OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYR AUGUST 1991 PAGE 2 page two Jim Stiles Insisted In the past (Zephyr Interview, August 90) that Beyond that, Knutson has account seems to be picking up the costs. the 8 was not purchased for the dump; yet that taxation question. That Is the motivating factor on Now, let's consider the double financial support of the dump In the first place. both sides. It's why the coundl withdrew its I and hard with it Is And it's an issue that the Commissioner teds bogus. struggled long make some and sense of It Issue this at look myself. But I finally found s way to of a look at Grand to map County and To understand the Citys position, you have You're not does exist unit simply looking at a Imagine that Moab City as a south-centr- al Its near concentration with a major boundary. county of about 6,500 citizens From tax. taxes those the a county property county Is Every one of those citizens pays landfill. the supposed to budget funds to operate of the garbage generated In this Manuel Torres maintains that at least (I concentrated Moab) at the south end of the population county Is coming from that BECAUSE EVERYONE IN revenue. tax of the county. And hes right But so Is GRAND COUNTY PAYS A COUNTY PROPERTY TAX. If the commission raised taxes to cover the Increasing cost, Moab citizens as Grand County citizens would pay for the lions share of the tax increase. But to come back end say that Moab City should pay for additional costs truly puts an unfair burden on Moab City residents. On the other hand, by abandoning Its dty property tax and Imposing sn additional 1 sales tax, Moab can no longer say that Its residents are exclusively carrying the burden. contributing to dty coffers, one could argue that With county residents and D-- geo-politic- al two-thir- two-thir- First of all, no rambling poetry this month. I can hoar a collective sigh of relief from the readership. I realty don't know what possessed me to do that, other than the tact that I really didn't want to deal with weighty Issues and community problems. Sometimes, a guy needs a break. This month, however, I'd like to take a hard look at the Great Dump Debate that currently has our City Council people and Grand County Commissioners at each others' throats. For quite a while, I really couldn't get a handle on the Issue. I talked to Coundlmen Sakrlson and Bierschied who Insisted that the Issue was double taxation. Commissioner Torres countered to me that since the City had dropped its property tax In favor of an Increased sales tax, the double taxation Issue was a moot point. To deal with all this, It's helpful to go back about 10 years and chart the history of thedump. Around 1980, Grand County took over operation of the dump. Ray Tibbetts was a commisa loner at the time, and explains that the county wanted to provide around-the-cloaccess. Previously, the dump was locked up at 6PM. At about the same time Grand County signed a contract with the federal government regarding Park Service disposal of garbage. The NPS contributed a front-en-d loader and other services, not to exceed $50,00, In for unlimited access use of the dump Tor the duration of the landfllL" It to and exchange was signed by Commissioners Tibbetts, llerrell, and Jacobs, and Superintendent Pete Parry. Throughout the 80s, the City of Moab made a financial contribution to the landfill operation. But In 1988, the Council found Itself debating the Issue of double taxation and concluded that additional monies paid to the county were unfair. On June 21, the Council voted to draft a letter stating its Intent to stop payments to the county. Three weeks later, the city and county held a Joint meeting to discuss the problem. Sam Taylor suggested that a Special Sanitary Taxing District be established, and both the Council and the Commission voted unanimously to pursue this option. A few months later, the county stopped billing the city and Moab has not paid a penny since. The City's decision did not seem to concern the Commission until this year, when It concluded that operation of the dump was not the county's responsibility. The rub here, as the Commissioners see It, Is that the City owns most of the land upon which the dump Is located. Whether a previous Commissioner accepted responsibility for the dump operation Is Irrelevant In their minds. They insist they cannot afford to run It alone. The reason they can no longer afford it Is because their costs have skyrocketed. Or have they? For years, the county has budgeted $30,000 snnually to run the dump. At a meeting with the Council on July 17, Knutson conceded that they had not budgeted enough for actual costs and had failed to depreciate equipment But this year, the Commission Is claiming that the landfill operation Is costing around $240,000 and It originally wanted the City to pay half. A lion'a share of that cost Is being charged against the new D--8 dozer that the county bought last year for $260,000. The county charges $110 for each hour's operation of use. This means of calculating costs could be adding as much as $160,000 to the cost of the dump but does not reflect the actual expenditure of money. Manuel Torres says we can expect the D--8 to have a lifetime of 10 years. If the cost of the dozer Is about a quarter million dollars, wouldn't a fair depredation expense be doser to $25,000 a year? Even adding interest, It falls way short of the numbers the county comes 11 ds ds Vou e. VtH. ShareI PAY COUNTY double taxation COMMISSION rfetf ck up with. - F- - I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themsdves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. Thomas Jefferson THE a LAND1. an Issue both dty and county residents could complain about At the July 17 meeting, Coundlmen Sakrlson and Bierschied presented four options to the Commission. double-taxatio- Is n They are: County remains In charge of maintaining the dump, raising property tax, if necessary to pay for costs. City takes over and charges a fee for use of the dump, (foe would be for City residents). higher Private business runs the dump under the supervision of a governing body (Moab City or Grand County). Grand County seta up a Spedal Sanitary Taxing District This district would include all County residents utilizing the dump, each one would pay a fair share of the operating costa of the facility. Anyone outside of the Sanitary District should be charged a fee for dump services." "1 . 2. non-Mo- 3. 4. ab After some heated words and a threat by the commission 1o "get up and walk out the door" the meeting ended with no solutions but with lines of communication still open, if only barely. One thing Is certain, Grand County citizens face some tough decisions in the near future when they are forced to choose between services rendered by government and the need (through taxes) to pay for them. The proposed courthouse expansion, a shaky hospital, a leaky dty water system & a near capacity sewage treatment (riant are Just some of the headaches that lie ahead. Where Is the revenue that's needed to deal with them? Lurking In the background (for me at least) is the Grand County Special Service Road District. It spent $200,000 in 1990 and It makes me ask a question: Just how badly do we need a road to Vernal, Utah? It's a question of priorities. THE CANYON COUNTRY ZEPHYR P.O. BOX 327 MOAB, UTAH 84532 edited and published by JIM STILES (801 259-77- subscribe to THE ZEPHYR P.O.BOX 73 production managers GARY AND SUSAN CLUM contributing writers Jack Campbell B J. Eardley Jane S. Jones Ken Davey historical photos poetry Herb Ringer Frank Lemon 1991 The Canyon Country Zephyr all rights reserved The Canyon Country Zephyr is a monthly newspaper, published eleven times a year at Moab, Utah. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of its vendors, advertisers, or even at times of its publisher . 327 MOAB, UTAH 84532 a subscription is still only 12 DOLLARS (1 name year, 11 issues) . address renewal new I subscription wJbuL3acqiiajULjagpi POOlMlDFY |