At the January 2009 board meeting, the Henry County Board approved a referendum to increase the sales tax by 1/4 of 1 percent to pay for the Henry County Courthouse repairs. There was only one negative vote regarding this referendum — that vote was mine.
In response to a letter submitted by the other board members, I want to give you, the citizens of Henry County, my reasons for casting the only negative vote on this referendum. The referendum will be placed before the voters on April 7.
In their letter, they state, “The referendum is to increase the sales tax by 1/4 of 1 percent ($.25 for every $100 spent). The revenue generated from this sales tax increase will be put in a restricted fund to pay for restoration of the Henry County Courthouse.”
If the measure is approved by the voters, the revenue will not be put into a restricted fund that will accumulate and eventually pay for repairs as the letter implies.
If you, the voter, approve this measure, you will not only give the county board authority to impose the sales tax increase, you will give the board authorization to sell $2.5 million in bonds to actually pay for the restoration.
The intent of the 1/4 percent sales tax increase is to retire or pay off the bonds. Adding the interest and fees for the sale of the bonds, the actual debt will be closer to $6 million.
The administration committee — the initiator of this referendum — says the 1/4 percent will safely pay for the bonds, broker fees and interest.
They base their projections on prior history of monies collected by local sales taxes. However, as Geneseo has painfully discovered, projected revenues do not always happen. Geneseo has a shortfall in its current budget of $200,000 because actual receipts of sales tax revenues did not match their projections. Consequently, the city of Geneseo has also put a 1/2 percent sales tax referendum on the April ballot to pay for their shortfall.
Last November, the county board placed a 1/2 percent sales tax referendum on the general election ballot. The purpose of that sales tax referendum was for “public safety,” and the referendum was rejected by the voters.
The demise of the courthouse was not even on the radar screen at that time. It was not the intent of that proposed sales tax to make any improvements on the courthouse. Now, three months later, the courthouse repairs have “top priority.”
I do not suggest we let the courthouse fall apart. However, if it is in such a deplorable condition of disrepair, why didn’t we start making annual maintenance repairs a year ago?
