Your Source For The Info You Were Looking For on the Fix 5 Tax Proposal

Fix Five Website

Fix Five Summary of Issues
A two page summary of the Fix Five debate as prepared by Shastax. 

-Fix Five Phase 1 Impact Fee Study
This is the primary study document local leaders have been looking at in their evaluation of the Fix Five plan.

-Fix Five Burden Analysis
A fascinating study on the Building and Impact Fees charged by each of the 7 separate Government entities potentially passing the Fix Five Tax.  Please note, some of the fees are low as they do not account for recent increases.

-Commercial Allocation Memo
A brief document giving an explanation for the various classifications of types of commercial projects taxed by Fix Five.


-Fix Five Draft Memorandum of Understanding
The devil is in the details - here's the details.  The MOU is the governing agreement that each party to the tax plan, with the sole exception of the taxpayer, agrees to.  Unlike other taxes, this plan doesn't have to go to the voters, which is why this plan is being advocated by many local government officials.  This document spells out in detail among other things that the initial fee amount is projected to go up in "Phase II" and will automatically be increased annually.

And the more interesting Staff memos...

April 2005 Staff Presentation
This is an insightful look into the crystal ball of the past that gives hindsight to the current plan, outlining the thought processes that deliberately avoid taking the issue directly to the taxpayers and side with using the Mitigation Fee Act.  (FYI- Dana to Downtown was funded contrary to Mr. Kovacich's prediction)

-Cover memo from April 2005
A Brief cover memo.  When you read it, the title of this gem says it all, from a staff perspective.  The answer remains in your wallet.

-July 2005 Grant Request
Includes the Grant Application sent to the state to begin the study process.  Look to the bottom of the 4th page - one can read in their own words, this is the first of many "fees" to shift the funding responsibility of State Highways to local government supported by new taxes.

-July 2005 Staff Report
In this staff report, the staff asks to conduct limited polling to answer the profound question, "Why people in Shasta County are so fiscally conservative?"

Fix 5 Squeaks By 4-3 in First Vote
October 23, 2007

The Shasta Regional Transportation Agency voted this evening 4-3 to recommend sending the Fix Five impact fee on to their respective local agencies.
 
The hearing lasted almost three hours including presentations by local agencies, a public hearing during which time audience members spoke for and against, and concluded with individual comments from each board member regarding their specific reasons for why they would be voting the way they would.
 
We owe a sincere thanks to Supervisor Linda Hartman, Redding City Counclman Patrick Jones and Anderson City Councilwoman Norma Comnick for opposing this tax measure.
 
In voicing her opposition to the $1700 per house fee, Supervisor Hartman stated the clearest opposition first noting with so many truly local impacts and needs that are solely the responsibility of the county, that's where attention needs to be focused, not on this issue.
 
Councilman Jones went further and stated this is a question of responsibility to him.  This issue is important and we need to recognize that the City of Redding has so many unfunded responsibilities right now that they are currently trying to address, directing limited funds to something that isn't wholely our responsibility is not fair or equitable to the people who elected him to make these decisions.
 
Councilwoman Comnick noted that she's worked in transportation for 30 years and seen the firsthand impact of the number of fees already being paid, especially by those in the trucking industry.  She was very reluctant to say that this plan was going to be the answer to fix everything on I-5.
 
Those voting for the new fee included Redding City Councilman Dick Dickerson, City of Shasta Lake Councilman Dean Goekler and Supervisors Glenn Hawes and Les Baugh.  While eventually voting in favor of the proposal, to his credit, Supervisor Baugh asked the RTPA staff pointed questions and repeatedly followed up even though staff was doing their best to circumvent the direct question.  Unfortunately, Baugh still agreed with their base assumptions that this was the best plan for moving forward now.  His primary question left unanswered was, "How much is too much and how much was enough?"
 
Shastax President Willie Preston spoke on behalf of the organization stating that while this project has at least started the discussion of what we need to do to improve our local community, the question of whether or not to assess an impact fee specifically for I-5 is a misplaced priority.  Starting off the conversation by recognizing governments, like households and businesses all have limited resources, they must prioritize what items are of most importance and spend accordingly.  Citing the heavy congestion of local roads clearly within the jurisdiction of the officials present and the fact that Fix Five would do nothing to alleviate that congestion which exists already, not just in the next few decades, that the plan is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
 
Next up, the tax plan goes to the City Councils of Redding, Shasta Lake and Anderson in December to be followed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in January.  Shastax members are urged to contact their local government representative to let them know how you feel about this plan.