NOV Ballot Measure: 3/4¢ Sales Tax increase!

37370041_1053689714805778_6204760672085999616_o

Initial OPINION (fwiw) – Just Say NO#iLuvBurbank | My Argument Against*

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?”

*** Burbank Salaries c/o www.publicpay.ca.gov ***

© Eric Michael Cap #iLuvBurbank

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.

Maybe we can learn from Glendale how to be more cost-efficient and get more done with less?  | *** Glendale Salaries c/o www.publicpay.ca.gov ***

Below is some historical background information as to How We Got In This Financial Mess. Please listen to the City Manager’s comments @ 5:40min.

READ This Excellent Article on CA’s Pension cost crisis: https://calmatters.org/…/commentary-surging-pension…/

“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.”

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: