|
|
Hey Ted, I see that the increase to 2% is going to raise 2.8 million instead of the 1.7 million as advertised. I hear that only 1 million is truly needed. Government has the RESPONSIBILITY to release the facts to its citizens. I see that finance voted 5-2 to go ahead and ask for the 2% and not adjust down the percentage to their real needs. This is not just nor right to do. And to send this to ballot without having the credits put in place? Are these guys and gals nuts?
Also garbage rates are going up what, $2.00 a month with an undetermined added gas kicker? And $2.00 per quarter for manditory recycling? Oh and the senior discount? Why did Smith not relay this to us seniors 2 and 1/2 years ago??? They also didn't take the lowest bidder based upon straight pick up. Is this true, Ted? Well, when was this city survey that's driving this recycling increase taken? When gas was $1.50 a gallon?
Who's running that building? The mayor? The manager? Council? The lawyers? What a mess.
By One of the 3 Stoogies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry
Sorry, forgot to distract you with the red light cameras. Watch the quarter in my left hand while I stick my right hand in your wallet.
By 1 of 3
|
|
|
All-IN
Dear 1 of 3
If you scroll down and read my posting on May 16th I went into detail on what a 2% income tax with a 100% credit would bring into the city in additional revenues. I stand by my figures that the above scenario will bring in an additional $1.7 Million.
A couple of weeks ago I challenged the city staff and their figures. I believe they were off by a million dollars.
I have not seen the new ordinance that was passed out of finance nor have I seen the NEW REVISED work sheet that staff gave to the council members. However I think they are saying that they will give those workers that live here and work in another city a credit of 100% up to 1.5% of their income tax. Basically I would call that a 75% credit.
IF IF IF I understand that correctly, then I believe the city will take in around $3 Million in additional revenues if this were to pass. I think your figure of $2.8 Million is with the city padding the credit amounts.
Let me say that I support the city trying to increase its revenues. Those revenues that are falling short, like debt payment, the police department, road paving and other capital projects need to be restored to a fully funded status in my opinion.
I will support a 2% income tax with a 100% credit.
This would level the playing field for Pickerington when compared to other cities around the outer belt. It would provide enough additional revenues to meet the debt service. It would allow the city to maintain its current level of police and maybe a slight increase in personnel. It would allow the city to restore it sub-division paving program. I believe this new tax would bring in around $1.7 Million in new revenues. Even if I am off some with my figures, it leaves the city with a small carry over. Finally it would give around 70% of the taxpayers a tax cut thus giving the issue a much better chance to pass in November.
I also believe it would have been wiser to have included the credit language on the ballot with the income tax increase. I disagree with putting a time limit on the credit language. I think dealing with the credit in a seperate ordinance will confuse a lot of voters. Somme of whom will not be aware of any credit proposal when they enter the voting booth. Having it there in front of them when they vote would have helped them understand the issue better in my opinion.
What the voters should be concerned with is that if the council were to fail to enact the credit after the election then the city revenues would increase by $5.1 Million far more than they need. Even the current plan will generate $3 million in additional revenues and I think that is more than they need.
With that said this appears to be a Texas hold-em game and the council is about to go ALL IN. Will they double up or walk away from the table broke in November?
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
TRUST??
It seems our council members are out of touch with those that elected them. Clearly a few weeks ago they were saying that if the voters increased the income tax to 2% and the city allowed for a 1.5% credit of that tax, then our city would see an increase in revenues of $1.7 Million.
Somewhere along the line, an error was pointed out to them and the 2% income tax with a 1.5% credit would actually raise the city revenues by $2.8 Million per year. That is nearly 3 times what they say they need.
It seems to me that if the voters are foolish enough to give the city coffers an extra $1.8 million in revenues in November then what incentive will the council have to control costs of city government?
With the state unemployment jumping upward last month and the state and the nation are in a down economy I don't think I want to share any more of my tax dollars with the city. By voting for this increase it will tax all of us. Clearly not a good thing in a bad economy. Second is the creditability of those on council and the competency of the staff giving poor financial advice.
They stated weeks ago that they only needed around $1 Million. Now if you only need one million why ask for 3 million?
If it failed with a council vote when you all thought the 2% with the 1.5% credit would only bring in $1.7 Million why must we now have $2.8 million? What are your reasons for the increased request from the tax payers? Even more important is the competency. If you were able to hide a $1 million in your figures up to the eleventh hour how do you make me believe you are not hiding more now?
Why is the council not wanting to place on the ballot the amount of the credit? Clearly it would be there for all to see. If for some reason this 2% income tax were to pass, the council would be free to set the credit as they see fit.
With their changing of the dollar amounts and a change in the stated need I think there is a real credibility problem emerging from the council.
Based on the trust factor alone I will oppose this tax increase.
By Working for a living
|
