© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments
tagup
I’m curious for the justification for the ongoing Water & Light service charge. My understanding was the charge was implemented to offset the (2021?)budget deficit of $ 1.8 million ( half of which has already been collected). The council now has an additional $5 million going into the general fund from the fire district change. So much, they apparently can’t decide how to spend it.
Why is the service charge still necessary?….Obviously the the remaining deficit will be easily covered by the fire district tax revenue. Yet, without a sundown date, the W & L service charge appears to be permanent.
BigfootLives
It's permanent. Now they are just window shopping, deciding what to spend it on. It's funny that they didn't borrow the $1.8 million from the wastewater department. They are apparently flush with money. We would have paid half of that back by now, but there were more important things to do with that money.
And here are a couple of good questions.
1) How did we spend $36k on a couple of Survey Monkey online polls and some staff time putting the results together? And who on the council is related to the company they hired?
2) What businesses are receiving the COVID funds? Considering the pandemic is 2 years in the review mirror. And here is something to really p**s you off. The Covid relief money could have been used to cover the one-time budget shortfall of $1.8 million. One of its intended purposes was to bridge the gap for loss of revenue. None of this ever should have happened if the mayor and council had been honest.
TTT
Hey BigfootLives... We agree on this as well.
Your statements are spot on.
Bleepbloop
Icky, get a room you two
Don Dix
How about the city explain exactly what 'service' is performed for $13 monthly -- and the city still charges a $1.50 tax/$1000 assessed value for a fire dept. that no longer is financed with city taxes -- apparently the council is lacking any semblance of a conscience.
BC
It will be interesting to see how the News Register's survey compares to the results of the City's survey. NR used a legitimate survey service to keep track of the votes - did the City? Or is someone hand counting ballots maybe with a biased mathematical mindset. I find it hard to believe that anyone would vote to implement the full $1.50 per $1000 assessed value (39%) all at once and immediately, let alone more than enough people to offset and surpass the other votes of "give it back" (32%). Something stinks.
tagup
BC, I think the sample size of 687 respondents isn’t large enough to get a true read of public opinion. Seems possible to me that only those with “skin in the game” ( city employees?)were motivated to respond.
Bill B
I just don't have the will to do it, but someone should take a look at city expenditures. It does seem that there is not any concerted effort on the part of council to manage expenses, nor is there any oversight. I understand that council is a volunteer position (unpaid) and they have their regular jobs to contend with. But what about our paid city management? Are they truly managing?
CubFan
The $13 charge on utility bills was to pay off the $1.8 billion city deficit. By early 2024, there should be enough collected with this surcharge to pay off that debt. So why isn’t that charge going away? (Rhetorical question). Do people even realize this?
Thank you News-Register for designing your own survey. You did a much better job at explaining the $1.50 charge and what it means to people. I seriously doubt if people who voted for the $2/M fire district levy full understood the implications of their vote. The city mayor and councilors should get “salesmen of the year” awards for how they purposefully explained the benefits of the new fire district without full explaining the financial impact to voters. In a podcast, the mayor stated that she interpreted the passage of the fire district levy to mean that the citizens fully understood and accepted an additional $2/M tax and were willing to give the city the $1.50 on top of the $2 levy. Did people realize that the passage of the fire levy without a reduction in the $1.50 charge equates to a tax increase of $800 per year on a $400,000 home? I doubt it.
Now, as Bigfoot Lives says, the city is “window shopping” to decide how to spend their new-found money.
Shame on the city for paying $36,000 for their survey. The city promised us that the survey would provide a clear option for us to not spend, but return the $1.50 to the taxpayers. This option was NOT evident in the survey. You let us down city council and mayor! And then to only get 687 responses and to think that sufficiently represents the will of the citizens is absurd.