Joyce denies Bustamante appeal March 10, 2014
Interesting budget read, and it raises some very valid points, but combined with the JC budget from JC Finance Dept., it makes it even more interesting. So, the past JCFD budgets are as as follows:
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
5,030,327.11 5,155,119.52 5,524,449.00 5,810,700.00*
Will the funding levels remain the same, or will they be reduced by the expected tax revenue generated by the new tax the city wants? Think about it, what could the city do with an extra 1.8 (2.6 revenue - .8 prop tax loss) Million dollars? The temptation is just too great, they will get their Transformation money, one way or another.
So, what is to keep the city from taking the money from the current FD budget and and applying it to Transformation items? Kind of like how the Lottery was supposed to increase funding for schools; yeah, that worked out great, didn't?
Yep, I can see the archaeologiists of the future, finding a cd with the sum of our civilization and saying "I wonder what that was?" as opposed to, say, finding books or scrolls that are still readable, albeit barely, after a thousand plus years. Look at NASA trying to find a way to recover data from the moon missions form the 60's and 70's, all stored digitally.
Should have thought about that before we denied Ameren the rate increase to prefund it, maybe even have got some cost concessions while prefunding? Good thing we saved all that money...
most likely the units at W Edgewood and Fairgrounds Rd. That appears to be the closest station.
So, does it meet the criteria set forth in Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 71, Provisions Relative to All Cities and Towns, Section 71.015?
2(b) That such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city, town, or village;
Last login: Sunday, August 5, 2012
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.