Officials talk about increasing the city's sales tax
Lawrence Mayor Sue Hack and City Commissioners Rob Chestnut and Boog Highberger answer the question, "Under what circumstances, if any, would you agree to asking voters to increase the city's sales tax?." Enlarge video
Sales tax increase possible
Facing tight financial times in the present, city leaders explore new sources of funding for future projects. Enlarge video
Reader poll
City Commission Discussion Materials: Aug. 27, 2007
Think longer.
Support built among city commissioners on Monday for a plan to ask voters to approve a sales tax increase that would sunset after 10 years, rather than after five years as previously proposed.
"I think we have needs that just exceed what we can do in five years," Mayor Sue Hack said.
Commissioners Rob Chestnut and Mike Amyx also both said they were open to a new half-cent, 10-year sales tax. Amyx originally had proposed the five-year plan.
"It is negotiable," Amyx said of the time frame.
Not much else changed, though, as city commissioners gathered Monday afternoon for a study session devoted to the sales tax issue.
A majority of commissioners still said the bulk of any new sales tax should be devoted to repairing streets and sidewalks. A smaller portion should go to an economic development fund that would give the city the ability to build new infrastructure that would be needed to land a new company or job producer. A portion also would be devoted to the community's ECO2 initiative, which is designed to promote new business park development and the preservation of open space.
And then, there's the library.
Hack said by extending the sales tax to 10 years, it may give the city some funding to devote to a new downtown library. Chestnut said he also was interested in trying to find funding for a library as part of a half-cent sales tax, but both commissioners stopped short of saying the sales tax could fund the entire library project, which has an estimated pricetag of $30 million.
A sales tax is expected to generate $5 million to $6 million per year. Amyx wants to use about $5 million of the annual amount on maintaining city streets and sidewalks. He also proposes using $2 million of existing funds to bring the street maintenance budget up to $7 million per year.
Amyx's plan also would free up about $3 million in property tax revenue that currently is spent on street maintenance that could be redirected to other parts of the budget. Commissioners asked City Manager David Corliss to prepare a report detailing feasible ways to spend that money. Hack said some of that could be directed to a new library project as well.
Commissioner Boog Highberger may be a fourth vote for a sales tax. Highberger said he thought a sales tax was the only realistic way to raise the type of money needed to fund the major amount of street work needed in the community. But on Monday, he conditioned his support for a new sales tax on finding another less regressive revenue source to go along with it.
Highberger suggested impact fees, which are fees that developers pay as new building permits are pulled for projects. Supporters of impact fees have said they help spread the costs of growth to the people who are responsible for the growth.
City commissioners stopped short of endorsing the idea Monday. All of Highberger's fellow commissioners asked staff members to produce a report on how much it costs to build a house in Lawrence compared with other communities. Commissioners expressed concern that new fees could make Lawrence less competitive with other communities.
Commissioners didn't set a timeline on when to make a decision on a new sales tax. Any new sales tax ultimately must be approved by voters as part of a citywide election.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jlw53 (anonymous) says…
I am for the impact fees. They are the fairest, and would begin to make development pay for itself. Obviously it hasn't been, given the ever-increasing mill levies.
We don't need any more sales or other taxes. CUT Expenses!!!
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…
Move out en masse!!! The only message the jerks in City Hall will hear is the resounding echo of no one left to tax to death. I DID vote, and not for ANY of these jerks. Everyone seems to be against the rediculous tax increases, but when the vote comes up, it passes overwhelmingly, again and again. I hold out a shred of hope that the people of Lawrence are smart enough to know when they are destroying themselves, but I'm not optimistic. I hope it doesn't pass, but I'm betting it will. So we're moving.
KS (anonymous) says…
"Amyx's plan also would free up about $3 million in property tax revenue that currently is spent on street maintenance that could be redirected to other parts of the budget."
What's wrong with this picture? If you can free up $3 million from the street budget, then why do you need to raise the tax? I don't think they teach much about business in barber school.
I support a sales tax, if the money is truly needed, but I still say, cut spending and there will be some bucks to go around. Too much waste. Impact fees will not encourage business to come. That is a given. The hidden agenda in this whole thing is the library. Bet when, and if, the tax is passed, all of a sudden, we will be flush with money to build it and maybe that new sports complex too. The aforemenetioned $3 million will be used for that. Bet ya! Whatever happend to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I don't trust them.
Informed (anonymous) says…
First, if a sales tax increase makes it to the ballot, I will vote NO. The City of Lawrence should learn how to live within its means just like the rest of us do. Cut out the extras to pay for the necessities. That's simple home budgeting, which was taught to me in 5th grade.
Second, IF a sales tax increase is passed by the (stupid, bleating) voters, I will continue to make all/most of my purchases in JoCo, just to keep additional revenue from being generated. (And don't even bother telling me to move there... There are reasons I live in Lawrence.)
ljreader (anonymous) says…
"I think we have needs that just exceed what we can do in five years," Mayor Sue Hack said.
Sue Hack's got plans that exceed what we can do in 1000 yrs.
Wish we could sunset Hack- like yesterday.
Informed (anonymous) says…
News flash for Sue Hack: A sports dome (or whatever you want to call it) is not a need. It's a want, a desire, something that can be done without.
Adequate street maintenance and repair? -- that's a need.
A properly equipped police force? -- that's a need.
A good water treatment facility? -- that's a need.
Are you starting to see the difference?
Take a lesson from the county: According to yesterday's paper they saved money in order to buy some computer software. They S A V E D the money. That means they wanted something but didn't have the money to go buy it right away, so they put a little bit aside for a few years. Then, when they have enough money, they can buy it.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
"I think we have needs that just exceed what we can do in five years," Mayor Sue Hack said."
Yes and Lawrence officials get the blame for overspending, lousy planning, and poor management.
And you are not getting a library,sports complex,a recreation trail or any other pipe dreams. The people you have counted on for tax dollars have had enough. Commissioners have already made this city less competitive to cities that can budget. Sorry Sue but your glass library tower will not be a monolith to your office partly because:
"Lawrence City Commissioner David Schauner isn't happy. He voted this week to raise his constituents' city property taxes 10 percent and to make cuts in virtually every city department.
The city has budgeted to spend more than $43 million, making up the difference by spending money saved from previous years."-aug 14,2003
The "NO's " have it.
Coach_Eric (anonymous) says…
With regards to impact fees, "Commissioners expressed concern that new fees could make Lawrence less competitive with other communities."
But obviously these ------- ------ have no problem taxing the bejesus out of those of us who are already here!
Enough! No new taxes!
And LJW, curious why you did not provide any comparative information? As in sales taxe rates for surrounding communities/counties? That would be valuable information as well.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
" And LJW, curious why you did not provide any comparative information? As in sales taxe rates for surrounding communities/counties? That would be valuable information as well."
We are waiting ..............................
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
Coach_Eric: Please check the "Local sales tax comparison" link above.
Thanks,
Joel Mathis
Managing Editor for Convergence
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
Those tax tables are for cities much larger than Lawrence and our rates(7.69) are still higher then many of them now. Try again.
Coach_Eric (anonymous) says…
Thanks Joel!
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
More taxes to pay. What a surprise. Take a look at this recent chat http://www2.ljworld.com/chats/2007/au... Even Boog acknowledges that the impact of paying more tax (sales and property - and yes impact fees) eventually gets paid by the lowest paid people in any community. It's called a regressive tax folks. Study up on it.
The city/county/school (and state and federal) leaders and citizens don't seem to understand basic math. We cannot keep robbing Peter to pay Paul and expect Peter to last.
You cannot keep taking more and more money from the taxpayers and expect them to have more and more to share. It doesn't work that way. Not under our current system of government. Of course, it's not a concern for those who want to move the US towards socialism (something that European and Candadians have tried and are still suffering from - e.g. have you SEEN how dental care works there???).
Hint: If the government wants more money (from any source) and you say "Yes" you deserve the resulting reduction in your overall life-style that you (and we all) will soon experience.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
This is one of the very few times I envy renters. It is so easy for them to pack up and go. For the rest of us helpless property owners, how many months would our houses languish on the market before some unsuspecting sucker comes along to take it off our hands? It is strongly expected that our next round of valuations WILL accurately reflect true value, not what some assessor wants it to produce.
One of the major reasons the streets and infrastructure are in dire straits is due to diversion and cuts to road budgets for the past many years. We are tired of the shell game. Mr. Dever seems to be the only commissioner who gets it.
NO new/revamped library - they are dying across the country. Times have changed and Lawrence does not need to feed the dead horse. Of course, most of us understand that it is not really about a library, but more about a pretty new downtown. Where is all this sidewalk repair supposed to happen? Could it be downtown? Are not the retail property owners responsible for this, or is it another service the city provides to only the few & the wealthy in that particular area?
No new recreational facilities until the basic functions of the city are met. In fact, LOWER taxes and fix the roads and they will come without gouging the citizenry constantly.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
@Marion "Do you simpletons realise what is going on here?"
Don't try to confuse me with your fancy British talk. Next, you'll want tax money to go towards a theatre. I bet you say "schedule" funny, too.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
KSTwister:
I'm confused. Those numbers are for the 10 largest municipalites in KS. Of which it appears Lawrence is smack in the middle in terms of size. According to the data, Lawrence is tied for the second lowest at 7.3% and second lowest in terms of 2006 Per Capita. Are you not reading the same table I am? Where do you get this 7.69%?
JOEHAWK (anonymous) says…
I would vote for a new tax if they set goals for some projects to meet or be eliminated. For example if ridership for the T does not meet a certain level, it goes away.
While on the surface impact fees sound logical, all they do is drive an already overpriced market higher. The problem is not growth, it is mismanagement of funds and service by the city. We have impact fees now. Impact fees are just property taxes on new homeowners. We want more new homeowners in this city, not less. We need more taxpayers not more taxes.
I support the sales tax if they do more to invite prospective job providers to this town.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
Impact fees are just making developers pay their fair share for the need for additional capacity in city infrastructure: Streets, sewers, sewage treatment and water treatment.
When my family moved here in 1963, they paid special assessments for years to pay for the street &c. Why shouldn't the buyers of big ugly houses do the same.
As for the sales tax, they must think this is Tax-Us.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
All this talk about taxes and "we don't have enough money" and totally redoing Kasold and repaving here and there and everywhere BUT Massachusetts! Has anyone driven 11th to 7th on Mass lately? It's pathetic! But they want to put money everywhere instead of there.
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
I defy anyone to find an instance where, once imposed, a tax increase for a set time or government fee ever EVER expired. There have been many times where it was supposed to go away after "XYZ" happened. But it never does. So, you can bet that if any increase is approved, it is there to stay, forever. And pretty soon, only about .01% of people will be able to buy enough food to live. Sounds like I am being dramatic and pessimisitic. To be sure. But mark my words, the attitudes about "just raise more money by raising the taxes on THEM" is a sure sign of a society in decline.
Lots of changes are coming in the near future. Selling one's home is indeed very hard these days, even if you take less then the county values it or the neighboring homes are valued at. Home owners will soon have to start taking in renters or multi-generational families will have to all live together in order to pay taxes and still afford to buy food and other necessities of life. And the way things are going, survival will take on a whole new meaning pretty soon. Everyone had been start learning how to garden (for real, not just flowers or hobby) and hunting/fishing/trapping. Finding water and digging water wells may become a new favorite pass-time - let's hope our immune systems aren't totally ruined. And it won't hurt people to learn to make and then use bow and arrows again.
Welcome to the new USA. Never let it be said that we weren't warned. We just never thought it could happen here. But get ready - the way things are going, it will be here sooner then anyone thought...
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
Lest anyone think I am alone in my bleak view of our future (due to the spend thrift attitude of all, especially government leaders), take a look at these articles - there are thousands more out there - all pointing out how costs (and taxes) continue to rise while income and abilities to earn keep going down.....Doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is going to crash one of these days....Cause and effect. You cannot keep spending (and making paper) money like its sources will never run out of it. Cause eventually it will.
new york (cnnmoney.com) -- The subprime mortgage meltdown has begun to spread to prime-rate loans as even credit-worthy borrowers have started to fall behind on payments.
On Tuesday,
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/... White House trims FY budget deficit forecast to 205 billion US dollars.
washington - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Monday said the United States may be unable to pay its bills this fall unless Congress raises the government's borrowing authority, now capped at $8.965 trillion.
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The $100-a-barrel oil that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said would prevail by 2009 may be only a few months away.
Jeffrey Currie, a London-based commodity analyst at the world's biggest securities firm, says $95 crude is likely this year unless OPEC unexpectedly increases production*, and declining inventories are raising the chances for $100 oil.
Jeff Rubin at CIBC World Markets predicts $100 a barrel as soon as next year. ``We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil,'' said John Kilduff, an analyst in the New York office of futures broker Man Financial Inc. `
new york (Reuters) - The dollar fell to a 12-year low on Friday on concerns the crisis in the U.S. subprime mortgage sector will have an impact on consumer spending and the wider economy. Traders and analysts said the ongoing fear surrounding the subprime market pushed the dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of currencies, to a 12-year low and pushed bond yields and stocks lower...
merrill (anonymous) says…
We have a city that's been allowed to grow without any real planning aka helter skelter planning that has done not much else other than increase taxes by way of inflated property values,increased user fees etc etc. The North Lawrence plan is an excellent example as is most of the activity on west 6th. Bedroom communities typically dictate high taxes for support so why did the real estate/development community pursue such expansion which expanded our tax bills instead of creating economic growth that would pay for itself.
Someone suggested an audit...not a bad idea. A very detailed Cost of Community Services Study would likely be a good companion to an audit. This type of study should reveal what areas of growth are not paying for themselves which may explain the resistance from commissioners over the last 15 years.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
not to seem like an idiot...LoL....what happens to the other half of the penny?
mb they are saving it incase the half pennie did not work?.....hmmmmmmmmm......
something to ponder on...?
merrill (anonymous) says…
*The two trillion dollar iraq war is not generating wealth or creating jobs for the country. *Sending millions of jobs abroad cuts into the ability for citizens to generate decent incomes.
*Soooo Lawrence is overstocked in housing and retail for a town of this size. Not good for any economy.
*They want money for economic growth yet still have yet to reveal their thinking. Most people do not trust elected officials with money for something that might come up. Convention centers do not themselves make money...they are basically non profit. Climate controlled sport centers will not pay for themselves anytime soon if ever. Both are looked upon as possible generators of tourism dollars.... I say let private money do it all or don't build.
*The community needs to maximize our existing resources to generate tourism dollars in such areas as art,music,cycling and other sports events even swimming competition or golf. Lawrence has competition pools and golf courses....are either aggressively promoted?
*How much convention space does a town the size of Lawrence need? We would be competing with kcmo/joco and Topeka the state capitol. The same goes for any sports arena type activity.
*The Topeka sports arena is a huge load for the school district.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
It'll be interesting to see how many people show up at the polls if this sales tax is on the ballot. People like to complain, but they can't get off their lazy butts on election day. It took me less than 5 minutes to vote this last time. There was no line, which is quite pathetic. I'd rather wait in line to vote if that meant more participation.
If this is included on the next ballot, then I'm afraid the only ones who will turnout are those who want this sales tax so we can use other money on an ice rink. Please, don't let the soccer moms and stay-at-homes rule the city.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
These commissioners need a very large whack in the head. Staff and commission just a couple of months ago failed to cut any costs from the city budget. Each department manager came forward and could not see any way to save dollars , and some had the balls to request increases. They should have been fired that day.
Now the smoke and mirror group has put the tax on the table and the length of term on the table. I say Bullsh!t.
If they put this on a ballot the same day the recall petitions for all of them should be started. Throw the entire commission out. Want to see active voter retribution , go ahead make my day !
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
"When was the last time that a tax increased expired? 'it will sunset in 10 years':. yeah right!! They just want to make it long enough so you forget about it:. In ten years, we will be paying 11.5% sales tax"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly; reminds of the thought (promise?) that the turnpike would be fee-free after the construction was paid off....
NotALBERTOGonzales (anonymous) says…
I think I'm with JustTheFacts on this one.
I just did a walk through what's left of the RiverFront.
A coyote stole my shoe.
merrill (anonymous) says…
If the library is put to a vote will it be a:
* 8 million dollar on site improvements
* 17 million dollar project ( no parking package)( only package that gets my vote)
* 30 million dollar project
* 50 million dollar project
* no improvements
* Why is a $10 million parking project attached to the cost of the library?
=========
My vote is no on a superdome!!! Lawrence has space available in existing parks for more ball diamonds and outdoor soccer space plus YSI. What is the likelihood of payback on this project, that will require a variety of staffing, considering the tremendous amount of competition from kcmo/joco and Topeka for these dollars? The city commission has no idea.
=========
Both high schools could use The Free State Football field if citizens declare that field a neutral zone considering taxpayer dollars from all sides of town paid for it.
=========
Yes older infrastructure needs attention. Why continue with new infrastructure when we cannot afford what we have?
North Lawrence expansion. How do the powers that be(commissioners) know this will work? More helter skelter planning!
After reading todays paper the ballot should offer much more specific choices than what is offered above. It seems that the commission is thinking of a package deal which I will not support for any reason. This would be the Washington D. C. extortion approach. No Way! Anything can become infrastructure if tax dollars are the source of funding.
10 years of tax increases based on vague language simply is not good enough. Exactly how will the money be spent?
How about:
A. Tax Increase
1. no
2. 3 year plan
3. 5 year plan
4. 7 year plan
What exactly can taxpayers expect that is written in stone with each plan.
B. Climate Controlled Superdome and how much money
1. no
2. yes
C. Library
* yes
* No
* 8 million dollar on site improvements
* 17 million dollar project ( no parking package)( only package that gets my vote)
* 30 million dollar project
* 50 million dollar project
* no improvements
* Why is a $10 million parking project attached to the cost of the library?
D. Streets and sidewalks for east Lawrence plus hike and bike trail such that west Lawrence has.
1. yes
2. no
Based on what I know today my vote was no on the ljw survey.
http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2007/au...
Godot (anonymous) says…
The sales tax increase is not the end of the world. The thing is Hack wants to use it to create another liability that will increase the general operating budget, and will therefore require another tax increase in the future.
nonononononononono
Godot (anonymous) says…
Wouldn't it have been novel for the commissioners to present to the voters a specific amount for a new library, and then put out bids to see what they can get for that amount? Instead they expect us to approve a "vision" with no set dollar amount, other than the increasing amount they extort from us.
The answer is still no.
merrill (anonymous) says…
If the library remains at its' current location money still needs to go into the structure as a serious maintenance project inside and out. It is a busy place. The landscaping could use some new creativity. Take care of what we've got which has not been a strong point in this city for at least 20 years.
Godot (anonymous) says…
I protested my valuation on the basis of land value. My 7000 sq ft lot was valued the same as my neighbors' 21000 sq ft lot. The appraiser said that all lots in the same neighborhood were valued the same, regardless of size.
Note the article this weekend about the valuation for Alvamar having been cut in half. How many additional tax dollars have the rest of the citizens of Lawrence had to pay to subsidze the undervaluation of Alavamar? And who approved this?
I will back a commissioner, be it for county or city, who promises an overhaul of the appraisal proecess, and who commits to a complete clearing of the office of the County Appraiser.
Stain (anonymous) says…
No
458casul (anonymous) says…
douglas county to take over city