Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto looks to upgrade utility tax

Original post made on Mar 25, 2014

Nearly three decades after Palo Alto established a tax on utilities and phone usage, city officials are preparing to "modernize" this tax to account for the rise of the cell phone and the demise of the landline.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 1:38 PM

Comments (27)

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm

This tax was introduced before my time. Don't really understand much of this article, but I can say one thing. It will probably be a way of them getting more tax from me.

Posted by short-sighted, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Let me see, the UUT was introduced to "raise revenues for its lease of the Cubberley Community Center from the Palo Alto Unified School District".

Now the city is trying to get out of this but still retain the tax. Not only that, they want to increase the UUT even though they want to remove the reason it was introduced. Web Link

The city wants voters to agree to this. Good luck on that one!

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Alternative solution...don't change the tax and stop paying rent to PAUSD and force their hand to finally rebuild and establish a new third HS. Then use the tax for only fixing infrastructure.

Posted by SteveU, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 7:31 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

Every Utility rate increase has automatically increased the REVENUE generated by UUT.

Just say NO to the whole UUT game.

Some of us are on fixed incomes with NO cost of living perks that city workers get.
It is time for City hall to put their hand DOWN.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 25, 2014 at 8:23 pm

What's the point of a monopoly if you can't gouge your customers?

Posted by common sense, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Let the good times roll! City just approved an ongoing $12 million in employee expenses in salary & benefit increases, another $7 million in beautifying California Ave, another $2 million in bike transportation studies, and $500,000 for consultants for the comp plan update, etc. etc. and this is just in the last month.

Whatever happen to the police building that was of "utmost urgency", of "highest priority"? Where are those infrastructure commissioners who should be railing at the council for spending money on everything BUT the police building.

Posted by Kate, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:44 pm

Did I just read that this tax was also to 'fix the streets'??? Did it exempt High Street southbound to Homer???? Did it exclude Hamilton, Forest, and myriad streets north of the Oregon Expressway? I agree with 'fixed income' comments. Hard for the seniors to keep up with the home repairs let alone with all the myriad ways the City of Palo Alto wants to stick in the tax and fee knife and turn it. The salary raises for these city 'executives' are beyond reason. Donna Rider is the one who should have gotten a big raise!! Without her, City Hall would be unable to function. Keene and Stump should pay the city for the privilege of working there. Both must go.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 10:07 pm

Just Say No! The rationale for the Utility Tax is gone and this rewrite is just going to suck more into the black hole that is the Palo Alto city government.

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 10:53 pm

City council needs more revenue so they can pay high priced consultants, to tell the city council they need to give their developer friends, exemptions to the zoning regulations.

All current members of the city council must go. Clean Sweep!

Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 26, 2014 at 12:34 am

Tax "upgrade"? What pathetic doublespeak... We need a city goverenance upgrade.

Posted by No Tax Increase, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 26, 2014 at 8:51 am

Let's call it what it is. This is a proposed tax increase. The answer is NO. Not when you give James Keene and Molly Stump raises. Not when you plead poor and then give the SEIU city workers a multimillion dollar raise. Not when pension liabilities keep accruing because the city is too shortsighted to use even the most basic fiscal discipline.

NO NO NO. This tax should not even be here in the first place. It goes straight to the general fund.

Posted by PO box holder, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 26, 2014 at 11:07 am

If I have a PO box for my cell phone outside of Palo Alto and in a no utility tax jurisdiction can I avoid the tax? Maybe out of state?

Posted by Silly, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 26, 2014 at 11:40 am

Enough already. I didn't know Palo Alto was my cell phone provider to which I ALREADY pay usage taxes. I also pay taxes to my landline provider, my cable provider -- where do the CITY fit into these? Are they going to get us rebates on all the other taxes we ALREADY pay?

Cut the PA Utility Tax. We're stuck with an unresponsive monopoly that his ridiculously high rates. We already pay a tax for storm drains that don't drain.

Are they going to tax us for breathing next?

Posted by Annette, a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 26, 2014 at 11:55 am

This is one of those times that I hope the reporter misunderstood a few things. If Larry Klein really said "I'd hope they say yes. If they don't, maybe we can pass it over their objections, but at least they'd have the opportunity to have their say," he may as well have said to the nine users "come have your say, but we are going to ignore you". This is a perfect example of why there's growing disrespect for CC. Also, this explanation for a UUT increase smacks of justification; the language can be updated w/o a tax increase.

Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm

Why does the heading to the story use the word "Upgrade"? That's a judgment. Let the voters decide whether or not it is an upgrade.

Posted by David Pepperdine, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Lovely. Their hands, our wallets. Their lifetime benefits, our savings.
We need to:
a) End the Palo Alto utilities monopoly
b) Change city hall to become a minimally staffed administrative body.
They should do no "real work" just decide which private company should
get the contracts for real work -- much more efficient than paying
unbounded future benefits for finite current work.
c) Kick out the City Council en masse and replace them with people who work
for US!

Posted by Deep Throat, a resident of another community
on Mar 26, 2014 at 12:21 pm

"Where are those infrastructure commissioners who should be railing at the council for spending money on everything BUT the police building." -- Common Sense.

Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission member March Berman in now on the City Council and member Mark Michael is now chair of the Planning and Tansportation Commission. Many other Infrastructure Commission members were already city board and commission members at the time they were appointed to the Infrastructure Commission.

Posted by Cur Mudgeon, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 26, 2014 at 12:50 pm

"Palo Alto looks to upgrade utility tax"
should be Palo Alto looks to broaden utility tax or Palo Alto looks to increase utility tax. PA Weekly, tell it like it is.

Read my lips, no new taxes.

Posted by really, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 26, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Emphatically agree with David Pepperdine.

"Modernization" (seriously???!!!) is just another way for city council to pay for the pretty exorbitant (compared to private sector) entitlements of city employees and retirees that they approved to pay for with tax payer money but not tax payer consent.

I keep wondering why no one investigates our city's mismanagement and misappropriations of funds. They can't even pave the streets, which are worse than developing countries.

Posted by not right. . ., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Let's see - Initially the City created a complicated lease agreement mainly to help the School District during hard times. The arrangement produced 3 million for the School District yearly - now the School District gets over 7 million.
The Utility Tax was formed largely to enable the City to pay that amount to the School District.

Now the City wants to pay less, as they certainly should, but the School District says they want that money - well of course they want it.
And the City wants to keep the level of the Utility Tax. Unfair.

Posted by Dan, a resident of Southgate
on Mar 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm

This article implies that the UUT isn't currently levied on cell phones:

"the new one would apply to a wide range of technology, including the traditional phone, cell phones, broadband, fiber optics, Wi-Fi and "voice over internet protocol" services."

It is. Check you cell phone bill for "Palo Alto UUT". It's listed separately for each phone number. I pay $3.93 PA UUT tax on my Verizon Wireless bill, because the billing address is in Palo Alto.

Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 26, 2014 at 5:12 pm

@Dan, odd that I don't see this PA UUT on my AT&T bill. 10 other items mostly Federal, State, 911, Teleconnect, Lifeline, CHCF, and pennies here and there for admin fees. Maybe I should just shut up about it.

Posted by John, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 26, 2014 at 6:23 pm

When the utilities tax was first approved by the voters, we were assured that we would be able to vote to extend the tax after the original time was over. When it came time to put the utility tax renewal before the voters to see if we wanted it to continue, the City Council, at the time, extended it without putting it to a vote. They said that they knew if it were presented to the voters for renewal it would not pass.

As we all know, the money had gone into the general fund and been used for other purposes. All we have to do is look at our streets and sidewalks.

No! No! No!. If Larry Klein has his way (the person responsible for spearheading a utility tax, a storm drain tax and one more,sewer?,tax. He is a tax attorney so believes we should just keep paying more taxes so he can spend more without putting it where it us needed

Posted by Silly, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 26, 2014 at 7:53 pm

Will Ms. Stump write to our phone, cable, internet, cell phone etc. providers and tell them THEY can stop taxing us???

By the way, my personal storm drain on which I pay a tax is backed up at the foot of my driveway. Will I have to pay a tax on any mosquitos that breed there?

Posted by JerryL, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 26, 2014 at 9:41 pm

Palo Alto provides its own utilities so, I guess it made some kind of sense in olden days for them to impose a utility user's tax. Folks possibly didn't object too much because we were getting a good deal on utility prices compared with PG&E. The telephone utility, while not owned by the city, probably used city power poles to run the wires. So maybe, in a stretch, there could be said to be a rationale for slapping that tax on the landline telephone services.

Now, some of these old justifications are gone. We are approaching price parity with other community utility pricing. Wireless services DON'T use
city owned resources. This tax "upgrade" looks more and more like just another attempt to squeeze the goose that laid the golden egg.

Posted by outside observer, a resident of another community
on Mar 27, 2014 at 12:01 am

"Are they going to tax us for breathing next? "

Absolutely, unless the feds beat them to it.

It's carbon tax. After all, you do exhale CO2

Posted by common sense, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 27, 2014 at 5:34 am

The utilities are a pot of gold for the city staff & city council:

1) Users Utility Tax, about $11 million/year
2) Annually the staff recommends and council approves a "return on investment" transfer to the general fund, about $15 million/year. City Council and staff feels that as "owners" of the utility, they deserve a dividend - which amounts to a tax on us residents.
3) The city charges utility "market rate rents" for use of facilities, around $10 million. This includes land that the city leases from Stanford for $1/year, and then turns around and leases to the utilities for hundreds of thousands per year. This added cost gets put into everyone's electricity, gas & water raters - another tax on us residents
4) The city council has transferred some general fund expenses to the utility department - costs to run the street lights, costs to do street sweeping. This frees up money in the general fund and is another way to tax the residents without putting it to a vote. In other cities does PG&E run the street lights or do the street sweeping? Another $4-5 million/year

All these financial manipulations amount to a $650 tax on each resident (man, woman & child) per year. For a household of 4 that's $2600/year.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,898 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,310 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,257 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,245 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 402 views