Des Moines Register. February 20, 2019
Des Moines voters should support the local-option sales tax on March 5
Do you live in Des Moines and think your property taxes are too high? Then you should vote to approve Public Measure A for a 1-cent local-option sales tax. The referendum is March 5.
Do you believe everyone who expects police protection, working sewers and plowed roads should contribute toward the cost? Then vote yes and encourage your neighbors to do the same.
Public Measure A increases sales tax in the city by 1 percent. The local tax - already in place in 97 percent of Iowa communities - will generate an estimated $37 million annually for the capital city.
Half that money will be used for property tax relief, which is desperately needed.
?Des Moines has many tax-exempt properties, including state government buildings, hospitals and churches. That leaves homeowners to bear the burden of paying higher taxes to fund city services - the highest in the metro area. If the tax measure is approved, an average home in Des Moines valued at $150,000 would save $158 in property taxes.
But even residents who do not own property should vote “yes.” The other half of money generated will be used for endeavors that shore up and improve quality of life in the city.
According to a resolution approved by city leaders, these endeavors include: accelerating street improvements and storm water improvements to reduce the impact of flooding; removing and redeveloping blighted properties in neighborhoods; expanding hours of operation for libraries; funding 13 firefighter positions for which federal funding expired last year; and providing additional support for mobile mental health crisis teams.
“A vote for Measure ’A’ will be a vote for Des Moines firefighters and police. It will help us fund critical investments in public safety, while improving response times,” said Joe Van Haalen, president of Des Moines Firefighters IAFF Local 4. “It will also go toward a much-needed, new fire station that will serve northeast Des Moines.”
The sales tax increase would not apply to groceries, prescriptions, medical devices, energy bills, gasoline or vehicle purchases. Spending will be reviewed annually and subject to regular public audit and expenditure reporting.
Perhaps most important, passage of the measure will ensure visitors, vacationers and commuters contribute toward the cost of basic city operations. Every year, thousands of people come to Des Moines for shopping, concerts, festivals, sporting events and activities like the Iowa State Fair. Capturing one more cent on the dollar from them will help fund the cost of the roads, bridges and sewers they use while here. It is estimated over one-third of the revenue generated will come from out-of-town visitors.
When someone from Beaverdale visits Jordan Creek Mall in Dallas County, they pay an additional penny to support that local government. Why shouldn’t shoppers coming to Des Moines do the same?
The measure will help the city diversify its sources of revenue. It will help ensure internet sales taxes are captured for local services. It is supported by a long list of organizations and individuals, including AARP Iowa, AMOS, Des Moines Police Officers Association, Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa and numerous neighborhood associations.
Actually, it’s difficult to understand why anyone would oppose the measure. Those who resist the notion of any tax increase will simply be voting to raise their property taxes if the sales tax vote fails, city officials say. Those who say they don’t like or trust government still expect someone to respond when they call 911. And passage is not a sure thing, considering 46 percent of the mere 12,500 Des Moines voters who turned out rejected essentially the same measure in March 2018.
(It did not go into effect because of “no” votes from some suburbs. A change in the law since then would allow it to take effect upon passage by Des Moines voters.)
Des Moines will somehow find the money it needs to fund basic services. Without a sales tax increase, more and more of that money will come from increasing property taxes. Voting “yes” on March 5 will ensure everyone, not only homeowners, contributes toward the cost of operating Iowa’s largest city.
Voting information
Registered voters in Des Moines can head to the polls on March 5. It takes only a few minutes to mark the “yes” box on the ballot. People can also vote absentee or early until March 4 at the Polk County Election Office, 102 2nd Ave.
Other cities voting, too
The cities of Alleman, Altoona, Pleasant Hill, West Des Moines and Windsor Heights as well as Des Moines are voting on 1 percent local-option sales tax measures March 5.
West Des Moines already collects the tax in the Dallas County portion of the city. This vote is whether to impose the tax on the Polk County portion.
Much of the same logic for passage applies to all cities: Diversify sources of tax revenue and ensure visitors and tax-exempt properties help pay for city services. By state law, half the revenue in each city would go toward property tax relief. Each city has adopted a resolution detailing how the other half of the revenue would be spent.
______
Sioux City Journal. February 17, 2019.
’Bottle bill’ discussion should move Iowa forward, not backward.
Iowa’s “bottle bill” is, according to one Iowa State University economist, “falling apart” after more than 40 years.
“It’s not going to work much longer,” Dermot Hayes warned in a Feb. 7 Journal Des Moines bureau story prior to presentations before state Senate and House committees considering changes to the law passed in 1978.
The problem, he said, is the legislation wasn’t indexed for inflation.
“The container recycling rate has fallen to about 71 percent, and the 1-cent handling fee doesn’t cover the actual costs for redemption centers,” Hayes said.
Our reaction?
We are open-minded to dialogue within the state of ways to modernize the “bottle bill.” Because we believe it discourages litter and encourages recycling, we do not wish to see the law repealed unless it’s replaced by a program through which the state remains committed in strong fashion to those laudable goals. We believe most Iowans agree with us. In fact, an Iowa Poll conducted in January 2018 for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom of 801 Iowans by Iowa-based Selzer & Co. showed 57 percent of respondents believe the “bottle bill” should stay the way it is or should be expanded.
To these ends, we believe several proposals floated at the Statehouse between last year’s session and this year’s session merit consideration. They include:
- Increasing the deposit fee.
- Increasing the handling fee paid to redemption centers.
- Expanding the deposit to include more beverage containers, such as those for water, juice and sports drinks.
Whatever shape and direction it takes, this discussion shouldn’t result in our state moving backward. The focus should be on identifying the most effective ways of keeping Iowa clean and promoting Iowa as a national leader in recycling.
____
Quad-City Times. February 18, 2019
A new twist at City Hall
Anybody who’s been around Davenport City Hall for a while knows that it’s not unusual for there to be controversy involving the city’s Civil Rights Commission.
Over the past few decades, it’s happened a number of times.
But what happened last week was sure a head-turner.
Lee Gaston, who was appointed to the commission by Mayor Frank Klipsch and confirmed by the city council along with two others last December, showed up to a meeting and was asked not to take his place at the table with other commissioners. He was asked, instead, to take a seat in the audience.
He complied while the commission proceeded with a meeting that included two members - Susan Greenwalt and Helen Roberson - whose terms expired last November.
Clyde Mayfield, a commissioner whose term also expired last November, did not attend.
Even for Davenport City Hall, this was unusual.
More so was the resolution the commission approved the week before saying that Greenwalt, Roberson and Mayfield are “duly acting commissioners” and had not vacated their posts nor had they been “removed for cause” by the mayor. As a result, the commissioners said, Gaston, Randy Moore and Patricia Hardaway, had all been illegally appointed and were not, in fact, commissioners.
The decision was unanimous, according to meeting minutes.
All of this, as you might expect, has caused some problems at City Hall. At last week’s meeting, an assistant city attorney handed a letter to the current commissioners - not those whose terms had expired - informing them they needed to preserve certain records while the city contemplates its legal options.
Whatever those options turn out to be, we believe it should end up with Gaston, Moore and Hardaway being seated on the city’s civil rights commission. There is no reason they ought to be refused a seat at the table.
The city code as it pertains to the civil rights commission reads: “The mayor shall appoint the members of the commission, who must reside in Davenport. All appointments shall be confirmed by the city council. The term of appointment shall begin on December 1st and end two years later on November 30th. The mayor shall fill any vacancy on the commission, occurring for a reason other than the expiration of a term of appointment, by appointing an eligible individual to fill the remainder of the vacated term.”
The mayor’s appointment powers seem pretty clear to us in this passage. But Commission Director Latrice Lacey told us last week that “the mayor can only appoint in the instance of a vacancy, and a vacancy is not created by the expiration of a term.”
The expiration of a term doesn’t constitute a vacancy? That seems like a stretch. If that were the case, why even have terms? Why not let commissioners just choose to serve as long as they see fit?
Lacey’s interpretation seems to turn on the last sentence in the code section quoted above, which refers to vacancies. The sentence does raise a question with us - we’re not sure why it doesn’t mention council ratification in filling the remainder of an unexpired term - but we don’t see how any of this can be interpreted to diminish the mayor and council’s powers to appoint a replacement at the expiration of a commissioner’s term.
Lacey also has made references to parts of the state code, which don’t look relevant to us.
All of this comes after a council proposal surfaced last summer to shift powers away from the commission and to a three-person governing board composed of aldermen.
After a public outcry, the city council shelved the idea.
We think it was good that aldermen backed away. The ordinance would likely have eroded the commission’s independence, it faced a certain legal challenge and, politically, it just didn’t seem to have enough support behind it.
Having said that, the mayor and council are on solid ground in this instance.
The people elect the city council and mayor to do their business, and that includes appointing members of boards and commissions. Those commissioners do have some measure of authority, but their appointments aren’t for life - and their service doesn’t solely end when commissioners are tired of serving or are removed for some “cause.”
They have defined terms. When those terms expire, the opportunity for others to serve opens up. And those replacements are chosen by our elected leaders.
What goes without saying is this dispute is not advancing the cause of civil rights.
We feel for the people who have filed complaints of discrimination, and those who are respondents, and who now must wonder whether their cases will be handled in a proper manner and even whether their resolutions could be tainted.
We’re not sure whether this will end up in court. We hope not. That would only prolong the uncertainty. What we do hope is that, in the interests of civil rights and orderly government, this matter is resolved quickly and the members of the commission approved by the mayor and city council on Dec. 12 are promptly seated.
____
Please read our comment policy before commenting.