By: dapa2 on 8/16/09
Just as you would expect any bureaucrat to do.... propose more fee and tax increases. Wake up Northfield..... enough is enough!

By: Uberstadt on 8/17/09
How about turning off the lights dapa2? If the cost of running the city free of state aid (your tax dollars) then why not keep it local? Is your answer to not pay the light bill? How well does that work in your household? How much can it cost, $5.00 a quarter?

The further we can be finanically independent of the state, the better. You will have a much better chance of influencing the use of your tax dollars if the budgets are created at city hall.

By: dapa2 on 8/18/09
I for one wouldnt mind the city turning off the street lights. My lights on my house already light up as much as the city provides.

When it comes down to cost everything is nickle and diming the citizens... $5.00 her $25.00 there you don't think this adds up to any real money?

How about adopting some local zero based budgeting and making every item it in the budget prove itself every year. How about some real planning instead of just adopting what all these ad hoc commissions and other bodies put forward?

The fact is that a lot of cities, counties and other government entities spend too much and think if funding in one area gets cut its just ok to raise it somewhere else instead of doing their jobs and reexamining the budget.

Was not on of these ad hocs groups proposals to add another council member and make the mayor mor powerful....just what Northfield needs!

How about eliminating paper to council and all advisory boards. The message that the council should be sending is one of leadership, that it too will share a responsibility and cut their own costs and not simply looking at raising taxes and fees everytime there is a reduction in revenue.

Just last year there was an increase of 15% in city hall operations, a 113% increase in administration, a supplies from the previous year, and unallocated costs increasing over 22%. I never saw a proposal from council and/or mayor to decrease their salary as councilors, proposals to join with other government entitities in cost sharing arrangements or serious proposal about eliminating some services all together.

How many $5 a quarter, $10 a month, $250 a year before a senior on a fixed income does have the half a pill to take, or has to give up half or all of a meal, or a family loses their house.....

Time to hold the line and do some serous budget planning and that may mean a cut in salaries before raising taxes!

By: OfSilence on 8/21/09
The overall theme in this article is definitely something I agree with. Let the city break the chains of depending upon the STATE to fund them. The state budget needs to be reduced for obvious reasons. And for these communities that want to have anything and everything provided to their residents then let the CITY pay for it through whatever mechanism they want to put in place (even through taxes and fees).

People in this city/state/country need to realize that the parks that are built, the light rail thats built, or any other special project you advocate for actually costs MONEY.

And its long overdue that people stop passing the buck to everyone else and pony up the money. I have no problem paying taxes.....but its getting to a point to where its becoming EXCESSIVE taxation.

Enough is enough. This "collectivism" mentality can only go so far. You want a new park? Then YOU pay for it (meaning the city residents)! Not the state.

Once the city residents are forced to absord all these additional community amenities, then lets see how many people stick around or move to another community where taxes will probably be less.