Consultant recommends no new Mammoth taxes
In a preview of an agenda item slated for the next Mammoth Lakes Town Council meeting on Wednesday, June 6, Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva Martinez released an informational report on the Results of a Taxation Study prepared by financial consultants FTI Capital Advisors.
According to the agenda bill, the Town engaged FTI Capital Advisors to prepare an analysis of the Town’s current tax burden and the impact of the potential tax increases. The analysis was necessary to assess the feasibility of increasing taxes (with voter approval) to generate revenues to help satisfy the Town’s debts and obligations, including the litigation judgment of Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition (MLLA).
In part, FTI’s report concludes that the current level of taxation within the Town is already high, the Town’s population is generally not wealthy, and the Town’s economy is not likely to sustain additional tax burden.
“The welfare of the resident population is inseparably linked to the competitiveness of the ski resort and the derived demand for all facilities existing because of it, including all related real estate,” the report said.
FTI went on to suggest that, “On a long-term basis, the economy of Mammoth Lakes has been stagnant, and on a near-term basis in decline; nor is recovery expected in the foreseeable future. Imposition of added taxes not serving to finance improvements in municipal services or investment in growth could only exacerbate these problems and make recovery that much more unlikely.”
“Even a tax whose proceeds are spent in the economy (not a reasonable assumption in this case) would reduce that economy’s growth.”
In the report, some of the data cited pointed out the pitfalls of trying to pitch a property-based parcel tax: “Mono County residents are already burdened by an average per capita property tax rate that is the fourth highest among all counties in California. Increases in Mammoth Lakes’ property tax payment delinquencies over the last several years [are] evidence of residents’ growing inability to shoulder the existing burden, much less a heavier one,” the report noted.
And FTI said that impacts on citizens’ abilities to sustain new taxes come down to two circumstances: The first of these is Mammoth Lakes’ large percentage of low-income households The second factor is Mammoth’s “geographic isolation and consequent high cost of living, the latter reducing local purchasing power quite significantly.”
A recent survey conducted showed that Mammoth Lakes’ local cost of gasoline and basic grocery items relative to average costs in other “West Urban” markets, as calculated by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), showed the town pays about 13 percent more for petrol and as much as 40 percent more on groceries.
Council meets at 6 p.m. in Suite Z of the Town offices.
We need to spend money on a study to confirm what anyone who lives here already knows?
This town in bankrupt from this kind of financially immoral stewardship.
TIME FOR CHANGE!
Reading this just makes me mad… more wasted money!
What a joke… this statement is BS!
“A recent survey conducted showed that Mammoth Lakes’ local cost of gasoline and basic grocery items relative to averages cost in other “West Urban” markets”
Clueless
Once again the TOML has hired a consultant to tell us what we already know.
Before my TOML position was cut in early 2009, I recall hearing that other measures were being taken to trim the budget. One of them was by cutting down the number of consultants being hired for outsourcing.
Sadly, nothing has changed.
B. Richter
Ok, here’s my ideas:
1) Repeal Prop R and LOWER sales tax to the absolute minimum. That would bring more people here to shop.
2) Repeal Measure U — a bankrupt town won’t be able to get matching funds for big projects and Measure U by itself doesn’t generate enough for anything but small projects that probably won’t be built because the town workforce is being decimated.
TOML doesn’t need to impose further hardship on it’s working class to pay for frivolous spending — like dog agility equipment. Yes, that’s what Prop R money was spent on in one instance.
It’s just not right to continue to tax the working class while they are being laid off in droves.
Hey Ken,
Please fill us in on where all these hot shopping spots are in the TOML so that we can refer all the 1000’s of tourist their way.
Rudder will fill you in….
Cutting the sales tax to the minimum would also benefit the people who live here. I know that’s anathema but something that is long over due.
Steve, you think this statement is BS?
“A recent survey conducted showed that Mammoth Lakes’ local cost of gasoline and basic grocery items relative to average costs in other “West Urban” markets, as calculated by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), showed the town pays about 13 percent more for petrol and as much as 40 percent more on groceries.”
Just drive up to Carson City and check the prices at a WalMart or Costco and look at the prices for gas in Walker or any town North of Bridgeport.
“Just drive up to Carson City and check the prices at a WalMart or Costco and look at the prices for gas in Walker or any town North of Bridgeport.”
Ah Ken, it appears that you have no clue as to the EPA refining requirements that the State of California implemented some 20-30 years ago along with the additional CA state fuel tax. Thus, our (CA’s) fuel is some 20-25% more than the in the state of NV right off the bat regardless the base price nationwide.
Therefore, YES, your above statement is just another example of your continued BS statements….
Thank you for your generous comment. The last time I checked, Walker was still in CA. And groceries were sold at WalMart.
But I yield to your superior wisdom. So the cost of gasoline in Mammoth is absolutely the same as every other town in California. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.
And by the way, EPA rules are Federal rules applied nation wide.
And interestingly enough, the price of gas in Reno, NV is more than in San Diego — I don’t know what that means but check it out for yourself.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/states/ca.shtml
Ken Warner:
Are you now going to claim that California has the same refining EPA mixture regulations as Nevada and all other state in the Union?
Appears you may need to go see an optometrist asap and get your glasses updated. According to your link, the avg price of Regular in Reno is $3.89 per gallon and $4.39 per gallon in SD. Both prices are as of this morning. That is a 50 cent spread and SD being the more expensive.
http://www.nevadagasprices.com/Reno/index.aspx
http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/
And that aint no superior wisdom. Just some good old reading comprehension.
For your edification Ken Warner:
“California typically has higher gas prices due to the special blend of gas mandated by the state. This blend of gas burns more cleanly for pollution control,” said Jason Toews, a co-founder of GasBuddy.com.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/02/gas-prices-25-most-expensive-cities/
“California is an exceptional state. California has a high per capita gross state product and high energy prices. California’s climate attracts people from throughout the country, and the entertainment industry and Silicon Valley have created great economic wealth in California. But California’s regulations have driven up energy prices, and the regulations will continue to help push up energy prices. For example, California motorists are required to use a special motor gasoline blend called California Clean Burning Gasoline, making California have the highest gasoline price in the lower 48 states. California has also enacted regulations to increase the price of energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. These excessive regulations will not help California’s battered jobs outlook, nor will it help California balance its budget.”
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/california
“California uses its own special, pollution-fighting blends of gasoline, made by a limited number of refineries.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/11/BUQI1OGV43.DTL
Etc Etc Etc….
Point: Regardless of locale in CA, one will NEVER find CA unleaded gas prices cheaper than any other state in lower 48. That includes Reno, NV.
Best check your links and facts Ken Warner. Gas is not cheaper in SD than in Reno… oops!
The AVERAGE price in the SD area for Regular is 3.99 per gallon
The AVERAGE Price in Reno/NV area for Regular is 3.76 per gallon
These numbers are from your link….
http://www.nevadagasprices.com/Reno/index.aspx
http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/index.aspx
Depends on the day they are compared. On the day I compared them gas was cheaper in San Diego. Right now at 10:21pm Wed, June 13 — Reno is a just about the same:
http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/
Search for Reno, NV….
But ooops — not 20% to 25% higher like the previous assertion.
Find another way to diminish me to elevate yourself.