Canyon
Canyon Budget Rivals NASA Pluto Rocket
July 15, 2015 
The following was leaked to the GUARDIAN today–it appears to be a real e-mail from Commish Steve Rule informing some folks of a proposed 37% budget hike!
“All concerned,
Today in the clerks suggested 2016 budget presentation —-(See above attachment for details)
Clerk Chris Yamamoto, and, controller Zack Wagoner proposed to raise property taxes from $34,335,899.00 (the 2015 total) to $47,890,012.00 for the coming fiscal year 2016. Clerk Yamamoto is asking for a $615,000.00 increase in his budget alone.
A raise in property taxes of approximately 37 % in one year. ($13,554,113.00)
I am sure some of you people would want to know what is being recommended/suggested to the Commissioners.
Steve Rule”
ATT95194 proposal for Canyon County 2016.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Jul 15, 2015, 7:01 pm
Sick! What do ya think is gonna happen when ya give government positions to Obama voters.
Jul 15, 2015, 11:49 pm
Aren’t individual agency requests usually much higher than can be realistically thought to be filled? I think it is a common practice for jockeying among the fiefdoms competing for the final dollars. Absent a “suggested cap” from the Commissioners before the requests are made, it is a typical ploy. “Mine is better than yours sort of mentality.
EDITOR NOTE–Grumpy, you are correct. We posted the letter because it appeared to be a ploy to outrage “right minded” constituents in 2C land. However, the move toward “forgoing” tax hikes one year, only to double up the next year seems to be catching on among politicos.
Jul 16, 2015, 8:52 am
The 37 percent tax increase is not reflected in the document attached. It shows a nine percent increase from $34,335,899 to $38,126,142, equal to the 2009 level. Where does the $47,890,012 come from?
EDITOR NOTE–We agree with you. Rule’s note has gone viral and others are asking the same question. Perhaps the legacy media will weigh in.
Jul 16, 2015, 9:01 am
I would like to repeat a past post that I believe property taxes to be a contract between the citizen and the government. As with any contract, both parties are usually protected that the cost increase is within reason and usually constrained to not exceed inflation or CPI index.
Government needs assurances of the ability to match CPI and inflation with increased revenues. Citizens need protection from the government exceeding CPI and making a person’s currently affordable home, no longer affordable.
Jul 16, 2015, 12:24 pm
JJ – Contracts are voluntary in nature. The property tax is not voluntary, nor did I (or anyone I know) ever agree to terms specified in property tax legislation. I was never presented with any information regarding rates or terms of any kind, nor was I ever consulted as to how said funds would be distributed. I never signed any document, nor did Government at any time negotiate with me regarding this “contract”. In spite of what High School Civics teachers may tell you, property taxation (or any other taxation) is not contractual, nor is the “social contract” anything others than hogwash some Statist made up. The presumption here is that Government has a higher claim to your property that you do. It is the same presumption that plantation owners had many years ago. It’s coercive, violent, and it’s wrong.
Jul 16, 2015, 2:56 pm
Gee, rather than “report” an apparently erroneous assertion, do you think the Guardian could report some context and correct information—not just as an “editor’s note” in response to a comment while awaiting the “legacy media” to “weigh in”?
EDITOR NOTE–If we did that, we would be forced to report the proposed Canyon tax hike is closer to 11% than the 9% you assert, according to yet another reader who claims you used a faulty formula to determine the percentage of increase. As much as anything we were trying to show people that a politico has used the “social media” to stir up his supporters while using faulty info. Rather than attacking the messenger, how about going after the politico who will make decisions using info he doesn’t understand.