SB Sentinel -Bob Leone is seeking to return to the Yucca Valley Town Council in the March 5 special election to replace Isaac Hagerman, who resigned last July. Leone and two others, Jennifer Collins and Michael Hildebrand, are vying to fill the remaining year and nine months that remain in Hagerman’s term..
Leone, a retired New York City and Los Angeles policeman, served 12 years on the council before deciding not to seek reelection in 2008 because of health challenges both he and his wife were then dealing with.
.
They are both recovering now, Leone said, and he emphasized, “There are a number of issues facing the city at this time. I would like to complete road safety projects and other ones relating to the health and well being of our community. I would like to establish a senior citizens center. I want to return to the council because I believe there is unfinished business from before that I would like to complete.”
.
Leone was not on the ballot in November, when George Huntington and Robert Lombardo ran unopposed, though he did surface as a write-in candidate. That was part, Leone said, of his effort to defeat Measure U, which would have imposed a one cent sales tax in the town. Leone said he opposed Measure U, because it was a thirty year long tax arrangement that was not dedicated to any specific application, although city officials said it would be used to defray the cost of building a municipal sewer system.
.
Though he supports the construction of a city sewer system, Leone said the use of an undedicated sales tax measure to fund such an undertaking was not something he favored.
.
“Measure U was not structured properly,” Leone said. “The major issue Yucca Valley is facing is we have a mandate from the state of California to put a sewer system in place with the first phase downtown by 2016. It is going to be very costly and an assessment will be a hardship for many people who live here and don’t have financial means or are living on fixed incomes. Measure U was offered to pay for that, but it did not guarantee the money would be used for the sewer system and it was scheduled to last for 30 years, meaning a future city council could use that money for other purposes. I opposed it and I took it as a victory that it failed. It only needed fifty percent plus one to pass. I am in favor of a dedicated sales tax, of one-half percent, that will be used only for that purpose. “
.
Water and water quality is of tremendous moment in Yucca Valley, Leone said. “We need water, quality water if we are to grow,” he said. “It is a serious problem. My own well has dropped considerably. We cannot have further septic seepage into our aquifer. I would support a modest half cent tax that will allow for the sewer system to be built, which will encourage growth and with economic growth in the future we will increase revenue into the town’s coffers. A dedicated tax initiative will require approval of 66 percent of the voters.”
.
A graduate of Samuel J. Tilden High School and Brooklyn College, Leone worked as a police officer in New York and Los Angeles, before retiring to Yucca Valley in 1989. He was a member of the planning commission before he ran for the council. While on the council he was selected by his peers to serve three one-year terms as mayor.
.
“I have the experience,” he said, in responding to how he is distinguished from the others in the race. “I know how to balance a budget. I know what is necessary to cut. I know the pulse of the people. I am ready to listen to people of various political affiliations, Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative, fundamentalist Christians or atheists, as long as they express concerns about the town. No matter what their persuasion or standing, I will take what they say into consideration.
.
I have leadership skills. I graduated from the California League of Cities Leadership Seminar and have that certification. I know how to lead and I have common sense. I think I reflect what everyone wants in Yucca Valley, which is that basically we have a safe community, with safe streets and clean water. I am a 77-year-old former policeman. I could have retired just about anywhere, but my choice was Yucca Valley.” Courtesy: SB Sentinel-Page 3 link
.
.
Coming soon: “Bob Leone-In His Own Words”
.
.
.
Incoming search terms:
- mark gutglueck
Kudos to Mark Gutglueck for his interview & emailing to 974 Yucca residents!
Measure U, if passed would of lowered the assessments for all and provided a better quality of life for all Citizens of Yucca Valley to include our Retirees and Seniors.
The current proposed 1/2% sale tax will ONLY provide a Financial Assistance Program for those with a income of $17K or less (Approixmately 840 families). It will not help with our roads or the quality of life programs such as those many of our Retirees and Seniors depend upon. It’s only for a select few.
Two particular sentences from Mr. Leone’s quoted statement below bother me.
“It is going to be very costly and an assessment will be a hardship for many people who live here and don’t have financial means or are living on fixed incomes.”
“I am in favor of a dedicated sales tax, of one-half percent, that will be used only for that purpose. “
History has proven many times over, persons who have been coaxed out of retirement for whatever reason end up destroying the legagcy they left when they retired.
Please ask yourself this question. Does Mr. Leone have a “Special Interest” for a select few people in Yucca Valley or does he have the interest of all Citizens of Yucca Valley in mind if elected?
Every Citizen of Yucca Valley should benefit in some shape or another from any local sales tax increase, not a select few.
“Measure U was not structured properly,” Leone said. “The major issue Yucca Valley is facing is we have a mandate from the state of California to put a sewer system in place with the first phase downtown by 2016. It is going to be very costly and an assessment will be a hardship for many people who live here and don’t have financial means or are living on fixed incomes. Measure U was offered to pay for that, but it did not guarantee the money would be used for the sewer system and it was scheduled to last for 30 years, meaning a future city council could use that money for other purposes. I opposed it and I took it as a victory that it failed. It only needed fifty percent plus one to pass. I am in favor of a dedicated sales tax, of one-half percent, that will be used only for that purpose. “
Mr. Whitten,
It is correct to say if Measure U passed it would have reduced property owners, “Assessments”; it is my recollection that U would NOT have reduced, “Connection,” costs to the sewer — there is a difference between, “Assessment,” and “Connection.”
It is my understanding that a new 3/4 percent sales tax measure is being studied with 1/4 percent to the town (Roads, parks, public safety, etc) and 1/2 percent to Hi-Desert Water District (Sewer).
I do not however believe it is correct to say that if the sales tax measure passes, that the funds H.D.W.D receives will be used to solely reduce the assessment and/or connection costs for low-income property owners.
In the scenario you lay out above, if 850 low-income families are the sole recipients of sales tax monies received by H.D.W.D, that amounts to the tune of approximately $100,000 per family (It was estimated that Measure U funds would have generated $80/90 million over 30 years for H.D.W.D.).
Obviously, $100,000 for 850 families is unacceptable, but more importantly, I believe it is in error and grossly misinforms the public.
If a future 3/4 percent sales tax measure passes, rest assured that 1/2 percent for H.D.W.D will be used to defray assessment costs for ALL the rate-payers with the remaining 1/4 percent funding the towns needs as mentioned above.
Sincerely,
S.E. McKone
Yucca Valley
Thanks Scott. The scenario laid out above is based on Mr. Leone’ s quote from the interview.
@Scot … there was a lot made about this distinction of “connection” vs “assessments” during Measure U and it was a false argument. The HDWD and Town had negotiated the terms to a $2.8 million per year x 25 years lease agreement. Those dollars would have been used to pay debt service for the loan from the State Water Board. That loan would have included the costs for the private connections, public collection system, and treatment plant. It was estimated that it would have saved on average $20/EDU per month, assuming all the money was evenly split amongst the assessments.
The HDWD had preliminary discussions about setting aside 10% of these funds for low income assistance programs. In theory, this would have covered a portion of the monthly debt service charges for low income residents. Again, the details were not finalized and the HDWD is currently examining potential changes to the assessment structure.
So, long story short is this — these savings would have assisted ALL ratepayers … including low income, restaurants & retail, and all property owners/future ratepayers.
@ Mark,
Correct, there was a lot made about, “Connection,” v. “Assessment.”
I did attend the workshops and the numbers on the charts estimated Measure U dollars would lower assessments by approximately one-third.
Without the help of sales tax measure dollars, the oft-used figure for an average household was $15,000.
Also listed separately on the charts was the, “Connection fee,” which averaged from $2,500 to $5,000 per household (I do not recall that sales tax monies were factored in to reduce those costs; if it was factored in, I stand corrected on that point).
It is also my recollection that even if U had passed, it was not a slam dunk that the state would use the promise of, “General tax,” monies to collateralize the debt for a loan; (It was my understanding that a, “Special tax,” could be used for that purpose).
Long story short: I’ve read and reread Leone’s quotes listed above and I do not read where he says a tax measure will benefit ONLY low-income; he simply states that an assessment of any kind will severely impact those at the lower end of the income ladder, which is true.
He also states he was not comfortable with the structure of Measure U, or, more specifically in that it was a, “General tax,” rather than a, “Special tax,” or in his words a, “Dedicated tax.”
51 percent of the voters voted “No” on U.
I was one of them and my concerns along with many others were the same as Leone’s: We were not comfortable with a, “General tax.”
If the town and H.D.W.D can put together a, “Special tax,” measure with the money dedicated for a specific purpose, (Namely, lowering sewer assessments for ALL ratepayers which it will be just as Measure U was, plus a specific need for the town), I will be inclined to vote yes.
Lastly, H.D.W.D. ratepayers still have the upcoming hurdle to form an assessment district.
Short of an assessment district, all the back and forth arguments we have heard thus far regarding sales tax measures will have been for naught….
Scot,
Couple final thoughts: I still think there is a lot of misunderstanding of what a sales tax may or may not be used for. The “assessment” vs “connection cost” issue is a non-issue. At numerous community meetings, it was discussed that the State Water Board would loan for both the “public” (i.e. HDWD installed) and “private” (i.e. homeowner connections). Both of these loans would be paid back over extended timeframes, at dramatically reduced interest rates. There was NEVER going to be a one-time payment of $2,000 – $5,000 out of the pockets of residents.
Current discussion at HDWD is to include the “private” connection efforts into the total project. This will likely require easements on private property, the single contractor installing the lines in the street will also likely do the lateral work, and a single payment will be required on the property tax assessment.
Now to the “issue” of collateralizing against a sales tax measure. There are a number of ways that the sales tax could have reduced the max tax assessment. I presented these at the 2nd meeting in November. Ultimately, the question and answer are simple: Would the sales tax reduce the annual costs to he ratepayers? The answer was an emphatic “YES”… The state water board would not have refused to take money simply because of the source. They MIGHT not have used it as collateral, requiring a higher MAX ASSESSMENT on properties while the actual annual PAYMENT from ratepayers would have been reduced.
Mark,
We can both agree that there was not going to be a one-time, up-front payment to connect to the sewer for obvious reasons.
The point of this latest discussion is the misinterpretation of Leone’s statement; I think Leone would agree that a sales tax measure of some sort will reduce the cost to ratepayers across the board, not just low-income families as Mr. Whitten alluded to[….
Thank you gentlemen for the exchange regarding “assessments” vs “connections” to discuss the misinterpretation of Leone’s statement that Mr. Whitten alluded to.
Like Mr. McKone, I have attended several meetings including the Wastewater Public Advisory Committee where there were several presentations and discussions about the $2,000-$5,000 out-of-pocket connection fees to be paid by the individual property owners.
In fact, Michael Hildebrand shared his experience with installing the “lateral connections,” in other cities. He proposed the lowest cost is to come in at one time per section/block and trench ALL the individual connections at the same time.
There was indeed a concern about private connections/responsibilities until just recently when the HDWD was able to find a way to include those costs with the assessment. Again, just recently and everything is changing on a weekly basis.
Mind you, some of the parcels will require the purchase of a $700-$800 grinder which has not been addressed with the low income program because most of the homes requiring that additional cost are located in high-end neighborhoods.
So, while it is a moot point at this time, I do take issue with Mr. Nuaimi’s statement below while not calling him a liar…
“There was NEVER going to be a one-time payment of $2,000 – $5,000 out of the pockets of residents.”-Mark Nuaimi
The WPAC meets at the offices of the HDWD the 2nd Monday of the month @5pm.
Everyone is welcomed to attend this informal meeting.For more information or to request your name be placed on their email notification list, please visit:
http://hdwd.com/BoardofDirectors/Committees/PublicAdvisoryCommittee.aspx
Thank you again for your comments on Candidate Bob Leone’s Interview story and especially for the clarification on his straight forward answers.