Metro councilors seemed to agree last week that the regional government is not quite ready to ask the voters for a property tax levy to pay for natural areas maintenance.
They didn't have a united voice behind their reasons for hesitance, but they all felt that late autumn would be an appropriate time to consider sending a measure to the ballot.
Why the slow pace?
Metro staffers have been pushing the council for an education campaign, raising awareness of the funding shortfall in the natural areas and parks programs. A levy could raise an additional $8 million annually for maintenance at Metro's natural areas and parks, more than doubling the current budget for upkeep of the properties.
Such a levy would cost the average owner of a home with an assessed value of $200,000 between $16 and $24 a year, depending on the amount of the levy proposed by the council.
The Metro Council's receptiveness to putting a levy on the ballot might be affected by polling done at the end of the education campaign.
Councilors also had questions at their Thursday work session about funding priorities if a levy is pursued. Councilor Kathryn Harrington wanted assurances that the levy would not focus exclusively on historically disadvantaged populations, but also on those communities that are presently disadvantaged.
A recommendation from an advisory committee called for Metro to "be intentional in designing the levy projects to address barriers that affect historically disadvantaged communities in the use and benefits of Metro’s natural areas."
"I have a concern that the focus will just be on the historically disadvantaged, so as time goes by, our current disadvantaged would fall further and further behind," Harrington said.
Councilor Barbara Roberts said the levy should also specifically address an aging population.
"One of the things we ought to look at is the possibility of moving toward some kind of transportation opportunity for these natural spaces, and for the parks, so older people who couldn't climb to the top of a mountain or to a waterfall could get out into nature," she said.
The expansion of the agenda seemed to concern Metro Councilor Shirley Craddick – particularly after the advisory committee emphasized that Metro should only use the five-year operating levy as a stop-gap as it seeks a permanent solution to pay for natural areas maintenance.
She said the levy is a relatively small amount of money for a short period of time, and said short-term success will influence Metro's ability to find a long-term solution.
"I'm hearing a lot of great ideas," she said. "I'm concerned we're way overstating what this levy might be able to do for us. We need to pull back and have one or two goals and have a clear message and accomplish that."
(Aug. 15, 2012)
(July 24, 2012)
(June 15, 2012)
(April 10, 2012)