Moorlach Looking At Imposing Utility Tax On Unincorprated Areas
Posted by: Jubal | 06/18/2008 10:54 AM
During Board comments at the end of yesterday's Supes meeting, Board Chairman John Moorlach announced his office is studying a charter amendment for the November ballot allowing the Board to impose a utility tax on unincorporated areas:I would also like to mention something for you to consider, fellow colleagues, with regard to unincorporated areas that we still service that refuse to be annexed. We have been working on one annexation or incorporation recently, where it's been proven from a consultant that we're subsidizing this area and have been for years. And as a fiduciary of public funds, it behooves us to take a second look at why we are subsidizing certain areas at the expense of taxpayers in this county and other areas, so we are looking at some kind of resolution to that.Some initial thoughts:
We're looking at whether or not we should vote to put a ballot measure on the ballot for November that says that the Board of Supervisors can institute a utility user's tax in sppecific areas. If that's applicable.
If they are, in a sense, being subsidized, so we don't reduce the level of service but they at least catch us up, because we're looking at large dollars in a budget crisis, and these areas don't want to be annexed because they're being subsidized. They don't want to raise their taxes. Why should the rest of the county be paying for that, so that's something we're researching and we would like too bring to you at a later time. I just wanted to make you aware.
1) I wasn't aware the county was unable to impose a utility tax on unincorporated areas.
2) Even if such a ballot measure were approved, I don't think the county could impose it without a vote of the people, per Prop. 218.
3) Perhaps it's being proposed as a stick with which to beat unincorporated areas into annexation: "annex or be taxed!"
4) I'm not ready to buy the "subsidizing" argument. Living in an unincorporated area versus living in a city is a trade-off in terms of costs and services.
5) I think any such ballot measure is going down in flames.
I have a suggestion: the county currently directs the transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue it receives from the single hotel on county land into the OC Tourism Council: about $130,000 a year. Rather than use that money as corporate welfare to subsidize marketing efforts for a billion dollar-plus industry, why not use it to offset the cost of providing services to unincorporated residents?
CATEGORY:
Politics Behind the Orange Curtain, The 5th Floor
If Moorlach thinks a utility tax will pass , he should pay the costs from his own pocket or campagin funds to put this on the ballot.
This will lose by at leat 70-30, if not more.
For an alleged fiscal conservative, Moorlach seems pretty good at spending public funds on his own losing initatives.
I'm not sure this wouldn't be popular county-wide, especially if the subsidize angle is played up. The huge majority of voters live in cities, if they believe that they are paying for other residents services, and that the tax increase would only affect those paying, I wouldn't be surprised if it passed with huge numbers. It'll certainly depend on the actual language (effect) of the measure as well.
If this were to end up on ballot, I am not sure where the money would come from, who gains if passes? Maybe the utilities, but I don't think any other interest group would care.
So the entire county would decide whether or not the residents of the unincorporated area residents property tax bills would increase? NICE! Sounds like the NIMBYs in Ladera Ranch need to start a new "community" group now that they've successfully run the peaker plant out of town. Hmmm, maybe I'll join this time ;) Yah know, since they've tried to incorporate us & all ....
I understand Chairman Moorlach's desire to rid the county of the burden of unincorporated county islands, but this is not the way. Government throughout the county is rife with "subsidies" that take from one and give to another. This will not do away with a subsidy, it will only shift the money to another resource. In the end there never is a direct correlation between the taxes we pay and the services we receive in return.
I will say this, I find it peculiar that Moorlach is exposing his plan in advance of actually putting it on the agenda. If it benefits his political career he usually waits until it is ready for "unveiling" and then turns it into a "look at me" moment. In this instance he appears to be looking to share the glory which tells me he's fearful of being labeled a republican who raised taxes. I guess misery loves company
Matt/Jubal,
If Moorlach puts this on the ballot, would only voters from the un-incorporated areas vote on this? Residents of cities may or may not already have a UUT imposed on them. It doesn't seem appropriate for those not being taxed to vote to impose a tax on others.
Like school district or annexation votes, typically only those geographiclly affected by action participate in the vote.
What's your understanding on this?
As proposed, this tax would increase the size of county government. What other county tax would the Supervisor reduce, to make it revenue neutral?