“We see a path to provide $16 million for housing over eight years,” Fairchild said.
But other commission members and city management say staff need time to vet this proposal and they worry about diverting money away from other critical community needs.
“We all agree there’s going to be money for housing in this revenue and in this proposal,” said Commissioner Matt Joseph. “The concern and the question I have for staff is when we put money into housing, (whether) that means we’ll be taking it from somewhere else. And I want to make sure we don’t do damage to some of the progress made in these areas.”
Tax levy
Fairchild and Turner-Sloss want to put about 13% of the revenue from the city’s temporary earnings tax levy toward housing projects and investments.
They say this possibly could provide about $2 million annually for housing, or $16 million over the eight-year life of the levy.
Dayton voters approved a 0.25% income tax in 2016 that lasts eight years and that has generated roughly $11 million to $15 million annually.
The tax levy, which expires at the end of next year, increased the city’s earnings tax to 2.5% from 2.25%.
Fairchild and Turner-Sloss say they want to see levy money pay for things like legal counsel for people facing eviction and home repairs for residents, especially seniors.
They say funding could go toward homeownership assistance, housing and code enforcement programs and additional blight removal activities.
Some community members, including members of a local tenant union, have come out in support of this plan.
Turner-Sloss and Fairchild said levy funding could help pay to implement some of the currently unfunded recommendations of a newly approved Dayton Housing Policy.
Percentage based
Under their proposal, about 13% of the funding would go to housing, while 28% would go to roads and another 28% would go to Preschool Promise.
One-fifth of the funding would go to public safety services, while 5% would go to vacant lot maintenance, 4% would go to the general fund and 2% would be put toward park improvements.
Turner-Sloss said their proposal would not reduce funding for what the levy already pays for, which is universal preschool, road repaving, safety services, vacant lot mowing and parks.
In fact, she said it would increase funding in most of those categories.
“No funding will be cut, nobody will lose their position, nobody will lose their ‘partnerships,’” she said.
The tax levy has generated more revenue than originally forecasted, and the excess revenue goes into the general fund.
The measure was supposed to provide about $11 million in revenue each year, but its annual collections have always exceeded that.
Recently, it produced about $14.5 million in 2021 and $15.4 million in 2022.
The city anticipates the levy, if reauthorized by voters, could produce more than $15.5 million in both 2025 and 2026.
March ballot
The city commission is expected to consider an ordinance later this month that would put a renewal levy on the March ballot.
Fairchild said he may abstain from voting on the legislation if the city does not also have a companion measure (an expenditure ordinance) that specifically spells out how the city plans to use its levy funds.
“We all agree on the importance of passing the levy, we all agree that housing should be included,” Fairchild said. “We owe the citizens a clear plan of how we’re going to use their dollars and it’s responsible to have that plan before we vote on moving this forward.”
Need time
Commissioner Joseph said it’s very important to give city staff time to analyze how the city could add housing to the list of things the levy funds.
Joseph said he’ll likely have a problem with any proposal that takes funding away from vital services like road repaving.
“I’ve been in politics long enough to know that you can’t put money into something without taking it from somewhere else,” he said. “I want to know what those trade-offs are — and we’ll work through it and we’ll get there.”
The mayor said he fully supports using some levy funds for housing.
But he, along with Shaw, Joseph and the city manager, say rising costs mean levy dollars don’t stretch as far and they must make smart decisions.
“We need to be very thoughtful about this,” said Commissioner Shaw. “We need to get this right.”
Shaw said he thinks it’s a bad idea to allocate levy funds to specific areas based on a percentage of total revenue.
In any event, he said the city staff need to finish revenue modeling before commission members commit to an expenditure plan.
“It’s one thing to talk about these issues and throw some numbers out, but if you don’t have the appropriate modeling, what does it mean?” he said. “We are holding ourselves accountable to the residents — to the taxpayers — about how we’re going to spend this money and how we’re going to successfully do so. We have to be able to demonstrate that.”
About the Author
