ASHEVILLE – With the City Council primary election three weeks away, it’s almost time for voters to make their choices from a crowded field of 15 candidates.
Two key questions: Was this summer’s 1.5-cent property tax increase justified? What about the $2.50 garbage fee hike?
To help voters decide, the Citizen-Times compiled this comparison on taxes and spending.
Candidates were asked whether they agreed with the property tax increase passed by the council. For the owner of a $150,000 home, the increase means an additional $22.50 annually. The new tax is expected to collect $1.7 million.
In justifying the hike, council members who voted for it said the city is under budget pressure that includes new state laws that cut city revenue. The biggest is the loss of $1.5 million annually from the statewide elimination of a business privilege license fee. Supporters of the tax increase said they wanted to fund $1.7 million in city employee raises.
Candidates also were asked whether they supported the decision to raise household garbage fees from $7.50 to $10 a month. The plan calls for the fee to go up again next year. The idea is to move garbage away from an automatic service so that residents will eventually pay based on trash weight.
Finally, candidates were asked what other programs they would fund and how they would do it.
Candidates were sent the questions on Sept. 5. Two, Rich Lee and Lavonda Nicole Payne, did not submit answers.
Respondents were asked to keep answers short. They were grouped according to their stances and by who answered first.
Four said the increases were needed. They included the only incumbent, Vice Mayor Marc Hunt. Five said they wouldn’t have voted for either raise. Three supported one increase but not the other. One candidate, Grant Millin, didn’t say, but offered a new budgeting approach.
Some went into detail, giving the nitty-gritty of where money would come from. Lindsey Simerly said she would raise parking fees to boost affordable housing. Others, such as Dee Williams, said they would find savings through close-up budgetary reviews. Williams said she would look for an across-the-board cut in basic supplies. Brian Haynes said he would raise fees at the city’s main entertainment venue and for dog owners.
Ken Michalove and other candidates opposing the hikes also criticized the 2013 decision to promise $2 million to a $24 million Asheville Art Museum renovation project. The council raised taxes 3 cents that year. Money went to a variety of capital projects and would go to the museum only after a majority of funding was raised privately. Michalove said the increase was unnecessary because the museum work hasn’t started yet. But City Finance Director Barbara Whitehorn said the tax money “absolutely” has been used to pay debt service on sidewalk, road and other infrastructure upgrades.
Taxes, fees needed to keep services
Julie Mayfield, co-director of environmental nonprofit MountainTrue: I support the property tax increase for two reasons: I would not have wanted to cut services as a result of the legislature’s elimination of the business privilege license fee; and I agree that the city should set an example by paying a living wage. I support the garbage fee increase as a step in moving toward a system where households pay based on the trash they generate. Cities that take this approach, coupled with a robust recycling program like Asheville’s, see a dramatic increase in recycling rates. This helps reduce landfill fees, extend the life of the landfill, and save energy and raw material. I advocated for expanded bus service, which was not funded, and will again next year.
Lindsey Simerly, campaign manager same-sex marriage advocacy group Campaign for Southern Equality: State legislators are cutting city revenues and forcing cities to choose between raising taxes and cutting core services like police, fire and road repairs. I wouldn’t support cutting core services. Garbage — I support this but not a “pay as you throw” system that would hurt working families and increase litter. I support the raises for police and firefighters and a living wage for all municipal employees. City government must take leadership here. I also support the increases in road resurfacing and sidewalk construction. I would have added $600,000 to the affordable housing trust fund by raising parking fees and eliminating the free first hour in decks. I would reduce the budget for catering at events and meetings.
Marc Hunt, retired program officer from land conservation nonprofit Open Space Institute: I supported the changes to the property tax rate and the solid waste fee. Council’s revenue-neutral decision on the property tax rate was driven entirely by the General Assembly move to eliminate the business privilege license tax. I strongly disagree with the legislature’s effort to shift more tax burden onto homeowners. Our step on the solid waste fee reflects more of the true costs of solid waste management. Moving to a future “pay as you throw” approach will reduce our very expensive reliance on landfill disposal and allow us ultimately to reduce costs. I voted with my conscience that the tax burden we are placing on our citizens is in line with the level of service our citizens expect.
Keith Young, deputy clerk of court, organizer of African-American youth empowerment group Hood Talk: The hard truth is that the Republican dominated-General Assembly is systematically instigating tax warfare against communities across the state that are Democratic strongholds. If Asheville received all the tax revenue that it generates back from the state, we could not only have our trash collection, but also an excellent infrastructure and public transit system, and hold the line on taxes. Sadly, Asheville, like other Democratic strongholds, are being bled of money by our legislature in the exact same way that communist Russia used to prey on their satellite states. So unfortunately, until we can wrest control of North Carolina from the true “welfare queens,” we will have to pay an unfairly high share of taxes to cover budgetary necessities.
Fight the hike
Carl Mumpower, psychologist, former councilman and vice mayor: I would have challenged the increase for three reasons: One, at least as much energy should go into ways to save as to spend. Two, crafting separate fees for core services is a concealed tax increase and confuses the growing burden on property owners. Three, I’m more interested in the necessary than the nice. The wonderful potentials of the Asheville Art Museum should be funded by philanthropy, not working families, those on fixed incomes and others struggling in an increasingly unaffordable city. More funding should go to chronically understaffed basic services like street, sidewalk and park maintenance. Money could be saved by getting on top of the morale and politicization of our police department. Training, turnover and overtime costs are extraordinary.
Dee Williams, regional coordinator of ex-offender advocacy group Ban the Box: No tax increase. Property tax increases hurt those who can least afford it — the elderly, young folks, the working poor and renters. I would have cut “travel, toilet paper and toner” — operating costs of $42 million — by 5 percent for a savings of $2,105,269. This would have covered the $1.7 million. So, a tax increase would not be necessary to pay for raises. The additional $405,269 savings would be used to enhance system efficiency for the transit system, by either instituting traffic signal optimization or initial development of park-and-ride lots with beta testing of the utilization of shuttle buses from these lots to bring passengers downtown, or investment in efficiency systems like real-time arrival systems for transit.
Ken Michalove, former mayor and city manager: No to the increases. This council, Vice Mayor Marc Hunt, raised taxes two of the past three years and gave themselves a pay raise every year. In a $165 million budget, City Manager Gary Jackson could have found $1.5 million if council had said, “no tax increase.” The city’s $2 million tax for the Asheville Art Museum in 2014 was never spent and not scheduled to be spent until 2017. This council will have collected $6 million for a $2 million project! I plan to reduce the current tax by 3.5 cents. More money for basic services and infrastructure can come from in-depth review of operating budgets; limited use of outside consultants; and reviewing and re-prioritizing capital improvement plans.
John Miall, health-plan consultant, long-time city administrator: No. The city has to learn to live within its budget just like its taxpayers do. Millions for a museum and riverfronts are not essential and should not be funded until core services are fully funded without added fees. Taxes and fees were raised twice in three years. I favor a full audit of spending to identify waste and unnecessary spending. In 189 years of history, the city has never provided fewer services while gouging taxpayers with tax increases and constant new fees. Core services (police, fire, sanitation, code enforcement, parks) first, and anything else only after these needs are fully funded without fees. Needs like the Walton Street Pool should be funded with savings identified from a full audit.
Richard Liston, professional musician, former Research Triangle Park software engineer: No to the increases. I’d tax hotels on a sliding scale. If multinational corporations use Asheville’s infrastructure, they’re going to have to pay for it. I’d also meet with the fire chief, the new police chief and the head of IT about how we might make our operations more efficient. The city should seek tens of millions of dollars from the National Science Foundation and other funding entities to create — sourcing local engineering and architectural firms, educational institutions and all other local stakeholders — a transportation system that we can be truly proud of for the next 100 years. This system could serve as a blueprint for how other communities throughout the nation can solve their transportation woes as well.
The middle road
Corey Atkins, defense attorney, former Mecklenburg County assistant district attorney: No on the tax increase. Yes on the garbage fee increase. The tax increase was unnecessary. The increase was mostly anticipatory in nature and we just raised property taxes two years ago. I do not think it’s a good idea to raise taxes when the city is experiencing a housing crunch and traditional neighborhoods are being gentrified. Economic development needed more funding. I want to see the city continue to invest in diverse, living wage economic projects. If it is necessary to get the money from anywhere and no cuts are available, then the city always has the ability to dip into the leftover fund balance, which has a surplus the last two years.
Brian Haynes, Habitat for Humanity assistant manager, brother of musician Warren Haynes: I would have voted for the garbage fee increase but not the tax increase. Garbage collection is a core service; the tax increase is for discretionary spending in the general fund. I would have allocated existing tax dollars differently than this council — for infrastructure and transit upgrades including sidewalks, roads and extended bus schedules and routes. To shift spending, I would reduce economic development investments in tourism and contracted consultants. The U.S. Cellular Center is also requiring an increasingly larger subsidy than necessary. I would increase center fees, such as admissions and for city dog licensing. With budget as policy, I believe we should invest in infrastructure for citizens before we focus on any more commercial growth or development.
Joe Grady, home and business specialist Best Buy in Arden, former North Canton, Ohio, city councilman: The necessity in raising revenue was a direct result of actions by our state legislature, who took our funding away. This annual revenue, anticipated by the city, left limited choices to assist and support our city workers, while satisfying the call for livable wages for some employees. Under the circumstances, I would have supported the increase. As we’ve moved out of the recession, I would have prevented an increase in garbage rates this year by taking from the city’s saving fund and giving tax relief to the residents, while still maintaining a comfortable savings, until replenished. I believe there are creative ways to possibly reduce fees (taxes) on our residents and to limit future increases in our municipal services.
Something else
Grant Millin, strategic innovation services consultant: There are currently few good choices. On taxes, U.S. household wealth has hit $85 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. But, per Reaganonmics, the city budget is 10:1 local taxes, fines and fees versus intergovernmental returns. That should change. There are few “cost account” level details in city budgetary information. I have a Master of Project Management degree and have developed a “people’s budget” approach. Details are available in a highly interactive online environment I call “Open Strategic Innovation for Communities.” Either council members will fight for transparency, modern management practices — and for higher state and federal funding — or they won’t. I would offer that better practice along with positive action from new city executive staff and collaboration with the citizenry.
How does the primary work?
The Oct. 6 nonpartisan City Council primary hosts a crowded field of 15 candidates. (There will actually be 16 names on the ballot, but Holly Shriner dropped out in August, too late to have her name removed.) Candidates are vying for three spots on the seven-member council. On their ballots, primary voters will get to pick up to three.
The top six vote-getting candidates will advance to the Nov. 3 general election where the three winners will be chosen.
Leave a Reply