Council to move forward with permanent parks tax in August

Thursday, May 19, 2011

By Ralph Pokorny/Nevada Daily Mail

"We'd like to see the tax permanent ... Whatever decision you make the parks board is behind you and JD," Shirley Ann Bastow, park board member, told the Nevada City Council before they voted 5-0 to give final approval to setting an Aug. 2 date for an election to renew the 1/2-cent parks sales tax. The proposed measure would not have a sunset and would not be restricted to capital improvement projects. The ballot also would permanently roll the parks property tax back to zero.The parks property tax generates about $175,000 annually, which does not come close to covering the parks department operating expenses.

"Salaries and benefits are just over $700,000," Kehrman said.

The 1/2-cent sales tax generates in excess of $700,000 per year and the plan is for that money to replace the $620,000 that is transferred from the city's general fund for park maintenance and operating expenses.

The money from the current parks sales tax, which expires in 2014, will continue to be used for the projects promised when it was renewed in 2005. That money cannot be used for any other purpose.

Nevada City Manager JD Kehrman told the council that he recommended that the sales tax be made permanent because he thought it was the best thing for the city, since the parks will always need maintenance and the current parks sales tax cannot be used to pay for maintenance and operating costs.

By using a sales tax instead of other tax money everyone who purchases something in town will share in the cost of maintaining the parks facilities.

This will also free up money to cover the cost of replacing the city's public safety building, which lacks adequate space and has a mold problem in the basement.

Kehrman told the council that if the voters approve renewing the sales tax in August, the city will immediately issue RFQ's for architectural services and have a design for the new building well under way by the end of the year.

He told the council that while he preferred to make the tax permanent, a 20- or 25-year sunset would be enough time to pay for a new public safety building, Kehrman told the council.

He said that a new facility would allow them to move the entrance away from Austin Boulevard.

In other business the council:

* Voted 5-0 to approve the reappointment of Frankie Davis, Gina Cripps and Warren Schooley to three-year terms on the parks board.

* Voted 5-0 to approve a right-of-way solicitors license for the American Cancer Society-Relay for Life on May 27 and 28 at the Osage and Austin intersection.

* Voted 5-0 to pass on first reading a special ordinance approving the vacation of 86 feet of Alma Street between Walnut and Locust so the city can remove an unsafe bridge. The ordinance retains the city's utility right-of-way.

* Voted 5-0 to pass on second reading a special ordinance approving the city's three-year employment contract with JD Kehrman as city manager.

* Voted 5-0 to pass on second reading a special ordinance approving the city 's contract with APAC-Missouri, Springfield, for the city's 2011 transportation sale tax projects. The overall total cost for the projects is $199,100.

Comments

View 7 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

"This will also free up money to cover the cost of replacing the city's public safety building, which lacks adequate space and has a mold problem in the basement."

I'm not too smart so let me figure this out.

You want to push for a special election to keep the parks tax that doesn't expire until 2014 so you can divert moneys to a new public safety building on overpriced land and sunset the tax for 20-25 years so the new building can be paid off?

Sounds simple enough. NOT

-- Posted by Oneofus on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:13 AM
All that shifting of funds from one purpose to another makes me wonder why. Is it to use funds in ways they weren't originally intended? I guess it'll cost us even if it's voted down in August.

-- Posted by undeded on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 4:41 PM
do we really believe it will be voted down it seems if we do vote this tax down it will be decided behind closed doors that seems to be the norm as of late give us what we want/need or we will just vote it in with out the voters there are some very smart people on this council and i mean that (so dont delete me yet) but i got to question there money handeling skills if i went to any bank (really any bank pick one) and told them i wanted to pay 3 times the amount that a piece of property is worth could i run out the door fast enough not to her the banker laugh at me but yet thats just what the council has done come one you all are alot smarter then this please do the right things if for nothing else a good nights sleep

-- Posted by 3D-shooter on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 5:55 PM
Seems to me that they could have saved all that money they spent on a new fire truck that they did not need, saved on the water/sewer situation by NOT contracting with Alliance AND by NOT giving the City Manager a cushy new extension on his contract. This would have given them a good start. How about if you need a new building then tighten your belts a little. Oh and save some money and quit harassing your citizens with red signs all over town! I'm sure all the manpower that is wasted on that not to mention the gas and wear and tear on a city vehicle is no small cost.

-- Posted by Yeah Right on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 7:30 PM
Do they want to build the Public Safety building / Jail-Fire Station on Cherry St. and keep City Hall where it is? Just curious.

Wish they would move the fire station, it seems inconvient where it is now.

-- Posted by deleted on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 8:00 PM
Ok, it sure seems to me they are trying to pull a fast one on you. Also it occures to me that with all the back handed things JD has been doing maybe he needs to be investigated for things he may have done in the past. He sure seems to be slick. Just my opinion no fact so don't delete. If I read this right this tax is a sales tax. If I am right I have the cure for it. Don't buy anything in Nevada. I'm sure El Do, Butler, Ft Scott or even Lamar would love to have the money come in. Don't buy even a roll of TP in Nevada. They may get the tax passed but they will lose the money. I for one will never buy another thing in that town. However I know that most will just suck it up and go along with it. I guess you just have to pick your battles. You have to ask yourself if this one is really worth your time.

-- Posted by truthseeker67 on Fri, May 20, 2011, at 3:40 AM
you should just move away truthseeker

-- Posted by Denis Cannon on Tue, May 24, 2011, at 9:53 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register