The Trenton Park Board held a special meeting Friday morning, approving ballot language for a sales tax issue and passing a resolution asking that the city council lower, then eliminate, the portion of the city?s property tax that is used to fund the park system.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
The Trenton Park Board held a special meeting Friday morning, approving ballot language for a sales tax issue and passing a resolution asking that the city council lower, then eliminate, the portion of the city?s property tax that is used to fund the park system.
The board approved the ballot language which asks that a one-half cent sales tax issue be implemented on all retail sales in the city of Trenton for the purpose of providing funding for the local parks. Board members had hoped to be able to include in the language a 50 percent reduction in the parks portion of the city property tax in 2004 and total elimination of the parks portion of that tax when a new aquatic center is paid for, hopefully in the 14th year of financing, whether that be through conventional financing or through revenue bonds, but were told that cannot be included in the ballot language.
Four investment representatives were present at the meeting, including local bankers Tom Witten of Citizens Bank and Trust and Jerry Goodin of US Bank. In addition, local Edward Jones representative Roger Bennett was present, as was Joe McLiney of McLiney and Company, an investment banking firm based in Kansas City. All four men indicated they had not been given much preparation time prior to the meeting, but all felt their companies could provide attractive financing for an aquatic center, estimated to cost $2,049,000.
Bennett discussed the advantage of having a local company handling the sale of revenue bonds, noting that in the recent re-issue of bonds for the Ketcham Community Center, 115 local investors purchased the entire issue. Bennett said it is only an advantage to have citizens feel they have made an investment in the community.
McLiney provided large amounts of information to the board and indicated that the board does not have to hire a bond attorney at this point in the game because it is not known for sure if a bond issue will even be the type of financing chosen by the board to construct the aquatic center. He also told the board that they cannot include in the ballot language any reduction in the property tax because the city council is the only entity allowed to set the property tax rate within the city. In addition, he noted that this board nor the current city council can obligate a future council in regard to a certain property tax rate.
Board members expressed deep concern that they cannot promise voters a reduction in the property tax, which resulted in the passage of a resolution asking the city council to reduce by 50 percent the portion of the property tax designated for the park system, which is currently approximately 28 percent or $110,000, and eliminate the entire tax designated for the parks in the 14th year, when it is estimated the aquatic center would be paid off. Board members said it is their intent to see the property tax eliminated, but they understand only the city council has that power.
From here, park board members will move ahead in seeking approval from the city council to place the issue on the April 8 ballot. The board plans to meet with the city council at Monday night?s council meeting, where a presentation will be made and the council will be asked to give its approval. If approval is given, the board plans to organize a citizen?s committee to help publicize the need for the sales tax revenue. Board members plans to hold a park board meeting following the city council meeting.