love replica van cleef gold bracelet How much it? from loersertydass's blog
Joe Jared Topix
My attendance in council and committee meetings is inversely proportional to the amount of trust I have too in terms of addressing the best interests of the people. What I can trust from this group is an erosion of freedoms.
In terms of the wording of the sidewalk ballot issue, if the property is to be assessed, I'm voting no. I don't believe properties are assessed when the streets are improved and to do otherwise represents a hidden tax to property owners who are already paying at least twice the assessment in street taxes. I do think it's a good idea to include sidewalks into the streets tax (0.5%), however.
The bankruptcy comments are purely fear peddling and Dixa is probably right. General fund (1.0%) money is generally not used to fix sidewalks. Sometimes the sidewalks are also replaced for water/sewer projects as well, which comes out of proprietary funds.
In the past year there has been talk in council of allowing the streets tax (0.5%) Van cleef arpels alhambra bracelet replica money being used to install/repair sidewalks adjacent to streets being resurfaced. It also included assessing property owners for sidewalk work on their property. On that point, I still disagree with the assessment notion because the tax payer pays twice what replica van cleef & arpels alhambra clover bracelet the assessment would amount to annually. For sidewalks to be included into the streets tax, the people would have to vote on it.
On the first point, the land purchase should be coming out of proprietary funds, assuming it's for the $4.3M EPA sewer project in 2018.
On the second point streets (0.5%) is paying for that. If nothing else, at least it's not one of the larger projects that eats up multiple years of street tax money. It will use up approximately 42% of the year's street fund.
Neither of these projects are part of the 1.0 that they are trying to increase to 1.28%, and neither are really relevant talking points related to the tax increase, for or against.
At the time the rumor was flying around, it was unsubstantiated and even most recently, VW Marsh has yet to be named specifically. Only 6 stores in Indiana and one in Ohio was mentioned by name until the past couple of days. In the bigger picture, if a company doesn't buy out the Marsh chain, it's likely that ALL of the stores will shut down. Unlike the Indiana closures, VW Marsh closing wont create a food desert, which is defined as places poor people live and have to travel more than replica Van Cleef yellow gold bracelet 1 mile for groceries. Hover on that for a minute.
Martha wants to educate(indoctrina te) council to better defend the income tax increase, Mazur wants to get the 0.28 increase back on the ballot for November, Tomlinson wanted to know why the ballot issue to include sidewalks into the streets tax never made it to vote and is still trying to herd cats, Markward wants to ban smoking in parks, Marshall is still pushing forward with trash hauler ordinances, and council is divided when it comes to the merger of county and city revolving loan funds.
But yes, we get Woodland avenue completely resurfaced at a cost of $800K, or just under half of a year's worth of streets taxes by October and round 2 of the tax increase push will be decided at the November election.
I'm in agreement with both the city auditor and former Mayor Don Farmer that the 2 funds should not be merged. In his statement to council, he suggested that we follow the money to find the reason. It's likely a very good suggestion.
The monies spent towards Woodland Avenue wont come out of General (1.0%). It'll come out of streets (0.5%). Also, the extra cost of checking the water wont come out of taxes. it'll be paid for by customers out of surplus revenues and the associated "proprietary " funds. I've yet to see any of the "talking points", other than perhaps the health insurance increases, as having any real substance on the yes side of the debate. If the city couldn't afford to share the increase in expenses, they shouldn't have. We in the private sector don't have it that easy, and neither should local government employees.
I sincerely hope there's a much bigger margin than 2% for the next time they try to push an increase. It would also be nice to see something other than lapdogs as news reporters and media, but that's what we have.
My attendance in council and committee meetings is inversely proportional to the amount of trust I have too in terms of addressing the best interests of the people. What I can trust from this group is an erosion of freedoms.
In terms of the wording of the sidewalk ballot issue, if the property is to be assessed, I'm voting no. I don't believe properties are assessed when the streets are improved and to do otherwise represents a hidden tax to property owners who are already paying at least twice the assessment in street taxes. I do think it's a good idea to include sidewalks into the streets tax (0.5%), however.
The bankruptcy comments are purely fear peddling and Dixa is probably right. General fund (1.0%) money is generally not used to fix sidewalks. Sometimes the sidewalks are also replaced for water/sewer projects as well, which comes out of proprietary funds.
In the past year there has been talk in council of allowing the streets tax (0.5%) Van cleef arpels alhambra bracelet replica money being used to install/repair sidewalks adjacent to streets being resurfaced. It also included assessing property owners for sidewalk work on their property. On that point, I still disagree with the assessment notion because the tax payer pays twice what replica van cleef & arpels alhambra clover bracelet the assessment would amount to annually. For sidewalks to be included into the streets tax, the people would have to vote on it.
On the first point, the land purchase should be coming out of proprietary funds, assuming it's for the $4.3M EPA sewer project in 2018.
On the second point streets (0.5%) is paying for that. If nothing else, at least it's not one of the larger projects that eats up multiple years of street tax money. It will use up approximately 42% of the year's street fund.
Neither of these projects are part of the 1.0 that they are trying to increase to 1.28%, and neither are really relevant talking points related to the tax increase, for or against.
At the time the rumor was flying around, it was unsubstantiated and even most recently, VW Marsh has yet to be named specifically. Only 6 stores in Indiana and one in Ohio was mentioned by name until the past couple of days. In the bigger picture, if a company doesn't buy out the Marsh chain, it's likely that ALL of the stores will shut down. Unlike the Indiana closures, VW Marsh closing wont create a food desert, which is defined as places poor people live and have to travel more than replica Van Cleef yellow gold bracelet 1 mile for groceries. Hover on that for a minute.
Martha wants to educate(indoctrina te) council to better defend the income tax increase, Mazur wants to get the 0.28 increase back on the ballot for November, Tomlinson wanted to know why the ballot issue to include sidewalks into the streets tax never made it to vote and is still trying to herd cats, Markward wants to ban smoking in parks, Marshall is still pushing forward with trash hauler ordinances, and council is divided when it comes to the merger of county and city revolving loan funds.
But yes, we get Woodland avenue completely resurfaced at a cost of $800K, or just under half of a year's worth of streets taxes by October and round 2 of the tax increase push will be decided at the November election.
I'm in agreement with both the city auditor and former Mayor Don Farmer that the 2 funds should not be merged. In his statement to council, he suggested that we follow the money to find the reason. It's likely a very good suggestion.
The monies spent towards Woodland Avenue wont come out of General (1.0%). It'll come out of streets (0.5%). Also, the extra cost of checking the water wont come out of taxes. it'll be paid for by customers out of surplus revenues and the associated "proprietary " funds. I've yet to see any of the "talking points", other than perhaps the health insurance increases, as having any real substance on the yes side of the debate. If the city couldn't afford to share the increase in expenses, they shouldn't have. We in the private sector don't have it that easy, and neither should local government employees.
I sincerely hope there's a much bigger margin than 2% for the next time they try to push an increase. It would also be nice to see something other than lapdogs as news reporters and media, but that's what we have.
The Wall