Bend mayor, councilor spar over gas tax on NewsChannel 21

Bend Mayor Jim Clinton, a leading supporter of the city’s 5-cent gas tax ballot measure, and opposing City Councilor Victor Chudowsky squared off in an often-feisty live debate on NewsChannel 21 Monday evening, sparring over whether the city was right to ask voters for more money after failing to devote more of its recent budgets to fix failing streets.

After reviewing hundreds of viewers’ emails and winnowing down the questions, NewsChannel 21’s Lee Anderson first asked the pair about the controversial decision to put the ballot measure on the March 8 special election ballot, a single-issue election expected to cost the city $60,000 to $70,000.

Chudowsky called it a “complete waste of money,” decided upon after the council was “advised by some people wit would manipulate the electorate so the turnout would be lower” than at the May primary election, where the city would face no such cost.

“Victor is totally wrong,” Clinton replied, setting the tone for the roughly 20-minute discussion.

The mayor said it’s expected the earlier start to the gas tax will bring in another $500,000 in city revenue from the busy summer tourist season, as well as save $500,000 from an end, one construction season earlier, to long-deferred road maintenance, a bill already estimated at $80 million and growing.

To generate $1 million in revenues and savings from $70,000 spent – “anyone in business would take that deal,” the mayor said.

Question 2 was about some out-of-city residents feeling it’s unfair not to have a say on a gas tax they will pay a lot for. Clinton asked in return whether it’s fair that visitors from near or far, Portland or Tumalo, “use all our roads and don’t contribute one cent to getting them repaired. Rural visitors should be happy to help pay this tax and get on the stick” for fixing the roads.

Chudowsky said that “the tax in general is unfair, whether you live in or outside” the city, and began a theme he repeated through the night – that “the city has the money to do street maintenance,” due to a rise in property tax collections and room tax revenue twice as high as expected.

“We just signed a nice contract with a raise for our firefighters,” he said. “The city is hiring 37 new employees. The city has enough money coming in. I don’t see the point in raising taxes on people when revenues are coming in this strong.”

Chudowsky did say that due to contractual obligations to the rural fire district, “we can’t go laying off firefighters.” But he said the city can fund street repairs “without laying anybody off,” due to the rising revenues – if the city also would “direct money coming in much more focused” tan it does now.

Chudowsky complained that “we’ve been pouring a lot into the Transportation Operations Department,” and “a lot didn’t go to paving streets. It went to other costs. I think that’s something that’s going to have to change.”

Clinton said a nickel a gallon of gas is a “really tiny” impact on people’s budget but “has a really big effect” on the problem, generating about $3 million a year, and “100 percent of that will be dedicated to fixing roads.”

The mayor claimed Chudowsky “cherry-picked some data” about the transportation department, saying “I don’t think anybody wants the city to quit plowing streets,” or sweeping them when full of cinders. “There’s just not enough money,” he said, “because the job is too big for the amount of revenue we had.”

When asked about whether the city could reduce or scrub the gas tax hike if revenues come in higher than expected, Clinton acknowledged that he had first backed a 10-cent a gallon gas tax hike but decided it would be “better, fairer” to seek five cents, and “squeeze existing budgets to get the rest of the money.”

Chudowsky countered, “When was the last time you heard of a city reducing its tax on its own volition. I totally agree we need a dedicated fund for street maintenance. I just don’t think it should be based on a gas tax.”

“I think there’s a little bit of bait-and-switch here,” the councilor said, noting that if the state raises its gas tax by a dime, that would add $1.5 million to the city’s budget. Clinton said that would provide “more like $500,000. Once again, Victor doesn’t have the facts correct.”

The exchanges continued after a break, as Chudowsky said many are “suspicious” of the city’s gas tax proposal, including seniors who “watch their money coming in and going out very closely, and expect government to do the same.”

Chudowsky said a city committee was asked repeatedly for good options that don’t include a gas tax, and “they punted all three times. Jim didn’t want another option. We never went through that very rigorous analysis to see if it’s possible.”

Clinton said the council agreed to create a “broadly based” street maintenance advisory panel, and “the majority, after an exhaustive process, said yes, we need a gas tax here in Bend. Even the Chamber’s own representative backed it, he claimed.

“It will adversely impact some business – the ones that sell gas,” the mayor said, noting out-of-area oil company contributions to the opposition political action committee.

“They don’t have the best interest of us in Bend,” Clinton said.

That was a good segue for the next question, which was about city councilors donating to such PACs, and whether that’s fair or proper.

“I don’t see why that’s unfair,” Clinton said, noting that some of the part-time, volunteer councilors (paid about $200 a month) “contributed their entire year’s salary to the committee, in order to get the word out on the gas tax.”

On the other side, the mayor said, are folks including former councilors who voted for the budgets that didn’t adequately fund street repairs, including former mayor Jeff Eager and former councilor Scott Ramsey.

“What did they do about this problem?” Clinton asked, saying the current council is “finally taking the bull by the horns with a real plan, a real set of solutions.”

Chudowsky said, “Who donated to the campaign makes no difference whatsoever to me,” and returned to the charge that the council approved budgets with increases in every other area, “often double-digit, every single program but one – street maintenance.” And he said it was his no votes and opposition that forced his colleagues to look and find another $3.4 million for the current year’s road maintenance budget.

“If I had not voted no, I think that money would not have been found,” he said.

Asked if the council should have made the decision on the gas tax without sending it to voters, both men noted that it’s the law to do so.

“It’s a good way for the people to second-guess some of the bad decisions the city council has made on this issue,” Chudowsky said.

“We know revenues are growing, the city is hiring a lot more people, the money is there,” he added. “It’s a good opportunity for people to say, ‘No, go back to the drawing board. No more Juniper Ridges, please. No more Bulletin land deals, sucking a lot of money out of the budget. Now is the time to say, ‘No, stop, do a better job. Do a better job.”

Clinton had the last word: “There’s Victor throwing some potshots and saying things that are factually incorrect. It’s interesting he has to go back 10 years to find something the council has done wrong. The Bulletin site was not bought for city hall, but for affordable housing.” And he said there was an insistence “it be sold at a loss, to make it look like he was right all along on it.”

‘Victor is correct that the city doesn’t have the authority to do a gas tax, it has to go to voters. The city could have done fees and didn’t,” he said at the close, pointing to the discussion of a transportation utility fee, which would not have required a vote.

There are more gas tax debates and forums before the ballots are counted a week from Tuesday night.