RFP Staff
♦ Tuesday Salisbury’s City Council will vote on an election year budget surprisingly containing several bitter pills for tax and utility payers. While word from City Hall insiders alleges that only two city council persons may attempt to retain their seats in the November election, the recommended budget voted on Tuesday will likely be among the more unpopular budgets put forward during a municipal election year in recent memory.
Fibrant, since 2010, continues to cast a shadow across city hall. It’s losses are affecting the city’s trajectory and ability to provide services. In the upcoming city budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 vote, city council will vote to raise Fibrant’s already non-competitive TV rates with increases ranging from 6% to 18% depending upon the channel package. The city claims the TV package increase is meant to offset costs created by the TV providers.
The upcoming city budget vote will call for a 0.31 cents increase in the city’s property tax which is not excessive. More unpopular was the 75 cents raise in the city’s monthly residential stormwater fee which will now be set at $5 dollars. Many residents find the fee both onerous and unrepresentative. Back at the last City Council meeting the artist known as Clyde spoke against the stormwater fee:
In a move to give the appearance of not having to raise taxes more substantially during an election year, city council will vote Tuesday to raid the city’s fund balance for $1.8 million dollars and kick the problem down the road. The city claims they were forced to do this due to the expiration of the business privilege license tax said to create a yearly loss of almost $320,000.
Fund balance money will be used to partly pay for the Rowan-Salisbury School System New Central Office at 500 N. Main ($500,000), bike lanes and sidewalks on Newsome Road ($320,000), partial implementation of Salisbury’s Complete Streets “traffic calming” program for East Innes and Long Streets ($550,000), buying body cams for the Salisbury Police ($78,000), and paying for incentives for Downtown development ($200,000). Many of these items are viewed as frivolous by city tax and utility payers living outside of “8 block”. For instance some persons dwelling in the city’s underserved West End community saw a much higher priority in the city providing safety lighting for its residents than building bike lanes for a privileged few.
As soon as the new city budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 is put up after Tuesday, the RFP will post it for your “inspection”.
