Quote:
Originally Posted by JGibson
Thanks for the high effort post.
After reading about yesterday's hearing it looks like the county commissioners are going to get their way.
|
As always, the devil will be in the details.
The new fee structure would not have been proposed if the IFD had passed but certain groups encouraged residents to vote against it.
The dependent district would not have been proposed if the fee structure had passed but certain groups encouraged the BoCC to go against their earlier decision and vote against it.
There will be an ordinance proposed that will contain the taxing structure for the dependent district but if certain groups encourage residents and/or businesses to protest then the BoCC might vote against it.
On the positive side:
- I heard that the board will eventually be elected by the residents. I had previously thought it would always be appointed.
- The BoCC did not just accept the five names put forward by the District, they intend to advertise the positions and interview candidates.
- Limits on the funding/taxing structure will be written into the ordinance. This is better than no limits at all though not quite as good as the IFD that required a referendum to increase the limits.
Concerns I still have:
- No one wants to pay more taxes but more funding is still required. Twice the vote has been to do nothing rather than accept new taxes. The dependent district could suffer the same fate
- Ideally, there will be a dependent district for the SCFEMS as well. If not then the SCFEMS would be funded out of the general fund which means we would pay for the VPSD directly AND pay for the SCFEMS through our property taxes. But while there was great concern for the timeline to establish a district for the VPSD, there was little or no discussion of the work required for a SCFEMS district.
We'll see what happens in the next couple of months.