PDA

View Full Version : Council retreat focuses on funds


Chief
01-25-2008, 01:01 PM
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/01/01252008_Council--retreat-focuses-on-funds.cfm

Friday, January 25, 2008
BY JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer

Bob Thompson wanted everyone to know he understood this was supposed to be a pragmatic discussion.

"I clearly got the message about no touchy-feely," Thompson, one-time chief of staff for former Democratic Gov. Booth Gardner who was brought in as facilitator for Thursday's daylong retreat with the Vancouver City Council.

Despite that message, there was still plenty talk about strategic commitments, public-private partnerships and big picture visions as council members pondered what type of community Vancouver should be, five years from now and 20 years from now.

And then there were the pragmatic considerations, including the latest plea from City Manager Pat McDonnell for more revenue to pay for additional police officers and for new fire stations and medical response vehicles.

"We are really at a critical point of not having adequate resources," McDonnell told the council. "It will, in our opinion, require a vote of the public to make these investments."

The city's timing might be lousy.

There are daily news stories about recession fears, home foreclosures and, at least at the beginning of the week, tumbling stock prices. Clark County already has decided to ask voters in April to add a 0.1 percent sales tax to replace the county's emergency radio for police and fire responders.

Options limited

All of which doesn't change the fact that property taxes provide Vancouver with 45 percent of its revenue for core services, such as police, roads and parks. City officials have long groused about their inability to maintain services with a 1 percent cap on property tax increases.

"Transportation and public safety needs to be addressed in '08," McDonnell said. "We need specific direction from council."

The council has been mulling these issues for at least five years. In 2006, there appeared to be enough support to reinstate a local business and occupation tax, which would have raised up to $10 million annually. But faced with strong opposition from the business community, the council quickly lost its appetite for making a tough decision on city finances.

No one even mentioned the letters "B&O" during Monday's discussion. The short list of revenue options includes a $20 vehicle registration fee that could be imposed without a public vote and raise an estimated $3 million annually.

That won't be nearly enough to beef up police and fire and cover an expensive road bill to support redevelopment of the Boise Cascade industrial site on the Columbia River.

City officials need an estimated $9.5 million for its share of road improvements and maybe a portion of an additional $13.8 million funding gap.

Revitalizing the Columbia River waterfront was just one of the many projects mentioned Thursday as future priorities, along with redeveloping Evergreen Airport and Section 30, a square mile block just outside east Vancouver that historically has been used for gravel mining, and continuing downtown's transition from transient haven to yuppie hangout.

Mayor Royce Pollard, starting his 13th year as Vancouver's political leader, struck a pragmatic tone after the council assembled a long list of projects.

"That's a nice wish list, but it's another wish list," said Pollard, who reminded the council that Boise Cascade redevelopment represents a $1.3 billion investment in the city's future.

"Unless we are committed to creating an economic engine that will create a revenue stream, we will do very little of it."

McDonnell said he differentiates between market-driven growth and city-directed economic development. With economic development, the city provides incentives, invests in infrastructure and forges partnerships to achieve its goals, he said.

Proactive approach urged

Redevelopment of the Columbia River waterfront presents an "absolutely unbelievable way" to grow jobs and foster a better community, but it requires city-initiated economic development, McDonnell said.

"Because if you don't, you probably will get a lemonade stand called 'McDonnell's R Us,' " he joked.

Councilwoman Jeanne Harris said she wants Vancouver to take a more active role.

"I have seen us sit back and be driven by, 'God, I hope someone decides to develop here,' " she said. "I don't want to do that any longer."

Harris said she wants to shape a distinct ambience for Vancouver and the waterfront, one with sidewalk dining, with large stores and small boutiques.

"I want us to be another option or alternative - God help me, I'm going to say it - to the Pearl District," she said. "I want to be more in control of that, and I am OK in investing in the infrastructure to make that happen."

Pat Campbell, who joined the council just this month, offered a different perspective.

Campbell said he wasn't prepared to use city finances to promote redevelopment of a site prone to flooding and earthquake, that is under the flight path for Portland International Airport and next to a busy railroad.

"To me, it's like taking the city's treasury and sticking it out on the end of a dock," Campbell said.


Lots of whining but few new ideas...

Chief
01-25-2008, 02:07 PM
I smelled a rat when I read this story this morning, and I decided to do a little investigating myself. It seemed awfully odd that the only people Mize got a quote from were Pat Campbell and the 2 Jeannes...

I pinged Tim Leavitt earlier via e-mail and got a candid response back from him that he has graciously given me permission to publish here at Clarkblog.org.

Here 'tis...and take a look at what he responded to me on...


----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Koski
To: Tim Leavitt
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:08 PM
Subject: budget retreat

Hi Tim;

I read what Jeff Mize had to say about the budget retreat that Council conducted, and I'm offically ignoring anything Patella is sending around about it, including Charlie Stemper's latest missive...

What is your take?

One thing that troubled me in the columbian's reporting is the mention of Police and Fire services needing more money. I consider that a lot more critical than Boise Cascade development, but BC is all they quoted Jeanne Harris on. I see what Pat Campbell won't support, and am not surprized to see he has nothing to offer.

The CRCP Task Force is approaching a decision, and of Council decides to try and support light rail, then they have to sell the O&M levy too.

What is your best guess of what you think Council ought to be looking for, and for what projects? Where do your priorities for the next four years lie??

OBTW, I cannot wait for Saturday to attend Jim Dunn's "Town Hall Meeting". Bet me a burger that he doesn't even show up....

Thanks for a moment,

Bob Koski
www.clarkblog.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Leavitt"
To: "Bob Koski"
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: FW: What others are saying.


Hi Bob --

Yes, I saw the article in today's Columbian also.
Needless to say, over the course of the full-day retreat...there was a
lot more said by councilmembers than was reported.
Most councilmembers made it clear that police, fire and roads are top
priority.
Several of us, with me being the most outspoken, grilled city staff
about spending, prioritization and expectations for levels of service.
I am not real inclined to discuss additional revenues until I am
completely convinced it's necessary.

You probably know the history well...over the past 10+ years the city
council eliminated the B&O tax (in hindsight, probably a mistake), the
voters of the state limited property tax levy increases to 1%/year, and
the motor vehicle excise tax was reduced drastically. As a result, the
city council directed the city manager to reduce the budget to meet the
new reduced revenues...about $6 million and layoff of some 40+
employees.

In short, expenses are increasing (healthcare, construction, fuel, etc.)
and revenues aren't even keeping pace with inflation. About 45% of the
city's budget comes from property tax, which is capped at the 1%
increase/year. With the fateful elimination of the B&O tax (which pretty
much every other city in WA has), the council eliminated a 'third leg'
of the funding stool...thus relying now on property tax, sales tax and
utility/permit fees.

Since I've been a councilmember, we have applied bandages to this
structural gap...including raising permit fees, implementing a business
head tax and, as mentioned above, cutting services. Additionally, city
departments have engaged in a 'business planning' process, where they
are forced to prioritize programs, spending and evaluate effectiveness.
I should note here that I don't entirely buy into the city's 'business
planning' process...I think it's a good first step, but would like to
see more detailed scrutiny of programs and spending.

In any event, we (council and/or voters) either need to step up with
more funding, cut more programs, or reduce expectations of service
(e.g., response times to fire/police calls increase).

The city manager was asked to prepare for another retreat by outlining
all the funding options we have, as well as strategy for asking the
voters of Vancouver for support.
I have asked the council for more discussion about the $20 license tab
fee (to pay for road projects throughout the city and including
waterfront), as well as further discussion of a Metropolitan Parks
District (like the citizens of Clark County voted for) for our parks,
recreation and trails programs.

More exciting conversations to come...but that's my take for the time
being.

Cheers!

tim

ps -- I didn't see a notice for Dunn's Town Hall...when/where?


Tim Leavitt, P.E, M.S.
Senior Civil Engineer/Project Manager
PBS Engineering + Environmental
Engineering | Natural Resources | Environmental | Health and Safety
www.pbsenv.com
1310 Main St. Vancouver, WA 98660
ph: 360.690.4331 : fax: 360.696.9064


-----Original Message-----
From: Local Mailing List [mailto:lmpatella@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:41 PM
To: Tim Leavitt
Subject: What others are saying.

(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is
located at the end of this message.) __

Hang on to your Wallets or Purses, the tax and spend monster is about to
rear its ugly head. Read what others have to say about the Boondoggle
Makers.

L. M. Patella
CDR USN (ret)

NUVOICE NEWS

For the Overburdened Taxpayers of Vancouver Washington Friday January
25, 2008

City in Need of Revenue

It was no surprise learning that the city council met to discuss the
need for revenue for the development of the former Boise Cascade
property in downtown Vancouver. What a better way to spend precious tax
dollars than to subsidize developers building in a flood plain.
Potential revenue is one thing, reality of collecting it is another. We
all have needs in our personal lives and it is time that the city do
what the average family does. We budget and prioritize our spending. The
city needs to do the same.

Since the city is based on a corporate organization chart, it would
behoove the city to freeze all hiring and wage increases as a
corporation would do. The increases alone have been in real terms more
than 5% in the last five years. No one in the corporate world or on a
fixed income gets a 5% ever year. Which would bring you to the next
conclusion that the city wants to tax it's seniors on fixed incomes out
of their homes in order to subsidized builders. Either the city or
county should establish a senior commission immediately.

If you were to ask me for a vote on an increase of taxes I would say to
you first prioritize your spending and make cuts to show me as a
taxpayer that you are just as willing to make the same sacrifices as I
to make Vancouver a city and community of which we can be proud. Public
trust needs to be reestablished now.

In 2007, the city gave away a lot of valuable city property downtown. It
was the people's property and was given without a bid process. It went
to people that belong to a special development group. It did not serve
the public interest and there needs to be a change so that the public
receives full value for their valuable assets. Politicians come and go
but public assets should always be protected if not by law but by doing
what is ethical. There needs to be a more transparent government between
people collecting and spending your taxes and people being taxed. Again
why are we paying for a hotel?

As for the urgency for development please read "The Best-Laid Plans" by
Randal O'Toole, It should be required reading by every government
employee involved with development or transportation. It is an eye
opener!


Charlie Stemper of Vancouver USA

You may unsubscribe to this list at any time by sending a message to the
following: unsubscribe@nuvoice.com and type unsubscribe in the subject
line.


--
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing list
subscription:

You are subscribed to the following list:
Local Mailing List

using the following email:
timl@pbsenv.com

If you'd like to unsubscribe, please contact the list owner at:

<mailto:lmpatella@comcast.net>

DISCLAIMER:
This message and any attachments are considered privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom the message is addressed. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender and permanently delete the message and any attachments.

Waterbuffalo
01-25-2008, 07:51 PM
From: http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/01/01252008_Council--retreat-focuses-on-funds.cfm

"All of which doesn't change the fact that property taxes provide Vancouver with 45 percent of its revenue for core services, such as police, roads and parks. City officials have long groused about their inability to maintain services with a 1 percent cap on property tax increases."

Darn, you beat me to the article and response!

I wanted to add a dimension that you might have considered. Some state legislators have been advocated and reducing or eliminating the Property tax system. Have been hearing this mantra on both sides of the Democrat and Republican sides.

If this happens, at any level it could hit City of Vancouver very seriously.

Have you heard any of this??

Nice to have seen Tim's comments..

Chief
01-26-2008, 05:49 AM
The only noise I've heard along those lines comes during conversations about adding a personal income tax in Washington; the proverbial "Third Leg" of the state finances.

The theory goes that if you have an income tax, you are able to cap the Sales Tax at around 5%, and drastically cut the Property Tax on people's homes. Having payroll based taxes opens the possibility of having a Trimet style employer's tax to cover transit. Thant's how the tri Counties across the river have raised money to fund Trimet for 35 years and it works fairly well.

What it would take to make that happen is a very strong Governor, capable of selling that idea to the entire State, and then getting the Legislature to go along with it. It's a State Constitutional issue and a very steep hill to climb, but it could be done.

Waterbuffalo
01-26-2008, 06:53 AM
"What it would take to make that happen is a very strong Governor, capable of selling that idea to the entire State, and then getting the Legislature to go along with it. It's a State Constitutional issue and a very steep hill to climb, but it could be done."

I think to change the state's tax system in Washington is going to be done exactly in this way.

Though it could be someone outside of government like with a strong will and backing of a lot of people outside of Puget Sound that could also get it passed.

Chief
01-27-2008, 06:57 AM
I also heard back on this subject from Councilman Larry Smith, who also had quite a bit to offer on the City's budgetary priorities...

Many, many thanks to both Councilman Larry Smith, and Councilman Tim Leavitt for their candid comments on this subject, and their assistance to me in seting the record straight from what the columbian printed in Jeff Mize's "story" about this on Friday. I respect their candor, willingness to tackle a complex question from me, and willingness to supply me a stright forward and honest answer.

Well done Gentlemen, and Thank You both!



----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Smith
To: Bob Koski
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: the latest agitprop


Bob: Here are some facts that I believe are correct. Remember, this is me speaking...

1. The most important priority for me is a strong fire and police operations.

2. The second priority is a good transportation system in the city...promotes safety and economic development.

3. The third priority is job development..the city leads, facilitates and provides the incentives to move the community forward. The tools and incentives come from the Feds, state and city. Elected representatives must have the political courage to do what is right for the future. No is not always the right answer when it is the welfare and well being of the residents. Change is good and healthy. Being pro-active and responsive is good government and why I am a councilmenber.

4. We are not a bedroom community of Portland. We complement one another; we are a regional player and need to act as one.

For all this to align, the city must have a well managed and effective workforce. Accountability is paramount and absolute in budgets. It is the key to effective government. Business plans provide measurement and results. We are a full service city. As such, we have an excellent, well run city! Cuts over the last year are having an effect. However, what is not right...

1. We are falling behind in our services especially transportation. Cash flow is a challenge.

2. Fire and police have capital and operating shortfalls. Manning limits are too low. Some fire stations are absolute.

3. We are shortchanging out kids in afternoon programming activities.

4. Seniors and children, our most vulnerable groups, are not getting the attention they need.

5. Investment and funding of our infrastructure is not where it should be.

6. Critical development of downtown which is a tax base needs assistance not to mention some other areas of the city.

7. Some of our policies need to be modified and linked to reflect current time (crosswalk)

Options...

1. Do nothing...pass the problems on to the next elected leadership. We can do what the Feds do and say it is too difficult (immigration)

2. Continue to cut services to include M&O

3. Eliminate services such as parks and recreation (non-core) functions. I have done this!

4. Consolidate and look at technology/innovation.

5. Ask and find State and Fed assistance. Pass the buck!

6. Look for a revenue stream other than B&O

7. Some combination of the first 6 which I have done many times over.

Governments will always have a need for additional funding; however, we are starting to fall behind the power curve in terms of being a full service city provider. I am uncomfortable with this position. It is time Council becomes proactive in finding the solutions. The need for additional revenue funding for our top priorities needs to be taken to the taxpayers. Let me clear, I do not support cuts in current services which, in fact, need to be expanded. As a former parks director, I have learned to be creative.

Many of us have come to problem conclusion after hearing the leadership during the retreat. Having been a Parks and Recreation Director, I certainly understand cash flow and business planning. "Houston, we have a problem....." that is, if we do not get real and address the issue head on for a bright future. I sure do not want my daughter to look me in the eye in ten years and ask what I have done to make this city better.

This stuff is not easy. There are many out there who do not want any changes and want the cheap way out of the challenges. They are willing to cut programs and lower the level of services. We certainly cannot do it all but we can do it right. I intend to in my work.

The next step is to look at some options in support of our priorities in order to move the city forward. We will do this in a few months as we address the budget. Lastly, we can not afford to lose ground in the progress we have made as a city and community. You expect this from those you elect.

Hope this helps. More to come,
best,

Larry