Eau Claire-area voters could face a Confluence Project-related referendum – or two, or even three! – depending on upcoming actions by the City Council and County Board. And, confusingly enough, this could lead to a scenario in which voters supporting the proposed downtown arts/commercial/residential development would have to vote “yes” in one referendum and “no” in another.

By the time you read this, the fate of one possible referendum could be settled: The Eau Claire County Board was scheduled to meet Tuesday, Jan. 21, and discuss a potential $3.5 million pledge to the performing arts center. This one-time pledge would lead to an annual property tax increase of $5.92 – yes, less than six bucks – for the owner of a $100,000 home in each of the next 10 years, County Finance Director Scott Rasmussen said.

“Even if proposed direct legislation is valid, it is questionable what, if any, impact it will have on the proposed Confluence Project.” – Eau Claire City Attorney Stephen Nick, in a memo about the proposed referendum

Earlier, two County Board committees (Administration, Finance and Budget) gave their thumbs up to the pledge. However, the latter committee also said the pledge should hinge on a referendum of county voters. That referendum would be April 1, assuming the full County Board approved it Jan. 21. (Check VolumeOne.org to learn the outcome!)

Meanwhile, the Eau Claire City Council is pondering how it will react to an effort by a citizens’ group to get a Confluence-related referendum on the city ballot. In October, the council voted to make a conditional pledge of $5 million toward the Confluence, with the money to be raised via a special taxing district (which would impact only the new development, not other taxpayers).

In late December, the Citizens Referendum Committee turned in enough signatures to trigger a referendum that, if passed, would require another referendum any time the city sought to spend more than $1 million on “dramatic, musical, or artistic” facilities, such as the Confluence Project. At their Jan. 14 meeting, council members and City Attorney Stephen Nick discussed the city’s options regarding the referendum. First, the City Council could adopt the citizens’ proposal by a two-thirds vote, eliminating the need for a referendum. Second, the council could, by a simple majority, vote to put the referendum on the April 1 ballot. If the voters OK’d the referendum at that time, a second referendum would be held about city funding for the Confluence Project.

This, however, is where things get tricky. While Nick determined that the referendum is a “proper subject for direct legislation,” it is nonetheless in conflict with previous City Council action – i.e., the $5 million pledge made in October. In a memo to the council, Nick wrote that “The proposed direct legislation, if valid, only applies prospectively,” in other words, to things that may happen in the future. “Consequently, even if proposed direct legislation is valid, it is questionable what, if any, impact it will have on the proposed Confluence Project.” To put it more simply, referendum No. 1 may go ahead, but referendum No. 2 may be a moot point because it would undo something the City Council already did. In any case, the council will vote on the referendum request at its Jan. 28 meeting.

It’s important to note that, while the Citizens Referendum Committee says it is officially neutral on the Confluence Project, some of its leaders are vocal opponents of the project, and project supporters have criticized the referendum drive as a tactic to undermine the Confluence.