The Salem Reporter (which I consider a subscription bargain for local news) had a great idea: ask Mayor Hoy and the other eight members of the City Council why they voted the way they did on the employee-paid payroll tax that ended up being approved on a contentious 5-4 vote this month.
Journalist Abbey McDonald did a great job with "Salem councilors explain their votes for and against the payroll tax."
I was particular interested in a question about why the City Council members either supported or opposed having Salem citizens vote on the payroll tax in the November election, since I was disappointed in the decision not to allow such a vote.
Now it looks likely that there will be a vote anyway.
Let Salem Vote, an effort backed by the Oregon Business & Industry organization, is working to get 4,000 signatures from registered voters in Salem that would be enough to place a referendum regarding the payroll tax on the November ballot, or apparently the May 2024 ballot if enough signatures aren't obtained by August 9.
Below I've shared the responses on the voting question from Mayor Hoy and six of the eight city councilors. Councilor Deanna Gwyn didn't respond to the survey and Councilor Trevor Phillips didn't address the specific questions. I've put "opposed" in red and "supported" in green to make it more obvious what the position of each member of the City Council was on the voting issue.
It's interesting that Mayor Hoy and Councilor Stapleton both said that the difficulty of organizing a campaign in support of a payroll tax measure was a central reason why they didn't favor letting Salem citizens vote on it.
This may turn out to be a bad decision, since it seems probable that a vote on the payroll tax is going to occur anyway through the referendum process. But the difference is that now lots of people are upset with the City Council ignoring the overwhelming majority of those who testified on the payroll tax who urged that the tax be voted on by Salem residents.
So it seems to me that Hoy and Stapleton made a mistake in thinking that it would be easier to implement the payroll tax without a vote of the people.
Actually, it's looking like that task is going to be harder after the decision to approve the tax by the City Council -- since that stirred up opposition to the council action that probably will carry over into opposing the payroll tax itself if the referendum ends up being successful.
Mayor Chris Hoy:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
“I have information about the state of the budget, demand for service and the urgency of the matter that the average voter does not have. I believe this tax is in the best interest of the community.
Passing a tax measure at the ballot box would require a costly campaign that would take a tremendous amount of time and money. Having just run the bond campaign, I believe the prospects of raising that amount of money and finding councilors willing to spend the time necessary to run a campaign would be virtually impossible.”
Councilor Virginia Stapleton:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
“Many don’t know this, but the City cannot help run campaigns, they cannot pay for them or offer any other support other than information. It would be up to the nine of us on Council to do the heavy lift. We would need to raise anywhere between $30-100k (the more the better), design the campaign, run the education and outreach and in the end secure the vote. Most of us have fulltime jobs, family obligations and our continuing work on Council. … I am also concerned that we would have a campaign in opposition to the measure and most opposition efforts are very well funded making them hard to compete against. In the end, I knew that although it was the unpopular thing to do, it was the right one considering all the obstacles.
Councilor Linda Nishioka:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
“American democracy is founded on the principle of representative government, where elected officials, such as members of Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, are chosen by the people to make decisions for the benefit of their constituents and community. One of their key responsibilities is deciding on taxes, as they can create, modify, and implement tax laws that align with the interests and needs of the community.
My elected officials decided on most of the taxes I pay and have paid.”
Councilor Micky Varney:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
“Expediency and urgency—in short, the gravity of the situation and the additional delay in that would have occurred had we waited 4 more months. With a delay, we would have been forced to start making cuts to programs. Slashing $13.9 million of community services which support park maintenance, our libraries, Center 50+, city-wide recreation programs would be devastating. Reductions to the permitting and planning department would further slow development and building of housing inventory. Trimming an additional $2 million from police and fire would increase risks to health, life and property. We’ve observed, from the ongoing Covid recovery period, how long it takes to get people hired and get the wheels turning again. Reinstating programs down the road at some point will be slow and will be more expensive as well.”
Councilor Jose Gonzales:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
"This is one of those issues most of them will personally feel."
Councilor Julie Hoy:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
“Because it was the right thing to do.”
Councilor Vanessa Nordyke:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?
"The people expect to vote on payroll taxes. Passing the payroll tax without taking it to the voters was a huge breach of trust. Based on the fact that we took three bond measures to a vote in recent history, and we were on the brink of taking this payroll tax to the voters in 2020, the voters reasonably expected to be asked for their vote on this tax.”
Here's how the the payroll tax would be used, according to a Salem Reporter story. Police, fire, and homeless services uses only add up to $24.9 million of the $27.9 million total per year, so the remaining $3 million is for administration of the tax.
The tax is expected to bring in $27.9 million per year. City officials say that would pay for sustaining and expanding staffing and services at the police department, fire department, emergency and medical services, code enforcement and services for unsheltered people, including the navigation center and micro shelters.
The police department will get nearly half, at $10.5 million a year, according to an April staff report. Of that, $7 million would go to sustain current operations, $1.5 million to fund and expand the homeless outreach team, and add an additional $2 million to hire 13 officers for a community policing program focused downtown. More on what that means here.
Homeless services, including the navigation center and three micro shelters, would get $7.9 million according to the staff report. Those programs are currently being funded with state grants and federal Covid relief money. The city otherwise does not have money in place to keep those services running beyond 2025. Read more here.
The fire department would get the next largest chunk at $6.5 million, according to the staff report. Of that, $4.2 million would go to maintain current services, and $2.3 million would pay for an additional 12 employees. Without additional funding, the department will not be able to operate two planned new fire stations to be built starting in 2028. More on that here.
I am no fan of the referendum. I agree with the principles set out by the majority. Ours is a republican system where we delegate to those we elect to act on our behalf. It ceases to work when every significant decision has to be referred to the people. Voters have keyhole mentalities. We love our city, as long as someone else pays.
The older I get, the less faith I have in the mass of people, more attuned to singing messages put into their heads by others than thinking as citizens and doing the hard work of thinking on one's own
That said, this is not a fair tax as it excludes residents who live here but have no income associated with work within the city.
Posted by: Richard van Pelt | July 22, 2023 at 05:01 PM