Community Commentary:

Here they go again — our city councilmen, city manager and senior staff members with a ballot measure that would update outdated tax codes to include recent technological advances. The ballot measure would cut the telecommunications portion of the larger utility user tax from 7% to 6.5%, but taxpayers would likely not notice a difference because the new code language would capture more phone uses, according to the tax proposal. Mayor John Drayman said, “This is a revenue-neutral proposition” (“Mayor backs tax on ballot,” Dec. 22). Excuse me, but this sounds like a bunch of gibberish.

What is a revenue-neutral proposition? Does that mean that I do not have to pay any more taxes, or that my neighbor pays his tax and mine? Can we trust the politicians that this money will not go to pay for additional city salaries and pensions? We have seen in the past where the councilmen have increased our utility taxes through Glendale Water and Power and that moneys have then been transferred to the general fund. How do we know if a tax of $8.7 million is enough money to cover expenses, as past performance by our city fathers has not been a good indicator of future success?

To be honest, I do not trust the city staff with the reports they have presented to the council and the public. The city’s First Quarter Financial Update, dated Dec. 2, states that the general fund overview revenue and appropriations (expenses) were $8.1 million for July, August and September.

In the Glendale News-Press, $8.1 million is being reported as the city expenses exceeding revenue (“Big budget gap expected again,” Dec. 3). But this figure is for only three months. If one were to look at the staff report on page 7 and read the summary of recommended changes by fund type, the city has projected annual expenses over revenue of $88.2 million.

What are the city’s true projected expenses?

A Nov. 18 staff report regarding proposed Pacific Pool development work at Pacific Park (aquatic center) states on page 5 projected annual expenses of $375 million. I mentioned this money Nov. 18 at the City Council meeting, and the council said the amount of money should have been $375,000 and not the $375 million. A typo error of zeros — wow! Can we trust the books? Doesn’t anyone proof read these reports at City Hall? And the city manager and senior staff all signed off on this report.