Letter: Kinnickinnic residents invited to participateTown of Kinnickinnic property owners are urged to attend a special elector’s meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 9, at the town hall to discuss and vote on the 2011 town budget.
By: Roger Van Beek, Kinnickinnic Town Chair, River Falls Journal
Town of Kinnickinnic property owners are urged to attend a special elector’s meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 9, at the town hall to discuss and vote on the 2011 town budget.
As now proposed, the budget will require a 46.7% increase in our town levy, which is the town’s portion of the total property tax bill. The impact of the proposed increase on individual tax bills is significant, especially given the current economy.
It is not, however, the magnitude a misleading headline on the front page of the Nov. 18 Journal made it appear to be.
As correctly noted in the editor’s column the following week, the impact is expected to be in the area of $75 per $100,000 assessed value. Ultimately, it is up to the town’s electors to decide whether the proposed increase, nearly all designated to future road needs, is justified and workable.
Anticipated road needs are based on maintenance and reconstruction projections, by year and road, as developed by the town’s road committee. Roads are the town’s largest expense and one of our greatest responsibilities.
The question facing electors is whether to start now building reserves for future costly road projects, or to continue taxing near current levels for now and instead meet those costs through a combination of tax increases and borrowing as those projects come due.
Details of the road needs and cost projections, along with the entire proposed 2011 budget, will be shared at the meeting, and are also available at the town hall, 1271 Co. Rd. J, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
We look forward to a productive discussion on Nov. 9.
Editor’s Note: The Journal’s Oct. 14 headline read: “Kinnickinnic residents to vote on 46.7% tax hike/Roadwork costs expected to soar.” This headline was accurate, not misleading, and the story itself also included the $75 per $100,000 impact for taxpayers.