By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Mac looks for bearings on rec bond plan

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

Comments

NJINILNCCAOR

No.

Money for parks - yes.

But over 100 million for buildings? Hell no.

Bob

Why did our city manager and past mayor allow these two expensive projects to be combined into one bond? Are they that badly out of touch with citizens interests and pocketbooks? Or did they intend for this bond to fail so they can pump more taxpayer funds into their RB Rubber fiasco?

Hopefully once this combined measure fails, our new mayor can get the council to separate the two projects. And vote on them separately in November. For the record, my May vote will match NJINILNCCAOR’s. But my November vote would be the opposite. I am well over 50, but totally support a high use rec center. But for at least the last ten years, our city has failed to maintain their current parks. So homeless, non tax paying citizens have become the main users. So me, lots of citizens, and their dogs are getting far more usage out of the city’s neighborhood walking trails. I won’t support a parks bond until the city gets the homeless issue under control - and establishes an adequate budget to maintain their current parks.

Moe

The city dares to approach the taxpayer with a new bond?

Don't forget the unconscionable W&L fee.
And the unconscionable $1.50/K property tax.
Both must be suspended.
And the taxpayers made whole for those wrongful taxes.
Call that the city's litmus test.
Would the city dare to hold an election on those unconscionable taxes?
So far, the answer to THAT question is "No."

While we're waiting, we can claw back at those ongoing financial injuries by refusing to support new bonds, fees, taxes, etc., such as this rec bond plan. And if the city continues to fail & refuse to comply with its litmus test: ALL incumbents can be voted out. Such is our duty as responsible citizens. And bear in mind that those injuries are real, traceable to the city, and redressable by a monetary judgment.

Suppose there is a real emergency? Where is the elasticity in ability to pay taxes / fees?

Moe

City of McMinnville 2023 – 2024 Budget Message

"The total proposed City tax rate for FY2023-24 is estimated to be $4.4561 per $1,000 of assessed value ($5.02 permanent rate minus $1.50 held back in year 1 of the new Fire District plus $0.9361 debt service tax rate), compared to $5.9235 ($5.02 permanent rate plus $0.9035 debt service estimated tax rate) in FY2022-23, an increase of 0.55%."

Allow for some uncertainty in the precise figures. Then what follows accurately shows that there was little to no margin for a real emergency, never mind the originally proposed $152.5 million rec center bond:

Assume McMinnville's Tax Code Rate authority is $5.9102.

1. With the full $1.50 from the old fire district

$4.4561 + $1.50 = $5.9561

Which would put the city slightly in excess of its authority.


2. What if the proposed rec plan bond were to pass?

Tax rate for rec plan bond is some $2.52.

Poll shows 52% support for rec center bond measure

The proposed bond alone would blow through the city's authority

$4.4561 + $2.52 = $6.9761

Adding back the $1.50

$4.4561 + $2.52 + $1.50 = $8.4761

Which would far exceed the city's tax authority.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable