I agree with some of what you say, with the exception of Miller’s voting conflict. I think the point is not that Miller can’t or shouldn’t vote on the property tax due to her husband getting a raise, though I think it’s questionable, the ISSUE is it’s the fact that she made a plea to voters to accept it due to the fact that it’s not that big of a deal to the bottom line compared to her cable bill. She should at least recognize that some of us have already cut our cable bills and to add even $15 a month is a big deal, especially if our property values go up in the next couple of years. It’s her arrogance and inability to look outside her own circumstances that is offensive to me. 7 straight months of unemployment in our town…and she thinks a 23% property tax is the answer cause it’s not a big deal? She should as least recognize that her household is benefiting from her vote while the rest of us outside the city coffers are having to suck it up and pay for their continuous raises. It IS an issue for her to vote to raise her own household’s income at my expense.

For me, there are two points to consider from the article. The first is the bigger issue for me, as it should be for everyone: the city is trying to pass out recurring multi-million dollar raises, expand municipal services, and increase capital improvements, to name a few. Unfortunately, we have a local economy that can hardly sustain current efforts. It is not clear to me how increasing the tax burden on what is mostly non-homesteaded property owners is going to help businesses that already do not have enough sales to increase their bottom lines, or the families with increasingly tighter budgets that have to give up one more thing to support municipal government.

The second point is not an issue me, and I do not think it should be for anyone else: Commissioner Miller’s vote on a “pay raise for her husband.” If the commissioner was voting for a specific payment to her husband or if the city manager had squirreled away in some account a specific payment to the commissioner’s husband in exchange for the commissioner’s “yes” vote on the budget, yes, that would be an issue. I do not believe that is the case.

There is still much to do on the budget with only a couple of months to do it. And with the commissioners off for a month, I suspect half of the remaining time will be going to bolstering claims on resources not trying to produce more economy in municipal services.

Like I said before, the chamber would not want to lose their “insider” status.

He pointed to a vulgarity tattooed on his neck?
I would have reported that. 🙁