It appeared the Eau Claire City Council had put the brakes on adopting a wheel tax, but the controversial measure could become part of the 2010 city budget after all.
City Councilman Andrew Werthmann has proposed including the wheel tax, officially called a vehicle registration fee by city officials, in the budget in an effort to generate money for street repairs.
Werthmann has renamed the fee the "Safe Roads and Savings Initiative," an attempt to sway public opinion away from a tax and toward the budgetary benefits he said the measure would provide the city long-term.
Werthmann's idea is to use money generated by the wheel tax for street maintenance, delaying more expensive complete reconstructions of city streets. That money also would be used to pay for clearing streets of snow every time 2 inches accumulates instead of the 3-inch minimum the city switched to last winter in an attempt to save money.
Estimates call for the wheel tax to generate $430,000 during the year after its adoption and about $500,000 annually afterward. Of that money, $370,000 would go toward street maintenance and another $60,000 would be for increased snow plowing.
Paying more for street maintenance would extend the lives of streets significantly, Werthmann said, and delay more expensive road reconstructions. Using money generated by a $10 per-vehicle wheel tax would save an estimated $156 million in street repairs during the next 40 years, he said, citing Public Works Department figures.
"There are immense savings we can realize with this," Werthmann said. "I want people to view this in terms of how it can benefit the city, not just as an added cost."
Werthmann acknowledged the contentious nature of the wheel tax, which the council voted down last fall when it was proposed to help make up a budget shortfall. City Manager Mike Huggins and Finance Director Rebecca Noland did not include it in the 2010 proposed budget, in which they balanced a nearly $2 million shortfall with a combination of job cuts, labor concessions and project delays.
Many residents have spoken against the wheel tax, saying it's a tax increase disguised as a fee.
"I know it's not popular to bring this up," Werthmann, elected to the council in April, said of the wheel tax. "But it's a discussion worth having. The focus here is on long-term savings. For a relatively small amount of money now, we can save a lot of money in the future."
The proposed 2010 city budget includes a $100,000 reduction in street seal coating expenditures, from $445,000 to $345,000. Council members have expressed concerns about that cut and have proposed delaying the construction of a parking lot at the intersection of Forest and Wisconsin streets to reinstate street maintenance money.
Werthmann backs that action but said it represents a one-time, relatively small infusion of money for street repairs. That amount also wouldn't be enough to stave off more expensive future street fixes, he said.
"What happens next year or the year after that?" Werthmann said. "We can't put off building that parking lot forever. At some point we need to do that."
The city currently provides seal coating to 11 or 12 miles of streets annually, a figure that would be decreased to eight miles with the $100,000 reduction.
Council members unanimously back the importance of maintaining streets. But the wheel tax could face an uphill battle in becoming part of next year's budget. Some council members remain opposed to implementing another fee for city residents.
"I hear a lot of opposition to this idea," said councilwoman Jackie Pavelski, who introduced the amendment last year to remove the wheel tax from the budget.
Others also expressed concerns about the wheel tax. Councilman Larry Balow called the measure "a very unpopular tax" and worries future councils will increase the fee when beset with budget shortfalls. He noted similar legislation has been overturned in some Wisconsin communities where it had been adopted.
"It will be very easy to raise this fee to generate more money," Balow said. "You say $5 or $10 isn't much, but pretty soon this fee isn't $10 anymore, but it's $20 or $30 or more. I can guarantee you this fee will be much higher in the future."
However, other council members said they're willing to consider the idea given its budget-saving possibilities.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
getittogether
- Roads with less snow - making driving safer (due to plowing when there is two inches of snow rather than three)
Not really sure I believe there is any truth to this..Less snow on the streets mean more people are out driving, therefore increasing your chance of an accident!!! And really does one inch even make a difference!?!?!
Go further north where they do not plow until it is DONE snowing (even on the Highways)!
In Sanity
So what I'm hearing is `I` can't afford to not pay now. In fact, I am a dunderhead if I don't want to pay now. Then how can the `City` afford to not pay now to save so much? Just more attempts to rationalize a new tax.
By the way, is seal coating a revolutionary new process just discovered by the street department or could we have been saving hundreds of millions for years?
And if there is so much savings to be had, let's just leave those 3" of snow unplowed and jack the yearly savings to $4.6M? Hell, just leave the plows in the garage and invest the snow removal budget in seal coating. Huge Savings!
walkson
Our city council and county board has to go! The residents of Eau Claire are NOT being accurately represented. These elected officials are not deaf, they just don't care. Eau Claire might as well be renamed 'Deadwood'..it's 'their' town! Well, that's what they think. Tax and spend. If they eyeball your property..look out! Eminent domain! A little tax here, a little tax there, and it adds up to big money! What's their agenda..push the middle, and lower-working classes out of town? This 'Wheel-Tax' idea is a lousy idea! The people who promoted it need to work harder to solve the budgetary problems. Did they ever tell the public how the City spent big money on GPS units for their trucks, while they cut back on their snow plowing..oops, bet that one wasn't supposed to be known! someone's going to be embarassed. This City mismanages the money they take from 'us'. They need to come clean, be 'transparent. and start telling the truth to the public. No wheel tax..It sets a precedent for the City to keep taxing the people of Eau Claire for additional things!
TruthTeller
CAN YOU HEAR ME???
I cannot afford to have my tax burden LOWERED by $3.9 million dollars a year! Times are tought. Jobs are hard to come by. The people in Eau Claire cannot afford to have their tax burden DECREASED by $3.9 million.
WHAT PART OF "I CAN'T AFFORD LOWER TAXES" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???
unknown
CAN YOU HEAR THIS? I have lost my job, my wife has lost her job, my neighbor has no job, there are no jobs out there. I do not have anymore money any way you cut it!
CitizenAmerica
It's no wonder communist Andrew Werthmann and his anti-American communist friends are for raising taxes.
This has nothing to do do with saving money because it is a government plan. This is simply an attempt by liberal communists to try to take roads and put their control in the hands of Big Government.
When liberal socialist Barack Obama decides to round up real America in their FEMA camps, his liberal ally Andrew Werthmann will be well rewarded.
After this 'wheel tax' passes, the next step is to decide which citizens can drive on roads. When that happens, the government will decide where you get to go and when...or if. We won't be able to escape Obama's socialist agenda.
"First they came for the Jews, and I didn't stop them because I wasn't a Jew."
Let's stop this craziness NOW!
againstwhiners
Personally, I dislike the idea of the semi's being included in the wheel tax. If not for the big trucks(semi-s) how would our goods get into the city, do you think their companies arent paying through the nose already, with higher fuel prices/surcharges? Do you really think it fair to include them, those that bring our groceries, lumber, clothing, etc. If we dont want the roads damaged by these heavy vehicles it makes much better sense to have an industrial park set up NEXT to the interstate, where haulers bring their goods in, unload it, and then smaller trucks deliver the freight to their respective destinations within the city. With this idea, we create jobs also. Toll booths at every entrance to the city seems a good idea also, that way EVERYONE pays equally. The semi's too would pay this way, as well as everyone coming into this city. With all the other increases we citizens are experiencing from all around us, some surely are having to choose what they will have to cutback on next,possibly their health / auto insurance,as these costs have risen to an all time high with the new law, that will effect every driver/owner. Many will discontiue their medications, cut back on food purchases, or even sell their autos. What is wrong with this city cutting back on its' department CEO's??? How many chiefs do we need to operate any particular department in a city this size? Many employee's have been laid off/let go, it is time to get rid of some of the high dollar waste in this town. Why is it not possible for one supervisor to supervise more than one department ,or ,more than 5-30 people?They cant stick to a budget anyway, even if this wheel tax does pass. Next year, we'll hear they want to raise it because again theyll run short of cash.
EricRosenquist
The money generated through the Safe Roads and Savings Initiative (wheel tax) would go towards seal-coating our roads, which would save money by repairing roads now rather than replacing them in the near future.
It seems that many people are focusing solely on the fact that they're going to be paying an extra ten dollars. That is one side of the coin, indeed. Let's look at the other side of the coin - what we get in return for the ten dollars.
What we get in return:
- $156 million savings over 40 years, which amounts to nearly $4 million per year
- Roads with fewer cracks since they'll be seal-coated
- Less wear and tear on our cars (I don't like driving on roads with cracks - not good for the car's alignment)
- Roads with less snow - making driving safer (due to plowing when there is two inches of snow rather than three)
So let's not only focus on the fee as if we're just throwing away ten dollars. Let's look at what we get in exchange for our ten dollars. There is such a thing as a "cost-saving fee" and this is one.
wintersucks
What sickens me is the fact that any money made with the wheel tax will not be spent on our roads, and once again, those people living in Eau Claire, but outside of the city limits, get one more tax break.
Here’s a better idea, if they’re going to increase taxes, why don’t they impose a city beer tax, or cigarette tax? How about a ½ cent tax increase on gasoline? That way it’s less noticeable.
The next question is when they impose this new tax, and they start making millions, why is it that only the new developments get the improvements? How about those older neighborhoods that have been paying taxes for decades, why don’t they get any improvements?
TruthTeller
Out of a 19 paragraph story, the Leader-Telegram has ONLY ONE paragraph to saying this could save up to $156 million.
There are 5 paragraph saying this will 'raise taxes' or express opposition to the 'higher cost'.
There is no actual analysis in this article, just commentary that this will cost $430,000 in new taxes, but the article does not apply the almost $4,000,000 in less spending.
Instead of reporting "he said, she said" report the facts. Compare the thousands this will cost to the millions it will save.
TruthTeller
I'd like to thank the L-T for yet another unbiased article that isn't written in an inflammatory fashion. Yes, I would like to thank the L-T for a quality article, but I cannot.
Here is another example of a "horse race" news story when deeper analysis is needed. Council member Werthmann argues this will save the taxpayers money in the long-term, but the article never explains how this would happen or how much would be saved.
According to City documents, city taxpayers could save $156 million dollars over 40 years if we seal coated the roads that we do not. That's a savings of $3.9 million a year.
Would you, as a taxpayer, have city residents pay $430,000 a year in 'new taxes' if it means that taxpayers will also be spending $3.9 million less?
This IS NOT higher taxes. It reduces our tax burden.
a ghost
Hmmmm......How 'bout I loan the city the $450k each year. I'll just split the savings with them each year .....using Mr. Werthmans #'s what's that come out to.....maybe $2 million/yr for me.....
EricRosenquist
There certainly are negatives about a wheel tax. Technically it's a flat tax since every City of Eau Claire citizen pays the same $10 fee. In reality, it works as a regressive tax because a person driving a brand-new Hummer pays the same amount as a person driving a 15-year-old Honda. So that is the bad about the fee.
However, we must look at the savings. For each dollar spent repairing the roads through this fee, we are saving eight dollars. The consequences for taxpayers are much more dire to not impose this fee.
I agree with Jim Olson that it would be ideal to charge a larger area such as the whole county in order to make every person pay who uses the roads, but the City doesn't have the capability of doing so.
A $156 million dollar savings over ten years just cannot be overlooked. In this case, practicing fiscal responsibility would be to charge this $10 fee, which amounts to the price of 3.5 gallons of gasoline.
GrampaRick
You can make it even more lucrative by putting toll booths at every entrance to the city and gouge those non-residents who drink, shop, go to the doctor and just simply drive on the streets for pleasure. An entry toll to drive on city streets by non-residents seems to make more sense to me than taxing the locals AGAIN for the streets.
Local property owners could be issued an electronic authorization card, similar to a credit card. All they would have to do would be to swipe the card and happily proceed back into town. Local taxpayers will love this as they can stick it to those big trucks and country folk who put all the wear and tear on the local streets. Also, no one will be mad at the council persons except the people who don''t live in the city and who cares about them?
How about it council, any takers for sponsoring this? You can call it a wheel tax and it will be popular with the local taxpayers. As an addendum you could consider applying it to anyone who doesn't own property in the city also. Just thing of all those renters with money who drive cars. There is always more money to be taken from taxpayers, you just have to be creative.
Blessed are the Peacekmakers
Rick Meyer, New Bern, NC
getittogether
I guess it is time to move out of the city limits, either that or register my vehicle at a different address. And again with the 3" snow minimum....give me a break!!! My 10 dollars is not worth getting the streets plowed when there are 2" instead of 3" for the less heavily traveled streets. Make it 5" and really save some money. Less people will use the roads, less accidents because people will be more cautious. Makes sense to me!!
CitizenJimO
Council member Werthman makes a persuasive argument for the city based wheel tax. The concept of a municipal wheel tax, however, is fundamentally flawed when applied to any jurisdiction smaller than a county and even at that larger venue it represents double taxation. It is attractive to city administrators because it is easy to collect, but the reason it is easy to collect betrays its flaw; it is a tax piggy backed on a tax. Enough already. The ideal tax for a city to collect is one like the room tax that benefits the city but is paid by people from outside the city, The wheel tax benefits all drivers on city roads whether from the city or nor and is paid only by city residents.
Perfect Sense
Rosenquist, with great clarity, you have shown everyone why you will NEVER, EVER, EVER get elected to the city council. And as far as Werthmann, you again have lived up to your nickname "worthless" and it's high time to get a recall petition started.
tunerville
BS. Another example of "tax anything that moves" mentality. Hey, if we can give 8.8 % increase to employees we sure as heck have enough "extra" money so we don't have to gouge the poor long-suffering taxpayer.....who is losing hours, pay, perhaps even their job. Vote all the tax-increasing council people OUT and get fiscally responsible people in . Some of these idiots think the taxpayers have an endless trough of money for these greedy pigs to eat out of.
ToonyTowner
Yet another tax,and it's framed by saying it's for safety and saving money. I believe the public has spoken enough times and said No New Taxes. This is yet another tax, because the city will not accept the fact that it needs to cut back, even if it affects services, and the people need to understand that they may be affected. I'd say that I'm glad I don't live in EC, but I know if it becomes a "Good Idea" in EC, then some council member here will decide it's a good idea too. So let's just all say NO.
In Sanity
"Werthmann has renamed the fee the "Safe Roads and Savings Initiative," "
The most demeaning face of politics...full frontal! (Mr Emerson, the comma goes AFTER the quote.)
"Estimates call for the wheel tax to generate $430,000 during the year after its adoption and about $500,000 annually afterward. Of that money, $370,000 would go toward street maintenance and another $60,000 would be for increased snow plowing."
So Werthmann is throwing a + 1" snowplow bone at us? 15% to extra plows in year one of the new tax, 12% in the second year of the new tax, and dwindling thereafter. No thanks, Andrew. Let the snow lie, but dropping less salt would help the roads AND the budget.
"What happens next year or the year after that?" Werthmann said. "We can't put off building that parking lot forever. At some point we need to do that."
Why? That gravel needs only to be leveled twice a year. Doesn't the gravel surface allow more seepage, eliminating runoff, especially adjacent the river? How about an experiment with a porous, but relatively smooth surface like traprock?
"I think it was also best stated by Councilman Balow that this fee could be easily increased in the future."
Once established, it will NEVER die and NEVER decrease.
Big Cory
I can't support this idea unless it is applied to ALL vehicles. This has been previously been talked of, but it seems the vehicles that cause the most damage(semi/heavy trucks) were being exempt from it.
Why should the vehicles that cause the most damage to the streets not be charged accordingly for the upkeep, like the rest of our vehicles?
I think it was also best stated by Councilman Balow that this fee could be easily increased in the future. We're getting nickled and dimed to death because the city didn't plan plan ahead when starting all these projects to rebuild downtown.
EricRosenquist
This is a great idea. I urge all council members to support Werthmann's initiative. By charging each person in the city of Eau Claire the price of 3.5 gallons of gasoline, we can save literally millions upon millions of dollars.
I believe that the saving amount to an 8 to 1 margin - for each dollar spent, we will be saving an additional eight dollars. I, for one, would much rather spend $10 today rather than $80 tomorrow.
Be sure to call or email the your council member to urge him or her to support this cost-saving fee.