Taking the money out of two pockets

At the last meeting of the McCook City Council, the members received working copies of next year's budget. One copy of the proposed budget went to the library for public access but in the two weeks now passed it has not been a real popular item with the potential taxpayers.

Budgeting is an interesting process.

Ultimately, the council is responsible for completing one each year and it is a vital product because it lays out just how our tax money will be collected and how those funds will be spent.

The concept is simple; the council directs the city manager to set a levy, say $.30 and live with whatever that tax levy will generate.  The city manager, responsible for hiring and firing and running the city in general needs (wants!) as much income as possible so he advocates a city sales tax, raising the fees where ever possible, snags as many grants (free money with strings) anything to generate more money to spend.

It isn't that the City Manager is a greedy fellow, he is really a great guy, but that is how the system works. The whole process is an interesting waltz with each side eventually compromising and the tax payer paying for it all in the end.

Gene Morris had a nice column in the Tuesday Gazette where he commented on the many empty buildings in the business district of McCook.

The empty store fronts are a fact, and for me are an eloquent testimonial as to why we don't need to renew our city sales tax, much less increase it another 50 percent.

I firmly believe that the sales tax drives business away from our downtown, as it is a cost our merchants don't need and makes it harder for them to compete.

There have been several "sales tax" meetings so far and more are planned.  From the ones that I have attended, or have read the reports about, the efforts to sell the tax to the public have all centered on spending more. 

In fact, most energy expended has been to encourage the public to search out new needs and more innovative ways to spend the new tax money, $525,000 in the proposed budget. Seldom is heard the little voice that says "If you don't collect it, you can't spend it."

During the last City Council meeting, local business owner Carol Samway asked if perhaps it was time to say "enough is enough" and forget about reauthorizing the sales tax. 

Carol's business has to collect and pass on the sales tax, so it is a cost that forces her to raise her prices and thus become less competitive in the real market place. 

She is the one who has to listen to the customer complain about the high cost of buying furniture (or whatever else, excepting food items, is sold in McCook) and one who understands that if the price is too high, the customer will either look elsewhere or not buy at all.

At the recent NRD meeting, several people spoke against the new tax levy for irrigation water that will only benefit Kansas.

That "new" money will go to landowners to not irrigate, and is money that won't be spent on fertilizer or the myriad crop inputs; sales that are vital to towns up and down the Republican Valley, McCook included.

I see the school board is negotiating to set the new superintendent's salary.  Let's see, pushing $130,000 a year for his services, a little over $10,000 a month.  The first house that I purchased in 1970 was only $27,000 and that was in high-priced California.

That house included a large in-ground outdoor swimming pool and 11 mature almond trees in the back yard.  The superintendent could buy three of those a year. 

Put another way, his salary alone will cost each citizen of Red Willow County $7.15 a year and, of course, over half of those, being children, don't pay any taxes.  But then it is only tax money, easy to spend.

It won't happen, but I would like to see a budget prepared leaving out the sales tax revenue and bumping the property tax to its statutory limit, $.45 as I remember.

The proposed budget shows $920,000 for property tax revenue based on a $.32 levy so the new number would be $1,293,750, incidentally just about the proposed budget for the police department alone.

The proposed property tax plus sales tax proposed revenue is $1,445,000 or lesser tax burden of $150,000.  You know take a $150,000 here and $150,000 there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. 

Also don't believe that one half of the sales tax revenue goes to property tax relief, it is ALL property tax relief.  Taking it out of two pockets just allows the city to spend more of your hard-earned money.

 

That is the way I see it.