|
If council reneges on promise, it would set a bad precedent Jun. 23, 2006 12:00 AM Six members of the City Council have noble reasons for keeping the property tax rate where it is now at $1.40. Times are good, and there are plenty of important projects that need to be done, namely, accelerating the completion of a 20-year park renovation plan. Some members also recognize that this may only be a temporary boost in the economy. It's important, they say, to set aside extra funds for what may come. That's why the six members have rejected Mayor Hugh Hallman's plan to lower the secondary property tax rate this year. They want to leave the rate where it is and take another look at its impact a year from now, when the county's higher property assessments are expected to markedly increase homeowners' tax bills. Sounds prudent. But here's the problem: Secondary property taxes can only be used for capital expenses, such as renovated fire stations and park improvements. And those taxes can only be used for projects that voters have authorized in a bond election. So, in effect, a few million dollars collected from the secondary tax this year would be unusable. The idea, presumably, is to collect the extra money now and hold it until the council can bring forward another bond election. But that doesn't do much for trust in city government. The city just asked voters to authorize nearly $211 million in bonds to cover important renovations and infrastructure improvements. Even though Tempe voters are typically a bond-approving lot, the city could create a backlash for itself if it came back too soon with its hand out for more money. What's more - and most importantly - the $1.40 rate was supposed to be a temporary thing, a 5 cent increase enacted last year to fund an important public safety communications system upgrade. The idea was to levy the tax only until the system was paid for, or until federal funds were secured. Now that the city has a grant to buy the equipment, some council members are singing a different tune. Some have argued that they didn't necessarily say at a meeting last year that the increase was supposed to be temporary. But that certainly seemed to be the council's consensus. Going back on that premise now, even if there are perfectly legitimate uses for the extra money, is a poor way to run city government. Taxpayers need to know they can trust the City Council with their money. By not honoring a commitment to lower the tax, the City Council is sending a message that it won't necessarily do what it says it will do. And that is a mistake.
|