Update: A portion of the press release from Bob Caldwell is added at the end of the post.
At 3:15 this afternoon as I sat in front of the Civic Center with several hardy souls (well, they didn’t have to be hardy to enjoy such a nice day) we got word that we were “over the top.” In other words, we had enough signatures for the referendum petition to at least make them tally up the petitions signed during this drive. And according to Salisbury News, the total number of signatures collected was just under 2,600. It’s a bit less of a margin for error than I’d feel comfortable with so I think it’s going to be pretty close once things are haggled over and crosschecked whether the drive bears fruit or not.
But I’ll be optimistic and assume that the three signatures I collected sitting at the Civic Center today are the margin of victory, as it were. We didn’t have a lot of activity but between signers and those who were nice enough to bring us completed petition forms we had about 20 or so, so not a bad afternoon’s work considering the deadline was originally going to be 2:00 today.
After I got back this evening from running a few errands I had a note in my mailbox from Debbie Campbell. In it, she had attached something I’d asked her for earlier, a copy of all of her proposed cuts and revenue enhancements that she and Terry Cohen had come up with for the FY2008 budget. So thanks to Debbie for getting that to me, and it’s now attached for the perusal of my readers.
We all have a pretty good idea what the cuts were as this proposal got the whole “Debbie Campbell is going to throw poor innocent animals on the street” hullabaloo started. What I was more interested in (and got much less play) were the “revenue enhancements.” So let’s take a look.
The Campbell/Cohen proposal begins with assuming almost $273,000 from a recalculation of projections included within itself, and adds another $48,000 paid by Wicomico County for fire service. These are both billed as “known” revenue additions.
But it’s the other assumptions that could prove to be controversial. The duo has assumed revenue of over $450,000 placed on the backs of landlords through an assortment of new or revised fees, including a landlord licensing fee of $100, a “multi-family unit” registration fee of $20 per unit (or at least $1,000 since it’s intended for complexes with 50 or more units), and a “scattered-site” registration fee of $55 per unit. Essentially the idea is a “pay as you go” effort for the Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance department, since Debbie and Terry figured 70% of their $580,000 budget goes to rental units, particularly “scattered sites.” In addition, Salisbury landlords could be subject to “noise containment fees” similar to those in effect in Ocean City, and additional trash fees for properties with variances from the “4 to 2” restrictions.
Others would be hit by 10% increases in the cost of a building permit, plumbing permit, or restaurant license. These are predicted to bring in another $65,000 in revenue.
Most importantly, the budget presented by Campbell and Cohen assumes the remaining 3.1 cent property tax rate increase allowed under the present charter restriction goes into effect. This is slated to bring in an extra $660,000.
So these are the alternative visions presented by the two competing sides of City Council. In either case, the average citizen will see a property tax increase to some degree, whether it’s 3.1 cents per $100 of valuation or 9 cents per $100 of valuation. However, while the Tilghman plan apparently spares her landlord buddies additional fees, the Campbell plan asks that they dig a bit deeper into their pockets, something sure to be passed on to tenants.
And one final note.
I thought this was supposed to be going away come Monday. But the scuttlebutt I’ve heard and echoed by those present today is that this deal may fall through after all. Regardless of what you think about the choice between a three cent and a nine cent tax increase, just remember where $16 million of city money is tied up.
Afterword: I just got a note from Debbie saying, “It is important to note that the proposal recognizes the economy of scale from the multi-family complexes with on-site professional management by REDUCING their per unit charge from $25 to $20 per unit per year and raising fees for smaller properties without on-site professional management and scattered site locations to more accurately reflect the amount of services that they use.” And that’s fair enough. Not being a landlord I wouldn’t have picked up on that.
Update, Sunday 10:30 a.m. This is from the Bob Caldwell press release:
“This is a victory for all taxpayers in Salisbury,” stated Bob Caldwell, the leader of the petition effort. “Giving voters the opportunity to vote on this charter change is democracy in its purest form. This is an issue that affects every voter in Salisbury, whether they rent or own their home.”
Caldwell voiced his concern that, “Mayor Barrie Tilghman, her City Administrator John Pick, and City Council President Louise Smith have all attacked those circulating the petition and have encouraged citizens not to participate. Their argument is based on the false assumption that needed public safety spending will not be possible without this tax increase. “Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen have clearly demonstrated that it is possible to provide needed pay increases for our city’s public safety personnel and maintain essential city services while living within our means. Hopefully the majority of the city council will realize that public safety, not increased bureaucracy, is a priority for the majority of Salisbury voters.”
After the petition signatures are certified by the City Clerk’s office the petition will then be presented to the Salisbury Council. The Council can then hold a referendum in no less than 60 days. At that time the voters will have the opportunity to either accept the charter change raising the tax cap or to reject it.
The only thing I have to add is that – PLEASE spellcheck your press releases! The headline of the the release says, “Petition drive successful. Voters sieze (sic) right to decide on increase to Salisbury tax cap.” If there’s one thing that hurts credibility, it’s errors like that.
An informative and timely post. Here are some random thoughts that occurred while reading it.
The petition may (hopefully will) result in a less than 5% tax increase, but it’s still disturbing that the rates continue to increase in Salisbury when others are remaining the same or being reduced as a result of the huge increase in the assessable tax base that has been fueled by the rapid and record-setting rise in the tax value assessed on existing property as well as high levels of new construction in recent years. But it’s much better than the double digit tax increase needed under the budget that Smith, Comegys and Shields have decided upon.
If the Salisbury “Mall Madness” is continuing as you have heard, should we really be surprised — I’m sure Barrie’s buddy, Richard Insley, will make sure that the City’s demolition order is never enforced.
One interesting contrast: D. Campbell & T. Cohen have tried diligently and politely to discuss budget details — drawing the venom and barbs of the other members, Barrie Tilghman and her minions at the Daily Times — and the actions and attitude of the other members is simply incredible. Smith has completely abandoned her campaign promises; Comegys wants to cut the most obvious waste and claim that he’s really done something; and Shields has no meaningful position and has once again revealed her ignorance (“never seen any waste in the City budget”).
Barrie the polarizer has always divided the electorate into two opposing groups – supporters and opponents – and in the past has conquered. Now it’s clear that she is nearing the end of that line and her tenure as mayor. But for the turncoat we elected in April, the tide would be running full, and the petition removes any doubt that it has turned.
The bad news is that the City of Salisbury has been devastated by Barrie before reaching this point.
Salisbury should collect the $250/day fines on the Old Mall, accruing since January, and levied because its owners are in violation of the demolition order of last July. That should come to over $45,000. But I bet we’ll never collect those fines. Watch the Old Mall site for strip mall development and maybe some low-quality apartment buildings.
Dzaman and Natleson are laughing their butts off over the idiots from the outhouse of Maryand. Easiest $15 million they ever made. Po Howdy Doody only profited $1 million from his city scams.