Site search
sponsored by
News
ENLARGE
SUMMIT COUNTY — Blue River voters overwhelmingly turned down an Election Day ballot measure that would have removed the cap on property taxes used in part for roads and law enforcement.
Town officials said they weren’t surprised and will likely try for the much needed revenue again in future elections.
About two-thirds of the Town’s $711,929 budget for 2008 comes from property taxes.
“You can tell them the ceiling will collapse in two years, and they won’t vote you a penny until they’re pulling plaster out of their hair,” said town trustee Rob Waterman.
The measure failed 351 to 79 in a notably tax-averse community on a day when Summit County already was asking for a property-tax increase to support county services.
The move would have eliminated the Town’s present 12.29 mill levy — voter-approved in 1995 — allowing the Town to set the amount, provided it didn’t exceed the state’s limit of a 5.5 percent annual increase.
Opponents said the measure — which would have raised the average tax bill at least $41 — was unnecessary, as there is no immediate need for the money.
Town trustee Larry Nelson said the present mill levy was approved during much construction and rising property values. Now, the town now nears build-out.
“As property values go down in these (uncertain) economic times, the Town’s limited in how much funds we can garner, and the Town’s facing increased costs due to fuel and all the services we provide,” Nelson said.
Town treasurer Allyn Mosher said while the present tax situation won’t affect services in 2009, the Town “could be looking at a real budget problem” in coming years.
“We’re trying to look to the future,” he said. “That’s what the Town was trying to do is not get blindsided by this — and unfortunately the electorate didn’t see it that way.”
If the ballot item were approved, the Town could have received an extra $33,800 in the first year. Officials said the money would help to plow streets, fill potholes and provide law enforcement.
The Town went to its voters last year for a property-tax increase of about three mills to raise an additional $100,000 per year. It failed by a 100-41 vote.
Nelson said he was disappointed with the language against the item in this year’s voter information guide, which he said tied it too closely to a bridge project which commenced without the extra finances.
Waterman said he knew well ahead of Election Day that this year’s measure would fail.
“When we voted to put it on the ballot, I said: ‘This sucker is DOA.’ We could cut the services now to let them know what’s going to happen,” he said. “The fact is, we are going to need the money.”
Robert Allen can be contacted at (970) 668-4628 or rallen@summitdaily.com.
Town officials said they weren’t surprised and will likely try for the much needed revenue again in future elections.
About two-thirds of the Town’s $711,929 budget for 2008 comes from property taxes.
“You can tell them the ceiling will collapse in two years, and they won’t vote you a penny until they’re pulling plaster out of their hair,” said town trustee Rob Waterman.
The measure failed 351 to 79 in a notably tax-averse community on a day when Summit County already was asking for a property-tax increase to support county services.
The move would have eliminated the Town’s present 12.29 mill levy — voter-approved in 1995 — allowing the Town to set the amount, provided it didn’t exceed the state’s limit of a 5.5 percent annual increase.
Opponents said the measure — which would have raised the average tax bill at least $41 — was unnecessary, as there is no immediate need for the money.
Town trustee Larry Nelson said the present mill levy was approved during much construction and rising property values. Now, the town now nears build-out.
“As property values go down in these (uncertain) economic times, the Town’s limited in how much funds we can garner, and the Town’s facing increased costs due to fuel and all the services we provide,” Nelson said.
Town treasurer Allyn Mosher said while the present tax situation won’t affect services in 2009, the Town “could be looking at a real budget problem” in coming years.
“We’re trying to look to the future,” he said. “That’s what the Town was trying to do is not get blindsided by this — and unfortunately the electorate didn’t see it that way.”
If the ballot item were approved, the Town could have received an extra $33,800 in the first year. Officials said the money would help to plow streets, fill potholes and provide law enforcement.
The Town went to its voters last year for a property-tax increase of about three mills to raise an additional $100,000 per year. It failed by a 100-41 vote.
Nelson said he was disappointed with the language against the item in this year’s voter information guide, which he said tied it too closely to a bridge project which commenced without the extra finances.
Waterman said he knew well ahead of Election Day that this year’s measure would fail.
“When we voted to put it on the ballot, I said: ‘This sucker is DOA.’ We could cut the services now to let them know what’s going to happen,” he said. “The fact is, we are going to need the money.”
Robert Allen can be contacted at (970) 668-4628 or rallen@summitdaily.com.
