover" 8 year city council has again disclosed their true vision and economic "plan". That's it, 1) develop nothing significant for the economic benefit of this city and its citizens, and 2) bind citizens to additional volunteerism and ever increasing citizen taxes and fees. Meantime, city infrastructure and services continue to melt down. Vote wisely in the Fall, 2010 election-- don't be fooled again.
in re Disneyland, unfortunately "anonymous" displays a stunning lack of insight about property taxes versus total tax revenue generated as the basis for another tried and trite anti-Prop 13 argument. Fred Howard would be proud.
Disneyland, as a business and a tourist destination, employs 65,000 full time positions just within the resort, and this figure does not include businesses (hotels, restaurants, taxis, etc) that exist to support Disneyland. All those people pay income taxes. All purchases made in Disneyland and the outlying businesses pay sales tax. Which results in over $225 million tax benefits to the outlying county and state.
So if one measure the total economic benefit of Disneyland as a business, it is very clear to see that focusing on property tax is more than disingenuous, its flat out the wrong economic model for estimating revenue generation.
Scotty has it right, this "smash and grab" mentality about taxation is exactly why California is deemed the 3rd worst state (behind New York and New Jersey) in which to do business.
in re Prop 13, it also valuates taxes as a progressive tax (not the more regressive taxes favored by Pacifica's City Council), in other words those who can afford more, pay more.
And as Matt Welch has detailed in numerous articles, according to info from the Board of Equalization total property taxes collected in 2006-07 were $43.16 billion.
Property tax revenues for 1980-81 were $6.36 billion. So the "effect" of Prop 13 has been to allow property tax revenues to increase almost 7-fold in the approximately 30 years Prop 13 has been in effect. It has actually been the most stable and most productive tax in California the past 30 years.
with regards to Prop 218, its history is that with Prop 13 in effect, cities tried to do an end run around not being able to grab property taxes, so they could jack up other user "fees" (since they were not taxes), like your sewer fees. Prop 218 is the law, and as such mandates notifications to the affected property owners their right, under California law, to protest any such charges.
The essence of Lionel's lawsuit (which I full support) is that garbage fees fall under the umbrella of Prop 218 since the city receives a direct and significant revenue from these fees, and as such must comply with the notification and protest requirements of Prop 218.
It is curious that people who complaining about Prop 13 and Prop 218, and the state of California's economy, never address 2 facts:
1 - State spending house DOUBLED in the last 10 years.
2 - Prop 98 mandated 40% of the state budget goes to K-14 schools, but there is still a severe, endemic budget shortfall every year
"Prop 218 was passed back in the 1990's. The City has not had to go through Prop 218 procedures when raising the fees in the past. Why now? 218 applies in some cases -- some of it depends on how much of process of providing the service is under the city's control."
Prop 218 was passed in 1996, and municipalities and special districts have fought it tooth and nail ever since. Pacifica has noticed the ratepayers when sewer charges go up. The water district notices ratepayers when water rates go up. Those are actions that comply with the law set forth in 218.
The complaint we've filed asserts that since the city of Pacifica is receiving fees over and above the basic cost of providing the service of solid waste collection, and the city controls the contract and sets fees, Prop 218 does apply and the ratepayers should be noticed.
It's really all about the public's right to know and, if they so choose, to protest a proposed rate increase. It has nothing to do with Prop 13 or a super-majority vote to raise taxes.
Disneyland would have been reasessed when ABC acquired Dinsney. They are paying their fair share. Unless the Disney family still owns the real estate.
I support Lionel's efforts to hold the city accountable for raising taxes under the guise of "fees."
Also, to Anonymous above @ 11:49, I've never heard of property taxes calculated based on square footage. I bought a house in November and the taxes assessed were based on the purchase price of the home. The total property taxes ran around 1.2% of the purchase price.
Mr. Lionel, this City has NEVER noticed the public about your garbage rate because it DOES NOT own the garbage company and does not provide any service for the garbage company (e.g., billing and collections as is the case with San Bruno). We stopped doing their billing because of 218 so the issue is not going to be confused in any way! Thanks so much for wasting more of the public's time and money with attorneys that do not even routinely do these kinds of cases. Give me solutions instead of complaints that take up time, energy, and money!! Thanks for increasing my taxes Lionel!
Lionel you note that email protests were not done by the city - so where exactly does San Bruno have electronic protests? Those are legal docs that count like a vote - so many are required to stop the raising of a fee - they require a lot of special controls to make sure people do not protest multiple times using other people's addresses. That is hard to do and I don't think our City would have the personnel time or equipment to do it. Interesting that you would be surprised by that. Even petition signatures done by electronic means were recently declared invalid in several counties. I am just curious how you think email protests are possible here in Pacifica.
If you click on the final-complaint.pdf link at the top of the page, and go to paragraph 8, you'll see a list of extra, arbitrary taxes the city charges Recology. In turn, Recology passes those charges onto the city's residents. The city is tasking Recology with the job of city tax collector.
Residents have no way of officially protesting these taxes, as the law requires. "Mr. Lionel" is trying to correct that.
Even if Mr. Lionel wins the case, nobody's garbage bill will change. What it will do is keep the city council from resorting to lots of hidden fees/taxes, which they hope you don't notice, to make up for the way they've botched the city's finances.
Lionel, submitting and filing legal documentation is expensive. If you give us an email address or regular address, some of us would be able to contact you and send a small contribution.
Anonymous, thanks for pointing-out how thrifty the city has been with our tax payer money and the city legal budget (for several years among the highest in nation for a city this size). Maybe Lionel could have just called city legal and asked that Prop 218 question, oh I forgot the city legal door is closed to citizens who pay that bill.
Thanks Steve for pointing out fees are included under Item 8, page 2. Although not relevant to the lawsuit, a few comments:
a) City Franchise fees are 11% of gross receipts. That's before any bills are paid (trucks, payroll, gas, overhead), that huge.
b) Frontierland Park Remediation is $75,000 per year, FUND 22, BOTTOM . What is the criteria for charging these fees? If the issue there is underground build-up of radon gas, what is the mitigation plan and when does that happen? (the cash build-up is in that fund is almost $900,000. Does radon gas even exist there, and if yes is it significant?
c) CALIFORNIA AB 939 FEE (scroll down) waste management oversight and inspection, $30,000 per year. Is that the true cost, or is it another inflated cost?
d) $10,000 contingency fee (required by city council beginning this year). Is that cumulative, and if so what fund does that go into?
The lawsuit "prayer" request (page 4), is asking for nothing more than 1) disclosure, 2) compliance, 3) cost of filing expenses and attorney fees. As Lionel said (above) "it's really all about the public's right to know", so is that too much to ask from this city?
Why do I get the impression that some of these fee gouging issues would not exist had city council supported balanced economic planning in the first place?
Mr. Sinai and Ms. Kathy- none of those fees are arbitrary! Do a little research and you will find the reason. For example: Frontierland Park was a dump and clean up mandated by the EPA requires those fees. We may have to put in methane capture and those fees pay for it. And if you go after a franchise fee well it is your streets that have heavy trucks on them daily and this middle of the road fee is a pretty good deal for an exclusive contract written by a specialist in this state. Kathy even you found the AB 939 fee. Each of these fees have specific methods of calculation required by law. No ghosts in the closet here!
Meanwhile - the public interest lawsuit - I agree with the other Anonymous - this will only cost the public. The city has to respond to it and trust me Lionel's lawyers may not charge him but they will try to collect from the city. More craziness in the "get the city" mode that simply costs me, a tax payer, more than had we just paid for the service. Lionel did you not complain about the cost of legal fees in our city! Well now you are adding to them.
And on a final note - the great conspiracy theory - our city is not organized enough to keep a conspiracy!
Even if this lawsuit wins, nothing will really change. And it will probably lose. Either way it will cost us, the taxpayers, more in legal expenses. I thought keeping city attorney costs down was a big concern. I guess not. Thanks for nothing.
"Lionel you note that email protests were not done by the city - so where exactly does San Bruno have electronic protests?"
The city clerk in San Bruno said that they allowed email protests for the last water rate increase -- and received more than 300 of them. She said they "don't like them", but they felt it was only right to allow them.
The public's right to know, and to protest rate increases if it so chooses, is what this is all about. Open government is the best way to insure participation from an interested public.
Kathy, do you mean methane gas. Radon gas is a natural thing that forms with granite rock. Lake Tahoe has a lot of radon leaking up thru the granite.
Methane gas is a natural occuring gas that forms with rotting garbage.
http://juliascott.net/?p=85
Not to mention the water dept. put a $22.00 water deliver charge on the water bill. They tried to say oh we switched billing companies and they want us to break it down better..
I call Bullshit
"Even if this lawsuit wins, nothing will really change. And it will probably lose. Either way it will cost us, the taxpayers, more in legal expenses. I thought keeping city attorney costs down was a big concern. I guess not. Thanks for nothing. "
let me first say Lionel and I haven't always seen eye to eye on things, but we have agreed on the exorbitant city attorney costs, and the lack of transparency of this current city administration.
with that said, this comment is a little misleading. This lawsuit will cost the city nothing, unless the city attorney first decides to defend it, and second outsources it to legal experts. It seems the onus is on the city attorney to keep the costs down, rather than on Lionel Emde. If she chooses to outsource this lawsuit for the purpose of getting into a pissing match with Lionel Emde over the city following proper notification and right to protest a fee hike . . . then that seems indicative of the problem being the city attorney.
However, should the city attorney request mediation, or fight this herself in a court of law then it costs nothing other than her exorbitant salary and benefits, which the citizens already pay.
I was reluctant to comment on this issue, but I do support Lionel in his efforts and on an even grater scale, I see the attempts already being made to twist the facts in regards to the upcoming tax increases. Pete Shoemaker's shameless pandering to the City Council and their efforts to work with a bare bones budget THEY (and Pete) helped create while proposing 3 new tax increases is just the first volley in the fiscal battle for Pacifica.
In fact this same battle is being fought over California's fiscal future, and many of the tired and inaccurate arguments are already being trotted out to increase taxes during a period of massive job loss, property devaluation, business closure, and an exodus of people and business from California.
Simons, Can you be my personal assistat? Turning thru my rolodex is hard work.
Anonymous, conspiracy? Well I think the existing 8 year city council agenda, or as you commented "conspiracy", is clear enough after 8 years. It has always been "no growth", "no money", tax Pacificans for the difference.
Jim Alex, thought I remembered that "radon gas" comment from a city council and general manager discussion a few meetings back. Methane gas really does makes sense of course, and thanks for the link.
Who knows what's under the ground at Frontier Park, methane gas for sure. Testing for these gasses is apparently not that complicated, so what is the status? And, since Anonymous (5/10,6:47AM) mentioned mandated EPA fee requirements, is the $75,000 per year attached to our trash bill mandated?
If the Frontier Park (former trash dump) remediation fees are mandated is there now enough money accumulated to clean-up the site? And, if there is enough money to clean-up the site, when does the clean-up begin? Otherwise why are property owners continuing to pay $75,000 into a fund for Frontier Park remediation that is going nowhere?
Here's a couple of Radon links RADON FACT CHECK and EPA RADON CITIZEN GUIDE.
Here's CA PROP 218 . Knock yourselves out.
From Chapter 1....."In general, the intent of Proposition 218 is to ensure that all taxes and most charges on property owners are subject to voter approval. In addition, Proposition 218 seeks to curb some perceived abuses in the use of assessments and property-related fees, specifically the use of these revenue-raising tools to pay for general governmental services rather than property-related services."
"Proposition 218's requirements span a large spectrum, including local initiatives, water standby charges, legal standards of proof, election procedures, and the calculation and use of sewer assessment revenues."
Yes Anonymous (5/10, 6:47 AM, research links are easily found for all kinds of information these days, and certainly help us understand and verify issues when available.
Anonymous (5/10, 6:51 AM), "Even if this lawsuit wins, nothing will really change. And it will probably lose. Either way it will cost us, the taxpayers, more in legal expenses. I thought keeping city attorney costs down was a big concern. I guess not. Thanks for nothing."
Really? Want more discussion about the aggressive (not citizen friendly) city attorney's office? Shall we also talk about wasted money promoted by city council? You know citizens pay the bills in this city, and yet the city attorney's office is a stone wall-- is that also part of State regulation, city ordinance or regulated in some other way? Or,is this just another perceived city irregularity?
http://www.unce.unr.edu/news/article.asp?ID=1427
uary is National Radon Action Month
Posted 12/18/2009
It has no smell or taste and you can’t see it, but this gas can accumulate to harmful levels when trapped indoors. If you haven’t tested your home for it, you could be exposing your family to a known carcinogen that can cause lung cancer over time.
Radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, is present in elevated concentrations in many homes and buildings, and is the leading cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers. Radon-induced lung cancer kills more people than secondhand smoke, drunken driving, falls in the home, drowning or home fires. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates 21,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by indoor radon exposure. The American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control, National Cancer Institute, and the World Health Organization all recognize radon as a serious national health problem.
In efforts to educate people about indoor radon exposure, the EPA has proclaimed January as National Radon Action Month and state radon programs are making efforts to make this health risk known and to encourage people to take action by having their homes tested. Winter is an ideal time to test a home for radon. When a home is closed up during cooler weather months, radon concentrations increase.
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension’s Radon Education Program (UNCE) and the Nevada State Health Division urge all Nevadans to get their homes tested for radon. In recognition of Radon Action Month, UNCE is offering free radon test kits at program presentations being offered statewide throughout the month. (See chart for programs being offered in your area.)
Radon comes from the natural decay of uranium and is found in soil, rocks and water. As radon decays into radioactive particles, they can get trapped in your lungs when you breathe. As they break down further, these particles release small bursts of energy. This can damage lung tissue and lead to lung cancer over the course of your lifetime.
The amount of time between exposure and the onset of the disease may be many years. Not everyone exposed to elevated levels of radon will develop lung cancer, but a smoker exposed to radon has an even greater risk of developing lung cancer. Your chances of getting lung cancer from radon depend mostly on how much radon is in your home, the amount of time you spend in your home and whether you are a smoker or have ever smoked.
Based on radon surveys completed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, an estimated one out of every 15 homes in the U.S. has radon levels at or above the EPA Action Level of 4 picoCuries per liter of air (pCi/l). In Nevada, one out of every five homes were determined to have elevated radon levels. However, as more homes have been tested through the Nevada Radon Education Program, the radon potential has increased in many areas compared to past radon surveys. With over 5,394 usable radon test results since September 2003, elevated radon levels have been found in one out of every four homes tested in Nevada. The highest radon potential is in Carson City, Douglas, Elko, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Pershing, Washoe and White Pine counties. Sample sizes have been too small for Esmeralda, Eureka, and Storey counties to draw any conclusion about radon potential, but elevated radon levels have also been found in these counties.
The major source of radon concentrations in a home comes from the soil beneath a home, entering through foundation cracks, plumbing and utility openings and some of the porous materials used to construct foundations and floors. Radon can enter any home — old or new, well-sealed or drafty. Even homes with basements, slab on grade, crawl spaces or no visible foundation cracks are susceptible.
Post a Comment