Warren leaders have some explaining to do on tax plan

Now that Warren City Council has placed a 0.5 percent income-tax increase levy on the Nov. 8 ballot, history can prove instructive for those planning the campaign for passage.

Judging by the strong anti-tax sentiment voiced by the public in recent weeks, the administration of Mayor Doug Franklin and supportive council members will have their work cut out for them.

That work was made all the more challenging by the expedient rush job in unveiling the proposal. Rather than proposing the bold move months before the deadline this week to place it on the fall ballot, the proposal first surfaced in media reports a mere three weeks ago. Then at a city council meeting two weeks ago at which members OK’d the first of three required readings of the issue, nary a word of explanation was given to skeptical city residents.

As Warren resident and tax opponent Greg Greathouse put it, “The very idea of an increase in the tax rate in this city should be presented to council and the entire city in a series of meetings where all aspects of the measure need to be discussed.”

Greathouse is correct. Fast-tracking the issue prevented sufficient airing of it at public hearings in all sectors of the city. After all, the long-term structural problems to which the tax is touted to address did not magically materialize overnight.

The onus is now doubly more burdensome for supporters to inform, explain and defend the need for the tax hike. History has shown that tax initiatives thrust down voters’ throats without adequate and transparent justification for their need rarely receive public approval.

ABOUT THE TAX PROPOSAL

As proposed, the measure would increase the city’s 2 percent tax on income of all who work in Warren to 2.5 percent and would add $3.5 million to $4 million more yearly to city coffers. Among uses for it cited by city leaders would be:

Expansion of safety forces. Eight to 12 police officers and eight to 12 firefighters would be hired. Without the hike, up to 20 layoffs in the safety forces could loom.

Deficit reduction. About $1.3 million would be targeted to reducing a projected budget shortfall of $1.7 million next year.

Infrastruture improvement. About $1 million would fund startup of a citywide road-maintenance program.

Those general outlines serve as a viable starting point, but we believe skeptical Warren voters – of which there are likely many – deserve far greater specificity on the short- and long-term needs that a substantial leap in the income-tax rate would target. Again, history has shown that tax campaigns that are solely dedicated to specific well-defined uses – such as safety services or criminal justice operations – have more easily secured voter approval. Such specificity also gives public officials far less latitude to divert revenues to sources other than those sanctioned by the electorate.

On the plus side, however, city council did amend the original tax proposal from a permanent continuous levy to one that will expire in five years. That change will help keep Warren officials accountable to residents who would have the power in 2021 to ax the tax.

The wisdom of temporary tax levies also has proven itself time and time again in Mahoning Valley elections, most recently and most vividly in Mahoning County. In 2014, voters there defeated a sales-tax renewal when it was presented as a permanent add-on in the primary election; the electorate supported the tax and a slight increase in it six months later when its duration was limited to five years and its uses were more clearly and narrowly defined.

To be sure, however, leaders promoting the Warren tax must be prepared to honestly, competently and thoroughly answer a variety of hard-hitting questions responsible voters likely will ask.

For example, what has been done to downsize city government and do more with less, as many in the private sector have been forced to do over the past decade?

Also, can it be proven with specific and credible data that police and fire staffing levels are at dangerously low levels when compared with cities of similar size and demographics?

Answers to these and other legitimate concerns must be made visible and easy to obtain through a variety of avenues such as public meetings, networking, fliers and an easy-to-maneuver website.

After all, more residents than usual will have to be convinced, given that this year is a high-turnout presidential-election year. All of which means city leaders have precious little time to waste in crafting an aggressive, transparent, comprehensive and compelling case for passage of the income-tax increase.