“We have a fresh start and renewed optimism.” That’s what some are saying, but to me, with the increases in city service fees and the taxes voted in over the past 18 months the actions taken are intriguing and problematic.
While some are viewing the approved 1/8th of cent sale tax that will fund community projects as progressive and cause for energizing renewed optimism, others are content with keeping a status quo environment - just going along so we can all get along. I differ in opinion with those viewpoints. Why do we continue to follow the same old model, doing same things the way we have always done them? Why?
I firmly believe we do need a fresh start. We need to establish a brand new model – a fresh way to study new proposals; new standards for evaluation of needs and their funding mechanisms, as well as the impact on citizens; and a procedural guide for approval of any new taxes that includes input from our constituents. A comprehensive model that future Boards of Supervisor here in Carson City can adopt as their standard.
Important questions that all candidates for public office should answer: What is your vision for the future of Carson City? Does your outlook include interaction between those holding public office and their constitutes? By what standards will you balance the budget? Do you believe in accountability? Although answers to these questions may appear to be a no-brainer, some issues voted for by the Board were lacking in vision, evaluation, planning and a provision for accountability. Obviously, these are my views and there are other views with regard to vision, so how a vision is conceived - is argumentative.
The elected officials in Carson City are the Legislative branch of government. The City Manager is the Executive branch. Now, with the selection of our new City manager, Mr. Nicholas Marano, I have hope he will bring a new perspective to Carson City. Perhaps, the previous strategy’s and spending habits will become history. In my discussions with Mr. Marano, he spoke of the need of cooperation between levels of management; a strong desire for team work; and of partnering in ways that could spur economic growth. I welcome this new vision. The City Manager has more influence on how our city is run than do the elected officials. Mr. Marano’s vision of partnering is a logical option, one we have not fully explored in the past. I firmly believe this is on the horizon for Carson City.
The burden of not building an animal shelter for the past 20 years was largely due to the fact, that the city did not set aside the needed capital funding. So this Board imposed a 1/8th of a cent sale tax to fund the animal shelter, the MAC and several corridor projects. Two cents of the property tax was set be cut and I proposed keeping it in place to fund, in part, for the animal shelter. My proposal was quickly dismissed as inadequate. In our times of a sputtering economy we have suffered a huge blemish on our budget. And long have we been handcuffed due to a lack of funding for capital improvement projects.
Members of this Board are now caught in a political quandary by their previous vote of imposing a new sales tax to help fund and build capital projects, at a yearly expense to citizens, as they often stated “of just $12.00 per year.” What has been ignored is that this will continue for the next 20, 30 or possible 40 years to pay off the millions of bond debt the City will now incur. Keep in mind this new tax does not include the bond debt for: V&T Railroad; Water and Sewer Facilities; 911 Phone System Upgrade; the Landfill Improvements, and numerous other bond debts.
Then in another statement they (the Board) propose to reduce your property tax rate from $3.56 to $3.54. This two-cent reduction amounts to $17.50 yearly gain to a property owner on a property valued at $250,000.00. Subtract the $12.00 and now the gain is reduced (to you the citizen) to $5.50 yearly, or roughly a penny a day (to be exact it is $ .0150684932 per day).
I previously proposed that the property tax rate should remain at $3.56 but the budget allowance set at $3.54, and the two penny difference be redirected for capital projects. The Board could have streamlined capital projects funding, for a generation, by simply agreeing to hold the property tax rate at $3.56.
The Board should have an independent in-depth audit of Question 18 and Redevelopment taxes that have been imposed upon citizens. The way these funds are being spent, needs to thoroughly re-examined. We should use these taxes to fund the construction of the majority of these capital projects as they were original intended to be used. In my opinion: there was no need to create this new 1/8th of a cent sale tax. We simply cannot create new taxes on the assumption that “doing nothing is not an option.”
While I have repeatedly stated my opposition to this new sale tax, I recognize that I am only one of five members of the Board of Supervisors. Although I differ in opinion with members (now and then), I stand ready to fully cooperate with the Board to insure that these projects will be for the betterment of our community.
Not utilizing the existing property tax rate to help fund capital projects in the future will not benefit the community, as they were intended to do. Wrong is wrong and this is wrong. The Board has increased your water and sewer rates drastically, then created a new tax, but felt obligated to lower the property tax rate.
Don’t be mislead by the confusing add-ons and reduction to the property tax rate. Your pocket book weights abundantly less today, than it did yesterday.
Jim Shirk
Supervisor Ward 4 Carson City
jShirk@carson.org