Well it seems that we have another "prop S" issue (click here for the story!)
It seems that the "Prop S' tax we voted on to retire the debt will have done it's job in 2010 instead of 2013.Wow, good news you say? Well that depends on to whom you speak.
His Honor has threatened to veto any vote to "sunset" the tax early (you better have six!) saying we need the funds to repay the general fund for monies borrowed due to some anomaly in the wording of the loan. The city Administrator presented four options to the board, but seemed to want to keep the tax in place, as does the Mayor.
Now, I couldn't care less whether the tax remains in place (face it, were used to it,) but I do have a bit of a problem with one more broken promise made by Mayor Robinson. When we were asked to vote on this we were assured that as soon as the loan was paid off, it was over! Well that does not seem to be the case now, as he stated at the last BOA meeting that he would veto any plan to sunset it prior to 2013 (listen to the tape of the meeting.)
What amazes me is that the Mayor, his "tax cheerleader squad" and others trumpet the need for new taxes, and then have no idea why they fail by a 72% MARGIN! Your Honor, could it be that we, the great un-washed just don't believe you any more?
Tom Ford
NO. 637
His Honor has threatened to veto any vote to "sunset" the tax early (you better have six!) saying we need the funds to repay the general fund for monies borrowed due to some anomaly in the wording of the loan. The city Administrator presented four options to the board, but seemed to want to keep the tax in place, as does the Mayor.
Now, I couldn't care less whether the tax remains in place (face it, were used to it,) but I do have a bit of a problem with one more broken promise made by Mayor Robinson. When we were asked to vote on this we were assured that as soon as the loan was paid off, it was over! Well that does not seem to be the case now, as he stated at the last BOA meeting that he would veto any plan to sunset it prior to 2013 (listen to the tape of the meeting.)
What amazes me is that the Mayor, his "tax cheerleader squad" and others trumpet the need for new taxes, and then have no idea why they fail by a 72% MARGIN! Your Honor, could it be that we, the great un-washed just don't believe you any more?
Tom Ford
NO. 637
posted by Crestwood Independent at 18:35
19 Comments:
Mayor's veto = Mayor's Broken Promise = Mayor's Recall
11:21
Indeed, something to think about.
Holy Crap, now we have to listen to Charlie Berry at board meetings! It was bad enough that Roy made him a judge. There's no stopping him now he's everywhere he's everywhere.
Perhaps Mr. Berry could intercede with his honor and ask him why he couldn't have come to the citizens with a proposal to extend Prop "S?"
As I have stated if we have absolute need for it, I wouldn't have said a word.
Now however, because I despise subterfuge, and outright prevarication, I oppose it!
How about it Mr. Berry, can you get us an answer?
Tom Ford
I do not believe Mr. Berry would do anything that would jeopardize his standing with the Mayor. I have heard it is hard to breathe when your head is up his ___.
Humm, "His Honor" being protected by "His Honor," interesting, no?
Tom Ford
Tom,
As a senior member of this community, I would have to agree with the Mayor here. Having read the article, I would agree that if the city borrowed any money from our General Revenue account to pay off a loan that Prop S should not be retired until that money has been returned to the General Fund. Once the General Fund has been reimbursed, then terminate Prop S.
9:02 AM blogger: Please note that in my original message I said I would have no problem with that, as I an used to paying it anyway.
That said however, as a fellow senior member of this community, I would just like to hear the TRUTH for a change.
If were trying to correct past mistakes by ? please just tell us that and quit infighting on the Dias!
Is that too much to ask from people who have taken an oath to serve Crestwood?
Tom Ford
Dear senior who agreed with Mayor on Prop S
The extra funds used to pay off the debt early came from unexpected windfalls from lawsuit settlements from the telephone companies not the general fund.
Please remember the same administration also budgeted to spend $600,000 more than expected from revenue for 2009.
How do you feel about spending more than income supports. Spending more than you have is what got us in the debt sponsored prosperity circle that almost bankrupted the city three years ago.
The single weapon the taxpayer has is to deny increased taxes until the entity demonstrates resposibility.
Do not fall for the bate and switch tactics of the mayor and his buddies such as no further cuts can be made, we don't need new tax money etc. No clear plan exists for the future.
Your tax money is still given away to sponsor a Sappington House manager (the Crestwood residential code enforcer's second city job) with free rent, utilities, appliances, and $100 a month allowance.
Your tax money is also spent maintaining Sappington House while the Sappington House Foundation has $500K in the bank. The foundation should maintain their little project not the taxpayers. What say you Sappington House Foundation?
Do you still want to continue to contribute now?
I am finished with the PROP S BAIL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Your tax money is still given away to sponsor a Sappington House manager (the Crestwood residential code enforcer's second city job) with free rent, utilities, appliances, and $100 a month allowance.
Your tax money is also spent maintaining Sappington House while the Sappington House Foundation has $500K in the bank. The foundation should maintain their little project not the taxpayers. What say you Sappington House Foundation?
Do you still want to continue to contribute now?
I am finished with the PROP S BAIL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well well, we still have a paid squatter in the Sappington House you say? Marvelous, and just think she has two City jobs to boot!
Here we are in a land where people are loosing their jobs, homes, and life savings every day, and she reaps the reward's from the City (on OUR nickel) day in and day out, seemingly fireproof!
Boy am I glad that Mayor Robinson and the gang have "made all the deep cut's they can!" God knows what we would have if that hadn't been done!
"Remember, friends don't let friends vote for tax increases!"
Tom Ford
I guess we shouldn't mention how much the city is paying the mayor's secretary.
I guess we shouldn't mention how much the city is paying the mayor's secretary.
The cost to the city for the services provided by the executive secretary to the mayor etc is
$53000 including the cost of benefits.
The original "Prop S" resolution from the City web site.
http://ci.crestwood.mo.us/docs/agendas_minutes/boa/2006_03_28/resolution%2005-19%20affirming%20intent%20of%20prop%20s.pdf
Resolution No. 05-19
WHEREAS, the City needs additional income to retire its debt with Southwest Bank and to eliminate its need for its ongoing line of credit from the same bank; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen, after extensive research and discussion, has determined that the best resolution at this time is to ask the voters for a reasonable and time limited increase in the City’s property tax; and
WHEREAS, that request to the voters will appear on the April 4, 2006, ballot as “Proposition S”; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen a)want the voters to be clear about this Board’s intent and b) want future Boards of Aldermen serving either until the increased tax is discontinued because the objectives in the first “whereas” have been accomplished or until the
sunset of this tax occurs in seven years to honor our intent and the voters’ intent,
BE IT RESOLVED that this Mayor and Board of Aldermen attest that our intention of offering “Proposition S” to the voters of the City is solely to retire our current debt to Southwest Bank and to eliminate the need for our current line of credit from that same bank, including any
accumulated interest debt which may occur until those two purposes are accomplished; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we ask the future Mayors and Boards of Aldermen serving until the tax terminates to reaffirm each year this same attestation so that the voters have
continued assurance that the purposes herein stated are indeed being accomplished as prudently and quickly as possible, such reaffirmation to be done during the closest anniversary date of this second meeting in March.
PASSED AND SIGNED this __28th___ day of ______March________, 2006.
/S/ Roy Robinson Mayor
Attest:
/S/ Kimberly D. Cottle
City Clerk
Approved this _28th _ day of ____March_______, 2006.
/S/ Roy Robinson
Mayor
Tom Ford
10:25PM blogger: Thanks for the update on the salary. We do wish to be as accurate as we can on salary subjects.
Tom Ford
11:46
I do not recall in any minutes from any Board meeting where it was stated that the extra monies paid to satisfy the Prop S obligation were specifically derived from money received from telephone settlements. Secondly, the city never received anywhere near the 1.3 million borrowed from the general fund from the settlements. Either way, we borrowed money from ourselves to meet the IRS obligation so Prop S could remain tax free and I too feel that money should be paid back to the General Fund before Prop S is retired. Through the years this city has regularly borrowed money from one fund to bolster another and then repaid those funds when possible. Why is or should the Prop S fund be any different. And finally, I would agree with your comment regarding the Sappington House but it has nothing to do with Prop S so stick to the subject and stop wandering all over the place like you have adult ADD.
Please help me to understand where you have found that the general fund contributed $1.3 million. The numbers do not add up.
In regards to the Sappington House Manager. I was demonstrating the waste of the tax payer money.
We should be tired of being a partner with a business (Crestwood Government) who has demonstrated they are always willing to take my dollars to pay for mistakes. I would believe we would want keep our hard earned money rather than sending it to incompetent public officials to pay off debt and receive no value.
11:36
At the 26th meeting of the aldermen, Mr. Eckrich reported that the city had paid an additional 1.3 million dollars (500M+ in 2008 and 800M+ in 2009)from our General Fund to meet the IRS stipulation in the loan in order for the loan to remain tax exempt. That would be $1.3 mil. However, he also said that number will be reduced by the end of next year to around $740M. That $740M is yours and mine and I want it repaid to the General fund before the Prop S is retired.
Ummm, Prop S is "yours and mine" money too, so to repay the General Fund, the city will be using your money to pay back your money.
I am sure am glad you are not responsible for the finances. The figure is $740k not $740M.
The majority of the money came from the cellular windfall, grant trail windfall and reductions to city expenses.
I agree that to back your money with "yours and mine" money too, so to repay the General Fund, the city will be using your money to pay back your money.
Post a Comment
<< Home