Council
Chambers
Special
Session
A) CALL TO ORDER
The Council for the City of
B) PRAYER
C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
D) ROLL CALL
On roll call, the following members answered present: Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Sanker, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Barlow
Mr. Schneider served as Clerk of Council, Pro-Tem.
E)
INTRODUCTORY
A) RESOLUTION
DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF LEVYING A TAX FOR CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES IN EXCESS
OF THE TEN-MILL LIMITATION AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO CERTIFY MATTERS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Mr. Sanker asked the Mayor for his comments on this
Resolution. The Mayor responded that
there has been a lot of thought and he’s had several discussions before
determining this as the best approach.
We are now doing better than we have in the past in a lot of ways. By allowing this renewal to be placed on the
ballot we can address the issues that we have heard time and time again and
make some progress. We all know that we
have had tough times where the citizens of
Mr. Schneider commented that we are considering renewing an emergency levy that was put in place in the 1980’s when General Motors was closing. Mr. Schneider asked the Mayor if he has looked at a replacement levy and alternate millage which would not have the emergency terminology in the levy language.
The Mayor confirmed and continued on to say that the replacement emergency levy is an internal incentive. Collectively, we’ve produced and now it’s a matter of building this City and making real progress.
Mr. Moore added that his original thought was that it would be better to go with a streets/capital improvement levy. However if this was modified to be a streets levy, we would lose the personal property tax subsidy we are currently receiving from the state. Therefore if we kept the revenue generated consistent we would hardly replace this loss of revenue. Mr. Moore added that as long as the state is reimbursing cities for the loss of the personal property tax, then we’re cutting our throats if we don’t stay with the renewal.
Mr. Sanker reminded Council that this paperwork needs to be
down to the
Mr. Schneider directed a question to the Mayor asking if it was true that we could potentially pass a 4 or 5 mill levy under the current evaluation of property by the county auditor’s office and still bring in just about the same amount as the 8 mill renewal levy.
The Mayor replied saying that if we run a different mileage that will raise the same amount of money, the tax burden on the property will change. He went on to say that he had discussions with the State Auditor’s office regarding reduction factors. This means if the assessed value of the property goes up with the renewal levy, the property owner doesn’t suffer that increase, so their tax burden remains the same. That’s one of the reasons the Mayor liked this direction.
Mr. Moore explained to those watching who may be thinking about how the value of their property was raised which made their property taxes raise also. He explained about inside mileage and how the schools get most of that. This type of voting levy doesn’t apply to inside mileage and doesn’t cause the property taxes to increase. Mr. Moore went on to say that the amount home owners pay is based on their homes valuation in 1987. It’s different for commercial properties or for new developments so for instance Rookwood Exchange and Rookwood Pavilion pay property taxes on current full market value of their property. If we were to get rid of this renewal levy and put a new one on instead that raises the same amount of money, the County Auditor is going to add up the current total value of all the property in the city and then divide the amount that citizens are going to pay for the new mileage across that amount. Homeowners will pay more on current value than the value from 1987 so a renewal would be a cheaper way to go.
Mr. Barlow asked the Mayor if $74 a half is what homeowners would pay if we did a renewal.
Mayor Williams confirmed – $74 on $100,000 home for a renewal levy. If you go with a lower mileage that generates the same revenue, it could have adverse problems down the road.
Mr. Schneider asked the Mayor if he thought at sometime that we could eliminate this emergency levy.
The Mayor replied that we are certainly trying and trying to get caught up from the years past. We have maintenance that needs to be done, streets that need repaired, equipment that needs to be bought, and we have neglected this as we have struggled through the years past. This renewal with our growth rate and our businesses picking up is providing a good opportunity to use this money to help our infrastructure and to do some house cleaning.
On a motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was
moved to hear the first
On a motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to amend the Agenda by adding Resolution E-B. All members present voted YES.
As amended Council then considered the following item:
B) RESOLUTION
DECLARING COUNCIL’S INTENT TO ALLOCATE THE
PROCEEDS OF AN EIGHT (8) MILL
RENEWAL LEVY, IF PASSED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF
On a motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to hear the first reading of the resolution. All members present voted YES.
F) EXCUSE ABSENT MEMBERS
On a
motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to excuse the absent
members. All members present voted YES.
G) ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Mr. Sanker, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to adjourn. All members present voted YES.
______________________________ ______________________________
J. Brian Mumper Jane
M. Grote
Clerk of Council President
of Council