The Red Oak Council reduced the tax rate a whopping 1/2 cent this week.
According to Casey Hargrove, the budget is balanced as well. These are some positive steps in getting city government moving in a positive direction. Funny how Ken Pfiefer said the same thing but we found out we were 600K in the hole. I'm not beating that horse but wasn't he working with the same budgetary figures or was he just confused/covering his backside?
Good Job Council! Now reduce our taxes in a more significant way by bringing in real business to offset the huge tax burden shouldered by homeowners in this town. That's the task of the new mayor...to marshall the forces necessary to get this done. My question is still who is the person to get this done? Guess we'll find out in a month right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Let's not forget though that a tax decrease is only effective when there's a systematic reduction in spending.
I'm a student of the Cato Institute and National Center for Policy Analysis, and it's amazing how many local governments can get away with "credit-carding" their way to "fiscal accountability."
A reduction in spending is worth more than tax rate decreases any day of the week...but both are lofty goals.
So they have already found 600k since May. Amazing! At this rate they'll have such a surplus before long that they will be sending us all checks! All they had to do was get rid of Ken.
If things were as bad under Ken as Ben and Casey said they were, things would not be as good now as they say they are. How stupid do these politicans think we are anyway?
Hm.
How good do you think things are?
What's your definition of good?
What was on the budget they were given that they had to cut?
That was a loooong meeting, and i didn't stay for all of it, but i guess we could request a copy of the budgets from the last couple years and compare them w/ what we have now.
Judy is very helpful about getting requested documents to you either by copying them, letting you come in and view them during business hours [so you don't have to pay for copies], or sending them for free via email to save you the time and trouble and expense.
I'd look forward to a report of the budget comparison by someone who doesn't think there was a problem, but for now I'm content that all 5 City Council members have said they have it under control.
But maybe they're all in each other's pockets.
;-P
anon wrote:
If things were as bad under Ken as Ben and Casey said they were, things would not be as good now as they say they are. How stupid do these politicans think we are anyway?
Good supposition but it's on shaky ground IMHO...better check the City Budget records. The original proposed budget said it in black and white. A negative 600K. It wasn't "Casey and Ben said it was"....it WAS. The Council and City staff came together with a sharp pencil and cut the fat.
That's a good thing. It's a pity our tax base is so dependent upon homeowners. That's a bad thing. Changing that will take time and a competent/professional city management team.
We've got the inklins' of that now. Hopefully the new city manager will infuse some new life and INTEGRITY into the City administrative infrastructure.
$600K in four months! Incredible!
Now that we have got rid of Ken
Let's watch the money pour in!
You're right. Either Pfiefer was a liar about "things being ok" for months or there was a LOT of easy, visible fat to be cut. I'm leaning toward a combination of the two.
The new city manager can do very little at this point on rectifying old issues. He'll look like a champion if he does modest things this budget year with what he has to work with.
Hopefully he'll shake up staff, make some major changes (Public Works)and re-vitalize the Economic Development Board. That's just illustrating the obvious again however.
Good Luck!
Post a Comment