Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Revised sales tax for T sought

Group says proposed amount inadequate to keep buses running

August 5, 2008

Advertisement

City commissioners tonight may take their biggest step yet in placing a pair of sales tax issues in front of voters in November to save the city's bus system and improve city infrastructure.

But the problem - according to a Lawrence group - is that the city is poised to ask the wrong questions.

Members of Grassroots Action plan to argue tonight that the city's proposed two-tenths of a percent sales tax for public transit is inadequate and won't do much to secure the long-term future of the city's bus system.

"It would be sad and ironic if the sales tax proposal, after all this debate and discussion, isn't sufficient to keep the T going at an adequate level," said David Smith, president of Grassroots Action. "But we think that would be the case."

Instead of the two-tenths of a percent sales tax proposal, Grassroots Action leaders are proposing that the transit tax be raised to a quarter of a percent. That would require reducing the second sales tax question - one to improve streets, fire trucks and other infrastructure - from 0.30 percent to 0.25 percent.

Thus far, that idea is not gaining traction with the key architects of the sales tax proposal. Both Mayor Mike Dever and Commissioner Rob Chestnut said they believed that the two-tenths of a percent sales tax was adequate for transit and that it would be a mistake to reduce the sales tax dedicated to streets and infrastructure.

"I know there are a lot of projects that can use that three-tenths of a percent," Dever said of the tax, which has been proposed to rebuild several major streets in the city, buy fire trucks, improve sidewalks and address North Lawrence storm drainage.

Commissioners will discuss the sales tax initiatives at their 6:35 p.m. meeting today at City Hall. Commissioners will be presented with specific ballot language that they could approve to place on the Nov. 4 ballot.

City analysis

Smith said the city's proposal is setting up another future crisis for the city's bus system. He points to an analysis that city staff members did in June that shows a two-tenths of a percent sales tax would fall short of providing enough annual revenue to operate the transit system in future years.

According to the analysis, a 0.20 percent sales tax would allow the transit system to operate with an annual average surplus of about $210,000 per year from 2010 to 2013. But then as costs increase, the bus system would operate with an annual deficit of about $360,000 per year from 2014 to 2018.

The analysis - prepared by the city's public transit administrator - concluded that it would be "highly likely" that the transit system would need additional new funding in the next decade over and beyond the 0.20 percent sales tax. The analysis showed a 0.25 percent sales tax would produce enough money for the transit system.

City leaders, though, are questioning the analysis. City Manager David Corliss said he did not think the large deficits projected in the analysis were likely. He said the analysis was conservative in many areas, including a 2 percent annual growth rate for the sales tax revenues.

Chestnut agreed, saying he did not think the analysis took into account potentially significant economies of scale that could be obtained by merging the city's system with the Kansas University bus systems. The city already has signed a letter of intent with KU stating that merger is likely, if voters approve the sales tax.

"I dispute some of the assumptions," Chestnut said.

Other factors

But the analysis also left out some factors that could increase the amount of money needed to fund the transit system. For example, the analysis does not include any money for replacing the city's aging buses. It also predicts fuel prices to rise by 10 percent per year, which is much lower than the actual increase of the past year.

In addition to deciding on the amount of the sales tax, commissioners also will debate whether to combine the two sales tax questions into one ballot issue. Currently Dever, Chestnut and Commissioner Sue Hack have expressed support for making the transit and infrastructure sales taxes two separate questions on the ballot. Commissioners Mike Amyx and Boog Highberger have argued the sales taxes will have a better chance of passing if the questions are combined.

Comments

clyde_never_barks 6 years, 4 months ago

Close the F'er down! I am not paying one more cent...if you want to raise sales tax, great, we will start shopping in other communities.

LogicMan 6 years, 4 months ago

Keep the questions separate. To combine them is blatant demagoguery. Let the people decide.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Any significant increase in taxes will likely push the empTy from the 6th to the 5th largest City of Lawrence budget item"This is blatant disinformation which you continually try to foist off on the readers of this forum, Sigmund. The city has two main sources of funds-- property taxes and sale taxes, and you are ignoring the larger of the two sources, sales taxes, to come up with your complete distortion of the relative level of funding for the bus system. Even if the sales tax for the bus system passes, it will still be well down the list of city expenditures.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, I know where you got it, Sigmund. Problem is, you are looking at only the property tax side, which is the smaller of the two major sources of funding for the city. The larger source is sales taxes, from which the "T" currently gets ZERO funding. Those expenditures are shown in the lower right of the graphic you linked to.And even if the sales tax for the "T" passes, as I said previously, it will still be well down the list in total city expenditures.

BigPrune 6 years, 4 months ago

This town has been in a recession for 7 years now. Why hasn't the City cut staff to coincide with their ZERO growth policies? Why does the City have more supervisors than workers!?!?

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

Another installment of the LJW award winning series, "Chad Lawhorn Touts New City Taxes!" Part 45, "More is More Progressivey and Grassy, says Transit Administrator!""The analysis - prepared by the city's public transit administrator - concluded that it would be "highly likely" that the transit system would need additional new funding in the next decade over and beyond the 0.20 percent sales tax. The analysis showed a 0.25 percent sales tax would produce enough money for the transit system."Any significant increase in taxes will likely push the empTy from the 6th to the 5th largest City of Lawrence budget item ahead of Parks and Recreation, Health Insurance, Street Maintenance, Outside Agencies, Planning, Building Maintenance, Technical Support, Legal Services, Municipal Court, Street Lights, City Managers Office, and the City Commission. Where is the end of the line of this corporate welfare that is sucking resources from our entire city? When will the riders be asked to pay an increased fare?http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/27/where_do_all_my_tax_dollars_go/This Commission needs to either cut all existing departments equally (except Fire and Police) and raise fares for the empTy to at least 25% of the cost of the service ($2.00), or simply get rid of it and stop paying over $200,000/MONTH month after month $2,600,000/YEAR, year after year, in corporate welfare to MV Transportation.Increasing taxes sucks money out of the local private economy. Every dollar in new taxes is a dollar less to spend with local businesses. Vote "No" for ANY new taxes. Then vote against all incumbents in the next general election. Redo until we get a Commission that can live within a budget and doesn't attempt to extort more and more money year after year.

BigPrune 6 years, 4 months ago

spiderman and svengalli - like Jekyll & Hyde?

sjschlag 6 years, 4 months ago

We shouldn't even be having this discussion, but our spineless city commission has decided that it is up to us to decide whether the bus service stays. We originally decided that we wanted bus service in town and had set aside the appropriate funding for it. Now we are being asked to cough up more. My question is- where did all of this money go? where did the tax money that was supposed to support this system from the beginning get re-apportioned to? My sources say that taxes were cut several years ago when the housing boom was at it's greatest. This idea of cutting back when the economy is good and taxing when things go bad needs to stop. I don't want to pay anymore taxes than I have to, but I hate hearing about city services getting cut because we "couldn't see this coming." Of course we all saw this coming. The city commission should have acted quickly last year to shore up our tax income before this crisis hit. Instead, they are putting this all up for a vote. I'm a supporter of public transportation, but I'm not a supporter of an irresponsible city commission who refuses to fund city services at their current level. I'm looking forward to voting them out come april.

OnlyTheOne 6 years, 4 months ago

Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax, Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxTax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,Tax,TaxAh the Lawrence City Commissioners ya' gotta love 'em.

not_dolph 6 years, 4 months ago

No, barry's list works...and I was thinking more like... Ace & Gary.

Chris Ogle 6 years, 4 months ago

Vote!!!! This is a chance to decide our future tax burden. My opinion is we can't afford tax increases at this time. Also, Don't forget to Vote today ...primary elections

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:"This is blatant disinformation which you continually try to foist off on the readers of this forum, Sigmund. The city has two main sources of funds- property taxes and sale taxes, and you are ignoring the larger of the two sources, sales taxes, to come up with your complete distortion of the relative level of funding for the bus system. Even if the sales tax for the bus system passes, it will still be well down the list of city expenditures.""Budget item" is agnostic to the source (sales or property tax) and the size of the expenditure for the empTy is what it is. Anyway present YOUR numbers and YOUR source and we can compare. City Debt - 29.00%Police - 16.01%Fire and Medical - 14.74%Library - 13.49%Park and Recreation - 5.88%Public Transit $2.24 - 4.84%Health Insurance - 4.13%Street Maintenance - 3.76%Outside Agencies - 1.53%Planning Department - 1.32%Building Maintenance - 1.04%Technical Support - 1.02%City Legal Services - 0.78%Municipal Court - 0.76%Street Lights - 0.69%City Managers Office - 0.63%Human Relations - 0.32%City Commission - 0.06%Here is the 'infographic' I gathered my numbers fromhttp://www2.ljworld.com/photos/2008/jul/27/152321/If your point is it will only be the 6th largest expenditure, so be it. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/27/where_do_all_my_tax_dollars_go/This Commission needs to either cut all existing departments equally (except Fire and Police) and raise fares for the empTy to at least 25% of the cost of the service ($2.00), or simply get rid of it and stop paying over $200,000/MONTH month after month $2,600,000/YEAR, year after year, in corporate welfare to MV Transportation.Increasing taxes sucks money out of the local private economy. Every dollar in new taxes is a dollar less to spend with local businesses. Vote "No" for ANY new taxes. Then vote against all incumbents in the next general election. Redo until we get a Commission that can live within a budget and doesn't attempt to extort more and more money year after year.

optimist 6 years, 4 months ago

I can't support a tax increase when the economy is growing at its slowest rate in more than a decade and unemployment is rising. This will reduce buying power for many local residents who have little. I say combine the questions so we can vote no on both issues and finally put the T out of its misery. Then the funds ordinarily directed at the T can be directed at infrastructure and non-profits that already provide transportation to the disabled and elderly more efficiently. Then begin discussions with KU to determine how much it would cost the city to bolster their bus system to meet the city's needs.

BigPrune 6 years, 4 months ago

No, your list doesn't work. Jekyll & Hyde were the same person.

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 4 months ago

The question is do I want to continue to support a transit system that only benefits a very very small group of people at the expense of the rest of us. Answer: No!

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

Grassroots Action is like a spoiled, pouting child. The answer is NO!

szxty1 6 years, 4 months ago

I am tired of this commission's tax, tax and more tax policy. Vote No!!! Let the users pay for the service. Remember, your water bill is getting ready to go up and now they want to increase the sales tax, what's next? Cut your spending and conserve like the rest of us.

LogicMan 6 years, 4 months ago

"My sources say that taxes were cut several years ago"Not likely. The sales tax rate has gone up. Maybe they were thinking the property tax mil rate? But that still was not a "tax cut" because the property values were going up. The overall tax (sales+property) collections were very likely higher, therefore was a tax increase, and not a decrease.And don't forget the significant School Board tax increases."Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" may be applicable?

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Yes, I know where you got it, Sigmund. Problem is, you are looking at only the property tax side, which is the smaller of the two major sources of funding for the city. The larger source is sales taxes, from which the "T" currently gets ZERO funding. Those expenditures are shown in the lower right of the graphic you linked to."Doesn't matter to my discretionary income if the new tax comes out of my sales tax pocket or my property tax pocket it is still gone and money not available to spend with local businesses and it doesn't matter much to city finance which budget either. Many items in the budget are funded with both real estate and sales taxes. The empTy is currently the 6th largest expenditure of "property tax dollars" not an insignificant amount of money that is not available for police, fire, parks, roads, sewers, libraries et al. This Commission needs to either cut all existing departments equally (except Fire and Police) and raise fares for the empTy to at least 25% of the cost of the service ($2.00), or simply get rid of it and stop paying over $200,000/MONTH month after month $2,600,000/YEAR, year after year, in corporate welfare to MV Transportation.Increasing taxes sucks money out of the local private economy. Every dollar in new taxes is a dollar less to spend with local businesses. Vote "No" for ANY new taxes. Then vote against all incumbents in the next general election. Redo until we get a Commission that can live within a budget and doesn't attempt to extort more and more money year after year.

LogicMan 6 years, 4 months ago

"Annual report:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgct5zpx_0:"The total fares collected by the T (not the T Lift) last year were only:$155,640.99OMG, that's pathetic! Having the drivers instead stand on corners with donation buckets would result in more revenue.

PierreLeFou 6 years, 4 months ago

I wonder how Boog is doing on his new blinking tax. And for spiderman's pleasure, I am instantly on the other side of where ever Noam Chomsky is. Because, you know, I disapprove of Cambodian genocide, show trials, and suicide bombers getting all explodey on my bus. If Noam Chomsky were to call the sky blue, I'd get my umbrella.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

If the city commissioners would cut off pork barrel spending for developers Lawrence would not need a tax increase and there would plenty of money for the necessary for public transportation,funding older infrastructure maintenance and maybe a on site library expansion.Pork barrel spending tax projects dollars include new water lines,streets,traffic lights, new sewage treatment plant@50 million or more, north Lawrence prep for the warehouse project @$42 million,new fire departments,more LPD coverage etc etc. Lawrence Kansas does not need any of the above. Developers are dictating growth and demanding the above from taxpayers.Without new sewage treatment plant@50 million or more, north Lawrence prep for the warehouse project @$42 million and new infrastructure to the Schwada project public transportation could be funded for 22 years. Or fund the T for 10 years and fix the streets and sidewalks that have been ignored for more than 25 years.Instead of approving projects that add NEW streets and sidewalks to the taxpayer maintenance bills why not fix what needs to be fixed first...it's wiser and fiscally prudent use of tax dollars. Use money that is set aside for new projects on their agenda instead of raising taxes. City commissioners really want that .3 sales tax because they have NEW pork barrel projects like maybe a new TIF project downtown in mind instead of applying all of that money to fix older infrastructure. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans If the city commissioners would cut off pork barrel spending for developers Lawrence would not need a tax increase and there would plenty of money for the necessary public transportation,funding older infrastructure maintenance and maybe a on site library expansion.While the city commission has many of us in a tizzy over the T, that is keeping taxpayers distracted from the really big time high dollar local corporate welfare projects.

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:"But if that amount were tripled, combined with a merger with the KU system, there would be a very viable system that all but the most antisocial types, so well represented on this board, would ride, and ride often."I don't ride the empTy because I am anti-social, I don't ride the empTy because I am not a filthy looser with no job. Cut the crap bozo, I and 99% of Lawrence don't ride the empTy because it doesn't go where where w want and when I want. A simple trip to the store and back that takes two hours on the empTy can be accomplished in less than a half the time in a private vehicle. At approximately $2,600,000/year the empTy represents a huge waste of money. $200,000 per month, each and every month, every year, year after year, is NOT a insignificant nor paltry amount of corporate welfare to MV Transportation. There are other city services that are being hurt financially because of it. Triple that amount and except fire and police I can't think of any other City service that is as costly and benefits so few.If the riders had to cover 50% of the cost of a ride, $4.00/ride the empTy would die because they would find a cheaper way to get from here to there (car pool, walk, bicycle, moped, sharing taxi). This Commission needs to either cut all existing departments equally (except Fire and Police) and raise fares for the empTy to at least 25% of the cost of the service ($2.00), or simply get rid of it.Increasing taxes sucks money out of the local private economy. Every dollar in new taxes is a dollar less to spend with local businesses. Vote "No" for ANY new taxes. Then vote against all incumbents in the next general election. Redo until we get a Commission that can live within a budget and doesn't attempt to extort more and more money year after year.

igby 6 years, 4 months ago

What a pissmire of taxsopathic tropsy!Vote no!Send the rooter's back to SF!We need all new CC's that are willing to slash and burn the budget.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Those who hate public transportation get on here and complain.But those who support public transportation are the majority of voices heard at the City Commission meetings."That pretty well sizes it up. Even though the discussion of the sales tax proposals didn't even start till well after ten, there were still a number of concerned citizens who showed up, and everyone of them was in favor of doing what it takes to make the "T" a viable and useful system. Not that it did any good. Hack, Dever and Chestnut might as well have been on Mars, as they had clearly made up their minds how they would vote weeks ago. They were all almost comically defensive about it, especially Dever. The most comical aspect of the night was when they asked Corliss whether the funds for infrastructure and those for transit could be kept separate if they were both included in one ballot measure. He assured them they could be, but they continued to contend that someday all that money would be sucked up by the evil bus system, even though Corliss had just explained to them otherwise.While they gave lip service to wanting the vote on the "T" to pass, clearly, the message from on high is that the infrastructure tax needs to pass, while the "T" can be a sacrificial lamb.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Doesn't matter to my discretionary income if the new tax comes out of my sales tax pocket or my property tax pocket"Exactly my point, Sigmund. But you were more than willing to separate them in an effort to distort the reality of how much of the overall budget is spent on the public transportation.Despite all the petty whining here about the relatively paltry amount spent on public transportation, even if the budget on the "T" were tripled, it'd still be down somewhere in the middle of the list in terms of overall expenditures, and well less than the amount spent on the fire or police departments, parks and rec or on road repairs. But if that amount were tripled, combined with a merger with the KU system, there would be a very viable system that all but the most antisocial types, so well represented on this board, would ride, and ride often.

Phil Minkin 6 years, 4 months ago

clyde_never_barks (Anonymous) says: Close the F'er down! I am not paying one more cent:if you want to raise sales tax, great, we will start shopping in other communities.Let us know how much you spend on gas going to Topeka or KC to save .5cents here.

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Badly underfunded police and fire departments would not adequately provide essential services. Neither can a badly underfunded public transit system. But the correct solution isn't to abolish them. The correct solution is to adequately fund them."If we had the money we could gold plate the buses and still less than 5% would ride them and it would be a waste of even more money and what is inadequate about the current funding anyway? If we spent more money more would ride? Huh? If the buses dripped the tears of baby foxes instead of spewing diesel fumes Lawrencian's still wouldn't ride them in sufficient numbers to justify them. If we had the money we could build a monorail and it still isn't needed in a town of 80,000 with zero growth and a KU bus system.just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "BTW, as badly underfunded as the transit system is, it actually does provide essential services to many hundreds of people. There is nothing out there that can take up the slack if the "T" goes down, and your ideological tirades don't change that, Sigmund. What's your solution for those people? Will you just send them a sympathy card, and then tell them to suck it up?"Buy a car, car pool to work, take a taxi, ride a bike, walk, do all the things that people did for years without buses. If all that many of the bus rides were essential then the riders would willing pay $2.00-$4.00 for their "essential ride." If they won't then it isn't essential and other options exists.My "tirade" is the Commission needs to EITHER cut all existing departments equally (except Fire and Police) and raise fares for the empTy to at least 25% of the cost of the service ($2.00), or simply get rid of it, one or the other.

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "By your logic, if we cut the funding to the police and fire departments by half, the resulting failures in their ability to carry out their functions would be grounds for abolishing them altogether."Fire and police are essential services for a city of 80,000 and provide great value and everyone benefits. Running empTy buses around Lawrence a town that isn't growing appreciably is waste of $8.00/ride, especially when those riders are unwilling to pay 25% of the cost per ride ($2.00). If Lawrence was 800,000 or didn't have a KU bus system to get students on and off campus the economics might be completely different. just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "While they gave lip service to wanting the vote on the "T" to pass, clearly, the message from on high is that the infrastructure tax needs to pass, while the "T" can be a sacrificial lamb."I'll vote no against ALL new taxes for whatever reason. The bus isn't "evil" it is a waste of money. Still, if the City wants it they need to raise the fares and cut everything except fire and police to pay the difference. Blame the pro bus crowd for their unwillingness to compromise as well. Regardless these dire threats every year from every Commission if taxes aren't raised is crap. Lawrence's raises plenty of taxes they just need to grow a pair, tell a few people "No" and then learn to set their priorities with the money they have even if that means wasting money on the empTy and laying off workers or reducing other services.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"I and 99% of Lawrence don't ride the empTy because it doesn't go where where w want and when I want.."Yep-- it's an underfunded system that performs inadequately. Designed for failure by those who need it to fail as validation for their precious ideology.By your logic, if we cut the funding to the police and fire departments by half, the resulting failures in their ability to carry out their functions would be grounds for abolishing them altogether.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Badly underfunded police and fire departments would not adequately provide essential services. Neither can a badly underfunded public transit system. But the correct solution isn't to abolish them. The correct solution is to adequately fund them.BTW, as badly underfunded as the transit system is, it actually does provide essential services to many hundreds of people. There is nothing out there that can take up the slack if the "T" goes down, and your ideological tirades don't change that, Sigmund. What's your solution for those people? Will you just send them a sympathy card, and then tell them to suck it up?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Why anyone pays any attention to the guy is beyond my comprehension."No one pays more attention to him than you do, glock. You're downright obsessed.

clyde_never_barks 6 years, 4 months ago

clyde_never_barks (Anonymous) says:Close the F'er down! I am not paying one more cent:if you want to raise sales tax, great, we will start shopping in other communities.foodboy (Anonymous) says: Let us know how much you spend on gas going to Topeka or KC to save .5cents here.clyde replies...doesn't matter foodboy. I am already there on business in either community 2-3 days a week, so can plan my purchases accordingly. I'm only one purchaser, but can vote with my dollars. Heck, sales tax is more in OP and Topeka than in Lawrence...catching my drift yet?I'm not interested in supporting a money waster that benefits only a few people. Raise the rates. Take a cab. Thumb a ride. I don't care. If my business is losing money, I am going to make changes to save the business and produce a revenue flow that supports my operation...Lawrence can do the same thing.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.