• 

Chris Chenoweth: Shining some light on local tax policy

I am writing in response to an opinion piece by Brady Shields published in the Sept. 6 edition.

As a city councilor, I believe one of my roles is to inform the public. I would like to take this opportunity to shine a little light on the process.

First, while Mr. Shields was technically correct when he said, “The mayor does not have unilateral power to increase or decrease taxes,” he missed the mark.

The mayor sets the agenda for city council meetings. Through that, a mayor can prevent all tax increases except one.

Every year, the council determines during the budget process how much the city will assess in property tax, up to $5.02 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For this one tax question, the mayor has a vote only if there is a tie on the council.

Second, it appears Mr. Shields is only focused on property taxes.

To offset PERS liabilities that are decimating their budgets, municipalities are increasingly looking to fees to help make up the difference, and to most residents, a fee is just another form of taxation. Locally, the most controversial of these locally was the “City Services Fee” tacked onto Water & Light bills.

Some cities even have a local gas tax. We do not, but make no mistake: We could add new taxes or increase existing taxes and fees, as long as such a proposal was put on an agenda for discussion.

Third, Mr. Shields implies the issue taxpayers have over the fire district lies in the $2 per thousand being assessed for district operations. It is not.

The measure creating the district passed because voters wanted an adequately funded fire and ambulance operation. The issue taxpayers have is with the $1.50 per thousand the city had been spending to support a municipal fire department that has been absorbed into the district.

Most every constituent I have spoken to was unaware the city intended to continue collecting and spending at least a portion of that money, if not all of it.

The question is: Should that money be spent on other things, now that there is no need to fund a city fire department? I believe citizens should decide this, not just the mayor seven elected members of the council.

Kim Morris was not using “vague platitudes” about her views. She was defining direct policy differences between her and the current mayor on two points.

The phrase, “I will minimize tax increases,” indicates she generally opposes more taxes, but is not completely opposed to adding such items to the agenda. Through that phrase, Mrs. Morris has conveyed that she hears both citizens who have expressed tax fatigue over the last six years and citizens who want new items and concerns addressed even though there may be a cost.

I want to say thank you to Mr. Shields, though, for opening this discourse on how our government operates. It is important to understand, but truth be told, perhaps too boring outside the context of a mayoral race.

Comments

Lizzy

Thank you for clarifying.

CubFan

Part 1:
Thank you Chris, for this very thoughtful and clearly explained review of how the mayor and city council can add taxes and fees.

TAXES:
I share your experience that nearly every person I have spoken to didn’t realize that the result of a “yes” vote meant $2/M for the new fire district PLUS an additional $1.50/M for the city. There were lively discussions on the McMinnville Community Task Force page with councilor Adam Garvin about this.

Councilman Garvin assured us that first of all, voters would have a voice in whether or not the city would continue assessing the $1.50/M from the old fire district, and secondly, voters would be given an opportunity to state where the city should spend this new found money. The city’s method for determining this was a survey. When the city developed the citizen survey, Garvin promised there would be a clear option for respondents to select an option for “Return the tax to the citizens”. The city did publish two surveys. One survey asked citizens where to spend this newfound money, but didn’t offer a way for respondents to opt for “return the tax to taxpayers”. The other survey that did provide an option for “return the tax to taxpayers” only received 42 responses. So was a 42 response survey sufficient for the city to decide it has citizen support to proceed with the additional $1.50 tax? The News-Register conducted their own survey, which gathered 907 responses, of which 54% chose the option “return the savings to taxpayers”. The results of this survey were shared with the city council, but the city council apparently ignored the results and proceeded to apply the $1.50/M tax regardless. The takeaway is that the city knew it was confusing and made a play on citizens to GRAB more tax money. Increase in funding for the fire department. And increase in city revenue of $1.50/M. This is unconscionable.

I completely agree with you that this should be put to a vote of the citizens. Let us decide!

CubFan

Part 2:

FEES:
The $13 monthly fee on our water and light bill was to retire a $1.8 million shortfall. As of January 2024, the city has collected $3.2 million and yet still assesses the $13 month fee? There are talks that the city is likely to not only increase THIS fee next year, but possibly ADD an ADDITIONAL FEE for the wastewater system?

TIPPING POINT:
I feel like the mayor and city council have no concept of how these fees and taxes are burdening taxpayers. It’s high time the city do the exact thing we taxpayers have been doing: “Tighten their belts”. American households need +$11K to maintain same standard of living as 3 years ago. People are hurting and are having to make tough choices. Instead of asking “Where will we go on vacation this year?”, the question now is “Can I afford to fill up my tank?” Instead of asking “Where should we go out for dinner tonight?”, the question is “Can I afford groceries?”. There is a great divide in the city between the “haves” and the “have nots”, and the city leaders need to recognize how their decisions affect all financial layers of citizens.

Don Dix

Thank you, Chris - why is it that the only council member that opens up about 'the business inside the city business' is Chris Chenowith? Every council member knows what is going on, but only one has the guts to speak up.

If the council is just a rubber stamp on the mayor's desires, it's time for a deep cleaning. If you feel as many do that the council isn't properly representing the voters - make a statement in Nov.

CubFan

Don Dix... spot on!

We have 3 wards in Mac:
- Ward 1: Chris Chenoweth is running unopposed, so will retain his position as city counselor (Thankfully)
- Ward 2: (generally west Mac) Kellie Menke is not running for reelection. Dan Tucholsky is running unopposed for her seat. I talked with Dan a few weeks ago and he generally lines up with beliefs similar to Kim Morris (Good)
- Ward 3: (generally east Mac). Adam Garvin is not running for reelection. There are two people running for this seat. Scott Cunningham (groomed by Drabkin) and Chaz Gibbons- who generally lines up with beliefs similar to Kim Morris

Then there's the mayor seat, with Kim Morris running against incumbent Remy Drabkin.

Since we need to do some "deep cleaning", it will be critical to elect Chaz Gibbons (residents in Ward 3) and Kim Morris.

And I completely agree that Chris Chenoweth is the only city councilor who has the guts to speak up and not just rubber stamp Drabkin's plans. Chris takes to heart his promise to listen to, and advocate for his constituents!

Mr. R

Re-Elect Christ Chenoweth.

Maybe he should run for mayor next time!!

Mr. R

Correction: Chris chenoweth not Christ chenoweth

Fiddler

Speaking of taxes, if tariffs are increased, the revenue is not from taxes that importers pay, the increases come from us. Higher tariffs will devastate the U.S. middle class (us) and devastate trade. History repeats itself. Last time tariffs were raised, we had an era called the Golden Age, with a few oligarchs reaping riches while workers could not buy food. Do you want that? Vote for the person who will NOT raise tariffs. They’re not taxes, folks, they’re higher consumer prices. Thanks

tagup

And you can also expect retaliatory tariffs on US goods from countries that the US selects for tariffs.
If inflation is a concern, tariff’s will make it worse.

BC

Thank you, Chris, for speaking for the citizens. We've been spun around so many times with political tricks that it's hard to keep track anymore.

The fiasco about the new fire district tax language and the old fire district tax money has been a particular piece of brilliant word play by those who wrote the surveys, and (most of) the city who knew full well the implications but didn't make them clear. To come back later and say, "We told all of you this was happening. It's not our fault that you didn't comprehend it", is abuse of power. The citizens did the right thing in voting in the new district. Then the city shat all over them in their heat to get that other $1.50 without strings attached. And they know it.

It's definitely time to clean house and put people in power that will be transparent, not those trying to be clever as a fox in a henhouse.


Loretta

Thank you Chris, once again for being willing to be transparent and honest with us. That doesn’t seem to be a big ask but sadly it feels like it. I appreciate your easier to understand, explanation. You said the “district absorbed” the $1.50? Where did it go? Into a general fund? This seems like poor management to me since we are told the police department operates at I think I heard 62% capacity and police are leaving or don’t want to come not because of poor wages but because their equipment etc. is inadequate and to me that says unsafe. I want our police to be as safe as possible when they protect my community AND I want them to have enough staff to stop the ongoing racing/speeding on our city streets that everyone I have talked to, is fed up with. Maybe too much money goes to administration and not enough to the boots on the ground.

Moe

Egregious:

The $1.50 per thousand; and the $13 MWL fee.

Voters with good intentions were tricked - unconscionable!

Vote the guilty out of office. And when in doubt, vote neither to approve any new tax / tax increase nor for an incumbent. And keep a good supply of non-GMO popcorn handy.

Drew

Thanks for all you do for our community Chris! I only wish more of our City Council members wouldn't "bend the knee" to our mayor. They need to speak up! New leadership is needed! Vote Kim Morris in November

tagup

Isn’t the tax rate irrelevant when the council can just add a fee to cover any budget overage, or new project?
I’m not convinced Ms Morris will be any different in the approach the city takes. Would she commit to removing the current $13 “service charge”? It’s stated purpose of covering a budget overage has been fulfilled months ago.

CubFan

tagup...

"Isn’t the tax rate irrelevant when the council can just add a fee to cover any budget overage, or new project?"

Yep... technically you're right on about that. However, I submit to you that with no change in city mayor and council, how/why would we expect any changes? We have an opportunity to elect a new mayor (Kim Morris) who is committed to diving into the budget to see if things can be done differently. She knows the financial hardships facing citizens. On the city council, Chris Chenoweth (incumbent/unopposed) knows how these fees affect citizens. Dan Tucholsky (who is unopposed in this election), seems to share similar beliefs with Kim Morris. The other council seat in this election is in Ward 3. Chaz Gibbons shares similar beliefs. His opponent, Scott Cunningham, was groomed by Remy Drabkin, so is likely to share similar beliefs to Drabkin. Chaz needs to get elected!

Also, you intimate that "why make a change in city officials if the end result is that they can always tack on new fees?" I guess I look at it this way... it's the existing mayor/council who got us in this mess. So why trust them with another term?

fiddler

This article leads me to believe you're not too crazy about our current mayor. I would like to know the other side of the story, i.e., why does she limit time spent on such items as mentioned in this article--taxes and levies?

I took the survey and said the $1.50 should be REFUNDED. This is CRIMINAL. Would someone sue the city for a refund all the way back to the bond measure for the county fire department?

This is criminal intent.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable