Salem Political Snark

Story of Salem firefighter's widow being denied benefits is more nuanced than outrageous

Look, I never pass up an opportunity to become outraged at something officials at the City of Salem have done. That's why I called this blog Salem Political Snark rather than Salem Political Praise.

So when I saw a story on KGW News a few days ago about how the widow of a Salem firefighter, Maurice "Mo" Stadeli, was being denied workers compensation benefits after her husband died of tonsil cancer because the city was asking the state Supreme Court to reverse a Court of Appeals ruling that approved the benefits, my outrage meter was prepared to rise into the Red Hot zone.

Mo Stadeli

Actually there were three stories on KGW, which you can watch or read here, here, and here. 

The last story was about how the Salem City Manager, Keith Stahley, announced at last Monday's City Council meeting that the Supreme Court appeal was being dropped. A Salem Reporter story about this quoted Mayor Chris Hoy as saying:

“I know we struggled with this decision before., and after further information and further reflection, I think we all realized that we made a mistake. And I don’t think it’s a sign of weakness to change your decision or admit a mistake. I think it’s just a sign of people understanding what’s right and what’s not,” he said. “ I’m happy that we are able to move forward and I am very sorry for the harm we’ve caused to Mo’s spouse.”

Well, I agree that it was a mistake, but it wasn't an outrageous mistake as I thought at first. For city officials had good reason to consider that while Stadeli's death was a tragedy, the cause of his tonsil cancer wasn't related to his job as a Salem firefighter for 28 years.

That was the conclusion of an administrative law judge, according to the Salem Reporter. But then the Workers Compensation Board and Court of Appeals ruled against the city.

In December 2019, the city denied the Stadeli family’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits. City attorneys later argued in court filings that it consulted medical experts who determined that a pre-existing medical condition most likely caused his illness. 

An administrative law judge supported that finding in an April 2021 ruling. But the state Workers Compensation Board reversed the decision eight months later, finding that the experts did not rule out firefighting as a cause, according to court documents.

Under state law, cancers of the throat and mouth are presumed to be a work-related illness if contracted by firefighters who have worked more than five years.

...The city in January 2022 sought a review of the decision by the state Court of Appeals. The court ruled on Sept. 13 that the city did not prove Stadeli’s illness was not work-related under state law, court records showed.

You can read the Court of Appeals decision here. It isn't the easiest reading, but my fairly quick perusal turned up some facts that ratcheted down my outrage at city officials.

Stadeli chewed tobacco. He had HPV. Here's an excerpt from the ruling.

We state the facts supported by substantial evidence consistently with the board's order. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8)(c). Claimant worked as a firefighter for over 25 years. He also chewed tobacco for “many years.” In 2018, a biopsy of claimant's right tonsil revealed an invasive squamous cell carcinoma that was positive for the human papillomavirus 16 (HPV-16).

All four physician experts who offered evidence in this case agreed that HPV is a cause of tonsillar cancer generally, and all three who evaluated claimant's situation agreed that HPV was a probable cause of claimant's cancer specifically. The three experts on whom the board relied in reaching its decision—Drs. Pierce, Orwoll, and Beer—also agreed that HPV was the most significant probable cause of claimant's cancer.

Those experts were also asked about the probability that either claimant's habit of chewing tobacco or his work as a firefighter were causally connected to his cancer. As to both, no expert was able to cite studies in medical literature supporting a connection between either tobacco or firefighting and tonsillar cancer, but neither were they able to definitively state that either had no connection to claimant's cancer.

My impression of the Court of Appeals ruling not surprisingly fits with how City Manager Stahley described it in the Salem Reporter story. There wasn't conclusive evidence that Stadeli's cancer was caused by his work as a firefighter, but there also wasn't conclusive evidence that it wasn't. 

Stahley became city manager after the city pressed for the Court of Appeals to review the matter and before that court made a decision.

He told Salem Reporter on Monday that the appellate judges who ruled earlier on the matter misinterpreted Oregon’s worker compensation law – requiring medical experts to have an impossible level of certainty about the cause of some diseases.

“If the court of appeals decision stands, the city of Salem and other Oregon employers will pay higher workers compensation insurance premiums and pay more in claims for some illnesses or injuries that are unrelated to working conditions,” he said at the time.

So city officials weren't acting like mean-spirited grinches determined to take away a widow's workers compensation benefits following the death of her firefighter husband. They sought medical advice about whether his cancer was related to his job. 

The general consensus, from what I could tell in the Court of Appeals ruling, was that HPV and chewing tobacco were likely causes of the cancer, with HPV being most important.

However, since mouth and throat cancers are viewed in state law as being occupational hazards for firefighters, the Workers Compensation Board and Court of Appeals determined that the widow was entitled to her husband's workers compensation benefits.

That seems fair. It also seemed reasonable that the City of Salem filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, given the specific facts in Stadeli's case.

Salem city officials playing some games with budget problems

Yeah, I know. The title of this blog post is kind of like a headline saying "Dog seen chasing a squirrel." What's obvious really doesn't need mentioning.

But even though we expect government officials to play games when they're talking about their budget, it still makes sense to point out specific instances of this so we don't become overly accustomed to the game-playing.

Yesterday the Salem Reporter ran a story about ways officials at the City of Salem want to cut the city general fund budget in light of a potential defeat of a controversial employee payroll tax to be levied on everybody who works in the city limits whether or not they live in  Salem.

The tax will be voted on in the November election because a business group gathered many more signatures than were necessary for a referendum petition after the City Council approved the payroll tax in a narrow 5-4 decision without a vote of the people -- even though most citizens who weighed in on this issue said the tax should have such a vote.

City officials have been saying that about half of the $29 million to be raised each year by the payroll tax would go to maintaining existing services and about half would go for new services. However, until now it wasn't clear which existing services those officials would want to cut if the payroll tax fails.

The Salem Reporter story tells us what those services are, based on a staff report to be discussed at next Monday's City Council meeting. 

Salemites may see more trash, slower emergency response times and the closure of the West Salem branch of the public library if voters fail to approve a new tax on wages in November.

That’s according to a new city report released Wednesday outlining proposed budget cuts over the next five years if the tax fails.

The Salem City Council will have a work session on Monday, Sept. 18, to hear the proposal and begin the conversation about changes to the budget.

“Obviously we’re not going to make any changes until November 8, when we know what the results of the election are, but we’re planning for that contingency and looking at what the impacts and ramifications would be to that,” City Manager Keith Stahley said.

That conversation starts Monday, when councilors will view a proposed list of specific cuts compiled through recommendations from city department heads. The proposal lays out cuts each year through 2028 to keep the city budget balanced without any additional revenue.

Keep in mind that city officials are barred from campaigning for the payroll tax, being government employees. So the proposed cuts are a backdoor way to urge citizens to vote for the tax. Note that city department heads came up with the recommended cuts, not a citizen committee.

So it isn't surprising that slashing funds for the West Salem and main libraries, along with homeless shelters, are some of the eye-catching cuts that city officials threaten will be made unless the payroll tax is approved by voters.

Unfortunately, since the Mayor and eight city councilors are unpaid and have no staff of their own, they have to rely on complex staff reports such as the one about the city's budget problems when agenda items are discussed at City Council meetings.

This means that the cuts arrived at by the department heads likely will dominate the discussion next Monday, even though other cuts might well make more sense.

My own view is that since the Police and Fire Departments consume most of the general fund budget, and there's good reason to believe that significant cost savings could be made in these departments, that's where most of the cuts should be made.

I hope that Mayor Hoy and the City Council will address the question of the ending fund balance, which jumped out at me when I perused this figure showing how proposed cuts in the staff report would impact the budget.

OK, the goal is to stay above the fund balance policy throughout the five budget years (bottom line in the figure above). But given the city's budget problems and the projected cuts, it seems that the goal should be to keep the fund balance as close to the goal as possible to minimize those cuts.

Instead, city officials are indicating that the fund balance ranges from $7.6 million over the goal in FY2024 to $1.6 million over the goal in FY2028.

Since the proposed cuts to Salem libraries are about $1.9 million over those five years, reducing the fund balance much closer to the policy would eliminate the need for those cuts except, perhaps, in FY2028. But if this was done, the headline of the Salem Reporter story wouldn't be so dramatic.

Which could explain why it wasn't done.

Councilor Nordyke says city officials have lost public trust

Way to go, City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke.

Vanessa Nordyke and furry friend

Your responses to questions asked by the Salem Reporter about the payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 margin without a vote of the people are a great example of speaking truth to power.

The Salem Reporter sent questions to the four councilors who wanted Salem citizens to vote on the payroll tax. Only Vanessa Nordyke and Jose Gonzalez responded in time for publication. 

Here's two of the questions, along with Nordyke's responses. I've highlighted in red her comments about the City of Salem losing public trust.

If you believe some source of new revenue is needed, what would you propose and how much would that raise? 

Given the ever-changing cost  of inflation, housing, and gas, the moment you quote a number it becomes out of date. I can tell you one thing: I would not propose a payroll tax that bypasses the voters! I would’ve held listening sessions with the community and business leaders about how best to raise revenue rather than unilaterally passing a payroll tax. Unfortunately, people are so outraged by the payroll tax vote that anything the city says now is likely to fall on deaf ears. Trust has been broken. 

Do you believe councilors and city leaders have done enough to seek a regular source of state funding to compensate the city for losses from non-taxable state property in city limits? If not, what would you do differently?

Not even close. Most people have no idea that city leadership tried to get state funding. They missed opportunities to invite city councilors, local leaders and voters to join forces. The city could have rallied the people to write letters to legislators and sign up to testify at the Oregon Capitol. Residents could have called their legislators to take action. We could’ve come together as a community to make the ask, but that’s just not how the city does things.

Had the city done this, the response from lawmakers might’ve been quite different. Even if lawmakers still said no, the city and its residents would have emerged united in purpose, with a shared understanding of our budgetary reality. At that point, we could have met as a community to decide where we go from here. But the city didn’t use that path. Instead, the city unilaterally passed the payroll tax and refused to even continue the July 10 hearing to allow for more testimony.

When we include the public, we gain trust. When we exclude the public, we lose trust.

Instead of inviting the public into a transparent, meaningful, and inclusive discussion of our budgetary challenges, most residents felt blindsided by the payroll tax.

City government struggles with transparency. Outreach, transparency and community engagement are rock bottom on the city’s priority list. The city’s “we know best” mentality is exactly why people are outraged over the passage of the payroll tax without taking it to the voters.

I couldn't agree more. The payroll tax fiasco shows that city officials do indeed have a "we know best" mentality that fosters a mistrust of citizen involvement. Now the City of Salem faces an uphill battle in getting voters to approve the payroll tax in the November election.

As Nordyke repeatedly says above, it's tough to get citizens to trust city government when that government didn't trust the citizens enough to ask them to vote on the payroll tax. A business group had to gather about 13,000 signatures of Salem voters for a referendum petition to put the tax on the November ballot.

Now that's citizen involvement. 

Nordyke also made some excellent points about ways the City of Salem could be making the Police Department more efficient and effective, which could eliminate the need for the police funding included in the payroll tax proposal.

She's a strong advocate for a civilian-based mobile crisis unit similar to the highly successful CAHOOTS program in Eugene that has markedly reduced the number of 911 calls responded to by police officers.

In response to a Salem Reporter question, Nordyke said:

I agree with funding police as a general rule. But, I don’t agree that we should be paying police officers to form a homeless outreach team. The city could pay crisis workers to perform homeless outreach at a lower rate than police officer salaries.

...Despite my urging, the city considered but ultimately rejected including $300,000 for a mobile crisis unit (MCU) in the payroll tax. The payroll tax will raise over $27 million a year in additional revenue (if it is passed by the voters). Council discussed including $300,000 out of that $27 million to help fund an MCU. The final payroll tax voted upon by Council excluded the MCU funding. 

...An MCU is a 911-responsive unit of trained mental health workers and crisis workers who can respond to calls involving mental illness, substance abuse and homelessness. Mobile crisis units free up first responders and emergency rooms for higher acuity 911 calls. This payroll tax is being touted as a tax designed to address homelessness and public safety. Without an MCU, this tax fails to address a big chunk of our homelessness and public safety needs.

...This payroll tax prioritizes policing homelessness over ending homelessness. Policing homelessness doesn’t reduce homelessness, but it sure does cost a lot of taxpayer money.

I would use the last several annual surveys of City residents as a guide towards prioritizing what to keep and what to cut. Time and time again, those surveys told us to make addressing homelessness our top priority. The payroll tax doesn’t do that. People feel that the city isn’t listening to them.

There's a simple reason people feel that way. They're right. The city isn't listening to them.

Salem payroll tax faces likely defeat in November vote

Nothing is certain when it comes to voting.

So even though the controversial payroll tax passed by the Salem City Council on a narrow 5-4 margin will be on the November ballot, since a referendum petition has gotten more (probably way more) than the required 4,000 signatures, this doesn't mean that the tax will be defeated.

It just seems likely, given that conservatives hate new taxes, progressives don't like regressive taxes that hit lower income workers at the same rate as higher income workers, and everybody dislikes it when politicians refuse to allow a vote of the people on an important issue -- which is what the City Council did.

Today we discussed the payroll tax at a meeting of the monthly Salon discussion group that my wife and I belong to. 

The general consensus was that the tax is likely to fail, given how badly the City Council has handled this issue. Somehow the five members who voted for the tax, which included Mayor Hoy, have managed to irritate all sides of the political spectrum.

That doesn't bode well for the tax, especially since the referendum petition drive collected more than triple the number of signatures than the 4,000 required to get on the ballot. But again, anything is possible when it comes to politics. 

Possible is just different from likely.

If the tax does fail, our discussion group felt that it should be revised in a future incarnation to tax workers who make, say, under $75,000 a year at a considerably lower rate than workers making more than that. This would blunt the (correct) argument that the tax is regressive in its current form.

It also would be nice if the City of Salem would be more honest with citizens about what the estimated $29 million a year would be used for. I keep seeing references that this money is needed to preserve funding for existing services.

That's only half true, since an April 2023 City of Salem staff report said that about half of the money would go for existing services and about half of the money would go for new services. (The tax rate that ended up being selected was .814%, but the total to be raised is close to what's shown below.)

The way I see it, voters probably would be willing to approve a payroll tax that raised less money if it didn't hit lower income workers so hard, and if most of the money went to fund homeless services such as the Navigation Center. Police and Fire already get the majority of general fund dollars, and there is a lot of inefficiency in how these departments are managed.

Payroll tax debacle could hurt progressives on City Council

It looks likely that the effort to gather 4,000 signatures of Salem registered voters in order to force a referendum vote on the employee payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 vote is going to succeed.

A Salem Reporter story says that Let Salem Vote has already gotten 4,000 signatures and is seeking 6,000 since some signatures will be invalid.

Throughout Salem, in front of grocery stores and at popular events, people with clipboards have been collecting signatures in an attempt to bring the issue of a Salem payroll tax to a public vote.

As of Tuesday morning, July 25, the campaign has gathered over 4,000 unverified signatures, according to Oregon Business and Industry, the group leading the effort. The group needs to submit at least 3,986 qualified signatures for registered voters within the city of Salem to get the issue on the ballot in November.

The signatures have not yet been validated, and the group is seeking at least 6,000 total signatures to account for errors, before the submission deadline to the City Recorder on August 9, who would then review the sheets and file it with the County Elections Division.

I donated $60 to Let Salem Vote because, well, I believe in letting Salem citizens vote on a significant new tax that will cost the average Salem worker earning $62,000 about $500 a year.

Assuming that the referendum petition gets the required number of signatures, the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council are going to have a tough decision to make: should they give up on the idea of the payroll tax, or campaign to pass the tax in the November election?

This reminds me of a similar dilemma faced by the folks at City Hall when their scheme to install parking meters downtown ran into a whirlwind of opposition that led to a referendum petition getting 9,000 signatures, if I recall correctly, much more than were needed to put a ban on parking meters on the ballot for the next election.

The City Council decided to toss the parking meter idea in a political trashcan rather than risk an embarrassing election defeat. I think the current City Council would be well advised to do the same with the payroll tax notion.

Their big mistake was to ignore the pleas of the vast majority of those who testified about the payroll tax to put it up for a vote of the people. If that had happened, the City of Salem could have made cogent arguments for the tax and had a decent chance of it passing this November.

Now, though, the imperious attitude of the five progressives on the City Council who voted for the tax -- we know best, so we don't want to put this on the ballot -- has ticked off a broad swath of the Salem electorate, conservatives and liberals alike, as this tweet pointed out. (Councilor Nordyke was the only progressive who had the good sense to vote against approving the tax without a vote of the people.)

I'm unsure which will be worse for Mayor Hoy and the other four progressives who approved the payroll tax: having the tax approved by voters this November or turned down.

Either way, there's going to be a lot of anger directed at "tax and spend" liberals on the City Council, which is one reason why, as a progressive myself, I favor the council withdrawing the payroll tax idea and keeping it as an option for a future election.

The Salem-Keizer Proletariat substack has an interesting article in this regard: "Far-right PAC uses Salem worker tax to launch grift." 

A collection of business and political groups appear to have a good chance at gathering the required signatures to send a recently passed payroll tax to Salem voters for their approval.

And while the petition effort is being led by Oregon Business and Industry (OBI), a significant portion of the signature gathering appears to be driven by far-right stalwart, Marion Polk First - an organization with a political action committee (PAC) that funnels campaign resources to some of the most extreme right-wing candidates and causes in Oregon.

...In fact, Marion Polk First made their motivations clear the very next day after the Salem City Council passed the working class tax. Their participation in this petition effort isn’t really about giving the people a voice, it’s about exacting political retribution on City Councilors that they are ideologically opposed to.

Nonetheless, the decidedly left-leaning Salem-Keizer Proletariat writer urged people to sign the payroll tax petition, since he believes citizens should be able to vote on it. Which points to the poor decision-making skills of the five progressives on the City Council who approved the tax.

They should have realized that a big new tax on everyone who works in Salem, whether or not they live here, was going to be highly controversial. It shouldn't have been a surprise to the Tax Without a Vote five that a petition drive to put this on the November ballot would both happen and likely be successful.

Now a November vote isn't going to be solely on the merits of the payroll tax and what the money would be used for, since the tax is tied in with the irritation of citizens of all political persuasions over the five City Council progressives claiming that they know best and no vote of the people was called for.

Except, it now appears that there will be a vote. Whether this will result in a threat to the current 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council remains to be seen. It certainly won't make Salem voters look more positively on those five progressive members who approved the tax.

Salem mayor and city councilors explain position on allowing payroll tax vote

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.

Let Salem Vote seeking signatures for referendum petition on payroll tax

I believe in the value of voting. Most people do.

That's why so many were upset when the Salem City Council approved an employee payroll tax on everyone who works in Salem, resident or not, without putting it on the November ballot, as virtually everybody who testified about the tax urged.


Predictably, given the intense widespread outrage over this action, a group was formed to challenge the council's decision. Let Salem Vote has filed a petition for a referendum that would put the payroll tax on the November ballot -- where it should have been from the start.

Here's how Let Salem Vote describes their effort.

Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) has launched an effort to refer the city of Salem’s recently adopted payroll tax to voters.  

On July 10, the Salem City Council voted 5-4 to adopt a nearly 1% payroll tax despite overwhelming opposition during public comment. The new tax will be a significant burden for employees, exacerbating the effects of steadily rising inflation and providing an incentive to seek work outside of Salem or stop coming to Salem for portions of work as they otherwise might have. For employers, the tax will create a significant compliance burden, especially for those with employees who work on the road, at various job sites, or on hybrid schedules.  

“OBI is headquartered in Salem, and we care deeply about this community. We have no problem with Salem or any other city asking voters to support levies for important local services. However, this proposal is vague, the tax is high, the administrative burden is significant, and there is little assurance as to how funds will be spent. At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote,” said Angela Wilhelms, OBI’s president and CEO. 

Preston Mann, OBI’s director of political affairs and a Salem resident, filed the petition on July 14. The city approved OBI’s petition that same day. Approximately 4,000 valid signatures from Salem voters are due Aug. 9 to refer this to the November 2023 ballot. To account for possible errors and ensure success, OBI aims to submit 6,000 signatures. Time is of the essence. 

Visit www.LetSalemVote.com to find out how to sign a petition, circulate a petition among neighbors and friends, or contribute to the campaign.

Mayor Chris Hoy and the other four members of the City Council who voted to pass the payroll tax without referring it to voters may regret their decision. 

Note the third paragraph in the Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) press release. Even though OBI will say that the petition just is for Salem residents to be able to vote on the payroll tax, that's language to attract as many signers as possible as quickly as possible.

It seems clear that OBI, likely along with other business organizations, is opposed to an additional tax on employees to be collected by Salem businesses and would like to have voters reject the payroll tax. The statement "At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote" indicates that there's a maximum: not only voting, but voting against the tax.

Worse for the City Council, if this does get on the ballot, opposition to the tax is going to be widespread. As OBI says, "For the average Salem resident earning $62,192 annually, the new tax will cost over $500 every year!" (Minor quibble: that statement should have said "average Salem employee," since the tax falls on everyone who works in Salem even if they live elsewhere.)

And aside from the obvious pocketbook concern, many people don't like that most of the $28 million a year to be raised by the payroll tax would go to hiring new police and fire employees, along with City of Salem staff needed to oversee the new tax.

There's scant evidence that the Police and Fire Departments are understaffed, or that efficiencies can't be found in these departments -- which already consume most of the City of Salem general fund dollars -- that would make the payroll tax unnecessary.

Yes, the plan also is for the tax to fund some homeless services. That's a good thing. But shoving more money at the Police and Fire Departments isn't wise, at least not without a lot more examination of how these departments could operate more efficiently and effectively.

I urge you to sign the petition if you're a Salem registered voter. Just click here. 

Shame on City Council for approving payroll tax by ignoring citizen input

Last night five of the six progressives on the Salem City Council approved a payroll tax that everyone who works in Salem has to pay, even if they don't live in Salem.

It was a shameful decision. And I've chosen to use that word, shameful, because Mayor Chris Hoy, one of those who voted for the payroll tax, got irked at Councilor Gwyn when she said to her fellow councilors, "Shame on you, shame on you." (Thanks to Salem-Keizer Proletariat for reporting that comment in an informative post about the meeting.)

I didn't attend the meeting, nor did I watch it online. I'm thankful that I didn't, since the 6 pm meeting ended around 11 pm, which is a ridiculously long time to expect citizens to put in to see their local elected officials in action. 

Rachel Alexander of the Salem Reporter attended the meeting, though, tweeting about it throughout the evening. Here's an example.

Alexander also has written a story about the decision, aptly titled "Salem councilors vote to tax worker paychecks after citizens overwhelmingly ask them not to."

The Salem City Council voted narrowly Monday night to tax the paychecks of Salem workers after listening to over two hours of public testimony overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal.

Councilors voted 5-4 to implement a tax that would have the average person who works in Salem pay about $500 per year to close a city budget deficit. The additional money would pay for existing police officers and firefighters and adding more of both and keep homeless sheltering services open after the federal and state money currently paying for them runs out next year.

The vote took place after 11 p.m., near the end of an at-times heated meeting where citizens spoke emotionally about the impact a new tax would have on their budgets, and councilors at times sniped at each other during deliberations.

“My earning power is decreasing rapidly. I’m very concerned that if this tax is passed I will not be able to afford housing,” said Margaret May, a Salem resident and state employee. She called approving the tax without sending it to voters “cowardly and shameful.”

A crowd filled the council chamber at the start of the 6 p.m. meeting but their numbers dwindled into the night as audience members looked on, at times snorting or applauding as councilors spoke about their intended votes. 

Councilor Julie Hoy led an unsuccessful effort to refer the tax to voters at the next general election.

The five councilors who voted for the payroll tax were Mayor Chris Hoy, Virginia Stapleton, Linda Nishioka, Trevor Phillips, and Micki Varney. The four councilors who voted against the payroll tax, after a motion to refer the tax to voters failed, were Julie Hoy, Deanna Gwyn, Vanessa Nordyke, and Jose Gonzalez.

The Portland Oregonian has republished the Salem Reporter story, which will help show much of Oregon that the Salem City Council is dedicated to ignoring citizen input in favor of going along with a money-raising scheme put forward by City of Salem staff, as a tweet from Angry Owl stated.

That last comment is right-on. The City of Salem does indeed work for the City of Salem bureaucracy, not the public. But the five city councilors who voted for the payroll tax, all progressives, failed to ask tough questions before they mindlessly decided to tax the average worker $500 a year.

Like, why should the Police and Fire Departments be lavished with $17 million of the $28 million to be raised each year by the payroll tax when those departments already suck up the vast majority of the city's general fund budget?

And, if the payroll tax is such a great idea, why not ask Salem voters to approve it at the November election? 

I came across a comment by Clifford Eiffler-Rodriguez on a Facebook post that was so close to how I feel about last night's outrageously bad decision, I'm including it below.

The funding mechanism for the tax is a mess. And puts undue economic pressure on workers and businesses based in Salem. It's an economic fail whale.

 

I live here, I work elsewhere. I won't pay the tax and that's fucked up. A big loss for the city. It's a poorly realized funding mechanism and needs greater scrutiny and revision.

 

Funding is only part of the question. The lack of accountability in pursuing this budget question with voters is another.

 

Our government is growing and increasingly complex. While there are means for the public to take part, like the budget committee and these public hearings, there is a steep burden to be politically active and engaged for many members of the community at large. We are fortunate to have so many people who take their time to help shape our city.

 

Belittling the public for not having "the facts" means you'd rather gatekeep then educate folks on the need. It's very callous to follow the example of the council and cut people out of the process.

 

But you can't ignore PEOPLE DID SHOW UP. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT. What was overwhelmingly asked was that this tax was referred to voters. The prevailing side cited a vote of 13-5 in the budget committee.

 

Last night the circle got a little wider. And only 15% of people currently support the tax as it is now enacted. A cascade of community members, leaders, and other affected communities engaged in the process and were summarily ignored.

 

Others shared how they collaborated with the council in crafting or mulling alternatives and are now having their work tossed aside.

 

When these officials are elected, they do take an oath to be champions of this city. Leaders in the community. What you are seeing is a LACK of leadership. They didn't want to do the work to include the public of whom they are asking more of.

 

That is shameful of the Mayor. Shameful of the councilors who approved it.

 

What we are doing now is not working. The strain is being felt by everyone. But to ask for more money to do more of the same, WHICH IS NOT WORKING, is infuriating and corrupt.

 

Many citizens took this council to task about the financial prioritizations of the various elements of the budget. These play a large part in triggering the need for additional tax revenues.

 

We have a council and City Manager who blithely carry water for two department heads [Police and Fire] , accepting the hyperbole sold by them as they fail to restructure to better meet our city's acute needs.

 

The city and its leadership are ignoring paths to financial responsibility in addition to finding the money to pay for SERVICES WE NEED.

 

When we include the wider community in the discussion, planning, and execution of this upcoming budget I am confident we can find the funding for the tools we need to serve our community more compassionately, efficiently, and be able to enjoy the transformation of this pretty little spot on a rock we all share.

 

These 5 took that power away from the community last night. They showed no leadership in that very act.

I'll end by saying that what struck me about last night was how much it reminded me of contentious City Council meetings when conservatives controlled the council. 

Back then, there would be lengthy meetings where the Mayor and other council members were taking some action to further the cause of a Third Bridge across the Willamette, which I liked to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

Lots of citizens would submit testimony against the Third Bridge, many testifying in person. But the City Council wasn't really listening to them, because their minds were made up ahead of time. So they'd try to look as interested as possible while clearly being disinterested in the public input.

Same thing happened last night, except now it was the progressive majority on the City Council who ignored the views of citizens and did what they were planning to do because city staff told them to do it.

Like the Facebook commenter said, that isn't leadership. It's the opposite of leadership. To my mind, shameful cowardice.

Time for Salem to ban fireworks, sale and use

Yesterday the City of Salem banned the use of fireworks, as did two fire districts adjoining Salem. Now the City Council should implement a permanent ban on the sale and use of fireworks.

The reasons given for yesterday's ban only scratch the surface of what's wrong with fireworks. Sure, high temperatures, low humidity, and wind gusts make setting off fireworks especially dangerous in terms of starting fires.

But those conditions are the new normal for early July in this era of rapidly accelerating global warming. Yesterday, Tuesday July 4, was the hottest day on record for our planet. The average worldwide temperature broke the record set just the day before. And not just by a little, by three tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. 

CNN — This week saw the hottest global temperature ever recorded, according to data from two climate tracking agencies.

On Monday, the average global temperature reached 17.01 degrees Celsius (62.62 Fahrenheit), the highest in the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s data, which goes back to 1979. On Tuesday, it climbed even further, reaching 17.18 degrees Celsius. The previous record of 16.92 degrees Celsius was set in August 2016.

The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service on Wednesday also tweeted that Monday’s global temperature was a record in its data set.

Experts warn that the record could be broken several more times this year. Robert Rohde, lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, said in a Twitter post on Tuesday that the world “may well see a few even warmer days over the next 6 weeks.”

I give credit to Salem's new City Manager, Keith Stahley, for banning fireworks this year, something the previous City Manager, Steve Powers, refused to do in 2021 when July 4 also was marked by drought and high heat. Now it's time to make the ban permanent. 

On July 4, 2021 I marked the occasion by writing a blog post about how bad fireworks are.

In brief, they start fires; they cause trauma to pets; they scare wildlife; they create highly toxic gases and pollutants that poison the air, the water and the soil; and one more that I neglected to include in the post: they harm veterans with PTSD and others who are triggered by loud explosions. 

Here's some recent fireworks-related comments from a popular Facebook page dealing with issues concerning the Salem City Council.

We've said before that the escalating illegal fireworks issue would lead to a total ban of all fireworks because for years now they've just thumbed their noses at complaints about no enforcement of illegal fireworks laws. To the point where it's ongoing for months at all hours. The 3rd was horrifically loud. Last night even SPD was talking about dangerous "massive explosions." City of Salem needs to start confiscating and ticketing. It's ridiculous.
--------------------
I completely agree. For all intents and purposes, Salem has allowed illegal fireworks to become legal, through years of lack of enforcement. A ban on legal fireworks today, while laudable, has done nothing to curb the bombs and other illegal projectiles from going off this afternoon.
--------------------
Last year the Salem Police Chief said that SPD would not be enforcing fireworks ordinances. This year the Fire Marshall issued a ban on all but organized (eg the City of Salem fireworks at the Fairgrounds) displays and then immediately went on to say don't report those who are illegally setting-off fireworks! The result of these bizaar actions of Salem's officialdom is just what we would suspect: fireworks use has gone off the scale! In my Wesst Salem neighborhood there are this evening constant explosions of very large fireworks.
--------------------
We spent part of last night with the dog in his thunder vest and a sedative, but it took him a while to calm down. This am I was out before 10 picking berries and sure enough, a loud boom which set off the dog and irritated the hell out of me. Frankly, I don't care why the damn things get banned, but this nonsense needs to end. I have come to dislike this holiday when it should just be a nice time to have a summer BBQ without sounding like we are in a war zone.
--------------------
We had two solid hours of a neighbor launching illegal fireworks from an illegal mortar launcher last night. There is no longer any fear of consequences…it’s right out in the open.
--------------------
I have always loved fireworks, but watching how my pets cower with the booms, and hearing of the fright faced by small children and individuals with PTSD, and seeing the danger they pose to vegetation, wildlife, and structures, makes me now want them banned. We don’t need personal fireworks or even public displays. Let’s ban them in Salem. Please!
--------------------
It sounded like a major battle going on across the street in the church parking lot. Plus it was a major clean up for the day care workers this morning.

It's crazy that the City of Salem allows the sale of fireworks at lots of stands set up all around town, and apparently has zero enforcement against illegal fireworks, then issues a ban on setting off fireworks on the very day of July 4, which means hardly anyone knows about the ban, and even if they did know, they've already bought their fireworks so are going to set them off anyway -- especially since there are no consequences for doing this.

Many cities in Oregon have banned fireworks. Salem should join them. Back in 2021 this was the list that I reported on in my blog post. 

These are the Oregon cities and counties that have banned fireworks: Portland (and bans sales), Multnomah County (and bans sales), Milwaukie (and bans sales), Tigard, Tualatin, Gresham, West Linn, Hood River, The Dalles, Newberg, unincorporated Clackamas County, Bend. Most of these places, like Salem, are in northwest Oregon. They have almost exactly the same weather and fire risk level.

City of Salem pays $3.5 million for vacant property near riverfront. Why?

Since I don't watch City of Salem Urban Renewal meetings on You Tube (got to save my time for Succession), until today I wasn't aware that the Urban Renewal board, which is the City Council under another name, had approved paying $3.5 million for 1.14 acres of property near the riverfront.

The property is marked with a red star. The triangular Park Front building is above it. The South Park apartments are below it. Riverfront Park is to the left of it.

As I'll describe below, this seems like a questionable thing to do. In fact, it strikes me as irresponsible.

A Statesman Journal story clued me in: On the agenda: Salem to consider moving $1.81 million to buy downtown property.

City officials are set to consider reallocating $1.81 million to help buy a downtown property during the Salem City Council and Urban Renewal Agency meeting Monday.

...During its April 10 meeting, Urban Renewal Agency members, which includes the City Council, voted to authorize the city manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement with Salem LTC Properties, LLC, for the vacant land at Commercial and Front Street SE for $3.5 million.

The property being bought is owned by the Marquis Company, which operates rehabilitation facilities. In December 2021 Marquis filed an application with the city to build a four-story mixed use building with a 72 bed rehabilitation facility on the upper floors and about 3,940 square feet of ground floor commercial space.

But Marquis determined that the project was infeasible and put it back on the market, according to the Statesman Journal story.

They found a willing buyer: the taxpayers of Salem, who fund the Urban Renewal Agency through a property tax mechanism. An Urban Renewal FAQ describes how it works.

What is urban renewal? 
Urban renewal is a public financing tool. Using a mechanism called Tax Increment Financing (or TIF), urban renewal directs property taxes on growth in assessed value within an established urban renewal area toward projects that will improve conditions in that area. The driving idea behind urban renewal is that the extra investment, and the expectation of investment, in the urban renewal area generates growth that would not have occurred but for that investment. This extra growth is what funds urban renewal projects, and ultimately provides additional tax revenues to the city as a whole.

Note the mention of "growth that would not have occurred but for that investment." But in the past this isn't how the City of Salem uses urban renewal, as I argued in a 2016 post, "Urban renewal crony capitalism is alive and well in Salem (may it die soon)."

The object of my ire was a $749,000 Urban Renewal grant given to T.J. Sullivan, a former Salem city councilor, for his Park Front building. Sullivan said he didn't need the grant to construct a building. He needed the grant because he couldn't get a bank to give him a loan to construct the larger building that he wanted. I wrote:

T.J. Sullivan admitted that the only reason he needs the $749,000 is to be able to build two extra floors on his four-story building.  
In his testimony, Sullivan went into considerable detail about the problems he encountered in getting a construction loan from Pioneer Trust Bank.

Given that Sullivan and his partners would only have a million dollars in equity invested in this $8.9 million building, and that only two floors had committed tenants, he said that it wouldn't be possible to get loan approval for the four story building he wants without a $749,000 grant from City of Salem urban renewal funds.

Sullivan admitted that he could have built a two-story building on his own. But Pioneer Trust wasn't happy with the appraisal, debt to income level, or occupancy percentage of his four-story project. 

Well, for most businesspeople that's a problem they'd have to deal with on their own. Find more equity/investors. Work harder at recruiting tenants. Reduce the cost of construction. 

But in Salem, urban renewal money isn't being used for the main intended purpose -- spurring private development that wouldn't have occurred without the leverage of public funds. Rather, Sullivan got a gift from the City of Salem that helps him construct a building that he said definitely was going to be built eight months before he applied for the urban renewal grant.

Basically, this is a public bail-out of a poorly-planned private project. Which is a pretty damn good definition of crony capitalism. 

I also noted in the 2016 post that the Marquis property which the Urban Renewal Agency is buying already had received several $749,000 grants.

Calling the current condition of the old Boise Cascade property blighted is absurd.
Urban renewal money is supposed to be used on redevelopment projects in "blighted" areas. Years ago, when nothing was happening with the Boise Cascade site, that word would have fitted the property. 

But after Mountain West Investment got a generous 10-year tax break to build the South Park complex, I've heard those apartments are fully occupied and commanding pretty high prices. Further, Marquis Companies got a similar $749,000 urban renewal grant for a rehab center as part of the deal Mountain West made when it sold part of the Boise Cascade property to the City of Salem for an expansion of Riverfront Park. 

So that's two major de-blighting investments of public funds already made on the Boise Cascade property. Further, as I said in my testimony T.J. Sullivan's Park Front building is on a site bought from Marquis Companies. So the same piece of property now is going to get two $749,000 urban renewal grants.

This is ridiculous.

So is the Urban Renewal Agency buying the Marquis property for $3.5 million. The 1.14 acres obviously isn't blighted, since Marquis had bought it, and T.J. Sullivan had purchased the property his Park Front building sits on from Marquis. That's a lot of recent commercial activity on the site.

Yet after Marquis determined that a mixed use development isn't feasible for the 1.14 acres, Salem's Urban Renewal Agency decided to buy it from Marquis for.... (take a guess)... a mixed use development. 

This is called an "opportunity" purchase by the Urban Renewal Agency. Question is, what does the opportunity consist of? This evening I watched a video of the April 10, 2023 Urban Renewal Agency meeting where the $3.5 million purchase was approved by the city councilors.

The agenda item was on the consent calendar where routine business like minutes of the previous meeting is approved on a single vote. That's what happened on April 10. There was no discussion of spending the $3.5 million. There was no mention of what the City of Salem planned to do with the property after it was acquired.

Councilor Nordyke did ask Kristin Retherford, director of the Urban Development department, about what was happening with the downtown property formerly occupied by the Union Gospel Mission and several private businesses. It also was bought by the Urban Renewal Agency.

Retherford said that criteria for assessing development proposals are being developed, and a list of potential developers made. When asked what the property would be used for, Retherford was vague. Mixed use, with housing required to have 15% affordable housing units. She said that it will be up to the developers to decide what is feasible given current market conditions.

So it looks to me like Marquis is the one who got the main benefit from this opportunity purchase. They were able to sell their 1.14 acres that was unfeasible for them as a mixed-use development. Now the City of Salem, not Marquis, will have to find a buyer willing to purchase that property for a mixed-use development. 

Not only that, but tomorrow, Monday, May 8, the Urban Renewal Agency has an agenda item proposing that $1,812,090 from Future Projects, Pringle Creek Trail Improvements, and Project Coordination in the South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area be shifted to pay for the Marquis property.

Thus say goodbye to the future projects and improvements to the Pringle Creek Trail.

And say hello to the use of $3.5 million in public funds to pay for 1.14 acres that will then have to be sold to a developer, even though private development in that area already is obviously evident: the South Park apartments and the Park Front building currently exist, with both having gotten Urban Renewal money in the past, just as the 1.14 acres got a previous Urban Renewal grant.

The only reason I can think of why more Urban Renewal money should be poured into the same Marquis property is that now city officials can require that some housing be built there, instead of just office space or another commercial use.

Otherwise, this seems like a poor use of Urban Renewal funds, especially since interest rates are so high and the economy could be headed for a recession -- which might make that property worth quite a bit less than $3.5 million.