Re “Animals Banned from Council Meeting – No Dog and Pony Show”
Foregone conclusions, as anyone who has been married realizes, are not to be correlated with cinches. They take longer to be exhausted.
Admissions are scarce, but nearly everyone in Culver City has realized for the past 30 days that the City Council, at tonight’s series concluding 7 o’clock meeting in Council Chambers, is going to approve putting a sales tax increase on the Presidential ballot in November.
How much and for how long remain as much in doubt as the high temperature in Kalamazoo next New Year’s Day.
The hike probably will be a half-cent. It could be three-quarters of a cent.
The increase may be sunsetted (sounds funny, doesn’t it?) after five years. Or the Council may let it ride until the government decides it is taking too much of your money.
Which Way, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Andy Weissman does not say which way he is leaning, toward the higher or lower new levy, just that the community favors jacking up the sales tax.
“All we have heard from the people,” says the mayor, “is what makes Culver City special is the quality of life that the community enjoys at all levels, residential, business, recreation and everything else – as a consequence of the services. There is no desire to sacrifice those services.
“As unpalatable as a sales tax increase is to everybody, the tradeoff is that there is the recognition that it is necessary if we are going to be able to continue to provide the same services.
The consequences of failure are dire in impacts that would be felt across the community.
No Exceptions
“No one,” Mr. Weissman said with authority and emphasis, “and I mean no one, suggested in our community dialogues on this subject that we should forget about raising revenue and concentrate instead on continuing to reduce the size of city government, with a commensurate reduction in services.
“The Council is wrestling with what the needs are of the community, the real needs of the community in revenue. Based upon the financial analysis, we know that a half-cent sales tax increase will generate $8 million a year, which will satisfy the structural deficit on an annual basis. We would keep our heads above water. But the $8 million does not provide any surplus to replenish reserves to deal with the deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs of the community.”
Should the hike pass, is it more appropriate to stamp the measure as temporary? Say, five years. Or open-ended, which would be fiscally more realistic?
Practically speaking, the mayor said the structural deficit is permanent.
Therefore, “we need a revenue stream on an annual basis that will allow us to have the revenues to take care of the expenditures.”
In different words, City Hall believes a permanent increase is preferable.
