Op-Ed: Mayor and Deputy Mayor speak on Shoreline Proposition 1
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Keith McGlashan is the Mayor, City of Shoreline
Before you sit down and begin checking the boxes of yes/no offerings and then move on to the this person/that person offerings I would like to tell you a little bit about Shoreline Proposition 1.
We knew the day was coming that we would have to go out and ask the citizens for a levy lid lift way before I was on the council. I have been on the Shoreline City Council since January 2006 and there has not been an annual budget review where this was not discussed and that changes in policy and efficiencies were put into place to ward off the pending deficiencies for as long as possible.
The 2001 Eyman initiative (I-747) put every municipality on equal ground as other taxing jurisdictions. What it did was to say… municipalities could not raise property taxes more than 1% per year without approval of the voters. I-747 passed state wide but was not supported by the City of Shoreline tax payers. Since its passage in 2001 the City of Shoreline has been held to that 1% increase although inflation alone averaged about 3% to 4% per year. Therefore it is no surprise that we find ourselves at this crossroad.
When you look at your property tax statement you, like myself, are shocked at the amount of taxes we pay to live in Shoreline. But 90% of those taxes go to other entities like King County, the Port of Seattle, and EMS services. We have also been a very generous and supporting community with our school district and fire district. Only approximately 10% of the property taxes you pay go to the city of Shoreline to provide the services that create the quality of life we all enjoy in Shoreline.
So where do cuts take place if Prop 1 fails?
We have heard from the community and public safety is of utmost importance to them, so I am sure there is council support to do what we can to protect our police services. Where the council would agree to make cuts is anyone's guess, but a few items on the table could be… human services, sports programs, after school programs, city granting programs, the Shoreline pool, school resource officer(s), park maintenance or closures. I’m not sure where the council will make the deep cuts that will have to be made, but I am sure that the value of life we all care about in Shoreline will be greatly effected.
Prop 1 is to continue the current services that the City of Shoreline provides to its citizens. There are no employee pay increases and no new programs included. Even with the passage of Prop 1 there will still be challenges ahead of us in these recessionary times. Retail sales tax and real estate excise tax, among other sources of revenue, continue to lag behind previous levels, and there are other initiatives on the ballot (I-1100 and I-1105) that if passed, will effect our budget greatly.
I ask your support for keeping Shoreline a great place to live and to vote yes for Proposition 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Hall is the Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline
As someone who cares about Shoreline, your decision on Proposition 1 is important. If approved, the city can maintain our parks, police, and community services. If not, there will be major, permanent cuts in services that we need to keep Shoreline a great place to live. I'd like to share why I'm asking you to join me in voting "Yes" on Shoreline Proposition 1.
Our community formed the City of Shoreline 15 years ago to preserve our great schools and to get better services than we got from King County. We've done that. Crime is down. Flooding is down. Our parks are better. We have miles of new sidewalks and the Interurban Trail. We have a vibrant senior center and great programs for youth. The list goes on and on. Please vote Yes on Proposition 1 to protect these important improvements.
In the past ten years (since Tim Eyman's initiatives), the city's property tax levy increased 9% while inflation increased 27%. In real dollars, that means we are giving the city 18% less property tax than we did in 2000! The city has done an amazing job of cutting costs by over $2 million to make ends meet. The city cut employee health benefits, eliminated cost-of-living adjustments for two years, slashed travel budgets, reduced staff, and made dozens of other cuts in administrative expenses. And still, Shoreline is one of the best places to live in the region. That's an incredible value, and a tribute to the fiscally conservative work of city leadership.
As a result, the City of Shoreline is one of the most efficient cities in the state, with 25% fewer employees than comparable cities, employee salaries below comparable cities, and one of the lowest city property tax rates in the region. There simply is no more waste or excess to cut in the city budget without eliminating entire programs.
Without Proposition 1, the city will have to make $14 million in cuts to the services that make this a great, and safe, place to live. If we want to preserve what makes our city special, we need to vote "Yes" on Proposition 1.
I know the economy is in terrible shape right now. Many of my neighbors are unemployed, living on fixed income, or hurting financially. I've had my pay reduced two years in a row. My wife hasn't seen a raise in years. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. But I don't want to turn my back on people who depend on city services during these difficult times.
What do you like best about living in Shoreline? People tell me they want to live in a safe community with clean streets, free parks for kids to play, and city staff that work to protect our neighborhoods. For an average of $7.60 per household per month, we can preserve those things and still have a great city for a bargain price.
If you have questions, please let me know. You can also learn more from the city's website. Thank you for caring about our community and this important choice.
Please vote "Yes" on Shoreline Proposition 1.
21 comments:
Will - since you and your wife are a double-income no kids household with a six-figure salary, it's really hard to figure why you are making your hardship case all about you.
Equally hard to imagine is a picture of hardship in your Richmond Beach neighborhood, after you have criticized other less privileged neighborhoods concerned about the impact of development when they have no streetlights and no sidewalks as a bunch of NIMBYs.
But you really went beyond the bend on Friday night when you attacked a respected family-owned business that has been in Shoreline for 50 years that has been a pillar in the community, both in public service and in promoting economic development.
Is that how you view Shoreline voters, citizens, and businesses, convenient when you want them but a hassle otherwise?
I agree with this anonymous commenter. I was there on Friday night and thought Mr Hall's attacks on small business owners were unwarranted and
unfortunate. These small business owners will bear the brunt of this tax increase the most.
The point of this issue should be, is this tax increase really necessary? Is the YES on Prop 1 case correct? Can you trust what City staff, Councilmembers and supporters say? Or are the No on Prop 1 folks right? Do they have the facts straight? Is this $7-9 p/MO tax increase worth it or too much for tax-payers to bear?
That is what it's about, not about whether Will Hall is suffering.
The City of Shoreline has a clear track record of fiscal responsibility. That's been proven time and again and is not an issue that's disputed by anyone who's paying attention. The issue here is value. In tight economic times I want value for every dollar I spend. The 10 cents per property tax dollar is a bargain given the services, planning and quality of life the City of Shoreline provides. Small businesses, large businesses, old people, fixed income people, families, ALL BENEFIT when we maintain a cost effective city government that provides the services each of us need and expect. It's simply a good value. It's what makes this an exceptional community - one where people want to live, work AND shop. The staff and leadership of the City of Shoreline have earned my trust. Vote YES on Prop 1 to maintain the community we've built here in Shoreline!
Fiscal responsibility means that you are aware that economies can go bad, and it means saving for those times. Has the City of Shoreline saved for this economic downturn so that they don't have to turn to taxpayers at a time when taxpayers can least afford tax increases?
Apparently not. That is fiscally irresponsible.
One of two things should have already happened. Either cuts should have already been made, or taxes raised, long before now so that the City has the means to weather tough economic times without having to pressure it's citizens at a time when we can least afford it.
I think that is a fair dispute of the fiscal responsibility of the City by someone who IS paying attention.
TRUE economic responsibility means understanding that the economy will not always be rosy and making adjustments to save for those times BEFORE they are upon us. Did the City do that?
No.
Sorry, that's not fiscally responsible.
This latest comment makes the case FOR Proposition 1. The fiscally responsible steps this commenter asks for are precisely the ones that the past two Mayors and City Councils have implemented. By establishing a Rainy Day Reserve councils were responsible in forseeing an economic slump. In the face of I-747 the councils acted responsibly by pulling together a citizens' committee to anticipate the impact of a property tax cap. And finally the councils have "scrubbed" the budget and made reductions.
The City HAS saved for a rainy day and the City HAS planned for the economic realtities of I-747. Proposition 1 addresses the impact of I-747's cap on property tax growth without voter approval. The City's Rainy Day Reserve has been funded and is now being used to preserve critical services in the face of the recession. Having seen multiple City Councils act responsibly over a number of years I conclude that voting YES on Proposition 1 is the responsible thing to do!
Missing from this discussion is fact that I-747 was declared unconstitutional by the Washington State Supreme Court in 2007, which is the argument Mayor McGlashan is advancing on behalf of the City as the need behind Prop 1.
Here is the citation from the Association of Washington Cities (of which the City of Shoreline is a member):
http://www.awcnet.org/portal/StudioNew.asp?EDate=&MenuActionParm=127&MenuActionTypeID=80&Mode=B1&OriginPage=/portal/StudioNew.asp&UID=&WebID=1&ChannelLinkID=7365
If the City is going to lie about a non-existent law as the need for a proposition, what else are they misleading the public about?
"Foreseeing" and "anticipating" are not the same as "saving".
If the City HAS saved for a rainy day...well, it's raining and you don't need the money.
Your logic is crazy.
Trying to blame the problems of today on Eyeman's initiatives of ten years ago is the local equivalent of Obama blaming Bush for everything. That was TEN YEARS AGO. The City has had ample time during the healthy economic times since then to prepare for this eventuality and they DID NOT. Otherwise you wouldn't so desperately need money now.
If the City's rainy day fund is funded, then why do you need to raise property taxes right now? It doesn't make any sense!!! Do you understand what a rainy day fund is for? It's for RIGHT NOW, when it's raining! It's so you DON'T have to raise taxes at a time when the citizens can least afford it!
Wow.
Anon 7:28...
Wow again. Thank you.
The Yes on Prop 1 people scapegoat Tim Eyeman and I-747 for the 1% cap because they are Democrats and they don't want to place the blame where it belongs: on Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Democrat-led Legislature.
Read this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004043827_session30m.html
So just trade one sort of dishonesty for another.
Here is a quote from that Seattle Times article:
"The fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with Tim Eyman as far as I'm concerned," Gregoire said Thursday night. "My motivation is what the voters had to say, and the voters said they're fearful about whether they're going to be able to keep their homes."
That was in 2007. The Governor was quite forward looking with that statement, because here we are, 3 years later, and voters are fearful about whether they are going to keep their homes as the City attempts to raise property taxes.
I appreciate the arguments being made by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. But even the worlds greatest rhetorical skills will not sell me on this tax increase.
The working people in Shoreline can't afford it. PERIOD.
If services have to be cut, so be it. Of course, the City Council does have an obligation to prioritize the cuts.
Higher property taxes will do nothing to help our real estate market. Higher property taxes will only hurt the creation of jobs. Higher taxes are never the answer to a recession. VOTE NO ON PROP 1.
Eyman's I-747 has been in effect since 2001. That's because after the Supreme Court ruled in unconstitutional in 2007, the legislature restored it into law. Therefore, all Washington cities have had the 1% limit in effect for nine years in a row. While it's prudent fiscal policy to create a rainy day fund, as the City of Shoreline did, it is not prudent to completely drain the tank as the previous poster seems to suggest. Besides, a rainy day fund is for dealing with a short-term emergency, like the recession, which is how the City has used it. A rainy day fund is not a bottomless well of cash to fix structural problems and won't fill the projected $14 million shortfall over the coming six years. That's why it is critical that we approve Proposition 1 NOW.
I want to thank the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for their candor and their leadership. Times are tough, no question, but Shoreline is the kind of place where people pull together in tough times. The city budget helps Seniors have the senior center, gives us safe and secure neighborhoods, and provides city recreation programs for teens and developmentally disabled kids. The city budget keeps the pool open, and helps keep the Shoreline museum and Arts Council afloat. Without Proposition #1 all that goes away. That's why people who care about this community will be voting yes.
Seniors on fixed income would be hit hard by this tax increase. So we're to save the senior center at the expense of the seniors?
This isn't the only tax increase we'll be facing next year, either. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, effectively raising our taxes by a considerable amount.
Tax tax tax...we can't do anything to save the Bush tax cuts, but we can vote no on Prop 1. We can't afford all this taxing and spending anymore. It's got to stop somewhere. If the Democrats in Congress had extended the Bush tax cuts, then this property tax increase wouldn't seem so bad.
But they didn't. So blame the Democrats in Congress when Prop 1 fails.
Whether or not Eyman's initiative was ruled unconstitutional, the fact of the matter is: if this proposition does not pass, it will affect the people who need it the most.
When I went through a divorce as the only way out of an abusive relationship, I got an invaluable amount of support and legal help from organizations partly funded by the City of Shoreline's Human Services, as well as the Senior Center and other agencies that serve the low-income population.
Now, as a single mom with a young child, I make use of the many resources offered by the City, from the beautiful, convenient, well-maintained parks to the life-saver, reliable summer camps and classes at the Shoreline Center. An additional $10 a month is insignificant, compared to what I would have to pay for counseling, legal services, gym memberships, private classes, or even the gas and the hassle in driving to visit parks in other cities.
I have the impression that those opposing the proposition are too wealthy to realize that those who need these services the most will be extremely hurt if Prop. 1 doesn't pass.
Please vote YES on Proposition 1 to maintain our basic services.
Some quick math...in the past 10 years my property assessed value has gone up by 48%. Adding in the 9% increase in the tax rate equals a 61% increase in taxes. So the net increase is 61% vs the general inflation of 27%. Seems the chunk has gotten bigger vice smaller over the past 10 years. If I got the math wrong, somebody post a correction/rebuttal. It's pretty common to commingle tax bills and tax rates. The focus is typically on tax rate increases, while the change in the taxable basis is ignored.
The City portion is only 10% of your total property tax bill.
Regarding my comment above (10:22 am) the figures I am citing are with respect to the percentage increase of my tax bill over the last 10 years (61%) vs the increase in the rate of inflation over 10 years (27%). It appears that taxes are increasing faster than inflation, which is contrary to the argument forwarded by the Deputy Mayor. These figures are a completely separate measure than the 10%-of-the total-pie mentioned above. What I do not know is if the city's portion of the annual tax pie has been 10% over each of the past 10 years. If it has been relatively steady at or near 10%, then the increases in my assessed value more than offset inflation over that time. In real dollars, I am paying as much or more to the city now, as compared to 10 years ago. This is contrary to the point made by the Deputy Mayor. By the way, I do feel the city runs it finances pretty well, but I do also want to see objective arguments put forth by either side, especially if numbers are used as "facts."
Who cares what the City's portion of the tax bill is? The supporters of Prop 1 parrot that statistic like it makes a difference in my tax bill.
It doesn't. My taxes are still too high.
I did the math another way and it shows that the City portion of my tax bill has increased close to, but just shy of inflation:
Tax Year 2000
Assessed Value $169,000
City tax rate: 1.60 per $1000
Tax = 169 X 1.6 = $270.40
Tax Year 2011 (without levy lid lift)
Assessed Value $273,000
City tax rate: 1.20 per $1000
Tax = 273 X 1.20 = $327.60
If my 2000 city taxes were escalated 27% for inflation, that would be 1.27 X $270.40 = $343.41.
So the proposed 2011 tax (w/o levy lid lift) is $328 vs an inflation adjusted $343 from 2000. based on this, there is an inflationary gap, but not as big as suggested in the literature.
The city literature suggests there is relief available for seniors and low income property tax owners, but they fail to inform you this "relief" will be recorded as a lien on your property because this tax is not considered an excess levy.
Debbie Tarry, the City Director of Finance, has admitted this reluctantly at one of the open forums on prop 1.
Post a Comment