Utility tax vote: At times, no means yes.

Byline: Bob Keefer The Register-Guard

SPRINGFIELD - Vote yes if you're against the new city utility tax. Vote no if you support it.

That's the confusing position Springfield voters will be in as they consider Ballot Measure 20-104 in the May 17 election. The referendum would repeal a 5 percent utility tax enacted by the City Council in December.

To make matters even more confusing, opponents of the repeal - in other words, proponents of the tax - have cast the whole issue in terms of building a city jail for Springfield. Opponents' lawn signs don't say, "Support the Utility Tax." They say "Don't Stop Our Jail Now!"

So a yes vote on 20-104 is for the repeal, it's against the tax and, apparently, it's a vote to stop a jail that doesn't yet exist.

"No on yes and yes on no is how it comes out," laughs utility tax supporter Steve Moe, who is leading the anti-repeal campaign. "But that's the way they word these ballot titles."

Moe, who is chairman of the city Planning Commission, says the tax will raise about $750,000 a year - just about half the amount city officials say it will cost to run a proposed municipal jail, for which voters authorized construction bonds last fall. The other half of the jail's annual operating cost is estimated to come from savings the jail will allow, like not buying space for city prisoners at the Lane County Jail.

The City Council has pledged not to build the jail - though it will construct the rest of a proposed municipal justice center downtown - unless it can find money to run it.

Enter the utility tax.

Supporters of the ballot measure - and opponents of the tax - say the new tax is far too broad, hitting everything from cell phones with Springfield telephone numbers to natural gas delivery and even - although federal law now bars this - taxing Internet use.

Former City Councilor Fred Simmons, who is leading the pro-repeal, anti-tax campaign, says the tax is simply too much.

"A yes vote on 20-104 is not a vote against the jail," he says. "It's just the repeal of a very expansive utility tax that applies across cell phones, broadband, natural gas and other utilities. If there were to be a provision that the feds would alter the Internet Protection Act it could apply to Internet connections, too."

Campaign disclosure statements filed by the two sides show the pro-repeal campaign has been well financed by the telecommunications industry.

Taxpayers and Ratepayers United, a political action committee opposing Measure 20-104, had collected $28,275 in contributions as of April 11. The largest contributor was Sprint United Management Co. of Shawnee Mission, Kans., which gave $16,000; the Oregon Cable Telecommunication Association gave $6,000, as did Verizon Wireless.

The campaign reported spending less than $5,000, mostly on petition circulators and lawn signs.

The pro-tax, anti-repeal campaign reported in its most recent filing that it had collected only $800, with most of that coming in a single $500 donation from the Springfield Police Officers Association.

Moe said the campaign has collected another $5,000 since that statement was filed; the money came from the police union. Most of that has been spent on lawn signs, Moe said.