The LOST referendum is still up in the air and both sides are claiming victory, but saying "no" to defeat. In Iowa City and Coralville, there are votes to recount--with paltry 7 and 8 vote margins between the 1 cent 4 year sales tax. The county reported that the turnout of registered voters was around 15% for Iowa City and just over 17% in Coralville. Regardless of how it all turns out, Iowa City and Coralville voters lost and non-voters won.
Non-voters did not take time out of their day to vote, I mean it took 3 or 4 minutes at the highly congested precinct 17 where I was one of three people voting at 7:45 in the morning. Non-voters won because they did not expend fuel in cars, on bikes, or on foot to make their voices heard on an issue that one group said would be a 17% hike in their sales taxes. Non-voters won because they can contentedly continue to grouse about how taxes are wasted without the nagging feeling that comes from actually making a actual statement of what you believe was the best choice.
But, do you know who really won big? Small town voters. All 655 "yes" voters cashed in on casting their vote. You see, they actually stand to be big winners from sharing the sales tax revenue from Iowa City. It was kind of like winning the lottery for their communities where people spend a lot of dough out of town.
But back to the lack of voting in the larger communities; was this simple laziness? No, its likely that the incredibly wearing Iowa Caucuses and equally taxing presidential campaign tuckered people out so badly that they couldn't work up the the juice to vote. Heck, there were barely yard signs on this issue--you'd have thought it was a school board election or something.
I understand that the county will likely recount this miserable excuse of "the will of the people" and once again the non-voters win. They can feel good about griping about the high cost of elections and how this is yet another waste of their money--and shoot, a recount in this case seems hardly worth it,unless you live in Tiffin, Solon, University Heights, Oxford, Swisher, etc.
Showing posts with label Local Option Sales Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Option Sales Tax. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7
Tuesday, April 21
Why Not Develop a River Authority System?
With the local efforts to pass a temporary sales tax to address the effects of last year's flooding, one has to wonder, why doesn't Iowa have a river authority system? Clearly there are benefits of managing the waterways that create the best outcomes for the most. For instance flood remediation plans could be done in coordination with other communities.
However, in looking at the individual plans for Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, and Iowa City, it is clear that folks downstream (like in ravaged Columbus Junction) will be the recipients of a lot of fast moving, heavy flowing water (with little ability to pay for infrastructure to keep it flowing downstream). This is an example of community NIMBY-ism at its worst and a reason that a river authority system is logical.
The best model for a river authority would include a voting membership from the municipalities and/or counties in the areas where the rivers and other tributaries run through, in addition to an advisory made up of concerned citizens, experts and advocates. In areas where it is the purview of the state to appoint members to the authorities, there have been problems, not the least of which is the potential for corruption (as this classic example shows.
Ultimately, given that forming an authority would take significant time, given the politics involved. Voters are left with the untenable decision to do something today with federal and state assistance (with the knowledge that others may be affected) or hold off and hope it doesn't flood again before a better solution can be proposed and funded at a cost that we would have to bear in full.
However, in looking at the individual plans for Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, and Iowa City, it is clear that folks downstream (like in ravaged Columbus Junction) will be the recipients of a lot of fast moving, heavy flowing water (with little ability to pay for infrastructure to keep it flowing downstream). This is an example of community NIMBY-ism at its worst and a reason that a river authority system is logical.
The best model for a river authority would include a voting membership from the municipalities and/or counties in the areas where the rivers and other tributaries run through, in addition to an advisory made up of concerned citizens, experts and advocates. In areas where it is the purview of the state to appoint members to the authorities, there have been problems, not the least of which is the potential for corruption (as this classic example shows.
Ultimately, given that forming an authority would take significant time, given the politics involved. Voters are left with the untenable decision to do something today with federal and state assistance (with the knowledge that others may be affected) or hold off and hope it doesn't flood again before a better solution can be proposed and funded at a cost that we would have to bear in full.
Friday, April 17
Yes, No, Maybe?
The "Ax the Tax" and "Yes for All" folks are lining up their arguments and votes for the May 5th referendum. The question that comes to mind is who wins?
Regardless of where you are right now, the call for a new tax is not coming at an ideal time, but the issue is what would happen without the funds? Dubuque St. is a main thruway to the central business district in Iowa City and the University of Iowa and therefore is vital to commerce. The Park road and accompanying bridge are in need of repair due to last spring's flooding. The water wells that provide clean drinking water for thousands of Iowa City residents need to be reinforced and the sewage treatment plant has to be closed down or repaired to meet federal law within three years.
These projects price tags are steep and the outcomes for parts are uncertain. No one can say with absolute authority that Dubuque St. won't flood over again even if raised or what the effects downstream may be. No one can say with certainty whether other funds will need to be generated through water rate hikes if the economy continues to remain soft. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that the taxes to make these infrastructure repairs are limited to four years and that whatever can be done with them will be used by then.
Also, doing nothing assures us of exactly one thing. Things are not fixed and it all costs us more in the long-run if we experience flooding conditions like last year. For many people, this doesn't really count--they don't live near the river, they don't go downtown. as long as water flows out of their taps, there is nothing, on the surface, compelling to them to make a special trip to vote.
Thirdly, is this really a non-partisan campaign or is it politics as usual? If we look at the players on both sides, we do see many of the same folks, Deb Thornton, Michael Thayer, Pat and Lori Cardella on the Red team and pretty much the entire structure past and present for the Blue team on the other side. Should public safety matters be turned into idealogical battles? Probably not, but they do because there is always an ox to gore and always people ready to do it to keep control or gain power.
Finally, the process that makes things so uncertain is the cause of so much distrust. Had there been a community process for vetting the projects and having a better idea of the unknowns been in place, it would surely be easier to decide if these projects are cost-effective or just costly. With a public process, the issues surrounding land use and future use could be done openly. The problem it seems to me is that most people can't imagine a house without seeing a floor plan. I would urge those who think the tax is right to paint that picture in the next 16 days. The other side is doing a pretty good job of making their points known.
Regardless of where you are right now, the call for a new tax is not coming at an ideal time, but the issue is what would happen without the funds? Dubuque St. is a main thruway to the central business district in Iowa City and the University of Iowa and therefore is vital to commerce. The Park road and accompanying bridge are in need of repair due to last spring's flooding. The water wells that provide clean drinking water for thousands of Iowa City residents need to be reinforced and the sewage treatment plant has to be closed down or repaired to meet federal law within three years.
These projects price tags are steep and the outcomes for parts are uncertain. No one can say with absolute authority that Dubuque St. won't flood over again even if raised or what the effects downstream may be. No one can say with certainty whether other funds will need to be generated through water rate hikes if the economy continues to remain soft. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that the taxes to make these infrastructure repairs are limited to four years and that whatever can be done with them will be used by then.
Also, doing nothing assures us of exactly one thing. Things are not fixed and it all costs us more in the long-run if we experience flooding conditions like last year. For many people, this doesn't really count--they don't live near the river, they don't go downtown. as long as water flows out of their taps, there is nothing, on the surface, compelling to them to make a special trip to vote.
Thirdly, is this really a non-partisan campaign or is it politics as usual? If we look at the players on both sides, we do see many of the same folks, Deb Thornton, Michael Thayer, Pat and Lori Cardella on the Red team and pretty much the entire structure past and present for the Blue team on the other side. Should public safety matters be turned into idealogical battles? Probably not, but they do because there is always an ox to gore and always people ready to do it to keep control or gain power.
Finally, the process that makes things so uncertain is the cause of so much distrust. Had there been a community process for vetting the projects and having a better idea of the unknowns been in place, it would surely be easier to decide if these projects are cost-effective or just costly. With a public process, the issues surrounding land use and future use could be done openly. The problem it seems to me is that most people can't imagine a house without seeing a floor plan. I would urge those who think the tax is right to paint that picture in the next 16 days. The other side is doing a pretty good job of making their points known.
Tuesday, March 24
LOST and Found: My Sit Down with Michael Lombardo
Yesterday I met with Iowa City city manager Michael Lombardo to find out from our city administrator's perspective how, in his opinion, the local option sales tax would benefit the community and the risks associated with it. He was generous with his time.
To start, he stated the need for the projects is justified to ask the public to consider the local option sales tax. For one, federal regulations make it neccesary for Iowa City to be in compliance within three years, irrespective of how it is done with regard to the north sewage treatment plan. Secondly, with the damage done to structures on Dubuque street, which is one of two main gateways into Iowa city from I-80, and the Park Rd. bridge, it would be irresponsible of the City not to take advantage of the availability of FEMA funds at this time to mitigate future flooding concerns.
A third point, though not part of the LOST referendum, which Lombardo mentioned is a need to reinforce or harden the city water wells. The wells were nearly contaminated by floodwaters last year. He said it would likely cost $2 million dollars.
I asked him about the fact that some of the construction is reliant on funds not in hand and, with taxes collected at the state level going down, was it sensible to think that people wouldn't end up with higher water and sewage bills to make up the difference. He explained that there are a number of state and federal sources for funds and that the City was pursuing all known grants. He agreed that it is not a sure bet that they will all come through, but expressed confidence that at worst, the city could bond the difference of about $1.5 to 2 million to accomplish the projects through a state program to bond projects related to last year's flood.
I asked about the process to make sure that community interests are addressed to make sure that there is transparency and input as to how these projects are done. For instance, once the treatment plant is shutdown, how will the land be used? When Dubuque St. and the Park Rd. are planned, will consideration be made to improve pedestrian and bicycle traffic? He said that he hoped that there would be a very public process, as city administrator he will recommend it to City Council but ultimately, it is their call.
Lastly, I asked him about the perception that the City should not be trusted to accomplish these projects, in light of the referendum about municipal power and current concerns from some about how money is being used for an $80,000 public arts project. He did point out that he was not sure that support would be there for the tax, but hoped that after the case is made for the necessity of it, that voters would approve the measure. He offered that as people have questions about the referendum that they will contact him.
As he has been on the job for less than a year, he expressed his appreciation for the residents in Iowa City and his commitment to using resources to the betterment of the community. In closing, I mentioned that during the flooding I noticed how people's better selves seemed to be present in dealing with the crisis and hoped that our better selves show up in choosing to support this effort. He said "You don't mind if I use that, do you?"
Despite earlier misgivings I had, particularly about funding the projects, I do not believe there is a better alternative to taking care of these essential projects. If someone has a plan to do it more economically, I hope they will bring it forward. However, I feel strongly that the city manager "gets it" regarding public input as to how these projects are accomplished and is done to improve the quality and safety of the community. I also think that the knives are sharpened (axes are ground?) to prevent this referendum from being successful. May our better selves prevail.
For the facts about the local option sales tax from the city, check out this link.
To start, he stated the need for the projects is justified to ask the public to consider the local option sales tax. For one, federal regulations make it neccesary for Iowa City to be in compliance within three years, irrespective of how it is done with regard to the north sewage treatment plan. Secondly, with the damage done to structures on Dubuque street, which is one of two main gateways into Iowa city from I-80, and the Park Rd. bridge, it would be irresponsible of the City not to take advantage of the availability of FEMA funds at this time to mitigate future flooding concerns.
A third point, though not part of the LOST referendum, which Lombardo mentioned is a need to reinforce or harden the city water wells. The wells were nearly contaminated by floodwaters last year. He said it would likely cost $2 million dollars.
I asked him about the fact that some of the construction is reliant on funds not in hand and, with taxes collected at the state level going down, was it sensible to think that people wouldn't end up with higher water and sewage bills to make up the difference. He explained that there are a number of state and federal sources for funds and that the City was pursuing all known grants. He agreed that it is not a sure bet that they will all come through, but expressed confidence that at worst, the city could bond the difference of about $1.5 to 2 million to accomplish the projects through a state program to bond projects related to last year's flood.
I asked about the process to make sure that community interests are addressed to make sure that there is transparency and input as to how these projects are done. For instance, once the treatment plant is shutdown, how will the land be used? When Dubuque St. and the Park Rd. are planned, will consideration be made to improve pedestrian and bicycle traffic? He said that he hoped that there would be a very public process, as city administrator he will recommend it to City Council but ultimately, it is their call.
Lastly, I asked him about the perception that the City should not be trusted to accomplish these projects, in light of the referendum about municipal power and current concerns from some about how money is being used for an $80,000 public arts project. He did point out that he was not sure that support would be there for the tax, but hoped that after the case is made for the necessity of it, that voters would approve the measure. He offered that as people have questions about the referendum that they will contact him.
As he has been on the job for less than a year, he expressed his appreciation for the residents in Iowa City and his commitment to using resources to the betterment of the community. In closing, I mentioned that during the flooding I noticed how people's better selves seemed to be present in dealing with the crisis and hoped that our better selves show up in choosing to support this effort. He said "You don't mind if I use that, do you?"
Despite earlier misgivings I had, particularly about funding the projects, I do not believe there is a better alternative to taking care of these essential projects. If someone has a plan to do it more economically, I hope they will bring it forward. However, I feel strongly that the city manager "gets it" regarding public input as to how these projects are accomplished and is done to improve the quality and safety of the community. I also think that the knives are sharpened (axes are ground?) to prevent this referendum from being successful. May our better selves prevail.
For the facts about the local option sales tax from the city, check out this link.
Friday, March 13
Questioning the Sales Tax Issue
There are some folks who oppose taxes (see Ax the Tax) because they don't believe the government has a place for anything other than public safety. There are people who believe that some taxes are needed to perform the tasks that the private sector does not do or is unwilling to do. There are people who oppose sales taxes because they are inherently unfair to the poor and those who oppose property taxes because they are unfair to landowners. The one thing that eveyone can agree on is that taxes are not well-loved.
This brings me to the Local option Sales Tax referendum that will require 50% + 1 of us to vote for it to allow a 4 year 1 cent sales tax to be imposed to allow Iowa City to upgrade Dubuque St. and replacing the bridge on Park Rd. (estimated cost $32 million)and relocating the north water treatment plant (estimated cost $63 million). We are told via the Iowa City website that the money will be earmarked specifically for:
The key questions to taxpayers should be, are these projects necessary and, if so, are there alternatives to the proposals to accomplish the desired outcomes?
Complicating the matter is that the amount of funding is up in the air due to the rules that the state legislature has made. If voters in Iowa City vote down the tax hike, Iowa City will not benefit at all from taxes collected elsewhere in the county, nor will other cities receive tax revenues for sales taxes collected in Iowa City. Given that Iowa City is the largest municipality in the county, the benefits to smaller communities lessen if Iowa City doesn't play ball. Similarly, if Iowa City votes "yes" and other communities vote "no", there is less of a pot of money for Iowa City.
There are two scheduled fora in the next two weeks. One will be this Wednesday April 8th at Coralville City Hall from 7 to 9 pm. Speakers will be the city managers and planners from Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty.
For a more independently run forum, the League of Women Voters also is sponsoring an informational night Thursday April 16th at the Iowa City Public Library at 7pm. Tom Slockett will spend 10 minutes describing the law and how it works. Each city and the county will describe their ballot and what the money would be used for. The Pro and Con representatives will have 5 minutes to state their cases and there will be 30 minutes of written questions. Committed Mayors are from Iowa City, Coralville, University Heights, Shueyville, Oxford, and a representative from the Board of Supervisors.
This brings me to the Local option Sales Tax referendum that will require 50% + 1 of us to vote for it to allow a 4 year 1 cent sales tax to be imposed to allow Iowa City to upgrade Dubuque St. and replacing the bridge on Park Rd. (estimated cost $32 million)and relocating the north water treatment plant (estimated cost $63 million). We are told via the Iowa City website that the money will be earmarked specifically for:
"Improvements that will help the city maintain vital transportation, emergency, and public health services in both routine and emergency situations.The estimated income over the 4 years is $36 million which means there will be a deficit of $59 million created by these projects. This means that barring huge federal grants, water bills and other fees can be expected to increase or other services will be cut to accomplish these goals.
The ballot language for Iowa City states:
0% of the revenues generated by this tax will be used for property tax relief and the remaining for the following specific purposes: 100% for remediation, repair and protection of flood impacted public infrastructure and local matching funds for dollars received from any federal or state programs to assist with flood remediation, repair and protection of flood impacted public infrastructure."
The key questions to taxpayers should be, are these projects necessary and, if so, are there alternatives to the proposals to accomplish the desired outcomes?
Complicating the matter is that the amount of funding is up in the air due to the rules that the state legislature has made. If voters in Iowa City vote down the tax hike, Iowa City will not benefit at all from taxes collected elsewhere in the county, nor will other cities receive tax revenues for sales taxes collected in Iowa City. Given that Iowa City is the largest municipality in the county, the benefits to smaller communities lessen if Iowa City doesn't play ball. Similarly, if Iowa City votes "yes" and other communities vote "no", there is less of a pot of money for Iowa City.
There are two scheduled fora in the next two weeks. One will be this Wednesday April 8th at Coralville City Hall from 7 to 9 pm. Speakers will be the city managers and planners from Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty.
For a more independently run forum, the League of Women Voters also is sponsoring an informational night Thursday April 16th at the Iowa City Public Library at 7pm. Tom Slockett will spend 10 minutes describing the law and how it works. Each city and the county will describe their ballot and what the money would be used for. The Pro and Con representatives will have 5 minutes to state their cases and there will be 30 minutes of written questions. Committed Mayors are from Iowa City, Coralville, University Heights, Shueyville, Oxford, and a representative from the Board of Supervisors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)