Big Retraction: Davis and Weber Commission (UTA Tax)

It is late and I really don’t feel like typing up a post, but this is important as I dislike inaccurate information which can mislead.

I was wrong and partially wrong (government is still raising the price of goods). The Davis and Weber County Commissioners were NOT complicit with the legislature (specifically, Speaker Curt Bramble) in the UTA tax grab.

I had a chance to talk to someone with the Standard Examiner who was present when the legislature voted in the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) tax. While the Standard’s article (which I based my comments and suspicions on) indicated complicity by the commissioners, it should not have and should have made the article clearer on the subject. To their credit, the Standard source I talked to was totally upfront and honest about this. They said, ‘we make mistakes sometimes and do make it a priority to present clear information’. Fair enough. So It is my turn to say the same.

Now for the full story to clear everything up:

Speaker Curtis Bramble got the UTA tax increase passed at the 11th hour of the legislative session. It completely caught the Commissioners off guard. They had zero foreknowledge of the plan.

Why would Bramble care? Here’s why:
The tax money is NOT kept in the county where it is collected. UTA distributes it as they desire - especially into areas they’re developing, expanding, etc. Areas like Utah County. Guess who Bramble represents…

By placing this tax on us, UTA gets their way and Bramble lets us pay for Utah County’s benefit (rather than they pay for it themselves). UTA also gets it’s way in the process. I would guess UTA came up with this and had Bramble carry it out, but I don’t know that for certain.

Frankly, Bramble has made a superb Machiavellian* political move for his ‘principality’ (negligible political cost and reap benefits for him). I don’t like it at all, and this think it was lousy - in many respects, it is as state version of earmarked pork, but it was a shrewd move.

As such, my appologies to the Commissions. While I’m still uncertain, it appears that they were holding the line against UTA’s tax lust and inaccountiblility. The editorial cartoon I posted should have omitted the Commissions.

Going forward, it would be best to focus scrutiny on UTA. I would encourage Weber and Davis Commissioner’s to team up and protest the move. I would also encourage them to expect strict accountability from UTA (especially after the “executive bonus” flap) and, since we’ve had the tax shoved down our throat, press UTA that the money be accounted for and spent in our respective counties.

*Note: Machiavelli gets a bad rap. He just wrote about what has worked historically. When I use “Machiavelli” it isn’t derogatory, usually it indicates political astuteness. However, such tactics can be misused with serious consequences.

Government raises prices in Centerville, Bountiful, and Davis and Weber Counties (Update)

First, there’s the Standard Examiner’s “Lipstick on a pig” editorial regarding the tax increase in Weber and Davis counties for the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). One thing, in particular, struck me. I thought the tax increase was on non-food items. Evidently we’ll be seeing taxes on food (and food costs) increasing:

…the Legislature re-imposed the 0.05 percent sales tax on unprepared food — the grocery tax — to fund Utah Transit Authority operations in Davis and Weber counties.

UPDATE: Correction:  Davis and Weber Commissioners do NOT bear responsibility (click link for details on who is) for the tax hike as indicted.  The rest of the post, is however, correct regarding all the taxes imposed upon us.

The food tax is a regressive tax that impacts the poor proportionally more than others. We can, primarily, thank Davis and Weber County Commissioners for the increase they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for.

Second, the RAP tax kicks in this month (I think it started on April 1 but I’m not positive). Centerville and Bountiful residents now have the pleasure of being forced to subsidize live theater fans’ ticket prices and mayoral or city council pet projects. In other words, prices at Bountiful and Centerville stores just went up. Those in West Bountiful, Woods Cross, and North Salt Lake will remain the same.

Third, Bountiful residents also get to see power bills increase, unspecified cuts in power services, and the city maintain its $2 million transfer to itself via the covert power tax.

Ultimately, Bountiful residents get a governmental tax-and-spend hat trick (UTA, RAP, and the power tax) but all will see costs of goods increase as retailers charge the tax(es) and pass the power costs onto consumers.

Bountiful Keeps Covert Tax

As I’ve noted in the past, Bountiful uses its power rates to keep a nice cash flow into the city’s general fund. The city, essentially, overcharges users to maintain this flow into the city coffers.

The benefit is the city: 1. avoids potentially messy truth-in-taxation hearings and 2. can, disingenuously, claim lower (than actual) tax/fee burdens on residents. Additionally, the city has, in the past, suprisingly boasted, that control of the power rates allows them to get money from tax-exempt facilities like churches, food banks, and other charities. Hey - it’s about time those dastardly tax-dodgers pay!

Power rates are going to jump another 10% for Bountiful residents/businesses. Fortunately, the city will maintain its $2 million slush fund transfer:

BL&P [Bountiful Light and Power], as a public business concern, has traditionally transferred a portion of revenues to other city uses. [The city manager] said that will continue.

However, maintenance of that transfer may come at an, unspecified, cost (emphasis added):

“Normally all of this would translate to a 15 percent increase (in power rates), but we’re cutting other things down,” [The city manager] said.

Another noteworthy point is that while Bountiful’s power company does not pay taxes, and, to my knowledge, does not face the same scruitying from the Utah Public Service Commission, its rates may be the same or higher (We could be higher (than Rocky Mountain Power),” after the rate hike, [BP&L director] said) than the private Rocky Mountain Power (which faces and adds the scrutiny and taxes into its power rates).

A few years ago, Bountiful’s council (or city manager, or both), stated that they would consider selling BP&L, if it cost residents more than private power. I doubt that was a serious pledge, however. City government enoys its cloaked tax revenue too much for that in the near future.

Finally, the city is spinning that the transfer is proportionally less than in the past.  That’s not surprising as power rates have increased and continue to do so - throughout it all the city has continued to maintain it’s slush fund.

UTA Has It’s Way With Davis County (tax increase)(Update)

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) went to the legislature and our taxes have been increased as UTA desired, like it or not:

Davis and Weber County residents will pay the 0.05 percent sales tax earmarked for the Utah Transit Authority beginning July 1. Following a Council of Governments meeting last week in Sunset, Davis County Commissioner Bret Millburn said the decision was taken out of the hands of commissioners during the recently-completed legislative session, when it was determined that the intent of SB 245, passed in 2007, was that residents of any county in the state with transit systems would pay the 0.05 percent sales tax.

NOTICE: Read this post before reading further!

Did the County Commissioners oppose this power grab by the legislature ala Real Stadium deal?

In both cases the legislature took the decision from the governmental jurisdiction (the county) and those most effected by it (county citizens).

This may be nothing more than another political ‘washing of hands’ we’ve seen before. Commissioners can claim the decision was taken away from them while quietly offering no opposition in an attempt to avoid culpability. Based on the following statement, I doubt Commissioners opposed the power grab:

Millburn added [referring to meetings with UTA], “I believe growth took place on both sides. Through the hours of sessions, I believe it developed in a way there was parity across the board.”

In the meantime, it looks like another sunny day for a tax-subsidized business.

Background: Davis County Commision Going Wobbly on UTA Tax?

UPDATE: Please see the link provided in the comments for proof that Davis Commissioners were, knowingly complicit in this tax increase.

MAJOR UPDATE: See Big Retraction: Davis and Weber Commission (UTA Tax)

Hatch, Bennett, and Earmarks

I called both Hatch’s and Bennett’s offices to ask how they voted on Senator DeMint’s moratorium on earmarks (pork). Both opposed the moratorium. That wasn’t surprising given that both are proud pork-barrel proponents.

What was surprising, was how Hatch’s staffer reacted at my question and subsequent statement that I was disappointed in his vote. Evidently, the issue touched a nerve, as the staffer went into a very defensive and argumentative mode stating that earmarks are great for bringing money into the State for necessary programs and earmarks are not pork. I, politely, noted that if the programs were so expedient, certainly they could be brought up on their own merits rather than being stuck into essential spending bills which are totally unrelated to the program (especially when it benefits a special interest). The staffer stated that earmarks were necessary as agencies waste the money. I countered that if the agency is being wasteful, propose a budget cut. We ended up agreeing to disagree (note: while the staffer was somewhat terse, we both kept our cool during our conversation).

Frankly, I was unprepared for the confrontation. Anyone contacting Hatch’s (and Bennett’s office) should read Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) “All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed Reforms“. It will guide you through the process and help you avoid having to ’shoot from the hip’ as I did.

By reading the short publication, you will learn earmarks are a new tactic and not Founding Father approved (despite assertions by Senator Harry Reid and other porkers). Additionally, the guide helped me understand why the staffer seemed to take a personal interest in the subject (see pages 7 and 8).

Staffers may bring up the fact that earmarks can be voted on in session. This is only partially true. It is highly unlikely that a legislator is going to risk strong political reprisals by contesting earmarks and most of the debate tends to focus on the mountainous spending bill (especially omnibus bills) which most have not had the time to read (they, likely, won’t know about the earmarks). The staffers are also misleading you, as once the bill is passed and goes to conference committee, things can be added without debate.

With the help of President Bush, this year, the public can find out about some earmarks at the OMB’s earmarks site. However, the data is old (still catching up) and doesn’t show who requested the earmark. CAGW, has a much better suggestion: ask your legislator to list all their earmark requests on their House/Senate website. After all, both Hatch and Bennett boast that they are proud of their earmarks - why not advertise those requests.

Finally, if either Bennett’s or Hatch’s office tries to say that earmarks are for legitimate government operations, ask them how Michael Leavitt’s Oquirrh Institute serves a core federal function, after receiving $550,000 from taxpayers and a $300,000 earmark from Senator Bennett in 2006 (not sure how much, if any, was received in 2007). Not bad for a place that doesn’t even have its own website (site is part of parkcitycenter.org).

Lastly, the pork binge is certainly not limited to the federal government. Locally, there are several projects I can think of that benefit special interests at taxpayer expense. A statement in CAGW’s earmark guide is applicable to all levels:

In recent years, pork-barrel spending has been characterized by a loss of shame. More and more municipalities, universities, and nonprofits see lobbying for earmarks as a legitimate means of raising funds.

Further reading on recent earmark actions:

Study Finds Record Education Earmarks - Universities eating from the trough (also addressed in CAGW’s publication)
Pork pull in the Senate: Moratorium bid fails in the dark
Your Congress at work: raising taxes, dodging pork vote - a nice double whammy

I have also linked up CAGW (including “The Swine Line” blog) and Porkbusters in the blogroll.

Bountiful Museum Tapping Taxpayers for Money

This is a follow up on Bountiful’s historical museum. Bountiful is now asking fro $300,000 from Utah’s taxpayers via the Legislature.

While historical preservation could be argued to be a legitimate function of government, this one has some serious concerns regarding who will be the beneficiaries of such a project. Click the link and look at the lower half of the post. The names should sound familiar to those living in Bountiful. The project appears to be another example of a political pet project using other’s money (aka pork).

Additionally, just as the recreation center, this is being pitched as a “South Davis” project but, by all appearances, is run, housed, and controlled by Bountiful. If you go to the story on the Standard Examiner’s page, even the graphic (upper right) was provided by Bountiful. This also begs the question: Who are the “South Davis County officials” involved besides Bountiful? Are North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, etc mayors/councils involved or is this entirely being headed by Bountiful?

Finally, the big question: How much funding will be required to maintain the museum if it is built? Who will pay it?

Building it will, apparently, cost $1.5 milliion. However, once it’s built it won’t be maintained for free. Lights, cleaning, displays, workers, won’t be free. Will taxpayers be forced to pay for that as well? If so that doesn’t bode well for taxpayers. I’ve been told (this is UNconfirmed) that the new recreation complex is $200,000 more in the hole for maintenance/operation than anticipated (I think they predicted a loss of about $500,000/year).

Forced Recycling Charge Not Dead Yet (Bountiful)

Best continue to be vigilant on this issue.  I was passed along this story from the Davis County Clipper.  The article is titled: “Curbside recycling issue is still alive in Bountiful”.  Unfortunately the article isn’t available on the web.

The good news is that 56% of people who bothered turning in an opinion to recycling were opposed.  This is somewhat shocking to me as these types of ‘voluntary’ surveys tend to favor proponents.  Either word got out or there is a large proportion of the population opposed to such a mandate.

The article also confirms my feelings about this issue (see here too).  That is, that proponents were pushing to force everyone else to pay for their convenience (emphasis added):

Those who voted for implementing the mandatory recycling program tended to be residents who already recycled and were hoping that curbside recycling would offer them more convenience.

As usual this ain’t over yet.  The city council is still going to pursue finding a way to please everyone.  They are bantering about a voluntary program (one which, apparently, failed in the past).  They also noted that the city is trying to provide recycle bins for residents.

Whatever the case, I don’t have much quarell if they do something voluntary where no one else pays but those using such a program.  However, it would be preferable if proponents would go to the recycling companies and work out a mutual agreement.  The fact that such a voluntary program would fall under government control would always bring with it the specter of simply expanding an existing program (back to a mandate) by council vote in a single meeting.

Finally, it will be worth watching for how, specifically, the council will seek to please everyone.  Hopefully it won’t come at a cost to all.

Davis County Commision Going Wobbly on UTA Tax?

On January 2nd I updated a previous post noting that the County Commission had decided to stand up to UTA, “for now”. That time may be coming to an end:

Davis County commissioners are still mulling whether to implement a 0.05 percent sales tax increase to fund the Utah Transit Authority, but feel they now have more information than they had.

They must decide by Jan. 31.

UTA continues to threaten to cut service:

…if the tax isn’t approved, they say they will have to start cutting services possibly to express bus routes, some paratransit routes and perhaps on the FrontRunner commuter rail when it begins operating.

Sorry UTA, but spin it as you will, you are not fooling me. UTA does not have to cut service. They, without a doubt, have the option to increase user fees to cover their decreased subsidy. Let’s face it, everyone is paying for UTA rider’s tickets, like it or not - the system is not fiscally self-sufficient, hence the tax subsidy they feel entitled to.

UTA is threating to cut service simply because it carries more political ‘fear’ weight and can be more effectively spun in their favor. If UTA said ‘yeah, we can raise user prices (like a business would) to maintain the current service’, most people (except for some of the tax subsidized riders) would not have a problem with that. UTA, instead, is employing the “Washington Monument strategy“.

Finally, UTA is also running the ‘tax increase, isn’t an increase’ spin:

UTA officials have said that imposing the sales tax wouldn’t be a tax increase, since the tax on food had been cut.

Sorry, I’m not buying that line. Food taxes were, finally, cut. This is a separate tax. The idea that when we cut a tax we should increase another or create a new tax is absurd. This is, ultimately, a tax increase benefiting an interest group.

Rap Tax and Pet Projects (Centerville Mayor)

The Davis County Clipper has a spotlight on Mayor Ron Russell. I had been told that Russell’s support of the Rap Tax may be partially tied to his involvement in Rogers Memorial Theatre. I, admittedly, didn’t do the work to confirm/deny the information (and, thus, didn’t say anything about it) but the Clipper inadvertently did so for me:

…Russell’s now-married daughter Taryn introduced her father to Rodgers Memorial Theatre, and Russell utilized his sudden free time to appear in a few RMT plays. He encouraged another son to appear in a play with him and continues to be involved with RMT as the theater’s photographer.

Though that free time dried up after he was elected as mayor, the love of the theater RMT inspired has fueled Russell’s efforts to establish a larger theater that would serve all of south Davis.

I assume that Russell is still the RMT’s photographer (I think the following paragraph refers to his acting carreer). Nevertheless, it appears my source was right. I’ve stated, numerous times before, that the Rap Tax is the type of tax ripe for use for politician’s pet projects, it appears that is the case from the start. That also begs the question: are any other council members or mayors involved with RMT?

Centerville is also planning on using your tax dollars to tell you how great government is.

Ending on the positive: I need to say a “thank you” to the Centerville City Council and the Mayor for this: Centerville to increase military utility waiver

The Cost of Public Service (Weber-Davis City Councils, Bountiful Tops List)(Correction)

The Standard Examiner put up an editorial entitled “‘Public service’, for a price” based on a compensation survey their correspondent, Katie Ellis, conducted on Weber and Davis city councils. Excerpt follows:

The extremes are Huntsville and Bountiful. It’s often said — but rarely with sincerity — by people who run for city council that all they want to do is help their community. Huntsville makes sure there’s no debate about that claim, since it pays members of its city council $1 per year. As Councilman Jim Truett told Ellis, “Everyone who serves loves Huntsville. It’s like it’s your turn.”

The people serving on the Bountiful City Council may be doing so for altruistic reasons, as well, but the blow to their bank accounts is somewhat softened by $1,454 per month in return for their time and efforts. For most people — not necessarily those serving on the council — that would be a good part-time job.

Every other city falls somewhere in between. The averages, according to Ellis, are $419 per month for each council member in Weber County cities, and $643 for their counterparts in Davis County municipalities.

For most cities, the salaries have inched up bit by bit over decades. Other city councils have voted themselves huge increases all at once — like West Haven: City council members there just voted themselves raises from $450 per month to $1,260 per month, with retirement benefits. That’s a 280 percent bump.

<snip>

Sadly, it is the custom among many politicians to beg voters for the job, then grumble about inadequate compensation after being elected until they’ve convinced their colleagues and the public to support an increase in compensation.

I tried to find Ellis’ story on the Standard’s site but was unable to find it. If I do, I’ll update this post with a link to the original article.

Bountiful council members come out with $17,448/year, West Haven went from $5,400/year to $15,120/year, while the Davis county average is $7,716/year (Weber is $5,028/year - I assume that includes the Ogden City Council). I like Huntsville’s $1.

Correction (1/17/08 ): I managed to get the original article (not available on the web). Bountiful is not at the top, Clearfield is at ($1,540/month). However, that figure may factor in health insurance which many council members do not accept. If Bountiful doesn’t offer health insurance or all council members accepted the benefit, then it would top the ‘compensation list’ (unfortunately, the article does not specify). Since the editorial alluded to Bountiful being the high, I wonder if that is not, indeed, the case (Bountiful being the top for liquid pay) otherwise, I think the editorial would have highlighted Clearfield.