New Council OKs Tax That Sparked Recall : Budget: In effort to close $2.3-million shortfall, Covina leaders vote 4 to 1 in favor of an 8.25% utility fee, higher than the previously proposed levy.

The Covina City Council, whose members replaced the entire previous council recalled last year for passing a 6% utility tax, voted Tuesday for an 8.25% utility tax.

“It amazes me,” said Hank Vagt, a leader of last year’s recall. “The utility tax without a vote (of the residents) was the straw that broke the camel’s back last time. Three of the (current) council members were involved in the Stop the Utility Tax Committee.”

Several current council members, in justifying the 4-1 vote to impose the tax, said that without it the city faced the loss of its library, parks and recreation department, and 77 city workers to make up a $2.3-million budget shortfall.

“The options which were available became limited,” said Mayor Thomas O’Leary, a leader in last year’s recall campaign. “The choice became either the utility tax or a cut in services, which was unpalatable.”

The spending cuts needed to balance the budget would have closed the library, the parks and recreation department, and one of the three fire stations, Councilwoman Linda Sarver said. Six firefighters and 11 police personnel, including eight police officers, would have lost their jobs.

“We would have paralyzed the city,” said Sarver, who also was part of last year’s recall campaign. “Basically, everything that Covina is, which is a positive, family-oriented community, would be gone.”

Two members of the previous council, which was recalled in July, 1993, said they felt vindicated.

“It’s about time they did the obvious,” said former Mayor Henry Morgan, who was among the five council members recalled last year. “It’s amazing it’s taken them so long. . . . I think my council is owed an apology.”

“We were right two years ago,” former Councilman Chris Lancaster said. “I guess when you recall a City Council and put in a new one, you get an extra 2.25% utility tax.”

The previous council passed the 6% utility tax in the summer of 1992. It was in place for a year, but the present council decided in October, 1993, not to renew it.

John Wilcox, the sole council member to oppose the decision, said he felt there were other ways to fill the budget gap.

“I guess I’m not prepared to give up the fight with the state,” he said. “I wanted to spend at least six months trying to get back the $124 million that goes out of our city to the state.”

Besides seeking to recoup state and county money, Wilcox said, the city could have sold its Proposition A funds from the county to another city for 60 cents on the dollar to raise $330,000 to $390,000. In addition, he said, it could have merged fire services with other cities to trim costs or implemented an across-the-board salary cut.

“We’re totally funded till July 1 of ‘95,” he said. “I think they were premature in voting for the tax.”

The tax, which will remain in place for five years, is expected to be about $185 for an average household, or the equivalent of one month’s utility bills, City Manager Fran Delach said. The 6% tax proposed last year would have cost an average of $151 per household, or $12.60 per month, according to city officials.

The utility tax, expected to raise $3.6 million to $3.7 million per year, should cover the city’s $2.3-million cash flow deficit and also provide money for street repair. It may add some additional funds for the Police and Fire departments, new youth ball fields, and allow the city to reopen its swimming pool as well, Delach said.

“Nobody wants to live in a city where the services and the quality of life begin to deteriorate,” he said.

Sarver said there was overwhelming support for the decision at the public hearing.

“There was a crowd of about 350,” she said. “About 150 or better were people who came down to say they enjoyed the community as it was and wanted to keep it that way.”

Vagt said he and other residents who gave momentum to the previous successful recall are considering another effort as a last resort to stop implementation of the tax.

“I don’t want a recall and I didn’t want one before. But if the council votes to enact a utility tax ordinance, I expect there will be a recall,” he said.

Vagt said he is particular angry at Sarver, who he says previously vowed to never vote for a tax without putting it on the ballot. “She promised she would never back it without a vote of the people, and then she turned around last night and changed her mind,” Vagt said.

But Sarver said Vagt was misquoting her; her first choice had been to put it on the ballot, but she said she had never promised not to enact a tax.