Advertisement

Washington County Commissioners candidates Q&A Part 1

August 21, 2010|By HEATHER KEELS
(Page 6 of 6)

Miller: There are many pros and cons for or against an excise tax with no easy answer. My business background at U.S. Silica has taught me how necessary it is to evaluate all of the options. As a whole, the County Commissioners would need to discuss this issue.

Munson: No I do not support the excise tax. I believe there are ways for the county to cut expenses that would make up for the lost excise tax. I also believe the excise tax makes it harder for the middle or low income people to realize the American dream of owning a home.

Simmers: I do not support the excise tax. The excise tax is adding to the cost of homes. This thwarts growth and is the opposite of what we need. The result: Home buyers cannot afford it and decide not to build, and the county gets less property tax for a vacant lot than one with a home. The excise tax is costing tax revenue and jobs in Washington County. We need to get back to creating jobs.

Advertisement

Vindivich: Yes, I believe the burden placed on our infrastructure especially our school systems and emergency services are currently unable to provide services at a high level of performance that our citizens expect. I feel that if a developer wants to increase the "footprint" in our county then it is their responsibility to insure that our current quality of life in Washington County is not only maintained but improved.

Wivell: It is a question of who pays -- current or new residents. Additional development does place additional burdens on public infrastructure; accordingly, I believe it is fair that new development pays such a fee to help absorb the cost of building schools, roads, libraries, and recreational facilities. It is not fair to ask current residents to absorb the entire cost of new development.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|