Its plain and simple , another way to tax the citizens. If it is supposed to bring industry to the area I didn't get that with what I read. The reasons that Grant Co. and Douglas Co. have successful port districts is what Mayor Glondo said "Cheap Electricity" and we have PSE. If we have more industry , it brings along more problems and then we will have to raise taxes again. The problem it brings is more traffic , more crime more layers of government which creates overhead , salary ,health care , retirement into infinity. In other words the citizens could vote to eliminate the port district and could be bound with the overhead costs of the commissioners and others. But are the citizens of upper county going to be bound what the lower county votes (kind of like we have to live with what the west votes) The county voters did not approve of a Parks and Rec .05 cent per K which is measly compare to a .45 cent per K which is what
the Port District is asking upper co retired person
Retired firefighter - 8 years ago
The city taxpayers just voted to provide needed funds for public safety for the fire department. The council couldn't wait for it to pass to divert funds from the fire dept. budget to help fund a planner, something totally unrelated to what the voters said yes to. Now with this port proposal, McGowan and the boys of the council are sure to have their wheels turning to figure out a way they can divert some of this taxpayer funding into their own greedy needs such as paying for a planner, and paying for THEIR INCREASE IN PAY that they voted for themselves. I don't mind being taxed for specific needs, but this council has gone overboard with their sneaky ways. I will vote no for this tax on the residents of the city. The Chamber PROPOSES that the city will benefit with different projects. if this proposal does fly, the funds had better be earmarked in advance, or Jay and the boys will end up with some of that taxpayer money, guaranteed! Vote NO!
uppercounty resident - 8 years ago
No matter how you slice it, the upper county always gets the short end of the stick. Even if there are separate districts, apparently it is common practice to combine the resources; another way for upper county $$ to be absorbed into the lower valley. This just digs deeper into tax payer pockets. It will go to whatever projects the commissioners feel like - which if the new lodging tax rules are any indication, will be at their whim regardless of public opinion, and adds even more costs to pay those commissioners, and likely other personnel, to administer the district(s)..
Its plain and simple , another way to tax the citizens. If it is supposed to bring industry to the area I didn't get that with what I read. The reasons that Grant Co. and Douglas Co. have successful port districts is what Mayor Glondo said "Cheap Electricity" and we have PSE. If we have more industry , it brings along more problems and then we will have to raise taxes again. The problem it brings is more traffic , more crime more layers of government which creates overhead , salary ,health care , retirement into infinity. In other words the citizens could vote to eliminate the port district and could be bound with the overhead costs of the commissioners and others. But are the citizens of upper county going to be bound what the lower county votes (kind of like we have to live with what the west votes) The county voters did not approve of a Parks and Rec .05 cent per K which is measly compare to a .45 cent per K which is what
the Port District is asking upper co retired person
The city taxpayers just voted to provide needed funds for public safety for the fire department. The council couldn't wait for it to pass to divert funds from the fire dept. budget to help fund a planner, something totally unrelated to what the voters said yes to. Now with this port proposal, McGowan and the boys of the council are sure to have their wheels turning to figure out a way they can divert some of this taxpayer funding into their own greedy needs such as paying for a planner, and paying for THEIR INCREASE IN PAY that they voted for themselves. I don't mind being taxed for specific needs, but this council has gone overboard with their sneaky ways. I will vote no for this tax on the residents of the city. The Chamber PROPOSES that the city will benefit with different projects. if this proposal does fly, the funds had better be earmarked in advance, or Jay and the boys will end up with some of that taxpayer money, guaranteed! Vote NO!
No matter how you slice it, the upper county always gets the short end of the stick. Even if there are separate districts, apparently it is common practice to combine the resources; another way for upper county $$ to be absorbed into the lower valley. This just digs deeper into tax payer pockets. It will go to whatever projects the commissioners feel like - which if the new lodging tax rules are any indication, will be at their whim regardless of public opinion, and adds even more costs to pay those commissioners, and likely other personnel, to administer the district(s)..