1094 / 19.0% Yes votes ...... 4666 / 81.0% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

If a majority of voters approve Measure U, the UUT will be repealed within sixty (60) days aftcr the enactment of the Measure, unless the City Council reduces the current UUT for each utility service to a rate not-to-exceed an average of the rates imposed for service by the ten incorporated cities in Los Angeles County closest in population size to the City of Culver City, including cities that do not impose a UUT. In addition, every five years, the UUT would again be subject to repeal, unless the City Council reduces the UUT according to the method stated above. If the UUT is repealed, the General fund, which is approximately $59.8 million, would be decreased by approximately $11 million. Reduction in the UUT, under the method described above, would result in a decrease in the General Fund of approximately $9 mIllion.

Measure U reiterates current law giving the City Council authority "to repeal the tax, lower the tax rate, reduce the basis upon which the tax is charged, and reduce those subject to it," without voter approval. The proposed Measure also changes the method for providing UUT refunds by eliminating the requirement for claim submittal.

Contact FOR Measure Culver-U:

Culver City Citizens For U
e-mail: CCUUT@comcast.net

Contact AGAINST Measure Culver-U:

Residents Against Measure U
e-mail: info@noonmeasureu.com

Culver City Website

In fact, Culver City imposes the highest rate in the state on gas, water, electricity, video services and telephone.

This isn't fair. Families with children and higher bills pay more tax then any other families in California. Low-income families, small businesses and seniors pay more tax as a percentage of income. Pay late--add 11% to the late fee.

YES on U reduces Culver City's tax to the average of 10 comparable-slzed cities.

Afterward, Culver City will stlll spend more money than any nearby comparable-size city, except Beverly Hills. In many cases, tens of millions of dollars more.

Measure U reduces 2004/05 revenue. From there, when property values go up: taxes up. New stores open, economy recovers: sales taxes up. Energy bills up: taxes up. Adding phones, modems, DSL lines, Caller ID, cable channels? Culver City gets more. City finances climb millions per year:

2000/01....$ 89,714,477
2001/02....$100,276,585 up $10,562,088
2002/03....$101,559,755 up $ 128,319
2003/04....$109,692,337 up $10,149,101

Remember 2002? Was the City okay with the budget it had then?

Voting YES on Measure U, and an average tax rate, means Culver City will be able to spend as much as it did in 2002, maybe more.

In March 2003, the City Council considered reducing the rate from 11% to 10.75%: stili the highest rate! They didn't. They won't.

You must vote YES to bring our rate to average. By voting YES more of the budget will rely on sales tax paid by visitors; less on the unfair tex on your water, heat and light bills.

/s/ Sandra Kallandar
Organizer, Citizens for U

Keith R. Thomas
Lifetime Resident since 1951

James L. Canine
Retired Senior

Charles Tate
Renter

The City needs $1,000,000 more each year just to pay for workers oompensation and medical Insurance rate increases. The same costs that drive up your own bills hurt the City even more. In spite of the City's low property tax revenues (4% of the general fund), by working hard, we have been able to keep our services top rate.

Fact: 53% of the cities in Los Angeles County do have a Utility Tax.

Fact; There is no Utility Tax on Internet access.

Fact: The general fund revenue is about $59 million, not $100 million.

Fact: Low-inoome seniors pay no UUT.

Fact: UUT costs each resident about 32 cents a day.

Will the state take this tax money from us? No, 100% is spent in Culver City.

Think about it:

Do the Police and Fire or paramedics arrive too quickly?

Is the Senior Center open too many days a week?

Does the City have too many programs for our children?

Do we have too many streetlights?

Are trees, streets and sidewalks maintained too we11?

Are your property values too high?

Do we help the schools too much?

Join with Culver City renters and homeowners, young people and seniors, police and firefighters, people from all neighborhoods and all walks of life and be sure to VOTE NO ON MEASURE "U."

/s/Alan Corlin, Mayor
on behalf of the City Council

Bob Hadley, Co-Chalr
C.C. Unit - League of Women Voters

Frances Talbott-White, Co-Chair
C.C. Unit - League of Women Voters

Kirk Newman, President
Culver City Police Officers Association

Ken Carpenter
Culver City Fire Fighters Association

The Utility User's Tax (UUT) is a critical component of City revenue that ailows our current level of City Services. Business entities in Culver City pay at least half of the total UUT. This revenue is used for police and fire protection, parks, recreation, senior citizen programming, children's activities, street repairs and other vital services. There is not a $9 million surplus in Culver City's $59 million budget. Measure U will take $9 million from the general fund every year.

Even all of the following disastrous cuts would not add up to $9 million.

- HARM PUBLIC SAFETY: Curtailing or eliminating vital police functions. Closing a fire station. Eliminating of both an engine and truck company. Lengthening response time.

- DESTROY COMMUNITY SERVICES: Cutting supervision at our parks. Reducing maintenance of the parks. Curtailing Teen Center activities. Eliminating or curtailing a variety of services at the Senior Center including closing the fitness center.

- RAVAGE PUBLIC WORKS: Curtailing the repair of our streets and sidewalks. Extending the time between tree trimmings. Tumlng off of street lights.

If Measure U passes, safe streets, clean streets, services to youth and seniors, shared facilities agreements with the Culver City Schools are all at risk. Blight and decay and the resulting drop in property values will inevitably follow the reduction or elimination of services due to Measure U.

To preserve the quality of life that makes Culver City that special place to live, work. and play, we urge you to VOTE NO ON MEASURE U.

/s/ Alan Corlin, Mayor
on behalf of the City Council

Dana H. Russell, DDS
CCUSD Board Member

Murray Silman, Pres.
Board of Directors, Senior Center

Jacqueline McCain, Co-Cheir
Residents Against Measure U

Daniel Cohen, Chair
Culver City Chamber of Commerce

"They imply the Schools will be impacted. They won't. Their money is completely separate. Meanwhile, schoolteachers, daycare providers, private schools, home-schoolers, churches and students are paying the highest rate in the state." -- Deborah Weiss - Parent

Some examples of Culver City's higher-than-average revenues:

2003/04.............Culver City.......Manhattan Beach

Fines/Forfeitures*
..........................$ 3,010,000........$ 1,979,250
Business Taxes
..........................$ 6,600,000........$ 1,900,350
Sales Taxes
..........................$14,600,000.......$ 7,207,000
UUT Tax Rate
.............................11%...................0%
..*Incl, redlight cameras

"It's like they normally gain 10 pounds a year, next year gain only one, then claim they've lost 9 pounds! And, 9 pounds each year after." -- Sandra Kallander

These similar-size cities provide recreation, fire and police, for millions less. 2002/03 budgets off the internet:

Manhattan Beach
....$ 57,717,180
Rancho Palos Verdes
....$ 17,066,400
San Dimas
....$ 25,640,656
San Gabriel
....$ 20,304,596
West Hollywood
....$ 60,762,835
Culver City
....$101,559,755 ($21,669,565 police alone)

"It took them three months to repair my street. Any competent contractor could have done it in three weeks for less money." -- Keith Thomas, rallroad switchman

"Do they realty think it's better to put bags over streetlights than reduoe overhead?" -- Jim Canine, retired senior

Postage
....$141,374
Conf/Conventlons
....$ 75,390
Print/Bind
....$ 303,094
Spcl Events/Mtgs
....$ 86,260
City Council
....$ 208,713
Info. Tech
....$1,935,509
Graphic Svcs
....$ 462,057....compare: Sr/SocSvcs $424,151

"We could raise it again in a heartbeat if we're actually 'ravaged' by 'blight and decay.'" -- Art Perez, parent

/s/Keith R. Thomas, CCHS class of 1969
James L. Canine, Garfield Avenue
Sandra Kallander, Baldwin Avenue
Deborah Weiss, La Salle Avenue
Arturo P. Perez, Franklin

SECTION 1. This initiative shall be known and may be cited as the "Utility Users Tax Reduction Initiative."

SECTION 2. The people of the City of Culver City find and declare that the eleven percent (11%) Utility Users Tax collected by our city government is much greater than the average rate imposed by cities of similar size within Los Angeles County. In view of this, the people seek to reduce the rate of this tax to the average rate of similar sized cities within this county.

SECTION 3. Within sixty days of the enactment of this initiative, and at least once every five years thereafter, the City Council may amend the Utility Users Tax Ordinance of the City of Culver City for the sole purpose of reducing the rate for each service subject to tax to a level not exceeding the average rate of tax for each service imposed by the ten incorporated cities within Los Angeles County closest in population, according to the most recent United States Decennial Census. The calculation of the average rate shall not exclude those cities that do not impose a Utility Users Tax on a service and shall be rounded down to the nearest full percentage.

SECTION 4. If the City Council does not amend the Utility Users Tax Ordinance of the City of Culver City in accordance with Section 3 of this initiative, the Utility Users Tax Ordinance of the City of Culver City shall be repealed.

SECTION 5. The City Council may enact ordinances to repeal the tax, lower the tax rate, reduce the basis upon which the tax is charged, and reduce those subject to it. Other than the foregoing, this initiative may not be amended except by another initiative measure approved by the voters.

SECTION 6. Whenever the amount of any tax has been overpaid, paid more than once, or has been erroneously or illegally collected by the Tax Administrator under this Subchapter, it shall be the duty of the Tax Administrator to refund such amounts. No requirement to submit a claim, written or otherwise, shall be imposed.

SECTION 7. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application thereof, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.