Frank Miller
Columbus City Council members have given initial approval to reset one of its tax rates to support public safety funding, but some said the move could be an added burden to residents.
Columbus City Council voted 5-2 on Wednesday to pass the first reading of an ordinance re-establishing the city’s cumulative capital fund. Council members Frank Miller, R-District 4 and Grace Kestler, D-at-large, voted against the measure.
Ordinances must be passed on two readings to be fully approved. The council’s next meeting is May 17.
The legislation states that the cumulative capital fund rate has “trended below the maximum allowable by state law,” with the 2022 rate currently at $0.0465 per $100 of assessed value. City officials are proposing that the cumulative capital fund be re-established, with the rate set at $0.05 per $100 of assessed value.
According to Director of Finance, Operations and Risk Jamie Brinegar, the rate has to be periodically reset to 5 cents because it decreases over time. He also noted that the budget approved by city council last year lowered tax rates by 3 cents per $100 of assessed value.
Mayor Jim Lienhoop said the change may not actually affect anyone’s property taxes but is “just part of the overall rate that we pay.” He added any increase would be subject to tax caps, with properties that are already over the 1% and 2% caps not being affected.
The cumulative capital fund is used for public safety capital purchases. This includes police cars, computers, car cameras, bodycams, fire equipment and fire training gear.
Assuming the council votes to raise the rate, taxpayers would be affected starting in 2023. He added that the impact would be “minimal,” as the rate is only going up slightly.
“We made a commitment back in 2017 that we would use this fund exclusively for public safety, and I would like to continue to do that,” Brinegar told city council. “It makes it a great place, an easy place, to track public safety spending.”
City council raised the rate in June of 2017, voting 5-2 for an increase from $0.0316 to $0.05. Miller and then-councilwoman Laurie Booher voted against the measure then. Several local residents also opposed the decision due to its impact on taxpayers.
Brinegar said at the time that the city hoped to target decreases among other tax rates so as to offset the increase from the cumulative capital fund, thereby keeping the overall tax rate steady or lower than before.
City officials had sought the rate increase to cover capital costs for the police and fire departments over the following five years.
Brinegar said that the police department’s budget was increased by $22,000 to reach the maximum revenue expected from the cumulative capital fund. However, even with that increase, the department had to cut one vehicle purchase due to inflation.
“We’re going to need more funds in order to maintain our six-year rotation,” he said.
However, Kestler expressed concerns about how the rate increase might add to the tax increases that people are already seeing due to changes in assessed value. Miller agreed and also cited Columbus City Utilities’ increased water and sewer rates, as well as costs from inflation. He said that while he supports public safety, this feels like the wrong time for increasing the cumulative capital fund rate.
“It all adds up,” said Miller. “… Everyone’s having to tighten their belt. And I think we need to do a little bit.”
In discussing the rate, City Councilwoman Elaine Hilber, D-District 2, asked why the city doesn’t just reset it to 5 cents every year so that the increases are more incremental and have a less of an impact.
Brinegar said that some communities do this, and it is a possibility.
“We should do that,” Lienhoop said.
City councilman Tom Dell, D-at-large, supported re-establishing the rate and said that it’s important to invest in public safety personnel and do so as cost-effectively as possible.
“Even though the optics are bad, it’s something we have to do,” he said. “… Those are things we’re always going to maintain. Those are things we’re always going to provide for all of our citizens. And those things cost more.”
Hilber also supported the measure and said that the hike would likely be much higher if the city was actually trying to keep pace with inflation.
“I think we’re just maintaining what we already have in our budget,” she said. “So that’s why I don’t have a problem with it. Even though it is a hard pill to swallow, I know it’s necessary.”
