By Lyn Jensen, Carson Reporter
On Nov. 7 voters will be asked to vote on Measure C, the Oil Industry Business License Tax.
The ballot measure is the result of Carson being in a fiscal emergency for the second time in two years. On Aug. 7, the city council unanimously voted to propose a new tax on the city’s refineries.
If passed, Measure C would impose a one-quarter-of-one-percent tax on the gross receipts of oil refineries in Carson.
The city is presenting the proposed ordinance as necessary to raise an estimated $24 million for the general fund. The measure’s opponents are questioning the council’s motives.
Carson currently taxes its refineries based on the number of employees, which brings in about $5 million annually.
Names of all five council members appear in support of the measure in the city’s Voter Information Pamphlet. They argue the funds raised will be used to maintain and improve first responder protections, senior, youth and gang diversion programs.
“Our streets, sidewalks and parks need repairs. It’s estimated $156 million is needed for improvements throughout the City [Carson] — and cost will multiply if not addressed soon,” the pamphlet reads. “Torrance and El Segundo receive $11 million each [from taxes on refineries] … but Carson receives only $5 million.”
Although Torrance and El Segundo do impose business license taxes on their refineries, neither city’s is based on gross receipts.
Carson’s employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, supports the measure, said representative Ana Meni.
At a recent community meeting, she argued, if Measure C fails, “What programs do we cut?”
City staff said that conducting the special election may cost the city $270,000. Opponents have sent out mailers charging the overall cost is closer to $400,000.
The larger amount includes what the city is spending on what it calls “information,” including the mailing of a special edition of the city’s official publication, the Carson Report. Described as an information guide, the mailing only presents the proponents’ side.
In response, some opponents, including Jan Schaefer of Carson Alliance 4 Truth, criticized the city’s “information” campaign.
“The staff report actually said they couldn’t spend any money to promote it,” Schaefer said. “It seems they are promoting it.”
Proponents portray the opponents as representing big oil. Western States Petroleum Association is funding the opposition, including mailings and a website.
That website lists Local 675 United Steelworkers, which represents local refinery workers, as opposing the measure. David Campbell of Local 675 denied the union or the local had taken a position.
Matt Klink, campaign manager for the organized opposition, Carson United to Stop Irresponsible Taxes, said the city council has been unable to balance the budget eight of the past 11 years.
“The measure was rushed onto the ballot,” he said. “The council declared a fiscal emergency on Aug. 7 and put it on the November ballot …. The city has a long history of budget deficits. Eight budgets have been unbalanced in the past 11 years…. The city has not been a responsible financial steward of taxpayers’ money…. They’ve spent $13 million in legal fees in the past four years.”
Klink also questioned the city’s claim the measure would generate $24 million. He said that figure is not taken from actual data, but from an analysis of a hypothetical refinery.
Klink said the money might not be well spent.
“The council’s list of all the specific things funded, that’s just empty promises,” Klink added. “It’s a general tax and by law all [such] tax must go into the general fund.”
The proposed ordinance is at http://ci.carson.ca.us/Government/Election2017.aspx.
The campaign against Measure C is at www.measurechurtsme.com.