INDIAN TRAIL TAX INCREASE
June 13th will mark the Indian Trail council meeting that will explain more about the proposed tax increase from .08 to .12 cents on the $100.00. The newspapers have indicated the .04 cent increase will enable the town to do a few things and make it more beneficial to the citizens in the town.
One cent is going for road reserve funds...definitely needed when DOT says you need to have $1 million for this $5 million dollar project.
The other .03 cents distributed among other things new town hall, and other general increases in planning staff, vehickles and the like.
I am unclear but believe that the 60.00 per year garbage service fee would then go away so ulitmately depending on you house value it will cost a little more for normal homes in the area. The more expensive homes will pay more overall.
Main questions facing the town as I see them include but not limited to:
1. Land swap deal. Being reviewed by the attorney unknown if the original contract will hold up or if the town will be held to the contract. Either way a decision will have to be made and action will have to start. Personally, it was a bad idea to swap the land when an outright purchase of the land would seemingly make better sense. What happens if the land deal is null and voided? Then what?
2. New Town Hall. Too many questions and not enough answers. The paper reported that an $8 million dollar tab for the new town hall. Questions include: Is that $8 million for the original 30,000 sq ft structure? Does that include all the furnishings and new technology that will ultimately be needed? How will we finance the remainder (1.5 million sitting in reserve fund)? Depending on the above land swap deal, a decision and construction will have to start very soon due to the conditions of the land swap deal.
3. Police Protection: Reported by the Sheriff that IT needed 2 more officers even if the Walmart hadn't been built. Apparently it was assumed we had 24/7 coverage when in reality we didn't. According to the Sheriff, the 2 additional officers give us the 24/7 coverage. Kind of remarkable, and I asked this question last year....the sheriff had previously stated that the Walmart on Tom Short would require 4 to 6 officers. Why is it that when IT gets a Walmart we apparently need no officers? Sheriff stated IT needed 2 officers even if the Walmart wasn't there due to call volume. I still believe that police coverage is lacking even with the addiitonal 2 officers especially with the Walmart. There was an article in a crime prevention publication stating that a 500 to 1 ratio was optimum citizens to officers. I believe Stallings tries to operate in that realm. That would push us to 39 officers based on a population of 19,500. Even at a 1000 to 1 ratio that would put us at 19 officers. If you go by what the Sheriff says and our 8 officers in effect are like having 75 or so then our numbers I guess are ok. In IT what is the response times for calls? Does anyone know? It might be a good question to ask.
The garbage costs seems to be spiraling out of control. I am glad they are taking steps to control those costs and we should see improvement in the future. Having attended the budget workshop it was my understanding that the garbage fee would have to be increased also to offset the deficit it was creating. I find it difficult to believe that the other 3 cents will offset the garbage costs?
I am just asking the questions. Anyone got other thoughts? If you can attend the June 13th meeting you should to find out for yourself. Also, go online to the IT website and get a copy of the budget for yourself.
posted by Lee Godwin at
6:07 AM
9 Comments:
Sure, I have comments
1) The total budget is 'only' increasing 19 percent, yet the ad velorum taxes are going up 80 percent.
80 PERCENT ! ! !
Why are they shiften more burden on homeowners for services??
2) Taxes are a product of the rate times the assessment. Since 1997, the Union County assessments have increase 202%!!! This is FAR above the rate of new residents, and almost 3 TIMES the rate of new students in public schools. UC and thusly I-T have received a WINDFALL of money from the increased assessments. Raising the rate when all of our taxes have gone up every year already is obscene.
3) What's the deal with garbage? If I-T is having an issue with garbage collection, just stop doing it. You can get Hawk Sanitation to do it twice per week for $15 per month. Why abondon the pay-as-you-go model of trash collection? IF you are losing money, just raise the trash rate to, say, $10 per month instead of $5 and compete with Hawk.
It's crazy to shift pay-as-you-go taxes over to the homeowner who may or may not use it. If you follow this same logic, why not abanndon the alcohol tax and just raise property taxes (that would also be stupid).
4) I-T pays $23K to the cub scouts, the I-T athletic assn, and the UC Arts Council???? Give me a break. Hey, my kids want free piano lessons. Can I get property tax payers to cover that?
There is no excuse under the sun for either UC or I-T to raise the tax RATE when the assessments have soared.
This is just greedy government looking to take money from working folks rather than sharpening their pencil.
Anonymous,
You stated the ad velorum taxes are increasing 80%? I thought it was 50%? Obviously, with UC raising the assessments the town indirectly gains even without raising the local rates. Without looking at numbers about the rate increases especially dealing with school increases, let me just say I doubt your math...but you still have a point. IT rates have not gone up in say 8 to 10 years...
Main thing to keep in mind is that all services have gone up. The town is growing and thus the town staff has to grow also. When you start adding technology upgrades, salaries, garbage collection...not to mention the New Town Hall the budget will have to increase. I have never heard of Hawk but the town does have a contract with Action and are committed to that for the near future. The move to shift the pay for service is to eliminate unwanted costs. The town chose to offer the garbage service in order to incorporate and I believe they have to continue to provide..not sure if anything states they have to pay 100%. $5 dollars a month is only a few for the can. It is not for the service. I don't want to see a tax increase either but when you look at the budget and see the things in the future, services have to be paid for and ultimately rates tend to increase. Download a copy of the budget, get your questions together and come to the meeting at 7pm June 13th. Express your concerns with the council..nothing is written in stone yet as far as that budget is concerned...it at this point is just a PROPOSED Budget. If you can't make the meeting...go on line and email your councilmembers your concerns. I would encourage it.Thanks for your post.
You stated the ad velorum taxes are increasing 80%? I thought it was 50%? >>
The RATE is proposed to go up 50%, but the TOTAL receipts will go up 80%, that is becuase of new homes and assessment increases.
Remember, we pay a tax BILL not a rate. BILL = (Rate X Assessment) and assessments have soared. That is a clever trick politicians use to say 'property taxes have not gone up' when what they mean is the rate has stayed the same even though your home is being assessed at a much higher amount.
I doubt your math...>>
Straight out of the I-T proposed budget. Look at last years ad velorum and compare to this year's. An 80.55% increase.
Look at the budget from last year to this year and you will see a 19% increase. This means they are shifting more burden on homeowners.
Straight out of the UC budget. Look at the last 10 years of property tax receipts, and the last 10 years of student enrollment increases.
The bottom line with trash collection is that if it costs $175 per year per household to collect garbage, the CHARGE $175 per year per household in fees. That equates to $15 per month, which is exactly what the private trash haulinng services charge to do it TWICE per week!
Rolling a fee based service into the general fund where it will be lost forever is a bad idea. It means nobody will feel the pressure of running a lean government when you can't track the costs and revenues down.
If I-T can't collect trash for less than the private sector, they should just get out of the trash collecting business and leave the taxes alone.
Lastly, it is sure swell to be stashing away homeowners money to save for a nice shiny new town hall someday. Hey, Stallings has one, so I guess we DESERVE one too.
Why not just lease commercial space?
More flexible, and it leaves the privately-owned property on the tax role.
When government gets into the land owning business, it is a lose-lose. They pay all the capital costs, and then they don't get any taxes on the property.
When they lease it from the private sector, they can manage expenses better, and keep the property in the tax role.
Anonymous,
Ok so you really have done your homework and your points are very valid. Especially the part about hiding in the general fund. I have my own questions about the past budgets also and if you can't make it to the meeting tonight I will express your concerns. I can't say I agree with all your points but many are very valid.
I think the idea of leasing is not that viable given no convienant locations exist in downtown. I believe we need a town hall but question the size, extent, cost, and opulance of the building. Hopefully you and others will participate in the process and watch all that is going on. Thanks again.
I wouldn't think location is an issue.
If you can build, you can lease on the same space.
Rather than the municipality build, own, and manage - build on the same space and sell to a private investor in a lease-back deal and put them on the hook for maintenance, taxes, etc. with options for more space as the town's needs grow.
There is no question that the growth in I-T and UC have been a challenge, but it has also been a financial windfall to municipalities. They need to behave diligently and responsibly and remember whose money it is.
Just my two cents.
Lee
I would like to add a comment about police protection.
I dont see how anyone can beleive that IT is getting adequate police protection through the rent-a cop deal with the sheriff's office. I dont think you could find another town in NC tof this size w/o its own police force. Adding two additional deputies wont even scratch the surface of the need. IT is so spread out, growing and seperated by major highway (74) and railways.
When Stallings started our police force we approached IT about coming in with us to share administration costs and other overhead. The idea didnt get very far. Eventually IT will have its own force and the town will have to fund the administration on its own. Its a shame to towns couldnt work together on this.
I for one feel my county taxes are (going through the county sheriff's budget) are subsidizing IT public safety efforts.
Gary Sides
Gary,
You have no argument from me. I think it will be very soon when the Sheriff comes back requesting more officers also. Two officers won't scratch the surface as you indicated. I do feel that IT is getting a bargain in the service and at some point that bargain will disappear and serious talk will have to start about the start up of a police department. I won't even venture a guess at that.
Lee
The sheriff already came back for more officers. For the FY 2006-2007 budget he asked for 4 more patrol officers. Where do you think those officers would be needed. You guessed it the IT area. Commissioners turned him down. County taxpayers are subsidizing police protection for IT. I rest my case.
Gary, the sheriff came back to UC for more officers not IT. Though I expect him to be requesting we get more officers before the end of the year. I don't agree with your belief that the officers working for IT are somehow subsidized by the rest of the county. The sheriff presents to the town the cost of each deputy. Built into that cost is the salary which I believe to be at about 40,000. The bill to the town is right at 60,000 per officer. That extra 20,000 dollars goes to paying for all the incidentals and others that may assist in IT. The facilities are already there and people in place...and whether we use them or someone else uses them they are there for the county. The towns that contract officers pay for everything they get and I truly don't believe that a subsidizing exists. Sorry.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home