Proposed Tax increase: Public Meeting

Public Notice of Special Meeting of the Davis County Commission, Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.

At the Event Center (Fair Park), Building 2, 151 S. 1100 W, Farmington, Utah

The Commission thinks that this meeting will be well attended which is why they have chosen a venue that will hold a lot of people.

I cannot attend on Wednesday. Wednesday nights are difficult for those who participate in Scouting or Mutual activities that night.

Please attend and oppose the tax increase! Here is why.

Davis County continues to grow. Property values in the County continue to increase. The very people who would qualify for the relief in question (Senior Citizens) are, often, also property owners and pay the tax. Were these people not to have the burden of an additional tax, their money would be well spent on themselves. Growth can take care of itself based upon current tax levels. Those who do not qualify for relief volunteer in high numbers. The County assesses the value at $500,000 for the year of volunteer service between June 2005, and June 2006. These same people will not be equitably served to also pay an increase in addition to their volunteer service.

Bastiat calls this activity legal plunder.

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

This tax has been lumped in with a Jail maintenance, and flood control tax. These taxes should be considered on their own merits, not on the merits of the others. Again, the tax base grew this last year, and continues to grow. Revenues into Davis County have increased. New revenue could be put towards real needs.

Two-thirds of the Commissioners who represent our County, and will vote on this increase, are lame-ducks and will be out by the end of the year. One of these Commissioners(McConkie) was voted out because of his participation in a scheme to raise taxes on the County in a way that was seen as unnecessary by the electorate. The remaining, lame-duck, commissioner(Page), also supported this heavy tax increase. It is reasonable to assume that if Page were not retiring that she too would have lost on this basis. This kind of, weighty, decision should be left to the incoming group to decide.

One month is all I ask.