Cherokee Village Arkansas just put a gun to our head and told us to pay more taxes!

Hi trout,

no, I have not seen it and only know the general outline from the newspapers and specific discussions here and elsewhere. It would be good if both SID and the City had them online. But isn't the even greater point that only by side-by-side comparison can we honestly say SID or City work better, worse, or about the same?

No Paul but you can get one from the SID office. How about the city budget have you seen that one?

Hi trout,

Have you seen a detailed SID budget to compare?

Let see Paul Batesville AR which is bigger than CV contracts with the county SO for police protection and has done so for years. Seems to work there why not here. Speaking of budgets have you ever seen the CV city buget, I don't mean that piece of paper they publish I mean the real document. And yes I could go for an elected SID. Maybe 5 members or one member must be from Sharp, one from Fulton and one must be a property owner who doesnot live here. That was you have total representation for all concerned groups.

Hi trout,

Contracting out has backfired on a lot of places It only makes sense when core wage/benefit costs are high. The City wages are low, the benefits modest, and these guys are actually working. As for the CVPD vs Sheriff's patrol, I hold my ground. We can't afford to pretend CV can do that anymore and be safe.

In any case, I have two questions for someone taking your position.

1. Would you favor an elected SID?

2. Have you ever actually seen a detailed SID budget to do an honest comparison?

Again, I have nothing against either of these entities They are engaged in a division of labor. The issue is more likely the division of revenue.

paul you need to see what we are paying for a road department and then see where that same amount of funds would do in road repairs and updates. We would not have equipment to buy or maintain, retirements, benefits, insurance or how about that $87k building used to store equipment oh yea and used as a "farmers market". As to the fire department that is part of SID's responsibility in the first place so they would continue to fund it instead of giving the money to the city. And do we really know what theydo with those funds. The Sheriff's office could be contracted out for police protection or SID could return to security. The CVPD seems to spend most of their time up on the highway going to other cities. Just how much patrol time is spent in the village? And Paul if you are that concerned about the cities finances just write them a check, I'm sure they will spend it on something that they want to buy. How do they justify giving themselves a salary when it is a part time job, They are not employees they were elected to "serve" and they have not done a very good job at that. I feel sorry for the village and what has happened over the last 10 years. I will miss the village but not the city and what it has done to such a wonderful place.

Hi Forum,

Thanks trout for being clearer about what exactly you find objectionable and why. Here would be my reply:

The City came into being for a reason. My sense is the reason was wanting one elected body in government in the Village. If the City cut a poor deal with SID for SID fund distributions, where the bulk of the taxes/fees go, then that agreement ought to be revisited. Why? Because the City is in a division of labor with SID. It needs its fair share to do its part of the Village upkeep.

If I understand your objections, they would mostly center on the Police Dept, Code Enforcement, and road maintenance.

Well, here we do need to part company. I don't think CV should try to survive with a sheriff's patrol every once in a while. That level of coverage is too little for what we truly have going on these days. Crime will be worse.

As for Code Enforcement, they are worth every penny. They have been more responsible for improved quality of life than any government branch in the Village and have done so on a shoestring.

As for road maintenance, I don't believe for a second that contracting it out will be cheaper. It is like saying that hiring a private law firm will be cheaper than having in-house counsel. Not. Wages are low, low, low, as is staffing small in that Department

Finally, why would SID do the Fire Department any cheaper than the City? I don't think there is any reason to believe it would.

Maybe the basic question should be reversed for a change. Does SID need as much money as it assesses to do what it does? I don't know. We never ask. But I ram not inclined to worry about either entity. I rather think both the City and SID are doing the best they can and maybe some fine-tuning is needed in how funds are split up in light of assessment collection going up and down.

Paul I will make this very simple. the fat is the city. They created all the problems we now have and made agreements with SID on funding that did not work out in their favor like they thought it would now they are crying in their beer. And have no where to go but to raise taxes and fees. This will be a never ending project for city hall. SID can not control people not paying their assessments and the city should have thought about that when they made those agreements. As to the fire department being closed well it would just go back to the SID to run like it did before we had this worthless city government.

Hi Mike,

As I said to trout, can you give specifics? Where is this "fat"? I don't believe there is any. If we start cutting into bone and muscle, there will be an equal backlash to that as well. This City does not waste money. Let's be honest about that. I'd say that a concentration on the interplay between SID's funds and the City's is where to start. After all, the vast majority of the assessment goes to SID and not to the City. Why do we always focus on the City? I'll say it again, I have nothing at all against either of these entities and see them as on the same side and needed. I just can't comprehend why the focus is always on the City.

Where's the fat?

3 mill tax increase coming to your wallet soon!

http://www.areawidenews.com/story/1778782.html

Shouldn't the city hold off on mill increases until the economy rebounds a little bit? Hitting up people for more dough will do the opposite effect. Stupid decision. Make realistic cuts until the money becomes more readily available. Don't require people to pay more who are already bringing in less money due to a lousy economy that is not going to get better anytime soon. This is simple economics that apparently simpleton thinking cannot understand. Are the Aldermen who voted for this simpletons? Do they have common sense? I'm sorry to have to ask that, but what else am I to think?

The thing to do right now is not to touch the fire dept. That is obviously just one arrogant scare tactic way to get the public to go along with a tax increase. Let's call it what it is.

That scare tactic is literally a cheap and low class way to try and scare old people into believing that the only way to keep the fire dept able to protect them and to not have their insurance raised is to go along with having their taxes raised. That is a load of crap, City Hall, and you know it.

Instead of even bringing the fire dept into the issue, why not cut the equivalent dollar amount from other non essential departments? There is always room to make cuts in any local government and everybody knows it. Using the fire dept and homeowners insurance as the ransom is absolutely insulting to this taxpayer and should be insulting to you. I am pissed off. Time for change in city hall perhaps? Their answer to take the easy and simpleton way to raise taxes instead of cutting some fat elsewhere is very telling and it tells me all I need to know going forward.

I'm asking the questions that now need to be asked. It may be tough to hear, but it must be said.