Council Rejects Move to Cut Utility Users’ Tax in Pomona

The City Council this week narrowly rejected a proposal by Councilman C. L. (Clay) Bryant to cut Pomona’s unpopular utility tax by 30%, a move that would have required officials to slash $3.3 million from the city’s budget.

Deriding the 11% tax on Pomona residents’ gas, electric, water and telephone bills as “obscene,” Bryant called on the council to reduce the tax to 7.7%, effective July 1.

“For over a year now, this City Council has paid lip service to the proposition of reducing the utility users’ tax,” Bryant said. “If we wait for some magic formula to increase revenues, it’s never going to happen. The only way we’re ever going to lower that tax is to reduce spending.”

Enthusiastic Support

Bryant’s motion, which was supported by Councilwoman Nell Soto, drew enthusiastic support from members of the audience.

But in a heated debate on the proposal, Mayor Donna Smith and Councilmen E. J. (Jay) Gaulding and Mark A. T. Nymeyer argued that it would be irresponsible to cut the tax without knowing exactly what effect the loss of revenue would have on the city’s $39-million budget.

“If we cut $3.3 million from the budget in July, you don’t know what that equates to,” Smith told residents who chastised the council for opposing Bryant’s measure. “We might have to close three fire stations right off the bat.”

Report Ordered

The council then unanimously passed a motion directing City Administrator A. J. Wilson to prepare a report on the impact of a 30% utility tax cut on city services by May 1, before the council begins considering its 1988-89 budget. Wilson, who was hired Feb. 1 but does not begin working full time for the city until April 1, is out of the country and did not attend Monday night’s meeting.

During a recess in the meeting, Acting City Administrator Marshall Julian said he doubted that the council would approve such a drastic cut in the tax.

“I don’t think it will occur,” he said. “If it were to occur, it would reduce the level of services below the level that would be acceptable to the citizens. . . . When you’re talking about a decrease of that magnitude, you’re talking about cutting bodies.”

The loss of $3.3 million in revenue from the utility tax would require the city to lay off more than 100 of its 750 employees, Julian said.

However, Bryant said he welcomed such a reduction in the city’s work force, claiming that 20% of its employees are expendable.

“While the taxpayers keep crying for less spending, City Hall keeps saying, ‘More, more. More jobs. More frills,’ ” he said. “It’s time they learned to do with less.”

Nymeyer said he is committed to eliminating the utility tax, but he argued that it would be premature to do so until Wilson gives his report.

“Nell’s going to vote to reduce the utility tax, and so is Clay,” Nymeyer said. “When I have the information from the city administrator, I may join them.”

Julian said the cut proposed by Bryant is “optimistically high,” particularly since the councilman also wants the city to hire more police officers and firefighters.

“I think it might be precipitous at this time to establish any type of figure until you enter into your budget deliberations,” Julian told the council. “It’s very ambitious to think about 30% right now, but I don’t think it will be too ambitious to keep that as a mental objective.”

During a heated council debate on his motion, Bryant accused his colleagues--particularly Smith--of reneging on campaign promises to lower the tax. While running for the council, Smith and Soto both pledged to reduce the tax.

The mayor pointed out that on Feb. 15 the council unanimously approved her motion to have Wilson study various means of lowering the tax. Smith’s suggestions included a “split-rate” system--under which residential utility customers would pay less than business--and using the utility tax windfall created by this winter’s higher heating bills to reduce the tax.

“This council voted at that time to review this tax, and it doesn’t make a lot sense at this time to get wishy-washy,” Smith said. “. . .We did give (Wilson) a task, and I really think it’s fair to give him a chance to respond to any change in that task.”

Soto asked Bryant to amend his tax-cut proposal to include a list of methods for cutting spending and increasing revenues.

To reduce spending, Soto called for a spending freeze and a decrease in the use of outside consultants. She urged the city to aggressively seek commercial development, such as a regional shopping center, that would bolster sales tax revenues. She also said half of all revenues created by such development should be earmarked to lower the utility tax.

Bryant said he agreed with Soto’s ideas but refused to add them to his motion, saying he wanted council members to take a stand on cutting the tax.

“These people have all committed to a reduction of the utility tax, and I’m not going to let them off the hook that easy,” he said.

Gaulding said it is impossible for council members to commit themselves to reducing the utility tax until they know whether such a move is feasible. He noted that the unpopular tax was the brainchild of Bryant, who proposed a 3% tax on utility bills in 1969 as an alternative to a sewer tax.

“I hated the utility tax when it was first suggested and put in place by Councilman Bryant, and I hate it today,” Gaulding said, “(but) there’s no satisfactory substitute for the revenue for the city.”