In a highly irregular development, the Upland City Council today made what was a virtual last-minute change to the revenue-producing measure its members had resolved to place before the city’s voters last month.
On July 22, the Upland City Council voted to ask the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to put an initiative on the November 5 ballot that would have revamped the city’s current business licensing fees, permits and taxing schedule, which have been in place for more than three decades.
The changes to the business licensing fees and taxes were to have, if passed, city officials predicted, provided the city with somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million more in revenue than it currently collects.
Waiting until July to make that request of the county elections office was considered to have been a tardy undertaking. Generally speaking, those putting a measure onto a ballot require upwards of six months of lead time, as the elections office has a deadline in November to place measures on California primary election ballots voted on in March in presidential election years; February to place measures on California primary election ballots voted on in June in gubernatorial election years; and July for the November ballot when a presidential or gubernatorial general election is held.
For common citizens, who must formulate the ballot measure and generally must gather thousands and thousands of signatures on petitions to qualify those proposed measures to be on the ballot, many months of signature gathering must take place before submitting the proposal prior to the November, February or July deadline. For governmental entities, which can use the official authority of an elected decision-making body to bypass the signature gathering requirement, less lead time is required but some temporal cushion is still required in order to hash out among that elected leadership the contents of such proposed measures.
Today, August 9, at 5 p.m., was the deadline to lodge with the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters a request – including all relevant paperwork and augmenting documentation – to place an item on the upcoming November 5 ballot. Yesterday, Thursday, August 8, Upland City Clerk Keri Johnson posted at 12:30 p.m., that is, at half-past noon, notice of a “special” meeting of the Upland City Council to take place at 12:30 p.m. today. On the agenda for that meeting was, in addition to oral communications from the public relating to the two items to be heard, action to “Consider adopting resolutions placing a sales tax measure on the November ballot” and to “consider adopting a resolution withdrawing a general tax measure from the November 5, 2024 ballot relating to business license taxes.”
Though Johnson had characterized the meeting as “urgent,” word reaching the Sentinel was that the move was a calculated one that had been planned at least weeks, more likely months and maybe more than a year in advance.
According to a knowledgeable and well-placed individual, city officials entered into a precisely coordinated effort to have not just one over on the city’s residents but two over on the residents by springing the first measure relating to the revamping of the business tax and business permit schedules on them belatedly and then crossing them up once more with a different measure calling for a citywide sales tax add-on. The purpose, the Sentinel is informed, was to not only get an early indication of those who would have a knee-jerk reaction against the city’s taxing proposal but get those ready to militate against the tax to squander attention, focus and maybe even money in fighting something that wasn’t going to be on the ballot.
In 2022, city officials placed what was ultimately designated as Measure L on the ballot, asking Upland residents to consent to imposing on themselves a one-cent sales tax override. A small but committed and efficiently-operating contingent of Uplanders worked against the tax proposal, generating handbills, mailers and signs, while facilitating the efforts of former Upland City Councilman Glenn Bozar and former Upland Treasurer Larry Kinley in authoring both the official rebuttal of the argument in favor of Measure L and the official argument against Measure L, which was included in the election packet and sample ballot that was sent by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to all voters in Upland about six weeks before the election.
While city officials are constrained by state law from utilizing taxpayer money to support a measure, virtually all employees at Upland City Hall were in favor of Measure L, based in no small measure by assurances delivered to them by the city manager and the assistant city manager that Measure L’s passage would make giving them the raises they were seeking possible.
Though municipal employees by a better than 19-to-1 margin supported the sales tax initiative, ultimately, Upland’s residents rejected Measure L, with 10,222 voters or 44.6 percent in favor of it and 12,697 voters or 55.4 percent opposed to it.
Similar assurances to those given two years ago have now been delivered to city employees that passage of the measure placed on the ballot by today’s action will guarantee their raises will be forthcoming in Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
On July 26, Upland’s representative in the California Assembly, Chris Holden, met with several dozen Jewish voters, with whom he was going over multiple issues of common interest facing his district, the Southern California region and California in general. At that event, which was four days after the Upland City Council had voted to pursue getting the first version of the measure they were promoting, which limited itself to altering the city’s business license fees and taxing formulas, for a vote in November, Holden conveyed to those in attendance that a measure to impose an added one cent sales tax on shoppers in Upland was to appear on the ballot in November. In his presentation, Holden indicated the matter had been thoroughly thought through, with precise predictions of how much money the tax would generate for Upland if it passed. Holden had knowledge of what Upland’s mayor and city council were going to do, 13 days before the item was placed on the special meeting agenda and 14 days before the action was taken.
At today’s special meeting, only a relative handful of residents had been able to react to what the city suddenly had on tap.
One group not caught flat-footed was the Upland Police Officers Association. That group’s president, Officer Gabe Garcia, made a pitch for the measure.
“Our Upland Police Department is committed to protecting our community, but we face significant challenges,” Garcia said. “Our equipment is outdated. Replacing just our handheld radios will cost $1.3 million. We also have fewer officers per thousand citizens than most neighboring cities. While other cities have 1.9 officers per thousand residents, Upland has only about 1.0 officers per 1,000. This strain is unsustainable. This measure will provide resources needed to hire more officers, replace outdated equipment and expand our capacity to fund these growing challenges. It will help fund the technology that will make our investigations more effective and give our officers the tools they need to protect you and your family. This is not just about a tax. It is about making an investment in the future of Upland. Public safety is at the heart of this measure.”
Mayor Bill Velto was also provided support in his quest to get the one-cent-per-dollar additional sales tax in place by Brian Taylor, who was on hand to put a good word in for the measure.
Taylor said, “I’m here to support this tax measure. Yeah, our city needs it. The cost of everything is going up. We’re trying to retain our police force. We don’t have the money to pay them. Well, this 1 percent tax is going to help a little bit with that. Everyone [is] complaining about potholes. It takes money to do all of this. We need to generate funds. We [are] all aware of that. I think this is the time to do it. Put it on the ballot and let the residents fight about it.”
Upland Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker said that “Upland’s residents enjoy a high quality of life, but the city’s bedroom community status keeps it at a financial deficit compared with other neighboring cities who have a more robust commercial development.”
For that reason alone, Parker said, seeking the sales tax override was justified.
In questioning Parker, Third District Councilman Carlos Garcia, perhaps inadvertently, elicited a response from the assistant city manager that seemed to indicate the city had intended to go with the sales tax proposal all along. Garcia referenced, and Parker then confirmed, that the city had carried out a survey of 400 residents to ascertain whether there was adequate support for the sales tax imposition in order for the measure to pass. Without there being any disclosure of what the precise results of that polling had been, the tenor of the questions and answers was that the survey results indicated there was some prospect the measure would pass.
Councilman Garcia said, “About a year-and-a-half-ago, residents voted against this.” He then made reference to some polling data relating to the proposed measure.
“I’d like to know, in this current polling, tell me exactly how many people were polled?” Garcia said. “What was the percentage of people that were polled?”
When Parker indicated 400, Garcia responded, “Only 400 were polled. Right now, in the uncertainty of the economy, I think it’s the wrong time to do this. We talked about transparency. I think, in the year-and-a-half time that passed, that it is still too early to get to that point.”
City Clerk Keri Johnson acknowledged before the council voted on the matter that the language of the ballot measure had not been accurately disclosed when the item was placed on the agenda. “There was a change to the ballot language after the posted meeting agenda that was also posted on-line,” she said.
First District Councilwoman Shannan Maust said the council should not be shy about having Upland residents reconsider taxing themselves two years after they soundly rejected doing so.
“I see nothing wrong with asking the residents, [given] where we are today,” Maust said, “because in two years what has happened, from my accessibility to the public, I’ve had the majority come to me and ask to get this back on the ballot.”
Maust suggested the measure failed in 2022 because that balloting corresponded with California’s gubernatorial election, when the turnout was not as heavy as it is during presidential elections. She prognosticated that with more people voting less than four months hence, the sales tax measure will pass.
“There will be a larger pool of voters to see it,” she said of the measure in November. She said that voters in the First District told her they didn’t vote because the president, the mayor and she were not on the ballot two years ago. She did not mention, however, that this year, in the three races in Upland at stake, Mayor Velto, she and incumbent Treasurer Greg Bradley are running unopposed.
Two of Upland’s residents who did make it to the meeting said they were not fooled by what the city council had done.
Mark Walters said, “The posting of this emergency meeting was announced yesterday at 12:30 p.m., exactly 24 hours before this emergency meeting. We all know this was done with much secrecy and the optics prove this council is not transparent at all. I also noticed it was not posted anywhere on social media until I grabbed it this morning, because we know this is an attempt to slip the measure in without much opposition. My biggest question is why did you choose today of all days to have this emergency meeting instead of last month, last week, a couple of months ago? Could it be because both persons [on the council – Velto as mayor and Maust as councilwoman] – running for reelection are running unopposed and it’s too late to run against you?”
Walters continued, “I must applaud the mayor and mayor pro tem for their theatrics at last week’s city council meeting.”
Walters then gave a rough rundown of an exchange between Councilman James Breitling, who is currently Upland mayor pro tem [i.e., the vice-mayor], and Velto which took place on July 22.
“I am paraphrasing, since I can’t remember the exact verbiage,” Walters said, and then quoted Breitling to the best of his memory. “‘Mr. Mayor, why don’t we request a sales tax increase to gain $32 million rather than just the $3 million to $4 million we would receive with a business tax increase?’” Walters said, quoting Breitling.
He then quoted Velto’s response during the July 22 meeting: “‘Well, this was put on the ballot for a vote in 2022 and the city lost that ballot measure. It appears the citizens do not trust the city council and we have to earn their trust before trying this again.’”
Walters then addressed the council directly.
“Bravo on the theatrics, but I have to admit, it looks like it was scripted from an elementary school drama class,” Walters said. “Well, mayor and city council, you are absolutely correct: We cannot trust the city council. I am deeply sorry that I supported many of you up there, but I will make sure that I will never make this mistake again. Each and every person up on the dais has claimed to be fiscally conservative as part of their election platform, but these actions are not from a fiscally conservative view. The definition of a fiscally conservative person is as follows: Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reducing government spending, free markets and deregulation.”
Mike Nunez told the council, “Such taxes [are] both unnecessary and detrimental to the economic wellbeing of Upland citizens. It is important to consider the financial burden placed on the residents by implementing a new sales tax. A one-cent increase may be seen as insignificant at first glance. However, when applied across various purchases it can accumulate substantially over time. For the low- and middle-income families, even a small increase in tax can exacerbate existing financial constraints. Rather than imposing a new tax on an already vulnerable population, city officials should explore alternative funding sources or reprioritize budget allocations to address fiscal deficits without passing the burden onto the taxpayers. Moreover, it is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of previous tax increases in Upland. Historical data indicates that many promises made during past campaigns for increased taxation in other cities often remain unfulfilled and lead to misallocation of funds. This raises legitimate concerns regarding transparency and accountability in how taxpayer money is spent. Therefore, in endorsing any tax, local government should prove a track record of judicious fund management to restore the public trust. While funding essential services is vital for maintaining a thriving community in Upland, implementing a one-cent sales tax poses significant risk without guaranteed benefits. Residents deserve transparency in governance that respects the financial contributions we make.”
Second District Councilman James Breitling said he favored putting the tax proposal on the ballot and he called on the voters to approve it.
“Every day we wait, the price to fix our infrastructure goes up significantly,” he said. “While the city has proven to be fiscally responsible, our revenues have not kept up with the rising cost of providing essential services.”
Mayor Velto said he was enthusiastic about the sales tax because “65 percent [of the sales tax Upland currently receives] comes from people who do not live in our city.”
Velto said the city will use the money to pay for things it needs.
“I hear comments daily about our roads and how bad they are,” he said.
He blamed the failure of the tax measure in 2022 on a “small group that lied about what the money will be used for.”
He said residents who voted against the measure in 2022 are telling him they made a mistake and will support it this time around.
He dismissed suggestions that he and the council had pulled a fast one by baiting the city’s residents by introducing the business permit fee revamping measure on July 22 and now switching to the sales tax proposal measure.
He said the usual suspects were telling lies about what the council had done.
“We hear opposition to it [the new sales tax measure], that this was done under some shady circumstances,” Velto said. He raised his voice, angrily asserting, “Voting is not a shady circumstance. Offering it to the public is not a shady circumstance. This council makes a decision as to whether or not to allow the residents to vote for or against it.”
Velto scoffed at the idea that the city’s voters in 2024 will turn down the opportunity to tax themselves as they did in 2022.
“I get a lot of emails and phone calls, a lot more than this small group that opposes this,” he said. “The lies that were put in the last election about what the money was going to go for is false. This time you’re going to hear the truth from those who are supporting it.”
Velto said the city, its employees, his council colleagues and he have all done a pretty damn good job for the residents of Upland.
“You know what I got to think?” Velto asked, rhetorically. “I got to think the residents are pretty satisfied if Greg Bradley had no one run against him, if Shannan Maust had no one run against her, and if no one chose to run against me, and I’m the biggest target in this city and they could have come out and run against me.”
Now it’s time for the residents of Upland to reach down deep into their pockets and do the right thing, Velto said, and come across with some money.
“This is what this council has done: We have worked hard over the last four years,” the mayor said. “We worked hard to earn the trust of the residents and we’re asking you to support this, because it’s all about making Upland a better place to call home.”
With Councilman Rudy Zuniga participating remotely from his workplace, the council voted 4-to-1 with Councilman Garcia dissenting to adopt the resolution to put the sales tax on the ballot in November. Garcia joined with the others in approving the two formalities that went with having the registrar of voters accommodate putting the sales tax on the November ballot. Councilman Garcia voted against the final motion to remove the business license revamping measure from the November 5 ballot.
The Sentinel made phone calls to the mayor and the four council members, seeking from them an explanation of why they switched from the earlier approved placement of the business license revamping measure on the November 5 ballot to supplanting it with the sales tax measure, and further seeking from them comment on the report that the late application with the registrar of voters for the first measure and its replacement with the second measure was a strategy worked out well in advance of the myriad actions in this regard. Only Zuniga answered the Sentinel’s call. He said, “Now’s not a good time for me to talk. I’m working a double shift. Thank you for being understanding.”
Neither the mayor nor the other council members returned the phone messages left for them by the Sentinel. The Sentinel fired off an email to all five, posing, essentially the same questions. Neither the mayor nor the council members responded by press time.
-Mark Gutglueck