-
Editor’s note: We have a good discussion going on Grass Valley politics. Even “Timothy Rickets” is welcome if he signs his name — and reverts from name calling. I think the same points could be raised about Measure “L,” the similar sales tax initiative in Nevada City. Will the REAL fiscal conservatives please stand up.• mark johnson, on October 4, 2012 at 6:36 pm said: Edit Comment
Yo,
Below is 12 year history(and projected for current year) of GV’s General Fund(GF), and the two biggest contributors to the GF, property tax(Average 20% of GF), and sales tax(average 45% of GF). GV hit a peak sales tax revenue in the boom years of 2006/7, and sales tax begin to decline in the following years, and hit a 12 year low in FY 2009/10. If measure N passes, GV’s sales tax revenue will grow by 50%(currently the city portion is 1%, and Meas N will add .5%, new total would 1.5%) The City will see an instant increase of over 2 million dollars. The GF will grow in one year to a 12 year high. The decrease in sales tax from 2006/7(peak) to current year is about 1 million. Measure N will DOUBLE that decrease in 1 year. I can not support Meas N because it is too general(by design!), and if a few Council people can not stay within a small budget for travel, why should the citizens trust them with millions! The better alternative is a specific/special tax(I know it takes 2/3 vote,etc). Note to Michael A. – yes, I think the Police Dept needs more money, as you pointed out the PD is 43% of the GF, and they have taken a huge hit since 2006/7. I support more $$$ for police and fire, but it needs to be raised via a special tax.Gen Fund $P Tax S Tax 1%
FY 2001-02 $7,768,640 $1,315,609 $3,512,532
FY 2002-03 $7,645,297 $1,288,951 $3,881,370
FY 2003-04 $7,640,138 $1,404,430 $3,844,199
FY 2004-05 $9,483,043 $1,529,664 $4,702,155
FY 2005-06 $10,842,573 $1,907,250 $5,262,732
FY 2006-07 $11,390,336 $1,913,397 $5,359,479
FY 2007-08 $11,596,841 $2,047,292 $5,177,636
FY 2008-09 $10,587,865 $2,285,512 $4,430,453
FY 2009-10 $9,838,994 $2,319,902 $3,753,844
FY 2010-11 $9,769,933 $2,272,285 $4,094,082
FY 2011-12 $9,814,877 $2,292,455 $4,095,525
FY 2012-13 $10,094,382 $2,170,000 $4,438,400
Filed under: Uncategorized
Steve Enos, what do you have to say about all of this?
Mark:
Do these numbers reflect changes resulting from the so-called “triple flip” that reduced sales tax to cities from 1% to something like .078% and an increase in property tax a few years ago? The state knew that the real cash cow was sales tax, so they took more for themselves and justified it by giving cities a larger share of property tax.
For Nevada City, the sales tax decrease began with the triple flip and was something that had to be kept in mind whenever we tried to compare apples with oranges.
I agree with you –– the council should have tried for a specific tax, rather than a general tax that will go into the black hole known as the General Fund. Having a specific need –– and making sure that all residents would benefit –– is why Nevada City’s Measure S for street and sidewalk repairs passed with such overwhelming support.
Hi Steve,
I pulled the numbers from the audited budgets(except 2011/12 not audited, and 2012/13 adopted in June 2012). Numbers should include the triple flip adjustments. NC’s measure S is the model on how to run a campaign asking for extra money. I was on the Council in 1996 when we asked voters to approve a property tax to specifically fund firefighters – It passed big – 80%+/- I think.
Asking for general funds only takes 50% & 1, but I think the electorate is very skeptical of these types of measures. The electorate gets it and wants to know where their extra tax is going. Define the need, explain why the City can not afford it, and ask for help – makes sense to me.
Sorry you will not be in Calif to enjoy the Bay Bridge series!
Mark
Interesting points. Regarding the Nevada City sales tax increase, unfortunately, it will be going into the black hole known as the General Fund (if passed) with no accountability. However, according to the city’s allocation spreadsheet presented a few months ago 37 – 40% of the increase over 5 years will be going to raises for top management positions. I would speculate that 90% of the citizens are unaware of this. While the election documents prepared probably meet the minimum legal standards the city is deceiving the voters by not mentioning this fact.
Also, I see the Nevada City political “machine” is at it again putting up fancy “Yes on Measure L” signs around town. I wonder who paid for those?
Good questions, Steve.