|
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report What Happened Last Year Submit Feedback Home |
Behavior typical of the Ellington and the Village Administration. This information was taken from WHY IS ISSUE ONE ON THE BALLOT so if you want to view it just click this line but please come back for the truth. If you have the right setup you can just minimize it so that you can refer to it as you read the truth. "It is the duty of Village Council to explore and present to our residents all potential options that may resolve challenges facing the village. At a public forum in 2008, Village Council discussed the possibility of imposing a one-percent earnings tax for the first time in Amelia’s 100+ year history. It was one of a number of potential solutions to resolve a projected fiscal shortfall by 2012. Amelia was also facing an increased cost for waste collection services. The waste collection services levy had expired in 2007 and additional revenue was required to continue the waste collection contract. The three options the village had at the time were:" So in 2008 they decided to talk about imposing a one-percent earnings tax for the first time in Amelia's 100+ year history. IMPOSE!!! We have continually heard over the last 10 months that they never considered imposing this tax yet they tell you right to your face that they were talking about IMPOSING the tax! A one-percent tax !!! The only one they could impose!!! So while this may or may not be another lie between the two there has to be a lie involved somewhere so this counts as a lie! Time after time this tax was reported to the newspaper as being the primary reason. Cincinnati.Com - August 9th, 2008, Cincinnati.Com - August 10th, 2008, WBNS 10TV - August 10th, 2008, Mansfield NewsJournal.Com - August 14th, 2008, Cincinnati.Com - September 5th, 2008 and I don't know haow many more. They all say that the primary need for the earnings tax is to replace an expiring levy that covers waste collection. But what they state above is "It was one of a number of potential solutions to resolve a projected fiscal shortfall by 2012." So were they going to impose it for the shortfall or were they going to use it for waste collection? There is a lie here somewhere! The waste collection services levy had expired in 2007 and additional revenue was required to continue the waste collection contract. Well that may well be true but it was also extended in November 7, 2007 by ordinance by O-2207-86 which meant that we were covered in 2008. Didn't tell you that did they? LIE! __________________ |
|
|
|