Watch Your Wallet: West Bountiful RAP Tax

As I had warned, the West Bountiful Mayor and special interest groups are going after your money.  Come November, there will be a ‘do over’ on the rejected West Bountiful RAP Tax.  The Mayor and City Council recently decided to, again, stick the tax on the November ballot.

Certainly, rather than using their own money to fund their hobbies, proponents will likely blow thousands in November to get the tax passed and force everyone else to subsidize their fun.   That subsidy is expected to add up to $275,000 per year.  That is $275,000 taken from local area citizens (including those on fixed incomes) during an economic downturn and rising costs on staples.  That is $275,000 taken from potential local economic stimulus and dumped into government programs benefiting certain, special groups and projects (particularly those favored by local politicians).   The tax will also amount to a cost increase in goods purchased at West Bountiful stores.

The above linked article also mentions that Bountiful and Centerville Mayors are continuing to push for even more tax funding for their theater.  Why not just ask those who use it, or are interested in it (or donating to it) to provide the funds rather than forcing everyone else to pay more for it?

Finally, I’ll repeat this warning: The West Bountiful Mayor’s tax lust may not be over yet as he is eyeballing a mandatory recycling fee.

Bountiful Power Taxes and Recycling (Warning to West Bountiful)

In the latest city newsletter, Bountiful continues to claim that it has the lowest tax of a ‘major city’ in the State. The figure Bountiful uses, however, is misleading. It does not include the hidden tax the city sticks into residents’ power rates.

Each year, the city uses its power company to transfer about $2 million into city coffers. To my knowledge, most major cities, with a power company, (unless Lehi is a major city) do not use their own power company to as a method of covert taxation and many cities don’t have their own power company. Bountiful is trying to use an apples and oranges comparison of property taxes.

Bountiful’s newsletter also notes that it collected $1.96 million in property taxes. That means the power tax revenue ($2 million) is about equal to that collected in property taxes which significantly increases the actual tax rate on residents. I feel confident in saying that this would rapidly drop Bountiful’s rank in comparison to other major cities.

Interestingly, Bountiful has again increased power rates (up another 10% or about $84/year, on average). Which pushes the rate to about 8.896 cents/kWh. That is actually quite a bit higher than Rocky Mountain Power’s (RMP) residential rates (pdf) of 7.539 cents/kWh (Oct-April) and an average of about 8.149 cents/kWh (May-Sep - unless you use a lot of power). Additionally, RMP includes State and Federal taxes within those rates (as well as profits for shareholder and costs related to regulatory oversight) - I did not include the city customer tax in Bountiful’s rate (municipal power companies don’t pay State/Fed taxes). Municipal power companies are also not subject to oversight by the Public Service Commission. Accounting for the above would further widen the gap between the rates.

Of course, Bountiful can continue to crow about how it can use power rates to sock it to the evil churches, food banks, charities, and the like who don’t pay property taxes. The City also stated that the power rates allow them to charge renters who don’t have to pay property taxes. If you don’t think renters pay property taxes, I have a bridge for sale.

For what it’s worth, utility rates (including power) will increase, on average, about $132/year but I don’t think the city uses any other utilities to funnel money into its general fund.

Ending on the semi-positive: the Bountiful City Council did not force everyone to pay for recyclers’ (self-included) convenience. They approved a voluntary opt-in program. This, however, comes with a warning: the City may be involved with the program. If so, it can easily be mandated for all to pay. Vigilance will, yet again, be necessary.

WARNING: West Bountiful residents beware: W.B. mayor pushes for more recycling - he is considering a mandated recycling fee.  This is the same Mayor that wants a redo on the RAP Tax.  Both measures benefit special interests by having everyone else pay.

I would also encourage those who recycle paper to take it to some of the charity (such as the food bank) or school etc. recycling bins as it provides a bit of extra funding for them.

Related: Spinning City Power Rates

Farm Bill (HR 2419) Fiasco - Take Action Now

Rarely do you get much of a second chance when Congress has already passed a bipartisan pork-laden bill. Thanks to the Democrats screwing up (see the link) we have a second chance. The Farm Bill is going to have to be voted on again. In the last round, Republicans rejected conservative values and voted for the bill. Now would be a good time to remind them of the principles they, supposedly, believe in. HotAir has good background (use the links) on this one (A second chance for Republicans to act rather than talk):

…The GOP wants to carry the mantle of clean government and small government, but majorities of Republicans in both chambers voted for a farm bill laden with pork projects, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies that make no sense in a market where food prices have risen significantly.

Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh, conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership has any real commitment to them, either.

Want to dazzle us? Want to start rebuilding your credibility? Then stop talking and start taking action…

For the record, Utah Representatives Cannon (R) and Matheson (D) opposed the bill and upheld the veto. Call both, thank them and encourage them to continue to oppose the bill, in the current form.

Surprisingly, Representative Bishop (R) voted for the bill and did not vote when the veto override vote came up. Bishop has, typically, been a good conservative and I’m not sure what his thinking was on this. The non-vote on the veto may mean he’s changing his mind. Politely contact his office and ask that he oppose the bill.

For those outside of Utah, here are the voting records on the bill: Initial passage vote and veto override vote.

General contact list or, if you are unsure who your Representative is, use the form at the top left of the House site.

Utah Representatives
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd) - phone contact information is at the bottom of the page.
Rep. Chris Cannon (R- UT 3rd)

Rap Tax Down Your Throat (West Bountiful)

Bountiful and Centerville special interest groups got your money, now West Bountiful hobbyists and politicians want another shot at forcing your costs to go up.

As always, voters were wrong in rejecting the tax during the last election, because they “didn’t understand the issue“:

“I don’t think the people were properly educated on the RAP tax when it was last placed on the ballot,” said [Mayor] Behunin. “If the public knows exactly what the RAP tax does and where the money is going, then I suspect it won’t be voted down next time.”

It would, at least, be expected that the interest groups convince citizens to place the issue on the ballot, but no. Mayor Behunin is employing executive fiat to save them the work and just stick the issue right on November’s ballot.

I also find it unfortunate that it really wasn’t that long ago, that we allowed service groups, such as the Lion’s Club, and the community to voluntarily complete such community projects. Now, we just ask government to dictate that all will pay for our personal pleasure. I’ve talked about this in the past.

So why would the Mayor be motivated to place another burden on families?

To the best of my knowledge, Behunin isn’t involved with a particular project like some other RAP tax-pushing Mayors who may personally benefit from the tax money. It looks like he is just for it for the sake of inflating city budgets (emphasis added):

…when someone comes to West Bountiful and spends their money somewhere in the West Bountiful Commons area, the city simply collects the sales tax, which also means nothing goes towards their recreational facilities. With future plans to upgrade the park as well as other recreational areas, Behunin stated that the RAP tax will benefit their needs should it pass…

Behunin stated that if the RAP tax passed in the city, they would have seen roughly $275,000 in funding up to now…

To begin with, the first statement is incredibly disingenuous – if no money is going to facilities, it is because the Mayor and council have failed to provide funding in the budget they approve, that is a choice. Rather than plan, save, and budget like the rest of us, he and special interests want the extra money now.

Worse, they are happy to increase taxes and the costs of goods on residents, take $275,000 of stimulus out of the local economy when there are signs that the economy is slowing, and shove that money into government programs/facilities which need to be maintained for the long term.

Criminal Illegal Immigrant Education (Update)

Apparently, we are helping to pay for criminal illegal alien education programs. The Davis County Clipper had an article on April 10, 2008, entitled “Jail inmates offered education programs” (not available on the web). The article notes three programs in place for the inmates: GED certificate (General Education Development, ie ‘High School diploma’), ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and ABE (Adult Basic Education - literacy education).

The programs are administered by the Utah State Office of Education. I found the programs are under the Adult Education department (more information is available at the link).

There are no disqualifications (involving legal residency) for participation in the programs. I understand that the ESOL program is volunteer driven and that no residency criteria is required for the use of Federal (tax) funds. However, all programs are open to those who are here illegally and have engaged in criminal activity.

We have the pleasure of paying for these programs via our tax dollars. At least, only those legally here should have access, but that is not the case.

Further, I would hope that obtaining the GED will not, then, entitle a criminal illegal immigrant who has resided in the state for three years to qualify for our in-state tuition. If so, what a deal: enter illegally (butting in front of those in legal immigration lines), commit a crime, get a taxpayer funded education and then be rewarded with discounted tuition at one of our universities (while legal immigrants and US citizens without criminal records pay the nonresident rate). Good grief.

Your tax dollars at work.

UPDATE:  While I’m still looking for the written administrative rule addressing in-state tuition HS attendance documentation, I am told that High School transcripts are required.  That only partially solves the problem, however (criminals illegal aliens still get tax-funded education and certain criminals will still qualify for the tuition benefit).  See comment 6 for details (and the rest of the comments for background).

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.