Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwingnut
The ugly truth of the issue that went undiscussed was that had the IFD passed, all FD and transport costs would have had to be removed from the county budget (across the board property tax rate decrease) to prevent double taxation for the same services. A new tax structure would have had to be established for both FDs to cover their costs. This would have resulted in two similar sized budgets for the two FDs with 80% of the tax base paying for one and 20% paying for the other. The county residents would have seen a huge increase to cover both fire and transport service costs while Villages residents would have seen a per house decrease in fire protection cost plus a smaller increase in transport service costs. Again, it's just math, and math has no opinions, biases, or agendas, only facts.
|
Why was this statement NOT MADE in a commissioner meeting? In an open forum with all commissioners present, and in full compliance with communication laws.
Factual information that was
never presented.
It describes two fully separate independent kingdoms. No tax money from one gets used for the other. I think that's what everyone wanted.