Unfortunately, the costs to citizens could be something of a 'bone of contention'. Campaigning for re-election at ALL levels of government often takes place in the public eye at the meetings those elected officials attend. Old campaign promises are dusted off just before election time and paraded before the public.

Case in point: Fees for citizens using credit cards to pay bills at town hall. When it was pointed out that by not charging fees, costs would be absorbed by all taxpayers, making it such that non-users of the service would be paying for the cost as well as those who use it, itwas noted by Councilmember VanHoozier that the Town already provides services to portions of the population that are paid for by all such as the Recreation Center and the coming Aquatic Center.

What I got from this was that providing a service such as this credit card payment option was 1) on the same level of importance and potential for revenue generation as the Recreation Center/Aquatic Center and 2) it is always okay to have all citizens cover the expense for whatever feature the Town decides to offer to the few. Is that what was meant? Who knows. All I have is what I heard at that meeting to go on.

What this ultimately led to was a split vote with Councilmembers VanHoozier, Wade, and Stipes being for providing this service fee free and Councilmembers Barber, Carter, and Showalter voting against the 'no-fee' option. Much of the oposition's rationale was based on the concept that it would be better to let those people using the service pay for it initially to see how well it worked at what the actual expenses would be before attaching these costs to everyone. The final result was determined by a tie-breaker vote from the Mayor in favor of: providing a credit card payment service, to be located within Town Hall (still no internet payment option), at no fee for usage with the stipulation that the Town Council would review it in one year and then would add a fee at that time if needed.

Well, this opens up a whole new can of worms. It means that after having operated as fee-free for 1 year, the Town Council could come back to add fees for the service. If fees are then added, the Town Council would need to change Town Code in order to allow for the collection of those fees, public hearings would have to be held, and public input obtained.

This particular situation is used because I wanted to point out 2 things: (

1. Town Council pretty much has the right to use incoming revenue as it wishes without holding public hearings in these situations. It is only when a new 'fee' or an increase in an 'existing fee' is used that public input is legally required ((by the way - Kudos to Brad Stipes for at least trying to elicit public input through his blog)), and
2. I found myself agreeing with Michael Barber that it would be better to charge the fee initially and then change to no-fee if it can be shown that the Town doesn't lose money.

I'm sorry if my position on this offends anyone but I just believe there are other things we could be spending Town money on that would benefit more people. (Upgrading water, sewer, and stormwater are just a few examples of where this money could have gone. Or, perhaps in repairing some of the existing sidewalks around town that are crumbling to the point of becoming dangerous to walk on.)

Spending money is easy, I do it all the time. Spending money smartly, in a way that provides the most benefit for the most number of people, well, that's one of the key components of good government.

Why does this come up shortly before election time? Maybe because it was something that was promised long ago and never happened? Maybe because it is hoped that dealing with some of these unfulfilled promises might affect the way someone votes? May elected officials just felt this was the right thing to do? Maybe because it is because we now have a Finance Officer reporting to Town Council who does the research on these types of things?

The answer is in the 'eyes of the beholder'. It is the perception of these things that will determine if and/or how citizens respond. In my eye, this looks a lot like 'politics as usual' with the pre-election rush to get noticed and to be seen as a positive force for citizens. The question that needs to be asked by voters is "How many people benefit from the change and, how many people will pay for the change." After all, the cost of any such 'service' does not come out of the pockets of elected officials, it comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Darn, I still can't believe I agree with Michael Barber...Just kidding:) I actually agree with him quite often, but please don't tell him that!