• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.

An idea for cutting Glencoe city taxes by 34%

To the Editor:
If you are interested, as a city taxpayer, in cutting your city tax by more than 34 percent, read on ...
According to our city treasurer, our current city budget levy is $2.383 million. Our city police budget is $1.157 million, or 48.5 percent of our total city budget. This police cost is about $210 per Glencoe resident ($1.157 million divided by our city’s 2016 population census of 5,503).
I conducted a research study that showed that 33 cities in four counties (Carver, Wright, Dakota and Washington) which are patrolled by their respective counties instead of local city police, and averaged only $61 per person. At $210, Glencoe’s is $149 more per person ($210 minus $61 equals $149). For example: Waconia’s current police cost is $62.39 per person; Norwood Young America’s is $52.14 per person.
If we could save $149 per person, we could save our city taxpayers $820,000 ($149 x 5,503). These are big dollar savings for us! The extra $149 that we are paying in excess police costs is forcing our city to budget an additional $820,000.
This $820,000 excess cost divided by our total levy of $2,383,000 is 34.4 percent. According to our county auditor, this 34.4 percent is $378 in extra taxes on a $150,000 home with a city property tax of $1,100. This means that lowering our police cost could have a 34 percent decrease on my and your property taxes.
This is not a new discovery. Several years ago, I compiled a similar report that was published in our local paper. A committee was then selected to study our local police costs; even though I had spent hours of research on this subject with dozens of city and county officials, my participation on the committee was denied. The committee met with county and city officials, and agreed to keep the status quo, which has led us to the situation we are in now — Glencoe taxpayers paying an extra $4 million or more of city taxes since the committee decision.
Now, hopefully, with a 34.4 percent property tax saving, city taxpayers will be motivated to call or write a note to our city council persons regarding this injustice and asking for (or demanding) a change. We deserve their consideration!
Gary Ballard
Glencoe