The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County, an Inter-League Organization, and constituent Local Leagues as available in communities holding elections on April 11, 2006 and asked of all candidates for this office.

See below for questions on Measure F, Hillside Preservation, Revenue Sources

Click on a name for other candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Joseph Michael Mosca:

I did not vote for Measure F, but I do support the concept of further funding for public safety. I did not vote for Measure F because (1) I felt the measure should have had a sunset date, (2) I did not agree with the index that allowed the tax to increase each year, and (3) I did not agree with the fact that the tax increased based on the size of one's home.

I do understand perfectly the arguement for non-inclusion of a sunset clause. However, I believe that a sunset clause would have allowed for greater accountability. The tax would need to come before the voters again in the future and they would have to decide whether it was still a necessary tax. Ultimately, property taxes are regressive in nature and we ought to move away from this form of taxation.

Proposition 13 only allows for a 2% increase in property taxes per year, but the special parcel tax under Measure F would be allowed to grow each year by 5%. A flat tax would be more acceptable and in line with the fact that property taxes is a regressive form of taxation.

I did not agree with the increase of tax on a parcel based on its square footage. There are many older people in our community that purchased their homes a long time ago and have since paid them off. They are now living on a fixed income and do not have any more means to pay a tax than perhaps a person that lives in a more modest size home.

The fire department does need additional funds for increased response time. Increased response time is essential and the funds to hire additional day time responders ought to be our top priority.

The time has come that our City ought to have paramedic services. Paramedic services are no longer a luxury item for a city, but it is a much needed and essential service for its residents.

Answer from Bill Tice:

No. I opposed Measure F because it cost too much and put the burden on property tax. The Fire Department and EMTs are excellent, but we need to have paramedics immediately -- more than 20 percent of the population is retired. The cost should go on the Police Department Budget to hire an outside company to provide paramedics.

Answer from Tonja Torres:

Yes, I supported Measure F and campaigned for it because I believed then and now that daytime support for our fire department, paramedic service, capital fire equipement, enhanced fire department training and increased police compensation were vital public safety needs that deserved and required the dedicated and sustained revenue source that Measure F provided. I also believe local control over public safety services is a better option than relying on services provided by an outside agency. My support of Measure F reflected my commitment to that principle. Further, because Measure F funds -- by law -- could only have been used for public safety, and because it required an annual separate accounting of those funds, it reflected my commitment to the principles of public safety funding specifically, and prudent fiscal management in general.

Answer from Roger J. Keith:

Yes. I supported Measure F and was part of the committee that worked for its approval.

Answer from Donald "Don" Watts:

I felt Measure F to be too open ended, and just a way to create a parcel tax, which hurts people on fixed and low incomes. It is a tax on land owners, and would not share the burden for paying for public services in a balanced way. Fire and EMT services have worked well for Sierra Madre as long as the city maintains it's current size. This will change if the downtown Specific Plan is passed, allowing for hundreds of high density low and moderate income housing. The plan will add hundreds of living units and much greater density to the town.This additional density will not bring significant revenue to pay for the additional city services that would be needed to support an additional population increase. As part of the plan buildings will be allowed to be 3 stories in height, creating greater risk to our volunteer fire department, and a requirement to spend several million dollars on hook and ladder trucks that can reach these taller structures.

Answer from Donald "Don" Watts:

The City should follow the model that Monrovia and The Hillside Conservancy has set to acquire land for preservation. In the case of the Carter Maranatha Hillside battle,the High school proposal was defeated, but at a great expense to the City and well meaning people on both sides of the project. The high school would have taken 8 acres of the property, the remaining 58 acres would have been left in its natural state, and for public access.Instead of working out a cooperative and financially beneficial solution, the town will have a housing tract with all its environmental implications. The hope is we have learned from this, and find a better solution to the future projects we will be facing.

Answer from Roger J. Keith:

The current ordinance does not provide the opportunities to maintain the hillsides that are compatable with wishes of many citizens. By rewritng it, it will allow more checks and balances to be established.

Answer from Tonja Torres:

Other than by purchasing hillside land, something the City does not currently possess the resources to do at this time without a tax, the best means by which we can achieve the goal of hillside preservation is our Hillside Management Zone ordinance. While the HMZ ordinance is an excellent tool for regulating the development of hillside land on a lot by lot basis, we must tighten development standards that regulate the creation of subdivisions so that they provide for far lower densities than are currently allowed. Toward that end, the City Council has appointed a Hillside Management Zone Ad Hoc Committee comprised of two Council Members, a Planning Commissioner, a Tree Commissioner and four community members. The Committee, of which I am the chairperson, is tasked with addressing identified areas of concern relating to hillside development, and with tightening development standards in hillside zones in keeping with the original drafters' intent of preserving hillsides.

Answer from Joseph Michael Mosca:

Preservation of our open spaces and hillside will be one of my top priorities.

We should work more closely with our fellow foothill communities in the fight to preserve our hillside. With the full resources of some of neighboring communities, such as Azusa and Duarte, we stand a much better chance of preserving our hillside.

In fact, Duarte recently received a large grant from the mountain conservatory to buy several acres of open space in their hillside. We should use their plan as a guide in buying some of our hillside.

We need to make sure that our Hillside Management Zoning Ordinance is strengthen in a way that it stands up against legal attack by developers and that it is clear enough that it protects our hillside to the fullest extent of the law.

Answer from Bill Tice:

Keep doing what it is doing.

Answer from Tonja Torres:

Ultimately, the solution to our dual issues of maintaining a sustainable budget for City services while continuing to address decades of deferred maintenance will be some combination of revenue-enhancing measures. We are in the process of studying these various measures at special City Council meetings, and have discovered that each specific measure has different requirements and applications. Until we have completed our study and evaluation of the various means of revenue-enhancement available to us, I am keeping an open mind about the alternatives and wish to hear what residents are most likely to support in order to preserve important local services and address infrastructure needs. That being said, at this point, I view a utility tax as a more favorable alternative than a special parcel tax as a means to raise revenues for services, mainly because it does not require a 2/3 vote for passage. I am intrigued by the idea of an assessment district, but understand that its usefulness is limited by the lack of applicable assessment statutes. It might help us trim trees and finish our street improvement program, but it cannot assist us in addressing very real public safety capital needs. Thus, some other funding mechanism would be required to help us continue to meet our deferred infrastructure needs. What is certain: we must address these issues together.

Answer from Bill Tice:

I would reduce the budget.

Answer from Joseph Michael Mosca:

In order to avoid a budget shortfall, I would favor an increase in the utility tax. We are currently at 6% with our utility tax. Most of neighboring communities have a higher than 6% utility tax. If we increase the utility tax to around 9% or 10%, then we would be in line with other communities in the surrounding areas and we would be able to raise, at current consumption rates, approximately $600,000.00 per year.

We currently raise approximately $900,000.00 from our utility tax.

It is important to know that because this is a general tax increase, it would only need to receive 50% + 1 vote from our community to pass.

I would also favor a sunset provision on this tax, so that we could re-visit this issue in the future to determine whether the tax is still necessary.

I do not favor leasing our water services.

Answer from Roger J. Keith:

It is not what I would favor that is important, but the majority of voters will support. With the amount of money that has been taken away for local use since 1996, we must find creative solutions to solve both the short term and long term fiscal problems. But it can't be done in a vaccum void of community input.

This entails that all voters in the city become more informed about the options that are availalbe. They then need to express those opinions in person or by writng the city council members about their positions.

Answer from Donald "Don" Watts:

Looking at all the cities revenue raising options,a 5 year one time only increase in the utility seems to make a great deal of sense, and should be looked at as our best short term option, as well as a longer range business development plan to bring in sales tax revenue. The people whom we depend upon to serve us and keep us safe, deserve a living wage for the hard work they do.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.