OPINION: Proposed Increase to Real Property Transfer Tax Is Not a Commitment to Facilities Maintenance
Transfer Tax increase, as proposed, requires only a majority of voters to support the tax rather than 2/3rds required voter approval of identified purposes.
“Our facilities maintenance fund, which was established in 2003 to address ongoing and deferred maintenance of city owned facilities, has very little planned funding within our budget beyond FY 2019- 2020. The committee has recommended in previous budget analyses that in the near term (over the next 5 –10 years), minimum additional funding of approximately $850,000 per year is needed just to maintain the existing condition of City buildings, parks, streets and sidewalks.”
The lack of steady funding for Facilities Maintenance has been the sole justification offered by the Committee and City Council for the proposed increase in the Real Property Transfer Tax headed for the November 2020 ballot. The Committee warns the transfer tax will be a flat $2.8M for the next 10 years and recommends raising the tax to bring in $950,000 annually to address the maintenance “deficit.” Make no mind of the fact that the transfer tax averaged $3.4M over the past decade and is projected to reach $4.5M by 2030. The Facilities Maintenance fund currently has a balance of $5M and this year’s transfer tax was $3.5M.
Assume the Committee is right. If so, then why is there a such huge loophole in the resolution authorizing the tax for expenditures other than facility maintenance? The resolution notes the dire state of Piedmont facilities: “The increase in such tax is made necessary due to aging infrastructure which is escalating operating costs that outpace the growth of City revenues;” yet goes on to state:
“The tax would apply to the sale of real property until ended by the voters; and revenues from the tax could be used for any legitimate governmental purpose; this measure is not a commitment to any particular action or purpose. The tax is a general tax and shall be approved if the measure receives at least a simple majority of affirmative votes.”
“Not a commitment to any particular action or purpose.” So the new tax can be used for anything – salaries and benefits, new equipment, project overruns. The real reason for that clause may be to lower the vote needed for the measure to pass – general taxes only need a simple majority to pass.
Garrett Keating
Piedmont Resident
A parcel tax “to maintain the existing condition of City buildings, parks, streets and sidewalks” sounds like “a commitment to any particular action or purpose” to me. Thus requiring a 2/3rds majority vote.
seriously….. with unemployment, a pandemic & an economy that has hit the skids, you want to raise $$$ for a POOL??? which is what all this really is……just worded vaguely.
How about dedicating some budget $$$ from anywhere & have drive-thru virus testing. Isn’t health more important than this parcel tax increase?