Hello Group: We have received a response from Mr. Chiles, following an email sent to all current city council members.
Jim Hornaday --- On Mon, 11/10/08, James Hornaday Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: James Hornaday Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Proposal for 1 % sales tax increase -- to be voted on by Council > Monday > To: "Dan Chiles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:40 AM > Mr. Chiles: > > I am sorry you believe the ballot proposal cannot be > written in such a manner than taxpayers would have any > assurance that the city council will conduct their future > business in a better way than they have in the past. If the > tax increase is approved, we taxpayers will have the total > obligation to pay for the whole mess. We will continue to be > at the mercy of council to act sensibly and not spend our > tax dollars like they were free for the asking. > > Let me ask you this. Why is council hesitant to commit more > than 10 million dollars from the telephone settlement to > fund the pension deficit? Is there another financial crisis > facing the city, and 'you' (plural) think anything > more than a $10M settlement will be needed to get the city > of a second jam? > > You personally have not been a long term party to the > development of this pension fund mess. However, as a > relative newcomer to Council and one with some term to serve > out, I appreciate your intended claim to serve the taxpayers > (and voters) well and in a more prudent manner. > > Jim Hornaday > > > --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Dan Chiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > From: Dan Chiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Proposal for 1 % sales tax increase -- to > be voted on by Council Monday > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:22 AM > > Hi Jim, > > > > My undersanding is that ballot language has to be > clear, > > concise and short enough to fit on a ballot. Some > people > > have offered pages of amendments they would like to > see > > glued on, but I don't think that's practical. > > > > State law applies to the question of what we can ask > for > > and how we can phrase an issue when we ask for money > related > > to law enforcement. So, the language has to focus on > the > > immediate issue on the ballot. > > > > One City Council cannot bind a future city council in > many > > regards including passing ordinances. So, we could > make the > > ballot 5 pages long, but it wouldn't prevent > future > > councils from acting in the City's interest, as > they > > might perceive it. > > > > Just like this present city council did not create the > > pension mess, we should be prevented from offering a > > solution to clean it up now. > > > > I don't know what future city councils will do, > but > > given the terrible financial mess we are in, I think > we will > > be acting carefully with the taxpayer's dollars. > > > > I work in a factory and I'm raising a family and I > > always balance my budget. > > > > So should the city. > > > > thanks! > > > > dan > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 08, 2008, at 07:06PM, > "James > > Hornaday Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Mr. Chiles: > > > > > >I attended the Nov. 6th open meeting at Big > Momma's > > Cafe, featuring Greg Burris as the spokesman for the > city. I > > listened to everything Mr. Burris had to say about the > > city's forthcoming 1% sales tax increase proposal. > > > > > >In that meeting, he promised there would be a > > "shadow" limitation against council > proposing any > > new taxes until the pension deficit was paid up. He > also > > promised that UP TO 10 million dollars from any > telephone > > tax settlement would be put into the pension fund > deficit. > > > > > >Today, I read the very brief language of the tax > > proposal that will be presented to Council for > approval on > > Monday, the 10th of this month. There were NO mention > of a > > shadow tax limitation on new taxes, or mention of any > > telephone tax settlement money being used to pay > towards the > > pension fund. > > > > > >Mr. Burris made a very persuasive pitch to the > group. > > If the proposal does not contain his promised > limitations > > and restriction, I have serious doubts as to this city > > government's integrity. Is it possible he and > Council > > are pretending to put some needed restrictions on what > the > > citizens of Springfield are being asked to approve for > a tax > > increase? > > > > > >Will the REAL tax proposal Monday night you are > > considering Monday contain the items promised by Mr. > Burris? > > If the proposal is lacking its promised restrictions, > we, > > the taxpayers, must suspect that Mr. Burris you, and > the > > other members of City Council have intentions of > continuing > > their profligate ways, and will continue to waste > taxpayers > > money on non-essential items. > > > > > >Jim Hornaday > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
