WWJMD?
Either that is the name of the East Coast’s longest radio station name or it is acronymic for What Would Jeff Muir Do?
Which sales tax hike would he recommend the City Council tonight vote to send to the November ballot:
Half-cent? Three-fourths cent?
Permanent? Or for a brief period?
For more nights than a body should have to endure in the past month, Culver City’s affable, often stoic Chief Financial Officer has been asked to describe in 28 minutes worth of detail for various audiences the exquisite pain of City Hall’s budget shortfall.
Council members have heard Mr. Muir’s detailed explanation so often that at last Monday’s meeting at Lin Howe School, they stood as a group and marched out of the room for 28 minutes to shmooze with visitors
WWJMD? His candid answer is at the end.
“The staff report for tonight’s Council meeting shows that I don’t recommend a sunset for the increase, at least not if it is going to be for a half-cent,” Mr. Muir said this morning.
Only to Come Back
“I don’t see a universe where, five years from now, we are going to be in a different (financial) situation.
“There are a lot of valid points about the things we can do (with a sunset clause) that the Chamber of Commerce has raised. But I don’t believe any of them are of a magnitude that will solve what we are facing.
“We are going to continue to see costs go up.
“We have an ongoing problem,” Mr. Muir said. “Therefore we need an ongoing solution. That is why I don’t believe sunsetting is a great idea.
“I can understand the sunset concept. If that is the way the Council ends up going, that is the way we go, and we will deal with it.
The Same Act Over Again
“If we do five years, personally I have no doubt in five years we will be back doing this again.
“In terms of the half-cent or three-quarters, we absolutely need the half-cent just to keep things afloat. What we are trying to avoid – so far we have been successful but we can’t continue to be if we don’t get more revenue to provide what people see in services and facilities.
“I don’t see a possibility where, if we don’t raise revenue, we can keep that up. I want to protect that for the folks who live here.
“That is why I think the half-cent is critical.
“I also can make a very compelling argument that, even with the half-cent, that we still don’t have adequate infrastructure funding. That is something we can either talk about now or at a later time. That is up to the City Council. But I do believe we have a very real need there as well.
“We want to keep Culver City the way it is now, where, when you enter the city, you know it,” Mr. Muir said.
An Argument for Three-Quarters
“Bottom line, I think there is a compelling argument for putting the additional quarter-cent to very good use, investing in our infrastructure.”
A central question Council members and other denizens of City Hall are wrestling with this afternoon is whether elevating the tax increase from the originally proposed half-cent to three-quarters will endanger its passage. Based on a May survey, the half-cent appears a cinch to be approved, but the picture is clouded for any more than that.
Which proposition does Mr. Muir favor?
“Passing the half-cent increase is very important,” he says. “I would not want to jeopardize that.”
Could three-fourths imperil chances?
“Based on the (May) polling, I don’t know that is the case,” the CFO said. “If there was enough education (of voters) and outreach, it would be possible. But I would hate to take the risk. Even if I don’t think it’s a tremendous risk, it is a risk nonetheless. I would hate to do anything that would coalesce an organized No campaign. I am not sure that would happen, but that makes it harder.
“I know the Chamber of Commerce wants a sunset. We have a difference of opinion on that.”
If it were Mr. Muir’s call, would he advise the Council to choose a half-cent or three-fourths?
He paused. Long.
“I don’t know if I would make that recommendation,” he said. “It is of the utmost importance we get the half-cent.
“Obviously, we could do more with three-quarters of a cent.”
