Candidate Q&A: Measure UT

In weeks leading up to the , Patch is asking our nine City Council candidates a series of questions significant to the community.

Today's question: Are you in favor of Measure UT? If so, how do you think the money should be used? Do you think South Pas would benefit from contracting police and fire?

Mike Ten

Contracting: We already had the community discussion five years ago and the community stated with the extensions of the original UUT and the approval of the 3 percent UUT that we want to have independant police and fire, we want street repaved, and we want to retain quality employees.The same handful of people brought this non-issue up again. Yes, I support the combined and reduced UUT; moving our city foward to prepare for the future depends on it.

Alan Reynolds

I am in favor of the UT since all the money will remain in South Pasadena. The money should be used primarily for infrastructure as it is a Utility Users Tax. While I prefer keeping our police and fire independent, I am open-minded as to the possibility of contracting, and the cost savings benefit may be too much to overlook. I would want to take a deeper look at this possibilty.

Marina Khubesrian

Yes, I am in favor of Measure UT passing. The priority for the UT funds must be infrastructure projects. I think that we need to look at all our options in delivering city services as long as we do not compromise the safety and health of our residents.

Ernie Arnold

Yes, I am in favor of Measure UT. I believe in local taxes for local services. We as a City cannot be sure that we would be able to maintain our level of service if we are depended on revenues filtered through Sacramento or Washington DC. 

The Measure UT taxes are general fund revenues, means they are unrestricted funds. The City has traditionally used these funds for street repairs and salaries for our police and fire. I see no reason to change that. That being said, we need to control our expenses better. Spending nearly 70 percent of revenue on salaries and benefits is not sustainable.

No. If we contract our police and fire to L.A. County or other agencies, any savings would be short lived. The salaries of police and fire personnel in other agencies are no less than our own, most the time the are higher. The city would have to pay the full salaries of all personnel assigned to protect the City of South Pasadena. 

We would receive a credit in the first couple of years, for our stations and equipment, which would be taken over by the county or other agencies. We receive tremendous service from our police and fire department for our Fourth of July Festival of Balloons, Tournament of Roses Car Show, and street fairs. To think that we will be able to negotiate better terms from the county than from our own departments makes no sense.

Richard Schneider

Yes, I am in favor of UT. At this point, a 17 percent cut in City budget would be a hardship on everyone. However, since the UT is a “sunset” tax, meaning it has a set lifespan, I think the money should go entirely to capital projects. That way when the projects are finished, the tax ends. It is madness to pay for recurring expenses, such as salaries from a short-term tax.  

Contracting police and fire would save money in the short run, but the service would be inferior. Residents have told me time and again they appreciate the good police and fire protection. Even though it costs more, I think the expense of retaining our own safety services is worth it.

Art Salinas

I support the measure. Like everyone else, I don't like paying extra taxes, but the City will not function the way we are accustomed without these funds. Without them, there will be cuts, layoffs and reductions in services. If the mearure passes,  I would like to see 65 percent of those funds used for infrastructure as promised in the original initiative a few years back. I would also like to see an effort to restore some staffing to the PD so that citizens don't have to take it on themselves to direct traffic when there is a power outage. Public safety is very important to me. Also even if the measure passes, the Council must continue to exercise its best judgment in prioritizing expenditures from our limited resources.           

I am not in favor for contracting out our police and fire because overwhelmingly, our residents don't want to do that. My job on the council is to serve residents. Having our own forces makes us uniquely South Pasadena. Moreover, I am not convinced the savings of going with County services would be worth the change. Though, believe me, I will monitor the possible savings. If the savings potential becomes significant, say over $3 million per year, then we might have to look at it again. I doubt the savings would ever get that large. I understand at this time the saving would be less than $1 million per year.      

Bob Joe

I am in favor of Measure UT. I support the advisory survey that was done with residents, community and business leader that indicated 65 percent of the UT funds be allocated to infrastructure and 35 percent to salaries and positions.  I support doing similar surveys periodically.

With the UT  funding and the the City's budget, it's essential that we be prudent and make responsible decisions on real needs and priorities and allocate resources wisely. I would complete a thorough evaluation of all aspects of City budget to include salaries, health benefits, and pensions; free up and reallocate resources; continue to eliminate waste; keep our budget balanced and our City fiscally responsible. I do support having our own police and fire. However, if new conditions or situations arise, I would revisit and review our current position.

Chris Glaeser

Yes, the funds are needed to maintain the current level of services that the citizens of South Pasadena receive for their safety, protection and quality of life.  However, I have identified $200,000 plus in savings that can be realized by changes in staffing that are no longer required. Our City Council lacks the management skills and financial expertise to evaluate and identify the changes we need in the City staff. Historically, Cities tend to add staff without stepping back and evaluating the needs of the community they serve. As a Director of International Business Development and as a Business Consultant, I have the skills to lead a complete re-evaluation of the City budget and operations.

No, South Pasadena will have savings the first year, but we will not be able to control the cost of fire and police services in the future years. The County would dictate those costs. At the present time, our South Pasadena Police and Fire departments are responsive to the needs of our citizens. There is no guarantee that these outsourced services will be as responsive if we do not have direct control of the personnel.

David Margrave  

I am the chair against it. The utility tax is a method of raising taxes for ten years on top of what they have already raised. You take other people's money and put it towards projects that you think are so important to you. The utility tax has been in place for 20 years. Our roads are falling apart. The City Council doesn't have to use the money that's received, and they don't.

Utility taxes are going into the general fund. Of $4 million last year, less than $700,000 was spent on infrastructure repair. None was spent on water. None was spent on sewer. But City Council chose to do what with it? Raise employee benefits and wages. They have 135 employees. We can cut that in half. We can provide better response time and quality of life. I know for a fact La Canada has equivalent or superior quality of life than we do, and they contract. Their police is half the cost. Their fire is half the cost.