The County Board of Commissioners voted 8-1 (Dan Smith dissenting), to approve a property tax millage of .07 mills for economic development[1]. This will exceed the constitutional limit set by the Headlee Amendment but the County’s Corporate Counsel claims it is legal because of a loophole that allows tax levies that were authorized by laws written before the Headlee amendment was passed in 1978. Act 88 was passed in 1913.
During public comments, I raised questions about the lack of controls on how the money raised by the tax was being spent. Act 88 allows a tax to support advertisements and expositions of the agricultural and other products of the county and tourism. Most of the money is spent on economic development without any requirements in the contracts that the supported organizations account for how the money was spent.
During public comments, I raised questions about the lack of controls on how the money raised by the tax was being spent. Act 88 allows a tax to support advertisements and expositions of the agricultural and other products of the county and tourism. Most of the money is spent on economic development without any requirements in the contracts that the supported organizations account for how the money was spent.
Bill McMaster, of Taxpayers United, worked with Dick Headlee to pass the Headlee Amendment in 1978. He also made public comments at the Board meeting that he believed the tax millage would violate the Headlee Amendment and he closed by promising the County would face a lawsuit if they passed the resolution.
The Board debated the resolution, with Dan Smith being the lone member to raise questions about the legality of the millage and the lack of controls on the spending of funds.
We will now wait to see if the millage is challenged in court and whether the County will find that they owe millions of dollars in tax refunds.
RSS Feed
