Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-1007 Documents Submitted at Mtg 7-► m o N y DPi A4-& PZ z~ 6c 7- ` r S U i~PD R r 77ff 6- V rD - E- v y , The statement in measure wording," ...may cause property taxes to increase more than 3 percent." is misleading at best! Let's take the example of our property taxes and assessed value. Dawn and I pay about 6 thousand in property taxes. We are financially secure and live in a house that is maybe a little too nice for confirmed progressives. Our assessed value is 465 K. Let's do the arithmetic. First : 3% increase. .03 x 6000 = $180. (f0 s j O F 1 Da vi3 l rT~ Two m, tlfIZC-6- X c- Jv►oNtG, Second: 13 cents per thousand levy. .13 x 465 = $60.45 That's a huge difference, assuming that the 13 cents levy is applied uniformly to the assessed dwelling values. The example they use in ballot wording for house assessed at 150k is however, correct. The anti-tax people, who oppose gov't doing anything will use that statement. The people who would benefit most from this levy would have to pay very little extra as is most cases their homes would not be in the high end area. Worse yet, the final statement in the ballot measure is not just misleading but is approaching flat wrong. The final sentence is, "The estimated tax cost for this measure is an ESTIMATE ONLY based on the best information from the county assessor's office at the time of the estimate" Clearly, this has nothing to do with the 13 cents /thousand levy, which is quite specific. What is referred to here is the money that will generated by the levy which, of course, depends the updated assessments. But it sounds like it somehow affects ballot measure's 13 cents number. Naturally there are assessments in the county that are not up to date, not having been recalculated for years. According to the Mail Tribune of 8 July 2014 the county is in danger of losing $400,000 of almost 2.5 million in matching federal dollars. There are more details in that article which make a very compelling case for the levy. It's a no brainer that would benefit low income people; seniors who can't drive at night or at all, students etc. The benefits accrue to a broad segment of the county. It's a well known principle of economics that every dollar invested in infrastructure multiplies many times over as the effects ripple into the community. It is amazing how little is known about the measure and the ballot measure wording does not explain all the benefits. Go for it! Don ,n1- ~ l~ VTR http://mail.ashlandhome.net:3000/WorldClient.dll?Session=V;KME ARCH&... 10/7/2014 1 KV 10 seeks property tax levy - tiate tiouse rage i of 7-E-S Ti 144 o N y c~S D6 N -(A D 2 /2 15 By DAMIAN MANN Print Page Judy o8. 2014 2:ooAM RVTD seeks property tax levy The Rogue Valley Transportation District will ask voters to approve a temporary 73 percent increase in its property tax levy to avoid cutting evening hours and Saturday service. The Rogue Valley Transportation District will ask voters to approve a temporary 73 percent increase in its property tax levy to avoid cutting evening hours and Saturday service. "I hope it isn't a tough sell," said Bill Mansfield, RVTD board member. "We haven't had an increase for many, many decades." The RVTD board recently approved asking voters on Nov. 4 for a five-year levy of 13 cents per $i,ooo. The district A Rogue Valley - The District currently taxes 17.72 cents per $1,ooo, or $26.58 per year on a house valued at $15o,ooo. bus makes a stop at Crater Lake Avenue and Brookhurst Street on Monday. Mail if voters approve the levy, the amount collected by RVTD would increase to $46.o8 on a $15o,ooo house, or $19.50 Tribune / Julia Moore more per year. ► lThe new levy would bring in an additional $1.69 million to district coffers each year. V Without the extra funding, RVTD could be in danger of losing $400,000 of almost $2.5 million in matching federal dollars. v The district has an operating budget of $9.4 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year. .,/In addition to preserving weekend and evening hours, the levy would add a route to better serve east Medford and another route that would serve Rogue Community College's Table Rock Campus in White City. The expanded Medford route would traverse neighborhoods near McAndrews and Springbrook roads to serve an increased number of low-income families/"' RVTD is seeking the dollars because a three year federal grant, which paid for expanded evening hours and weekend service, will end in 2015.1 Mansfield said that after five years, the district would no longer be able to collect the 13 cents per $1,ooo unless it received another approval from voters. Connie Skillman, chairwoman of the RVTD board, said the five-year period would give RVTD time to figure out other funding options. "Hopefully, this would get us over the hump," she said. "It will be a serious problem if we don't get this money." v She said RVTD provides more service for the limited dollars it receives than any other transportation district in the state. r✓ With gas prices increasing, local residents will need RVTD's services more and more, Skillman said. Instead of cutting back on service, Skillman said RVTD should be expanding routes and hours of operation. She said she would like to see Sunday service offered as well. The request for additional dollars is separate from an effort to expand a bus route into Eagle Point. Voters in Eagle Point will be asked on Nov. 4 whether they want to join RVTD and pay the district's permanent levy of 17.72 cents per $1,ooo. In addition, voters in Eagle Point would also pay the temporary levy of 13 cents per $1,ooo if it is approved by a majority of voters served by RVTD in Jackson County. In the 2004-2005 fiscal year, RVTD had 1,182,925 riders when fares were $1 each. In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, when fares were $2, there were 1,402,528 riders. The district was established in 1975 and began offering bus service in 1977. [We haven't had an increase in our property tax for over 30 years," said Julie Brown, general manager of RVTD. Without the additional dollars, RVTD may have to drop scheduling routes that operate until 9 p.m, or later. Most routes would have to stop at 5 or 5:30 p.m., Brown said. In addition, Saturday service might also cease. http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20140708/News/407080302?template=... 10/6/2014 City Council Meeting October 7, 2014 Public Comment Donna Swanson 863 Plum Ridge Drive In Ashland I would like to recommend to the City Council that the City of Ashland agree to the proposed Resolution to support the RVTD tax levy appearing on the November ballot. This funding is critical and will not be coming from any other means of taxation: City nor County. Without this increase we will lose our current bus transportation on weekday evenings and Saturdays. There is a critical need for this increase in local funding in order to be eligible for matching federal funds. The levy will also make possible expanded service to East Medford and Rogue Community College in White City where 3,000 students are attending classes. The County needs it, our area needs it, Ashland needs it, students need it, residents need it. Important considerations for passing this Resolution: • Bus transportation to and from Ashland is important to the lifeblood of our City providing a means for people to travel to and from employment, allowing visitors and neighbors to attend performances, enjoy dining out, and to take full advantage of the cultural opportunities abounding in this artistic community. • Buses transport attendees to events at our many Theatres, OSF, Concerts, Museums, Galleries, Film Festivals, and First Friday Art Walks, not only in Ashland but within Jackson County. • With limited parking within the City of Ashland, bus transportation is a very viable alternative. • Many residents rely on bus transportation for late afternoon medical appointments. • Students depend on bus transportation to attend classes out of the area as well as for personal needs. • On the current schedule, the evening and Saturday ridership has shown to be higher than some daytime periods. 77 i.- ems.... V . L:y e ~ t v° t ~e ti .t t 4 ~ 777 t L.k k t , y 4, yv~~ 1 n s ~ ~.raw aF ~ ✓ xx : Concering the Ashland Book Exchange Mural Roy Laird Ashland Book Exchange 90 N Pioneer Street 97520 Business: 541-482-1675 Cell: 541-324-2174 October 7, 2014 Background: The Book Exchange is 43 years old. My wife and I purchased it in May after having worked there for the previous four years. I have over thirty years in the book business. I moved here four years ago and reside at 419 Willow Street, Ashland. For it's first first 40 years the Book Exchange, which began as Edna's Book Exchange, was located at 80 Oak Street next to Standing Stone Resturant. We moved to the current location in November, 2010. We moved into this location, the mural was already in place. The age of the mural is uncertain. The consensus among long-term residents and customers is that it's probably about ten years old. No one has been able to find out who painted it. When Cindy Munroe, the previous owner, moved the store to the current location she erected a new sign on the front of the building and had a sign painted in the window. The city approved both without citing the mural as a problem. At a later date Cindy was cited by the city for putting a neon sign in the front window. No mention was made of the mural or it being a out of compliance with existing ordinances. The mural became an issue in July when on my behalf Deluxe Awnings applied for a permit to replace the existing awning over the front doors. During the permitting process they made the city aware of the mural. At that time city officials gave me the following options: Paint over the mural or get the building owner to apply to the Arts Commission for acceptance of the mural as public art. Installation of the mural would not be approved until I met one of these conditions. The second condition would require waiting on the mural until after the Arts Commission made its decision. I felt I had no choice but to paint over the mural. I could not afford to wait for public hearings on the mural. The old awning was in tatters making the building look shabby. I needed the awning replaced to improve the appearance of the building and to give the store more presence during the height of the tourist season which I deemed critical for to out business. After I agreed I would paint over the mural, the city granted me an extension on the painting, delaying it until after the awning was installed and the existing Book Exchange sign (a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood) was removed to allow me to determine the condition of the facade behind the sign and decide whether or not I'd have to paint the entire front of the building or just cover the mural. At this point my customers stepped in, literally as I was pulling a paint chip off the building, objecting to me having to paint over the mural. There were calls to city officials and to the newspaper. Once the issue became public many more customers expressed surprise and dismay that something as harmless as this painting was in violation of code. Many people were flabbergasted, felt the city was acting in an arbitrary fashion, and that that eliminating a charming piece of like this mural defied common sense and undercut city's goals of encouraging public art. I decided I would attempt to go through the process of applying to the Arts Commission. City officials graciously granted me another extension on painting the mural to allow for this. Unfortunately, after building owner, Sanjeev Sunny, (Medford, Oregon; 707 688 8588) consulted his legal council about the form, which runs to 12 pages and requires him to grant a five year easement to the city to maintain the art, he declined to proceed. I don't blame him. I had intended on addressing the Arts Commission at their last meeting but am embarrassed to say I got confused about the meeting time and missed it. I want to stress that this has been a cordial process with city officials in the difficult position of having to enforce an ordinance that clearly does not apply to this situation. These are the issues as I see them: --The legal agreement for murals is constructed exclusively for expensive, high-end and corporate art. There is no provision for smaller and simpler projects. --For smaller murals, like this one, the requirement that that building owner grant the city a long-term easement is a bit excessive. It appears that all the city wants is permission to maintain the mural. The easement stipulation may make sense for large and expensive projects, but for a simple piece of what is essentially folk-art like this, it's legal overkill. --There is no provision for dealing with already existing murals or other artwork, only for applying for permission to create new ones. I propose that the City: --Temporarily suspend enforcement of the ordinance regarding existing murals to allow time to reconsider and modify the ordinance. --Conduct a survey to find out how many murals and art works like the one on the Book Exchange already exist. --Expand the ordinance to include and encourage smaller projects. --Simplify and ease up on the legal agreements for such projects. --Grandfather existing art and murals that meet the basic artistic criteria of the expanded ordinance for small projects. I request that the council put this issue on its agenda for a future meeting.