Posted by pizza (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am confused. Just a year and a half ago the gazette and the chamber couldn't say enough about NO more taxes during the period prior to the election. Now the gazette is all excited about which new tax do you want etc. Pretty short memories it seems to me. If the new tax is such a good idea won't it still be a good idea in a few weeks. What is the rush to keep the "special interest groups" out of the discussion. And, Bob, I do believe you are elected to "listen" not just to "do". We seem to have a good deal of that disregarding the voters in politics today. Whoa there, what's the rush?

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would gladly vote for a one percent sales tax, but they would have to put a limit on the mill levy. This would be the most fair tax that we could get, because everyone would be paying on it. The present mill levy is to high and should be rolled back according to the amount of money needed not what is wanted.. We should have another 20 to 30 million being added into the tax mix next year, and more coming in the following year. I do know that the utilities and upkeep on the court house will not doubt rise. I would like to see the county employee's receive a raise for cost of living.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with a lot of what pizza is saying... We all need to determine potential impacts, both positive and negative, before we proceed with any tax measure.

As far as the Gazette is concerned, where is option four in the poll? The one that says, don't raise taxes? Is a tax increase a forgone conclusion? We've heard for years about how the demand for certain services would change dramatically if certain businesses weren't here (or nearly as large). Well, the population is changing dramatically, are the services provided changing as well? Can we see a decrease in demand that would encourage downsizing, and if so, could increased efficiency make up the differential expected within another tax hike?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on momus. I vote for option 4. The city/county need to cut projects or whatever to meet the amount of money they are already bringing in. Not vice/versa. As I've always said. Anyone can run government if your answer to every problem is to raise taxes. We have to be more efficient to compete and if it takes downsizing the city and county staff then so be it. The remaining staff should get cost of living raises as well. Maybe it would be more incentive to treat people a little nicer down at the tags and taxes office if they had something to lose jobwise.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score, what jobs would you cut? what positions would be done away with? What projects should be cut?

I'm reading what shouldnt be done or things to do, but no explaination on the specifics.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone have information on what the sales tax rate is for comparable (population,income,etc) cities around the state.?
Is Emporia higher or lower or average, i ask because I have heard from several people that we (emporia) are lower than most.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/StateLocalS...

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

admireed, thanks for the link
Here is what I found

Leawood population 30,702 Tax rate (state and local) 7.925%
Garden City population 27,175 Tax rate (state and local) 7.450%
Emporia population 26,188 Tax rate (state and local) 6.800%
Dodge City population 26,101 Tax rate (state and local) 7.950%
Prairie Village population 21,414 Tax rate (state and local) 7.400%
Derby population 21,101 Tax rate (state and local) 7.800%

So from what I can see, Emporia is and has been lower than cities with comparable populations, I dont think a 1% increase is going to hurt us. I would rather have that than higher property taxes.

information from

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Kansas....

and
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/StateLocalS...

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have not found a source that lists property tax levies for towns/counties in Kansas. I would be interested to see if these higher sales tax places have a correspondingly lower property tax levy. My suspicion ... no correlation!

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A 1% sales tax hike puts us at or above Topeka. Not exactly a smart thing to do in an area loosing sales to Topeka. Plus, in times of economic hardship, the last thing that you want to do is put more pressure on individual disposable income. In addition, voters will be asked in another year to extend the industrial sales tax. And, we now have at least on city councilman that ran on a platform of no-new-taxes (Mr. Longbine) touting the virtues of new taxes? This is the perfect storm of bad timing, bad research (or no research), bad strategy and bad promises. I can see why supporters want to sneak this thing by before any critical thinking/organization by the general populace can occur.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

An increase in the sales tax might seem more attractive on the surface than an increase in the mill levy, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Momus is absolutely right that an increase in sales tax would be particularly burdensome on consumers at a time when the economy is in a downturn. Our median incomes are among the lowest in the state of Kansas, our poverty rates are much higher than state and national averages. In terms of mill levy, if our levy were applied to an average valuation home in Boston, where my brother lives, his real estate taxes would increase from his current $3700 per year to about $7000 per year. The reason our tax burden is so high is in part because our median home is valued at about $70K. That means the commissions feel "obliged" to use high mill levies to get the income they feel they need to operate.

Our population is still in decline and there has been no movement whatsover to try to do the things necessary to increase median incomes or property values. When none of this happens the result is having to deal with county city government and USD253 continually running around with a hat in one hand and a big stick in the other. The other thing that is really galling is that government touts smaller increases in the mill levy than anticipated as victories for the people (see the budget disucssion from August 2007).

One of the things that seems counter-intuitive to government is that beginning to lower the tax burden over time would be far more beneficial to the city's well being than tax increases. The truth is,Laffer curves actually do work.

Posted by create (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, the sad thing about this is even if we all agree that raising the sales tax is not the right approach at this time, and we vote it down, they will waste no time at all by raising property taxes.

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"A 1% sales tax hike puts us at or above Topeka. Not exactly a smart thing to do in an area loosing sales to Topeka."

With gas at $3.50 a gallon you actually would drive to Topeka to avoid paying an additional 1% in sales tax increase? Right On. So you'll call the Topeka Fire Department when you need them. Make sure you tell them you spent your tax money there. I'll be spending my tax dollars in Emporia. So hopefully if need city services of any kind, they will still have someone to send.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's actually easier to order on line and have FedEx or U.P.S. deliver the goods right to your door. And, it the goods will cost less as well. One of the problems with buying things locally, particularly big ticket items, is that the costs are much higher here than places like Topeka, Wichita, or Kansas City. It's almost as if there there is a surcharge added to some items here. I bought a Club Cadet mower in Wichita because the equivalent mower here was going to cost a hundred dollars more. The trip cost me $30,00 in gas and $6.00 in tolls. The sales tax was $4.00 higher in Wichita back then. The net to me was $60.00. Now, with the real possibility of a one percent increase in our sales tax even that local "advantage" will probably be wiped out.

I wouldn't mind shopping locally, but on many things I don't see the point. So, I'll either order on line and have it delivered or take the drive out of town on the big ticket items and bring them back in my pickup.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do shop locally. I guess I'm willing to spend a little more on items when I know that the money will circulate through the local economy. In my mind, one of the easiest ways to improve the business climate in the community is to improve business profitability, which means I need to support local businesses if I ever expect them to offer the goods and services I want and need. I understand and respect the fact that some have a different view on this subject of where to shop, but I simply believe that businesses don't exist without customers. If customers don't support local businesses, then local businesses won't exist. If we have problems with price, selection or service within the local community it may be because of a lack of entrepreneurship, a lack of profitability within existing businesses, proximity to larger markets (virtual or otherwise) and unrealistic expectations of what a community our size can provide. I'm not saying that there aren't some bad apples out there (there are), but we can't expect the product price and selection to improve by magic (it will take community support).

But I digress... My comment on the 1% sales tax seems to have been misunderstood. To rephrase, if people are struggling with disposable income, and businesses are struggling to attract customers and both of those situations have an immediate and dire effect on the local economy: why would you want to apply more pressure to a combustible situation like that through a sales tax hike?

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This all sounds simple to me, I dont get what you all are whineing about, If You Want better service and More services from your city/county , PAY FOR IT, you cant keep complaining about taxes and keep all the services your getting now, It doesnt work that way. For an example: If you dont want to pay more tax, dont complain when the city suggests doing away with a band, if you dont want more taxes ,dont complain when there is no one avalible to pick up that loose dog on sundays, if you dont want more tax, dont complain because the city closes the dump one day a week, If you dont want more taxes, dont complain about how the city keeps having cops/fire dept employees leave for better pay, if you dont want more tax, stop crying because you street aint cleaned in the winter. I could go on and on, but I hope you see my point. If you want service, you must pay for it.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

one more thing, if you think the city/county just needs to do a better job of budgeting RUN FOR OFFICE

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kstrebuchet,

Didn't mean to come across as whining. No, I don't agree with every spending decision of the city/county, but I also understand that elected officials are human and make mistakes. My biggest problem with the decision making process on a local government level is the lack of strategic thinking, lack of anticipation concerning market position change within a given time frame and the lack of waterproofing (making better decisions through research and healthy debate). I think the rush to sales tax exemplifies my concerns. From a purely political standpoint, I already hear promises of sales tax money going to several different entities presupposing an increased inflow that may never materialize. The over promising of budget increases to multiple agencies in order to gain popular support for a tax hike is a very old and well tested political strategy that generally succeeds in benefiting no one.

Secondly, I believe that a healthy political system takes all different levels of involvement. Most people that know me would probably say I am still too young to run for political office, but does that mean that I can't interject my opinion in the decision making arena? We can't have a government that says "this is good for you, trust us" and then complain about apathy of constituents.

The complaining about services and taxes boils down to the fact that people have different priorities. You seem like a fairly logical person, and I like to think that I am too... But, we may prioritize services differently. We may have different levels of tax burden that we feel is appropriate for a city our size. It doesn't mean that either of us is wrong, it just means that we view the world differently. That's a good thing. And, as long as people want to move beyond complaining and actually do something to help fix problems, a passionate community is a major asset in my opinion.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momus, I think you would make a super politician, you speak just like one.

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's kind of ironic. Last year, when the city was going through a budget crisis and having to either make big cuts or raise property taxes, a lot of people began saying we should do a sales tax instead when we got the chance as a low-impact way of raising money quickly. Now, when push comes to shove, the crowds are gathering against it.

I'm not a huge fan of sales taxes myself (even back then -- I think they hit the lower income levels too hard), but I find it interesting how quickly everybody's opinion changed when a sales tax moved from "future option" to "present reality."

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But, that's the argument here... I don't believe that sales tax is "low impact". I understand that we have to raise revenue through taxes for services. However, sales tax is not (in my opinion) appropriate at this time for several reasons listed above. I think we have other revenue options.

Furthermore, I simply don't comprehend the perpetual growth model of government. Services should be proportional to the population. So, if the population shrinks, there should be less demand on some of our services, correct? We still don't understand the full impact the Tyson layoffs and other projects that didn't come to fruition will have on our economy and population. Until we get a grasp on those impacts and their effects on services, changes in our tax structure may lead to an inefficient use of funds. Let’s get back to basics of infrastructure, essential services and economic development. Then we can move forward. If, in a year, our local and national economy has stabilized and we know what we can expect (within reason) our demand on services will be, then lets move ahead with new tax assessments. But, this is not the time.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wanderer, I agree with you 100%

The argument that "if the population shrinks, there should be less demand on some of our services" May Be true or may not. But the fact remains, Emporia Population has grown every ten years or so since 1870, with the exception of between 1930 and 1940. I suppose that if someone wanted to look at population on a year to year basis, poulation has gone down, I dont believe that should be the way to look at it. One should look towards the future a bit further instead of just looking around the corner a month or two. Population continues to rise and Will continue to rise. As far as the demand on services, here is some small examples, lets say 1000 people left emporia and put their houses up for sale, does this mean those streets will no longer need repairs, does it mean the trash along those streets with no longer need picked up or those employees no longer get paid to do it, does that mean that water services doesnt need to still run in the same pipes it always has and someone has to maintain them, will it mean the appraiser wont still have to go out to do his/her job. Will it mean the police dept wont have to continue to service those areas. the list could go on and on. So in my opinion anyway, the argument "if the population shrinks, there should be less demand on some of our services" does not hold water.

With a small increase in sales tax, we (emporians) wont be the only ones supporting it, people from out of town who purchase goods here will help with the burden, this is not the case if property tax goes up.

it has also been said "I think we have other revenue options"
I'm all ears and willing to listen.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the other revenue options, first we need to utilize grant opportunities for infrastructure and development improvements that are currently solely funded through local taxes. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) can not only be used for certain infrastructure, but federal guidelines allow cities to guarantee private investment loans at a level of 125% of the grant allocation for certain redevelopment projects. There are also underutilized non-competing grants for equipment which benefit fire and police. The vast majority of us pay federal taxes and I have no problem pulling that money into Emporia departments.

Secondly, changing our assessment methodology to include "highest and best use" is another potential source of revenue. I know I've said this before, but I don't understand why certain property owners in certain areas are rewarded for letting their properties disintegrate with lower property taxes. Those of us that maintain property watch as our properties maintain or increase in valuation. Zones of highest and best use may create redevelopment, more tax revenue and decrease blight while redistributing the tax burden more evenly.

Third, we have more people from our area that are leaving Emporia to shop than are coming in. So, although some people from out of town would support our community through sales tax, we still have a sales gap of around $11.5 million. That means that the sales tax would not be supported fully by its own citizens that benefit the most from the tax. Thus, a smaller percentage of Emporians would be responsible for a larger percentage of the tax base; does that sound fair?

Finally, and I hope I am misunderstanding you here... Do you mean to say that we should increase the size and scope of government irregardless to the size of our population? That if we lost "1,000 residents" their would be no effect on the demand for services? I agree that we need to maintain infrastructure (see infrastructure, essential services and economic development above), but to say that our government must continuously grow because the population in the past has grown, when we may face the loss of what is conservatively estimated at 4% of our population seems a little strange to me. I would suggest that we increase taxes when demand on services increase. Two different points of view, but the fact is neither of us knows what will happen in a potentially volatile next 12 months. I think we will probably have a better handle on the population and demand for services in September after the new school year starts. As such, we might want to wait a year to determine if we need to raise taxes on the public to meet service demands at a city/county level. A year would also give our local, state and national economy more time to recover from the dreaded "R" word which no one wants to utter. Give it a year, and if the demand, population and economic stability are still there, I will support your tax increase.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momus, First point,what grant opportunities are not already being utilized by the city? Do you know something the city doesnt. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

your second point, this isnt going to happen, you have a crappy home, you get low tax and valuation, you have a nice place, you pay higher taxes. Thats how the system works. and thats why people let their homes disintegrate. I wish it were different, I would love to think if I fixed up my home, my tax would be lower. I would also hate to think that IF I were without a good job and could not make repairs to an already disintegrating home I would be hit with higher taxes because of it.

Third, the people who leave town to shop are going to do so weather there is a tax increase or not and those who do come to Emporia to purchase goods will contine to do so, thus we will be getting more taxes from them with the increase of sale tax
lastly, I must have missed something, I didnt see anywhere that our government was going to increase in size because they raise tax by 1%. Are you saying because Emporia might lose some people we should then start laying off city and county workers because of it? I am not understanding what your talking about when you say "because population is going down this year, we wont need all the same services we have now?

The way I'm looking at it is, because of layoffs and a population base that might be shrinking, those people will not be paying the taxes they have been, Thus those of us who are staying and working will need to make up for that loss somehow. I mean if, say 4 people live in a house, and pay 400 per month rent, one moves out, then the 3 remaining will then have to make that up by paying $133.00 per month, They are not going to be able to give it a year to see if they can find a new 4th renter, they would be kicked out and homeless, so they have to start paying Now.