CIP vs Pension: An Exlpanation

A question was recently posed as to why I supported the idea of allowing the 1/4% CIP sales tax to expire, and to replace it with the 1/4% sales tax to fund the police and fire pension system.

Before the primary, and the sales tax vote, I stood firm in the belief that our community did not need to have an overall increase in sales tax. As well, I also stated that I believe that we need to look at the current sales tax structure, consider what taxes are currently on the books that are not an absolute necessity, and to replace that tax with a pension tax.

I still stand firm in that position.

The reason is that I believe that the CIP tax would, at this time, be the best tax to let expire - if not permanently, temporarily. Why this tax? There are two examples and a follow up analogy.

The first is that while the CIP tax is supposed to go to capital improvements, we have seen several projects that I would not personally consider to be a pertinent capital improvement.

One of them is the wayfinding signs. As those who remember the recent controversy, I will not rehash the issue... it is still fresh in the minds of those who are aware of city issues. Had I been on council at that time, I would have voted against it.

The second is the JV Ice Park. While, during the campaign, it was stated by certain candidates that the ice park was voted on by the citizens because it was part of the CIP report, we must not forget that the park was supposed to be self-sustaining after the first year; it was not.

Lastly, the analogy. I always believe that the best examples are ones that are of the most basic nature... so here goes.

Johnny, who is ten years old, gets $10 allowance each week. Every time he gets his allowance, he puts away $1 for a video game savings project (earmark). At this point, he has $9 left over (general fund). What he does with it is up to him.

One day, while out playing catch with his brother, he accidentally throws a baseball through the neighbor's window. The neighbor, being quite understanding, gives him the option to pay the window replacement cost back in weekly installments. Johnny works out a deal to pay the neighbor back in $1 a week installments. What Johnny does at this point is he decides to put the video game earmark on hold, and take care of the priority with that same $1 (new earmark). The only other option would be to earmark $2, one for the game and one for the window; but he has been told by his parents that either way, he will not be given an allowance increase.

What Johnny does is realize that, yes, he must repay the window. And, yes, it will be upsetting to him to give up his $1 game allotment. But, yes, it is the responsible thing to do. Additionally, the $1 dollar that has been foregone for the video game to pay for the window has allowed the $1 for the window replacement to be financially offset; Johnny still has $9 left over after his weekly earmark has been removed from his allowance. He can still make the $1 video-game allotment, but it is not required. At this point, it is up to Johnny to be responsible enough to make that decision. But he does, in the end, have the ability to continue his game savings if he chooses.

I hope this analogy and explanation helps.

While I understand that the discussion of the CIP and pension issue is much more complicated and not as 'black and white', that is the basic idea that I carry with my support to allow the CIP to temporarily expire.