By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

City leaders agree to suspend taxing authority

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .<0/p>



Given the previous budget deficit issues that required an added “service charge” to water and light bills, it seems a prudent decision to suspend the tax. It’s concerning that a number of council members already have an intention to reinstate the tax without having identified how the funds would be utilized. Mr Hart is absolutely correct that the council needs to show the taxpayers that they will be responsibly using additional funds BEFORE the tax is reinstated.


Let me see if I understand this. They want to suspend the current $1.50 per $1000 on assessed home value. This will make the $2.00 fire department tax seem more palatable. Their argument in favor of the new fire department tax will be:"It's only 50 cents more!" Which will convince a lot of people to vote for it. But watch out! That $1.50 that was suspended for a year, will come roaring back in a year and reappear on our taxes. The city council should all have jobs as "salespeople"! Personally, I acknowledge the need to improve the fire department, but I'm very discouraged by the recent "city service charge", how the city got into a $1.8 million deficit, and how they're adding fees and trying to find other creative ways to increase funding by taxpayers instead of looking within to cut costs.


I was all in for helping out my community, but that unfair 0.0015% tax is a total dealbreaker for me.


I vote we don't suspend it for a year, but eliminate it. If the city needs more funding via a tax, they can put it back to the voters like the law requires, not keep it on the back burner where voters won't have a say. Accountability has to begin somewhere.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable