Gloria, Jasmine, Bella & I would like to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving! 🦃 Have a Blessed Day celebrating with Family & Friends wherever you are. Cheers All! 🥂 #Psalm103
As many of you know, I’m a Parent of a Burbank High School Jr and was part of the successful YES On Measure S campaign. I/We also own property in the Hillside area adj. John Muir. It might surprise you to know that Gloria & I are Voting NO on Measure QS, as are many other Parents, Property Owners & Measure S Supporters, incl. former BUSD President Larry Applebaum who lead the Bond campaign. Here’s just a few reasons why we can’t support this Parcel Tax increase at this time:
“THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRENTLY HAS A BALANCED THREE-YEAR BUDGET THAT PROVIDES FOR INCREASES IN PENSION OBLIGATIONS” – MATT HILL, BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINDENDENT (BURBANK LEADER)
File Photo. * BUSD Superintendent Matt Hill does NOT Endorse or Oppose Measure QS.
“HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO PROVIDE FOR A COST OF LIVING WAGE INCREASE OR ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS FOR OUR STUDENTS.” – MATT HILL
2. The Tax places an unfair burden on Burbank Property Owners & Renters who are still paying for previous School Bonds (until 2032), while approx 1300 Students who live outside the district pay nothing. Businesses with larger footprints are also disproportionally hit.
3. This Tax will exist in Perpetuity (FOREVER), highly unusual for Parcel Taxes which typically have sunset clauses and need to be reconsidered by voters every 4 -7 years.
4. The Tax does not address future Maintenance needs or extra Classrooms needed to accommodate anticipated demand from Planned Development (1200 Units @ old Ikea site adj. BHS etc.), requiring yet another Bond in a few years.
5. The Funding is NOT SUSTAINABLE & most of the moneywill be used to augment Salaries/Benefits. Having $9M/year that can be re-assigned to any goal “pot” will lead to more BTA demands for Salary/benefit increases, resulting in less money available for Student programs over time. For example, the promised 3% Salary Increase, given annually, would mean that by Year 3, the whole $9M raised would be spent.
6. Obscures the real problem – mandatory Pension obligations imposed by the State. Unlike our City, the School District has always dutifully paid its share of Pension contributions. But because of poor management by the State, our contribution to fund Pensions is increasing to 19-26¢ per Dollar of Payroll; taking money from current students to pay past obligations. Cost-of-Living-adjustments that previously provided money for modest salary/benefit increases are now being used entirely to Fund Pensions.
In conclusion, the proposed Parcel Tax is a band-aid approach to a STATE issue. Political pressure must be brought to bear at the State level to either provide More Funding to the district or Relax the onerous Mandatory Pension payments. #NOonQS#NOmoreTaxes#iLuvBurbank
Just months after pleading with Voters to Pass Measure T: “To maintain essential City services/infrastructure like police, fire, parks, libraries…”, Burbank wants to increase our Sales Tax by a massive 0.75¢ to 10.25¢, to essentially do the exact same thing.
An honest Ballot statement would read: “To pay for our Unfunded Pensions because previous Council’s took a Pension Holiday (now Illegal) and did not contribute what they should have for 6 consecutive years; and our highly paid City Staff Salaries + generous Benefits; future Infrastructure Maintenance needs because we don’t make Developers Pay their Fair Share in Fees; shall Burbank Taxpayers Bailout the City (again), even though we just passed Measure T, by raising our Sales Tax 0.75¢ Forever (no Sunset), giving Burbank the dubious honor of having the Co-Highest Sales Tax in the USA”?
The City has basically cut-&-paste their Ballot language from Measure T and will no doubt engage in a similar “fear-based” campaign threatening Service Cuts if this massive Sales Tax Hike doesn’t pass. What about Pay Cuts? What about Living Within Your Means like the rest of us? What about getting back to focusing on providing the best Municipal & Public Safety Services instead of wasting time on non-essentials like banning Columbus Day!
There’s so much the City can/should do before raising TAXES. 1. City Mgr Ron Davis mentioned $2M in potential savings during Budget discussions via Workers Comp changes & Outsourcing certain new positions where it makes sense (IT?). 2.Raise Development Impact Fees to match Glendale/Pasadena to pay for future infrastructure needs (they charge $18k/unit vs $2k). 3. Re-Negotiate Public Service Employee Union contracts requiring all workers contribute 50/50 towards PERS, not just new employees. 4. Remove Per Employee Biz Tax Caps that give large Employers tax breaks on the minuscule $10/employee they’re suppose to pay vs Gross Receipts other Cities charge. 5. Pay Cuts: 10% for 414 Employees $150k+ & 5% for another 284 Employees making $100-$150k. 6. Close the 1 Wall Remodeling loophole costing us Tax revenue 7. Divest of Assets that are draining City resources like Starlight Bowl, Golf Course, Colony Theatre or explore Public/Pvte. Partnerships, Naming Rights etc. 8. Get Back-to-Basics & focus on providing Municipal Services & Public Safety not Wish-List & Pet-Projects until revenue increases. Then, after you’ve Cut Costs & Re-Focussed on Essential City Services, come back to the Voters for a Temp 0.25¢ Sales Tax increase with a 3-5 year Sunset clause IF NEEDED, & I’m sure the good people of Burbank would be willing to help out.
This $20M Measure is 2x what the City actually needs to balance future Budget deficits, creating an $11M annual Cash Pot. It’s also Bad For Business, esp. those selling higher-ticket items. It takes a just a few minutes more to drive to L.A. for Appliances, Cameras, Computers/Electronics, Cars etc. Local Business are being hit with a double-whammy with the proposed 10¢/sqft BUSD Parcel TAX, meaning additional Taxes or pass-through Rent increases on top of what some have already endured in Magnolia Park. Big Corporations like Ikea & Walmart can afford to absorb the costs, but small Mom-&-Pop stores are going to be hit esp. hard if these new Taxes pass & some will probably go out-of-business.
Before Voting for Measure P, please consider doing the following:
1. Watch this Video explaining Why We’re in this Financial Mess. * (Start @ 5:38min. Apologies 4 “Jack Sprats” annotated comments – just listen to the City Manager’s honest reply to Council)
2. Review the Salaries + Benefits our City Employees’ are being paid.
I love Burbank and want to see our City prosper, but this Taxpayer Bailout only encourages More Spending & Waste. I urge my fellow Burbank residents to Vote NO in November and send our elected Leaders a loud message: Trim The Fat, Cut Spending & Live Within Your Means!
First of all re the Ballot Statement: A more accurate statement would be “To pay for our Unfunded Pension Liability because previous Council’s did not contribute what they should have for 6 consecutive years, and our highly paid City Staff Salaries + Benefits (see below link), and ballooning Infrastructure needs that co-incidentally have doubled since the last Council election because we don’t make developers pay their fair share like Glendale, shall Burbank Taxpayers Bail Out the City even though we just passed Measure T by raising our Sales Tax 3/4 cent forever (no sunset), giving Burbank the honor of having the highest Sales Tax in the USA along with Chicago & Long Beach?”
For Salary comparison purposes; In 2016 The City of Burbank (105,033 people) paid it’s 1,791 workers total Wages of approx. $124M + $41M in Retirement & Health Benefits. We paid an average Salary of $68,979 + $23,171 in Benefits ($92,150 Total Costs).
Our neighbors in Glendale (201,748 people) paid it’s 2,134 employees $150M in Wages + $49M in Benefits, with an average of $70,472 in Wages + $22,729 in Benefits ($93,201 Total Costs).
What’s interesting to me is as while Salaries/Benefits were very similar, Glendale has per capita Salary costs significantly less than Burbank i.e each Glendale resident “pays” about $985 per City Employee ($745 Wages + $240 Benefits) vs $1,570 ($1,176 Wages + $395 Benefits) for each City Employee “paid” by Burbank residents.
“The option that many cities have already taken, and dozens of others are considering, is to raise local taxes, especially sales taxes—although only rarely do they tell voters that the new revenue is needed for pensions.
More generally, they portray the tax boosts as ways to improve police and fire services and keep specific promises to voters, such as adding police patrols or opening fire stations. They know that eventually, as pension costs rise, they will have to rescind those steps.
Privately, some city officials are encouraging their unions to put pension-related tax increases on the ballot via initiative, because a recent court decision indicates that an initiative tax would have a lower vote requirement than one proposed by a city council. Thus it would be easier to enact.
That said, tax increases alone cannot deal with pension costs that are rising so quickly. State-local sales tax rates are now at or above 10 percent in many communities, and taxable retail sales have flattened out as a percentage of personal income.
A final note: All of this is occurring during a period of general economic prosperity.”
