At tonight's (Mon. Feb. 28 @7pm at Town Hall) Town Council meeting, there will be an official public hearing to discuss Councilor David Nelson's proposed "tax cap ordinance". Only instead of discussing the document presented and advertised (as required by law), Mr. Nelson apparently scrapped that proposal and is now planning to present a new one tonight (thereby defeating the purpose of the formal public hearing). What he's presenting appears to be an attempt to get the Town Council to tie its own hands in budget matters, along with yet another attempt to give two members of the Council the ability to veto the decision of Financial Town Meeting voters by requiring a 4/5 approval by the Town Council for the FTM to approve a tax-levy in excess of the state's usual 4% cap.
The 4/5 vote part of Mr. Nelson's proposal is based on a number of inaccurate or misleading statements. He claim it conforms to all state law and the Town's Charter. In fact, it would blatantly violate the Charter, which gives exclusive authority to determine budgets and tax-levies to the voters at the Financial Town Meeting. Under Section 407 (Powers & Duties of the Town Council), section 14 specifies that the Council may order budget reductions or transfers within the budget "within any constraints imposed by the Financial Town Meeting". If the Charter states clearly that the FTM can place constraints on the Council, how can the Council pass a law giving itself authority to constrain the FTM?
Mr. Nelson also states that the 4/5 Council vote requirement is in keeping with state law. This is false. Although the statute itself was worded in a contradictory way, the RI Division of Municipal Finance, charged with creating the procedures to implement the law, left no ambiguity in the state's "Standards and Procedures for Property Tax Levy Cap". Section 3.07 reads in full, " Once a city/town is notified that it may exceed the levy cap applicable to that year, the approval by at least a four fifths vote of the members of the governing body of the city/town, OR A MAJORITY VOTE OF ELECTORS IN THE CASE OF FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING COMMUNITY, must be certified in order to levy a tax in excess of the cap." Hard to imagine how that could be much clearer.
Of course, Mr. Nelson, in his other role as President of the political action committee Tiverton Citizens for Change, has supported two lawsuits that have attempted to overrule the decisions of FTM voters in 2008 & 2010, on the contention that the 4/5 Council vote was needed. But until the legislature changes the law or a court interprets it to mean the 4/5 vote is required even in FTM towns where the Council has NO budget or tax-levy authority, RI law clearly says the Town Council can NOT override the decisions of FTM voters. Even if they try to take that authority, the Council would need to sue the FTM voters to overturn their decision. And even if THAT was successful, the budget approved by FTM would still have to be funded by the town. Without sufficient tax-revenue, that would mean depleting the general-fund, raising fees, or as one judge suggested in a similar predicament years ago, holding "car washes & bake sales". THAT is not responsible government, and it's a slap in the face to all citizens of Tiverton.
If Mr. Nelson doesn't want the voters of Tiverton to have decision-making authority on budget and taxes, there is a clear course: place a Charter Amendment before voters asking them to give up that authority to the Town Council. Three past efforts to do so (including one I co-wrote in 2008) failed overwhelmingly. If Mr. Nelson can persuade the Council to try again, that is their right. But they do NOT have the right to simply take that authority from the FTM voters and give it to themselves, changing the Charter and violating state law in the process, and the results will certainly be litigation. Mr. Nelson and anyone else insisting on the 4/5 Council vote need to explain the logic (beyond personal preferences) of allowing a body with NO authority over budget & taxes to suddenly be able to overrule the FTM, the body that HAS that authority? You can't support that idea AND claim to respect the voters of Tiverton.
Another blatant falsehood is the idea that Tiverton "needs a tax-cap". In fact, the state's tax-cap (4.25% maximum this year, 4.0% thereafter) is in-place and stringent. For all the misleading talk of the FTM "busting the cap", the reality is that the state cap can only be exceeded in a year when a town faces an extraordinary financial situation, clearly defined by the state. In 2008, we faced $30 million in voter-approved school bonds coming due; in 2010, the state withheld $1.5 million in promised car-tax funds, leaving many towns with a huge gap. The state not only must confirm the need and approve any excess tax-levy, but it also sets a "new cap" of how much the town qualifies to levy. So there is always a tax-cap the FTM can not exceed; it's just that when there is an extraordinary financial situation, the cap can be increased accordingly to give towns that option rather than necessitate gutting services.
Mr. Nelson provides slides that attempt to show spending and taxes out of control in Tiverton. Of course, anyone can selectively use statistics to prove ANYTHING. In fact, both municipal & school spending increases have been decreasing year-to-year, and both were minimal last year. Were it not for the loss of $1.5 million in car-tax funds, the tax-increase would have been well under the cap. The fact that Mr. Nelson uses a chart showing escalating tax-increases the past few years without even mentioning the extraordinary circumstances that brought them about shows that this is not about an accurate discussion of facts. To suggest these were "normal" year-to-year increases and not give the context would be like displaying a chart showing huge increases in military spending in the early 1940's without also mentioning the cause.
Most are concerned about spending and taxing issues, and would welcome a serious discussion about ways to operate more affordably without decimating community and school services. This "ordinance is just a gimmick, a means to try to change the state tax-cap law and the Charter, which the Town Council has no right to do. As for the rest of this ordinance, the Town Council can vote to recommend to FTM voters a 2.5% increase, or more, or less. Why is an ordinance be necessary? The Council could simply set a policy without attempting to take rights away from FTM voters. More importantly, if Mr. Nelson is truly concerned about the "seniors on fixed-incomes" and other struggling taxpayers (and we all should be) that we keep hearing used to justify these plans, why not focus first on improving the hardship-tax-abatement process to assist those truly in need?
Please consider attending tonight's public hearing. Even if you choose not to speak, your elected Councilors should know that taking away citizens' rights is a serious concern.
Brian Medeiros
Tiverton, RI
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment