To the Editor: Opposes parks assessment

I am writing to remind everyone of the upcoming assessment ballots due April 17. When you submit your ballot, be sure to vote no as the assessment district will be permanent, since there is no sunset clause. Another reason to vote no is to consider the following things city hall has attempted to do. Perhaps obfuscation was not the intent, still there were important facts omitted when telling about the proposed assessment district. Facts omitted by the folks at city hall include:

The property assessment would be an average annual $49.00 per year. The fact is that the assessment could increase up to 3.5 percent a year at the discretion of the city council.

The property assessment is applied based on location. Properties that are closer to recreational facilities can pay higher assessment fees.

Property owners with multiple properties will pay more based on property type, not use. Councilmember Mike Mower, I do believe, mentioned at a city meeting he would pay more for the property assessment than an apartment complex located not far from his property. Mower owns a business and adjoining properties that do not have an apartment complex. It is most likely apartment dwellers would use recreational facilities a bit more than a property without an apartment complex. There seems to be an in-balance on how the property assessment will be assessed.

I’d also remind property owners that this assessment will pay for all parks and recreation programs, something we already pay for. Renovating the pool is a lure or, as I’ve written earlier, the shiny bauble. Do not fall for the shiny bauble. Look at the longterm consequences of voting for a permanent, variable assessment.

I’d also vote no as City Hall was not transparent when notifying property owners of how the assessment would be implemented.

I would strongly encourage the folks at City Hall to implement a sales tax to help pay for parks and recreation. A sales tax would be fair as everyone would help pay for parks and recreation.

Mary Ash

Story First Published: 2019-04-12