[UPDATE: the County Board of Supervisors voted no to have a public vote on whether to fund the FACC with LOST revenues]
The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing Thursday evening on whether or not the county should hold an election to support the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center (FACC) with a portion of the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST). A standing room only crowd filled nearly 200 chairs and then lined the sides and back of room. Thirty two citizens expressed opinions that varied widely from the thoughtful to the absurd during the 2 1/4 hour public hearing at the fairgrounds.
The meeting started with each supervisor giving some background on the issue, then Pat McMahon and Dave Neff spoke on behalf of the FACC. Then a steady flow of citizens started to approach the microphone, some didn’t necessarily like the idea of having any change in the LOST allocation, but did support the process of letting the people express themselves at the ballot box.
The current allocation for the county portion of the LOST funds is 80% for property tax relief and 20% for bridge and culvert repair. According to the supervisors, the current property tax relief that could be put toward the FACC, should a vote be held and it passed, is $6 per $100,000 of valuation. In other words, a county resident with a property valued at $500,000 would lose $30 of tax relief per year, however, many speakers were not interested in having any of their money going toward the center.
One speaker was not interested in holding an election because they didn’t want the county to incur the cost. Bob Moore of the FACC board responded that they have the money raised to cover the election cost for both the city and county, they will make a donation of that amount to each entity.
Jim Salts spoke in favor of the center and the vote saying, “if we don’t look forward and make the community attractive, our young people will have no reason to return and live here after college.”
A ’show of hands’ vote near the end of the meeting indicated that the majority of citizens in attendance were not in favor of putting the issue to a vote, nearly half of the speakers indicated a desire to put the question to a vote.
The Board will vote on holding the election during their regular meeting Monday @ 9:00, an estimated 4500 residents in the unincorporated areas of the county would be eligible to vote in the proposed election.
Facts and information about the plan to save the FACC can be found at http://www.fairfieldcenterinfo.com/
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ab651892-9560-43c6-a213-944b4cb74641)
Normally I like public vote on issues, but for this issue there is so much misunderstanding that I'm concerned that "the public" will vote out of ignorance. So, I would prefer there NOT be a public vote… let our representatives make the well-informed, wise, choice.
Thanks for reporting on this, Mark. I hope the supervisors weigh in on the side of democracy and allow the residents of Jefferson County to vote on this issue.
Yeah, last night was not a night for successfully sharing the facts – Waaaaaay too much emotion. There was so much fear of the inherent unknowns of the FACC's future, that most folks seemed to be spinning their wheels in mud of fear. No room to be brave and progressive within that. The potential for the increasing LOS tax to actually LOWER their property tax bill did not seem to register with many folks.
The double back on logic was astounding: "Because we didn't get to vote on the county's initial involvement with the FACC (the Supervisors donated $25K as part of the start-up) we will not let anyone vote now. huh???? So you are going to trust the decision with the elected officials who, by your reckoning, acted without your consent in the first place???
It's amazing to me that no one brought up the fact that the supervisors donated $30K to the Lake Darling restoration in WASHINGTON County – $5K more than what the gave the FACC and it goes out-of-county, with no cash ROI coming to Jefferson County residents. I've never been clear where that donation fell within their 80/20 tax relief/bridge repair??? Do the no-vote people know that? Does that build trust in their supervisors to "do the right thing" in their minds?
I loved people speaking their minds, but it baffles me that they do not support a vote. What's more democratic than everyone getting a say?
At this point, it may serve the FACC board more to NOT make the Supervisors out as the "bad guys" and less-than-consistent elected officials? The vote/no vote ball is entirely in the Supervisors court right now.
I'd rather see the Lake Darling point brought up in the next Supervisors election. Between that and potential campaign accusations that they "denied citizens the vote" (if indeed they do) perhaps Jefferson County has a real chance for a more progressive minded Supervisor? Just think strateegery here, haha.
Nobody has been denied a vote. I already voted: I voted in the elections for Mayor, City Council, and County Supervisors. The people who are supposed to be our leaders and wizened heads.
No go for the County. Thank you, Dick Reed, for trying.
Yeah, thank goodness for Dick Reed. oh well. The work-around begins……
What is the story with Dick Reed? And what does a "work-around" entail? That essentially means making up the difference correct?
I'm again confused. Does the 12.5% of revenues I asked about on the other blog post refer only to the City of Fairfield's share? I live outside Fairfield in Blackhawk Township, and it sounds like the county has a different chunk of those funds and that funding FACC from the county's share will require reallocating those funds away from other specifically designated uses.
Will, Dick Reed is a reliable moderate on many matters. He was on City Council for a while when he still lived in the city. I think he sees the public vote as the best way of settling the FACC issue quickly. Now there are other options for the FACC Board. This is from the KMCD e-news today:
"Will the residents in the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County go to the polls to vote on a reallocation of Local option Sales tax revenues? Not just yet.
The Board of Supervisors today voted 2-1 to not allow the issue to be on a May ballot. Stating there are too many unanswered questions about the future revenues and the counties obligations if a public private partnership was reached.
Voting to put the issue on the ballot was Supervisor Dick Reed, who said the measure would be put to rest one way or the other, if residents were allowed to cast votes, and if not put on the ballot now, the issue can be forced to a vote by the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center with a petition with at least 400 signatures.
That is a decision that will need to be made by the FACC board.
Supervisor Burgmeier stated that FACC needs to come back to the board with that petition, stating that the residents had already voted in 2008 to use the Local Option Sales Tax for property tax relief along with bridge and covert repair, and it’s up to those same residents to decide if they want to vote on it again.
Supervisor Dimmitt stated that the revenue shortfalls of $160,000 in 2010 and his doubts they can make that up with contributions from patrons doesn’t have him convinced the center is a viable building or business.
Another option that would be possible but not likely is the city of Fairfield forcing the county to put the issue on the ballot since more than 51% of the counties population live within city limits. Fairfield city council voted last week to allow its residents to vote on shifting 12.5% of the LOTS revenue to the FACC public private plan."
Here's the Ledger's story:
http://bit.ly/6HX4FE
It sounds to me like the supervisors don't have a problem with the idea of residents voting on a LOST reallocation, but they don't want to, themselves, be the agents through which it happens. You could look at it cynically and say they don't want to associate themselves with something that a number of people in the county don't approve of, or you could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they simply don't feel right about giving their implied stamp of approval to something they have doubts about.
Either way, I don't think you can say that the board of supervisors DOESN'T WANT people to get to vote. Steve Burgmeier said as much himself: "I too believe they will come back with a petition, and I believe that’s the proper way." (From the Ledger story.)
Side note: I don't know Lee Dimmitt, since he wasn't on the board when I lived in Fairfield, but Dick Reed and Steve Burgmeier are both people who I like and respect. I don't think the 2-1 decision means that the supervisors DON'T support a vote … just that they think if it's going to come about, it should be by petition and not by the board's own action.
I'd like to think we have got time to get clear on this issue and help educate the pubic. Yeah for Fairfield Voice.
I want to make sure this is clear. The board will be deciding if there should be a public vote or not, the public vote would determine if some of the LOST funds would be reallocated to support the FACC.
It seems to me that the only reason anyone would oppose a public vote would be because they fear that it may actually pass, otherwise, have the vote and when it fails they can continue to crow "I told you so". Some speakers said that they elected the board to make decisions and they should allow them to decide this, no doubt assuming that the board will decide not to hold the vote.
The no-brain decision for the board is to have the vote and let the people speak, it's the only responsible choice, let the system work.
I was certain that an FACC rep was going to point out the Lake Darling restoration.
I don't want the board to make a no-brain decision. The whole reason they are there is to make the brained decisions.
What? Since when does "democracy" mean that you, as our elected representative, won't lead, using the power you received via "democracy" — you may recall there was an election?
Yes, Yeah for Fairfield Voice. Absolutely.
Unfortunately, the FACC has become a symbol of Fairfield's ignorant town/gown townie/roo divisiveness. I don't believe we have the time to overcome that.
Eddie, be careful here. You're insulting a large portion of the voting population of both Fairfield and Jefferson County. And your understanding of the workings of local government is incomplete. Special elections are held whenever possible to allow tax paying voters to decide how best to spend those taxes – that's democracy in action. Elected officials decide which issues should be handled by special election and which ones can be considered business-as-usual. That's how they "do their jobs."
As for elected officials making decisions on behalf of their constituents, that's partly what has caused so much backlash from the county voters. Years ago the supervisors gave a small portion ($25K, I think) of the county Local Option Sales Tax to the Convention Center project without asking the voters, and that really made some people angry. Any expenditures that are not within the basic duties of the government should and usually are put to a special election to ascertain the will of the voters. When this process is circumvented and elected officials make the decision on their own there will be negative repercussions, as we have seen.
I spent weeks going door-to-door during my campaign, and one issue I always brought up was the Convention Center. At first it appeared that most people were not in favor, but as I moved from neighborhood to neighborhood the results became more even. Were I to try to ascertain what the majority of voters in my Ward would want there would be no way to ensure an accurate result, so I voted in favor of a public vote so that the People can decide for themselves.
One thing you may be overlooking; the board cannot vote to change the way the LOST is spent, that has to be decided by the voters (beyond the point of suppressing a vote to disallow any change from the present arrangement). The board's only decision is whether or not they let the voters decide.
Eddie, I can only assume that you're referring to the democratic republic system that we in the US utilize, where "the people" vote for representatives to make informed, educated decisions on their behalf. Yes, that is how the majority of issues are handled, but whenever possible a true democracy will allow all registered voters in a particular area (e.g. the City of Fairfield and the unincorporated area of Jefferson County) to choose for themselves how they want their tax money to be spent.
If you object to this on the grounds that the average voter is not as informed as we elected officials then I would counter that it's up to those with vested interest to educate the voters prior to the election. If you object on the grounds of the extra costs incurred in holding a public vote then I would counter that it's just the cost of running a democratic government.
If I missed something specific then please let me know. And I ask that you keep you tone as respectful as I have kept mine.
Yes, the 12.5% is strictly in reference to the City. The County's current and proposed use of their LOST funds are best explained by the article:
"The current allocation for the county portion of the LOST funds is 80% for property tax relief and 20% for bridge and culvert repair. According to the supervisors, the current property tax relief that could be put toward the FACC, should a vote be held and it passed, is $6 per $100,000 of valuation. In other words, a county resident with a property valued at $500,000 would lose $30 of tax relief per year, however, many speakers were not interested in having any of their money going toward the center."
This morning the County Supervisors voted not to allow this issue to go to a vote for county residents, though it may not be the end of the issue.
Good point, Mark: the County Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to reallocate the county's LOST revenue. The City, on the other hand, does technically have the authority to allocate the 25% Community Betterment in whatever way it deems appropriate, but just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD.
Can anybody clarify this statement?
"Another option that would be possible but not likely is the city of Fairfield forcing the county to put the issue on the ballot since more than 51% of the counties population live within city limits."
Internet forums do not have the same rules of etiquette as public in-person forums do. I have not written anything here that is out of bounds of the normal give and take that is common in forums like this. I didn't use cuss words nor did I directly make personal derogatory comments about you or anyone else.