County Tells Harper They Want To Increase Taxes But They Don’t Want To Be Held Accountable
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 5/21/08 @ 1:25 am - Filed Under Uncategorized
The gist of this bridge maintenance discussion is that the county can raise the wheel tax but a major portion of that increase will go to the city. So the county is requesting that the city agree to send revenue from this tax increase back to the county so they can use the money for bridge maintenance. But councilman Mitch Harper gets the county council to admit that they really want two things from the city
- An agreement from the city to reallocate the city’s portion of the increase wheel tax revenue back to the county for bridge maintenance
- A resolution from the city asking the county council to raise the wheel tax
Yes you read that right. The county has the responsibility and authority to raise taxes to pay for bridge maintenance but they want to try and dodge that responsibility by getting all the municipalities to send them resolutions requesting the tax increase. Nearly this entire mess is the county’s doing and if they want to raise taxes to fix it then they should have the courage and political will to do so. Attempting to blackmail the municipalities is nothing short of political chickenshit - and yes that’s a technical term…
Comments
2 Responses to “County Tells Harper They Want To Increase Taxes But They Don’t Want To Be Held Accountable”
Leave a Reply
Who was the official Allen County spokesperson at the Council meeting? Answer: The one who spoke first when a question was asked.
To me, the Councilman Harper point was the critical point of the entire exchange. Mr. Harper cut through the chase and offered an opportunity to settle the issue with a win-win for the County and the City. But the County responder blew it.
Despite earlier public pronouncements and perhaps misreporting by the mainstream media that Allen County is washing its hands and handing off bridge safety maintenance and repairs to the locals, the County had already clarified this is NOT the case. They said they would continue to do the engineering with county staff engineers, continue to be the liasion with INDOT and the federal DOT and National Highway Safety Administration, and prioritize projects, and maintain their fiscal duties with the Bridge Fund and so on.
Before Councilman Harper’s question, the County reps heard Councilwoman Goldner aptly point out this is not an us-them issue and that each FW resident is also an Allen County resident; and they heard Councilman Pape’s adamant conviction that since the early 1800’s this has been a County duty including the accountabilty to raise the wheel tax if necessary—and so why come to the Council asking for a resolution to do that–and that he trusted the County Council as elected people to make that call.
Coucilman Harper then offered the best deal the County was going to get and one that would allow the County to save face and claim a victory of of sorts, and the City Council was on record voicing its concerns for bridge public safety in Fort Wayne.
Councilman Harper wanted to know if they wanted city cooperation in allocating to the county its bridge wheel tax revenue and also an endorsement or resolution to support the County Council raising the wheel tax and related surtax.
Then came the response from a County Council member: We want BOTH. Opps. Why? And was this just one person’s opinion? What about the President of the County Council? Would he give that answser? What about the Commissioners? Would they give that answer? I doubt it. To say we want BOTH was a strategic blunder. They could have said that would be our hope but really we recognize it is really our (County Council) call to make.
Here’s my perception of this: I think the answer given by a the County Council person was not going to fly given earlier Council remarks. It was time to change their approach and acknowledge the County duty to make the call thenselves without letters of reference.
FWP here nailed it in this Post. I really believe that Nelson Peters or Bill Brown or Linda Bloom would have answered the question DIFFERENTLY.
The high road answer was to address the concerns raised earlier in the meeting, recognize it is their call to make, offer to foster dialogue with all the locals and assure FW they are not going to leave the city bridge-safetyles. Yes too, they need FW cooperation in allocating back the applicable funds once collected. BUT that did not happen.
There were 5 spokesman there: 3 Commissioners and 2 County Council members, neither of whom was the Council President. Whoever talked first was the spokesperson. Although it is the County Council who must decide on the wheel tax and not the Comissioners, it is the Commissioners who the public views as the top executives and spokespersons for the county.
What came to mind at that critical point of the meeting was that the issue may have been mutually resolved if we had a single County Excutive model for Allen County as recommended by the State Local Gov Task Force—-One elected accountable spokesperson, who the public hires and can fire.
After all, who was the County Council rep speaking for in her answers (the council, the commissioners, the county taxpayers, a segment of the County Council, drivers of vehicles?????)? It was not clear. And it sent the public the message Jeff that U sounded. And Yes Jeff it is chicken something.
[...] - this seems to be a reasonable request. However, they have also requested that the individual municipalities pass resolutions asking them to raise the tax in the first [...]