Log in

inflation

Chandler Council foregoes discussion on suspending grocery tax

Motion to draft an ordinance wasn’t seconded

Posted

One Chandler City Council member’s recent attempt to provide short-term economic relief to residents didn’t get far.

Councilmember Mark Stewart asked for time at the council’s Feb. 23 meeting to discuss a possible suspension of the city’s 1.5% grocery tax in order to provide some economic relief for residents. However, after Stewart’s presentation and his motion to draft an ordinance failed to be seconded, the motion died.

“This relief is something that would affect everyone in our community,” Stewart said. “It’s not about picking winners and losers. We have the opportunity to help people in their homes — especially the working poor and those who don’t qualify for government assistance. Moms shouldn’t have to choose between food and new school clothes because eggs are $7.”

A subsequent motion by Councilmember Christine Ellis was made to continue discussion on ways to alleviate financial burdens of Chandler residents was seconded by Stewart. She pointed out that a city-imposed tax is complicated and has a lot of piecees and departments and agencies involved, so a rollback or suspension is not a simple action.

Ellis’s motion passed unanimously, so there was no further discussion Feb. 23.
Stewart sounded frustrated no other council member would second his motion.

Mayor Kevin Hartke took no stance on the potential tax pause, but did say he “wasn’t expecting a motion” from Stewart at the meeting. He also pointed out, in explaining Ellis’ motion, the types of updated important financial statistics that will be more clear and better understood by the time of a late-March work session.

“It’s just not very transparent,” to not have at least a council discussion, Stewart told yourvalley.net. “It’s unfortunate the motion wasn’t seconded.”

Former Chandler council member and state representative Jeff Weninger came to the Feb. 23 meeting to encourage the council to take up the matter. He spoke during public input, pointing out it’s rare for a motion to not at least get a second and receive discussion.

Stewart ended up being the only person to discuss his proposal at length. He said he had crunched some numbers, pointing out how the city could afford to forgo the potential $14 million revenue shortfall that would come with giving up the tax for one year.

He suggested the suspension could start as early as April 15. He also acknowledged a provision could be included to have council review it in the spring of 2024 and either continue the suspension or allow it to expire.

Stewart’s main presentation included mentions of how well staff had managed to both stay ahead, fiscally, and to continue to deliver quality service. He said now is the time to take one of the few actions cities can take to help with resident finances — the way it supported small businesses at the start of the pandemic.

Monday,  the Arizona  Senate voted, along party lines,  to move to the House a bill that would  preclude cities from imposing taxes on food purchased for home consumption.

We’d like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments, pro or con, on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org.