Council moved quickly to shelve a possible marijuana tax until there was more certainty about the upcoming state measure. They also quickly passed a two percent Transient Occupancy Tax, which Councilmember Brett Lee would oppose. But on the big issue of infrastructure tax – it was more complicated, and ultimately council decided that, since they were going to a special tax anyway, there was not the time urgency.
That left Mayor Dan Wolk as the only one wanting to put a tax on the ballot for June – which made some sense as he is about to go off the council, regardless of the results of the Assembly election.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson stated that she wanted more Finance and Budget weigh-in on the tax issues. She continued, “I think the community has spoken loud and clear that this is all about infrastructure – roads and parks at most. Then it being for what’s existing and not being for new. I think that’s the only chance of this passing.”
Mayor Dan Wolk continued to push for a parks tax at the $50 level (over and above the current $49 parcel tax). He pushed for the Rainbow City Rehabilitation ($300,000), the Community Pool renovation ($2 million), Playfield Park turf replacement ($400,000), stating “I think these are things that are clear needs in our community that we have difficulty funding outside of some additional revenue.”
“We could do a significant amount of good for parks and this is funding that… is one time,” he stated.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs said he was willing to support a $50 parcel tax on parks while perhaps extending the existing tax.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson said that she could not support just the parks tax as outlined. She suggested the possibility of a $100 parks and infrastructure tax which also would replace Measure D, absorbing what’s in the current parks tax. She said this would recognize that “we should have asked for more before (than the current $49).”
She added, “Some of the things that were listed (in the parks list of needs), I don’t feel they’re the top top priority.”
Councilmember Swanson added that what she is hearing is that people want the core infrastructure, while other things are important. It was suggested that a parks tax could free up other money in the general fund for roads. But Ms. Swanson said, “I can’t support that, because I don’t think it will pass.” She noted, “As hard as we have worked, there’s still a trust factor there and I think we’ve worked hard to earn it, but even a set of advisory, I think we’d be better off on the flip then to do it that way.”
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis said that 80 percent of the expenditure needs is roads, while the remainder is parks and other infrastructure. The mayor pro tem, addressing Mayor Wolk, stated, “On the one hand, we made a mistake in not asking for enough on the (previous) parks tax, on the other hand, we’re not going to ask enough for the other infrastructure that we have.”
Robb Davis added, “It’s about honesty too. It’s about honesty about where the need is. We have huge needs. And the lion’s share of those infrastructure needs is the pavement.” He said, “I’m ready to just forego a tax right now and say let’s focus on cost-containment and let’s wait and see what happens.”
Mayor Wolk pushed back, “To focus on the roads piece… we’re doing quite a bit on roads now. Certainly we have to do more, but we’re putting $4 million into roads every year.”
But Robb Davis responded, “But the 80 percent is what we still need to put in.”
Mayor Wolk responded, “I agree, but I do think that… we should keep funding roads, but I hope like you that the state does do something on that front. I think we’re doing a significant amount… But I do think we have needs on these community assets that aren’t just roads. Those fall a lot in the parks area.”
Robb Davis, “I’m not disagreeing but the relative size is spelled out right in the document.”
Councilmember Brett Lee interjected, “The roads report indicated that we should be spending about $8 million a year – so we’re about $4 million short each and every year going forward.” He continued, “I think this notion of a six-year tax, while convenient at some level as we project out in terms of our long term needs, that $8 million expenditure a year is over a 20-year period.”
He expressed concern, noting that the revenue measure needed a reasonable chance of passing. The measure requires two-thirds, and a poll from 2014 showed that a parcel tax would have trouble passing and, when parks expenditures were added to roads’ needs, the chance, he said, went down even further.
As they were attempting to reach consensus on specifics, Councilmember Brett Lee made the point, “The time urgency on this is placing this on the June ballot. All the things we’re currently proposing require two-thirds. It could be done at any election or a special election.”
He added, “It feels like there’s a lot of moving parts to get the language exactly right.”
Lucas Frerichs stated, “That’s a good point, Brett.” He added, “I think there’s time to take a breather and come back with a more comprehensive (consideration).
Robb Davis said, “I’m happy to wait… notwithstanding the needs.”
In the end, Mayor Wolk was the only one really wanting to put a measure on the June ballot. He said that he thinks we have needs, but he added, “I like where we’re headed.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I had to laugh when a few of our council members were lamenting on how we have to make sure any new taxes go where they’re intended when these same council members dropped the ball on the last sales tax and gave part of that revenue away to employee raises.
did anyone calculate how much money delaying the council vote will cost us on increased roads costs?
Am assuming you actually mean “delaying putting a measure on the ballot, having it approved, and actually generating revenues”… correct me if I am incorrect.
To even do a ‘back of the envelope’ estimate (as opposed to “will cost”), someone would need to know how much delay, the discrepancy between “needs”, current funding, and how much new revenue would offset/improve the discrepancy… too many variables to get to a reliable “will cost” number… at least if someone is honest.
one thing led to another.
i’m inclined not to support a tot that has no assurances it won’t go directly to employee compensation.
I agree with you DP, they’re going to need to spell out where that money will be directed.