Vancouver budget shields fire, police

Vancouver Police motorcycle officer Ken Suvada tracks speeding cars last summer. Police and fire services were largely spared from cuts in the 2009-11 city budget. (N. Scott Trimble/Columbian files)

Vancouver has balanced its budget for the next two years by bumping up city utility taxes and eliminating positions in building and other departments hit hard by the economic downturn.

The city council, shortly before 11:30 p.m. Monday, voted 4-3 to approve a 2009-10 budget that shields police and fire departments from budget cuts and provides money to build rail, road and utility improvements for waterfront redevelopment.

Council members Pat Campbell and Jeanne Stewart voted against the $857.4 million two-year budget, primarily because they have lingering doubts about the city’s plan to spend $15.5 million to support a waterfront project expected to attract $1.2 billion in private investment.

Councilman Tim Leavitt said he voted no because of his opposition to boosting sewer, water and drainage taxes, from 16 percent to 20 percent, to maintain police and fire service. Leavitt said the city needs to dig deeper to find a way to maintain public safety without raising taxes.

“We’re in unprecedented economic times right now,” he said. “We’re about to bail out the automobile industry. My 401(k) has dropped 35 percent....I think it’s absolutely the wrong message to send to folks who are struggling that we are going to raise taxes on them.”

The utility tax increases, along with conversion of a garbage franchise fee into a 20 percent tax, are expected to cost a typical Vancouver household an additional $54.48 a year.

The council also agreed to increase its property tax levy for 2009 by 1 percent, the maximum allowed under state law, and to raise water, sewer, drainage, and solid waste rates to account for inflation.

Fees are assessed to pay for the cost of a particular service, but taxes are collected to raise money for general purposes, including police and fire.

Despite clear divisions on the seven-person council, members appear to agree a next step could be presenting some type of plan to voters to provide more money.

“I think the city manager had cut things to the bone; I don’t see any waste,” Campbell said. “I see a city that has under-funded public safety. And I see a city that has a structural problem with the budget. And I see a city that has done everything to avoid a vote on the things that the citizens need. And we have pushed ourselves into a corner.”

Councilwoman Jeanne Harris said other communities that have never passed parks or transportation plans are approving them now.

“We must put the plan together and put it in front of our citizens and ask,” she said.

City Manager Pat McDonnell gave the council a similar message about police and fire almost 10 months ago.

“We are really at a critical point of not having adequate resources,” McDonnell told the council during a daylong retreat on Jan. 24. “It will, in our opinion, require a vote of the public to make these investments.”

So far, Vancouver has placed only one money request before voters this decade, a proposed emergency medical services levy in February 2002 to provide more money for the fire department. Despite an immense amount of goodwill toward firefighters in months following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the measure fell short of the required 60 percent supermajority.

The council didn’t debate the pros and cons of asking voters to pay more Monday, in part because it spent hours hearing testimony from people concerned about a proposal to divert a portion of taxes on real estate sales away from parks and recreation to waterfront redevelopment.

The city is working with Gramor Development and a group of local investors to build a high-rise community with 3.5 million square feet of residential, office, retail and hotel space, plus 10 acres of parks, open space and trails on the former Boise Cascade site west of the Interstate 5 Bridge.

Most speakers supported the waterfront project, but not at the expense of parks.

“I believe this (redistribution) will have devastating effects on our neighborhoods and our sports communities,” said Roy Heikkala, co-chairman of the Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.

Heikkala said the redistribution would place 56 parks and recreation projects on hold, as well as take away the city’s ability to receive grants and other matching revenues. He suggested the council find another way to fill a $7.5 million budget hole to build waterfront infrastructure.

“I believe you can find the money in an $857 million budget,” Heikkala said.

“I suggest the city manger dig up the coffee can of money in the basement,” added Florence Wager.

Two former employees of Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation, Kelly Punteney and Dan George, also spoke up in opposition to diverting real estate excise taxes to the waterfront.

“I’m a huge supporter of the waterfront,” Punteney said. “But I cannot support using the REET funds.”

Late Monday night, McDonnell proposed a compromise that would continue to redistribute $450,000 annually in real estate taxes for five years to help pay for waterfront infrastructure.

To reduce the effect on parks, McDonnell proposed further cutting real estate taxes for neighborhood traffic improvements by an additional $120,000 a year and funneling that money to parks and recreation.

McDonnell also proposed retaining $1 million in existing funds for parks projects that previously was slated to be spent on the waterfront.

The city council is scheduled to take a final vote on that proposal next Monday night, which could be the final action in a lengthy, contentious budget process.

Campbell and Stewart voted against moving ahead with diverting real estate taxes to the waterfront.

“To me, this is just another level of tweaks and promises,” said Campbell, who has been the council’s most dubious member when it comes to investing public dollars to spur private waterfront development. “We are kicking the thing ahead. We aren’t dealing with the realities. As a city, we can’t afford to do it.”

Stewart said she recognizes the potential for the waterfront to be a key part of downtown redevelopment, but she continues to question using city dollars during tough budget times.

“It’s too much money for a project that we all want to go forward,” Stewart said. “The kind of money it’s going to take, it seems unlikely to me that the developers are going to get all the money they need, all the financing they need.”

A handful of people spoke up in favor of the Boise project.

In return for the city helping to pay for $38.6 million in infrastructure costs, the project is expected to generate $240 million in state and local taxes over 20 years.

“The estimated return on investment of 30-to-1 is a return any of us would gladly accept in today’s investment climate,” said Ginger Metcalf, executive director of Identity Clark County.

Gramor President Barry Cain said his company and investors, doing business as Columbia Waterfront LLC, support parks and are incorporating trails, parks and open space into the project. Columbia Waterfront LLC already have invested $30 million and are committed to its buildout, he said.

“We’re going to be building at the beginning of a fresh new economic cycle, which we all will welcome,” Cain said. “For the city, it means you are going to be building during a period when (construction) costs are down.”