23 February 2009
The one cent sales tax proponents’ approach to gain votes by education of the masses is a waste of time and effort. Everyone concedes that repair and modernization is required.
They let the system reach this stage of disrepair by not properly maintaining and modernizing through the years. Our argument is how to correct the problem, short of a 1 cent tax on everyone who shops in Batesville.
It is possible to do, but we have to go back in history so we don’t repeat it in the future; otherwise, the situation will recur in this or other departments of city government.
We have all known about the sewage problem for some while. The problem is obviously lack of management and attention to detail within city government, and the answer lies in this fact.
If fees were not sufficient to maintain and occasionally modernize the system, they should have been increased, or reallocation of funds from revenues returned from the state should have been affected. Reallocation of funds will result in lower priority funding to be reduced. In a depressed economy, it may also require that manpower be reduced, as is taking place with the majority of corporations at present.
I would recommend that the city cancel the upcoming vote to increase the taxes on the people, who are slated to face a significant increase in fees as well. Establish a comprehensive plan to overcome the problem, by setting minimally needed fees, reallocation of funds, and manpower reductions, if needed. Further, establish timelines and milestones. It could take five to ten years, but that is more reasonable than trying to force the total amount all at once.
Next, get to Little Rock, with Van Thomas in tow, if possible, and see Ms. Theresa Marks, Director of ADEQ. The Mayor should become an advocate and negotiator, showing her that the city is on top of the problem and making every effort to correct it. I am convinced that she will accept the proposal. If not, Sen. Mark Prior contacted EPA in Washington on a project for me in the past, and I believe the problem can be worked out.
Why irritate almost everyone in the city and surrounding area unless it is absolutely necessary? Perhaps someone sees an opportunity for personal gain in having such a large sum of money, in interest, issuing bonds, or underwriting them, as seen in the past.
Failing this approach, I recommend that the out of town people buy, as much as possible, outside of the city, and that the residents of Batesville vote “No” on the issue. The city gets sufficient funds to keep it
operating properly! How they spend it may be a problem. Check the Municipal League Journal, in the City Clerk’s office for the past several years, and you will see that, except for the past few months, while in recession, that the monthly tax revenue returns to Batesville have greatly exceeded inflation.
Don Bice
139 Rorie St.
Batesville, AR 72501
(870) 251 2714
February 23, 2009
Sewage Tax
I see no comparison in the recent analogy, about law enforcement cooperation and the proposed Batesville sewage tax! In one, we get law enforcement, and the other we get to help Batesville pay for the terrible condition that they allowed the sewage system to deteriorate to.
So a Fayetteville Consultant said there was no other option, other than the one cent tax increase? I have never seen one consultant say that there was only one option. I would not do business with any doing this! There are always more options!
Usually, the annual cost for upkeep of the system, while allowing for future modernization, is determined. Customer fees are established accordingly. I am not asking why this was not done over the years, but the concept can still be an option. You have previously stated that there would be an increase to the users, even with the new tax, and much more without it. Why not set the fees at a proper level now and incrementally repair/modernize as funds become available. For the long term, this would be a better permanent solution, short of taxing Ash Flat, if funds are not sidetracked to other perceived needs. This way, the city could be self sufficient, even if you had to set fees higher for a few months for seed money. It has been my experience that the EPA will accept any reasonable approach.
Why not submit the project to be a part of the stimulus package, going through state government. They have been looking for such projects.
They could apply for state and federal grants. These things were conceived in five minutes! How many could one come up with in a day?
What is the source of divisiveness now? Those in the local area have little choice but to shop in the city, and they are the main cause of Batesville being a city. Doesn’t the State Constitution say that taxes may not be levied without a vote of the people. The outlying areas represent a majority in this case.
Don’t you trust democracy and the people to make right decisions? If not, the proposal must be a flawed.
The people in the outlying areas could boycott to the extent that you lose on the deal, and I would not blame them. I will decrease spending in the city by at least 50%. If the city does not give the county area a chance to vote on this issue, you may have less cooperation. Maybe we can find an option or two ourselves. The outlying areas are growing, especially Southside, which will make it less dependent upon Batesville.
The usual routine here is to personally attack those who disagree. That has been done, and I know about it. Enough said!
(Signed)
Don L. Bice (Colonel USAF Ret., and Management Consultant)
139 Rorie St.
Batesville, AR 72501
(870) 251 2714
So a Fayetteville Consultant said there was no other option, other than the one cent tax increase? I have never seen one consultant say that there was only one option. I would not do business with any doing this! There are always more options!
Usually, the annual cost for upkeep of the system, while allowing for future modernization, is determined. Customer fees are established accordingly. I am not asking why this was not done over the years, but the concept can still be an option. You have previously stated that there would be an increase to the users, even with the new tax, and much more without it. Why not set the fees at a proper level now and incrementally repair/modernize as funds become available. For the long term, this would be a better permanent solution, short of taxing Ash Flat, if funds are not sidetracked to other perceived needs. This way, the city could be self sufficient, even if you had to set fees higher for a few months for seed money. It has been my experience that the EPA will accept any reasonable approach.
Why not submit the project to be a part of the stimulus package, going through state government. They have been looking for such projects.
They could apply for state and federal grants. These things were conceived in five minutes! How many could one come up with in a day?
What is the source of divisiveness now? Those in the local area have little choice but to shop in the city, and they are the main cause of Batesville being a city. Doesn’t the State Constitution say that taxes may not be levied without a vote of the people. The outlying areas represent a majority in this case.
Don’t you trust democracy and the people to make right decisions? If not, the proposal must be a flawed.
The people in the outlying areas could boycott to the extent that you lose on the deal, and I would not blame them. I will decrease spending in the city by at least 50%. If the city does not give the county area a chance to vote on this issue, you may have less cooperation. Maybe we can find an option or two ourselves. The outlying areas are growing, especially Southside, which will make it less dependent upon Batesville.
The usual routine here is to personally attack those who disagree. That has been done, and I know about it. Enough said!
(Signed)
Don L. Bice (Colonel USAF Ret., and Management Consultant)
139 Rorie St.
Batesville, AR 72501
(870) 251 2714
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
