LPPJ Tax Rollforward Fails; Bizarre Attempt to Re-vote Tried

An ordinance that would have “rolled forward” some property taxes, while cutting the Lincoln Parish Library’s millage rate failed at last night’s Lincoln Parish Police Jury (LPPJ) meeting on a 7-5 vote. A 2/3 majority was required to enact passage.

Voting yes were:

Theresa Wyatt (District One)
Hazel Hunter (District Two)
Walter Pullen (District Six)
Jody Backus (District Seven)
Joe Henderson (District Nine)
Sharyon Mayfield (District Eleven)
Annette Straughter (District Twelve)

The no votes were:

Bobby Bennett (District Three)
Randy Roberson (District Four)
David Hammons (District Five)
Skip Russell (District Eight)
Nancy Wilson (District Ten)

Just prior to the split vote, the jury unanimously voted to “roll back” the millages, as is required by law. The roll forward is allowed only every four years, coincident with a statewide property tax reassessment that is also done every four years.

See here the two ordinances.

A more detailed explanation of the “roll back/roll forward” procedure can be found here.

The defeated motion would have rolled forward the two general alimony taxes and two road taxes, but would have cut the library tax enough to offset the others, and then some.

In answer to a question, Parish Treasurer Laura Hartt said the expected total 2016 tax revenue with the roll forward would have been $6.67 million, compared to a 2015 revenue actually collected of $6.77 million. The 2016 estimate took into account the 2016 property reassessments.

The roll back ordinance, as adopted, will collect $6.678 million in revenue, according to figures furnished by Lincoln Parish Tax Assessor Sheila Bordelon.

Just prior to the vote on the roll forward, Parish Administrator Courtney Hall read aloud the ordinance rates, and Joe Henderson moved for approval. “That was my motion,” he said.

During discussion, Roberson asked if the rates could be voted upon individually, to which Henderson said his motion was for all the rates to be voted upon at once.

Roberson moved to amend and allow the rates to be considered individually, and it was seconded. It never came to a vote, with the chairman (Backus) calling for a vote on the original motion.

Surprised by the ordinance’s failure, Backus moved to vote again on the same motion, a procedure not contemplated in any parliamentary procedure we’ve ever seen. It too failed, with the same vote.

To his credit, Henderson questioned what was going on. “I got a problem. I thought when something passed, it’s over with and go on.”

The jury then went back and made a roll call vote on the first ordinance (roll back), and it was unanimous also.

There was still some discussion about still trying to vote individually, until it was pointed out that such an item wasn’t on the agenda, and that the two ordinances as introduced had been duly moved and properly voted upon.

Henderson agreed: “You can’t undo it. The rule is the rule, we voted on each one. And that’s the end of that.”

Later in the meeting, the jury adopted a resolution placing on the Saturday, 12/16 ballot a vote re-imposing the two road taxes which will be expiring soon. The rates as proposed will be 4.41 mils each.

Some Commentary on the Definition of Tax

There was an interesting exchange between Roberson and Henderson about taxes, their collection, and word definitions.

During the debate, Roberson said, “I”m not going to vote to roll the millages forward and confiscate 7 1/2% more money from people, when they don’t realize what is happening.”

Henderson objected to the term “confiscate.”

Said Henderson, “You can’t use the word confiscate. Then, the people get a perception that is what we’ve been doing. We vote on this at a public body, everybody knows. That’s not a good word.”

Of course, Roberson is precisely accurate. There is no voluntary component to payment of taxes to government.

You pay, or you are punished. Your property is seized. Your wages are garnisheed. Your bank account is frozen and the money therein is levied. Resist, and you are taken to jail at the point of a gun.

We understand that Henderson was trying to put forward the idea of a group of benevolent, smiling public servants trying to do the Greater Good with money voluntarily surrendered to government by taxpayers.

It ain’t so.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “LPPJ Tax Rollforward Fails; Bizarre Attempt to Re-vote Tried”

  1. D'Arbonne Says:

    What a tragic comedy. Is there no one else in #7 to run against Backus?

    • Anonymous Says:

      Exactly, What an Idiot ! Walter Pullen should be put out to pasture right along with him !

  2. Oldman Says:

    if not for a few good men it would have passed. I wonder if the ones that voted for it too pass were dimocrats,I’ll bet so.

  3. Cowboy Says:

    Roberson is exactly right. Taxes ARE a confiscation of money from the people by the government! In fact, government skims off a portion of the wealth generated by producers to fund redistribution schemes that pass these skimmed funds to the entitlement class of takers. Even worse, the liberals are now importing these takers from Muslim countries that absolutely abhor us and want to kill us, but the liberals want them to get all signed up on welfare and get their share of public benefits – at our expense! Hating this corrupt situation is NOT the same as hating these people, nor is the desire to keep malevolent Muslim terrorists out of America to protect Americans a display of xenophobia!

    Liberals like Joe Henderson object to calling this situation what it truly is because they do want to project this phony benevolent attitude of public service. Just look at which Jurors are always pushing for a Jury pay hike and correlate those members with the ones wishing to also claim they are but poor benevolent public servants. Such hypocrisy!

    It’s about damn time more elected officials like Roberson called out what’s really going on with government getting out of hand with its demands of more of our property while also demanding the right to more control over our lives! To top it all off, progressives like Hillary Rotten are calling for the confiscation of our guns in direct violation of the Second Amendment precisely so we are left without the power to fight back against this corrupt hypocrisy!

    • Anonymous Says:

      Agree 100% with Cowboy! Roberson should really be in Backus position! Backus is a joke, And is in over his head!

  4. bursa ikinci el eşya Says:

    LPPJ Flip-Flops on Tax Breaks for Local Hotels… + İlave olarak Property Tax Hike on Tuesday LPPJ Agenda…

  5. JUST TIRED Says:

    So I read the above article and then I read all the comments which is my favorite part and I had to stop and go back and reread the article again. Did I miss something in the article or did Roberson just sink a vote that would have cut $100,000.00 off of the tax rolls, while at the same time increasing the money going to fix the roads here in the Parish. I live in District 3 (speaking of IDIOTS) and I called my juror in May to complain about the pot holes in my road left by the 200 water trucks running up and down my road day and night. In July a Parish truck showed up through some asphalt in the hole and took off but not before I spent $500 bucks on my wife’s car for a new tire, rim and frontend alignment.

    I don’t think I like taxes anymore than the rest of you. It pisses me off every year when I write that check to the IRS and I agree its confiscatory because I did not vote on that but I did vote for the road millages and I want my roads fixed NOW! I don’t understand why anybody would want to vote against giving us the lowly tax payers a $100,000 break or why anybody would think it’s courageous for one guy to kill a tax break for us.

    While I don’t like taxes there are certain things that I want from my local government GOOD SCHOOLS, GOOD ROADS and a limited number of sheriffs deputies to patrol my area other than that stay the Hell out of my life.

    • Cowboy Says:

      No, it appears Roberson was attempting to force the Jury to consider each tax millage individually so the Jurors could be held accountable and would have to defend their position on each millage instead of tying them all together where it could be passed as a package that is more easily defended because it appears the total tax millage is reduced. Roberson stated “I’m not going to roll the millages forward and confiscate 7 1/2% more money from people when they don’t realize what is happening.” That doesn’t sound like a guy with poor situational awareness voting for the wrong thing.

      You seem to be implying that District Three Juror Bobby Bennett is an idiot, but he was the second for Roberson’s motion to consider the millages individually, and a check of past articles shows Bennett to be a consistent vote against raising taxes or engaging in government expansion we taxpayers have to fund. Bennett seems to be part of that group of Jurors working for us taxpayers and keeping the liberals in check. I’m not really sure what you have against Bennett considering your comments agreeing that you hate taxes.

      It’s been my observance that no roads ever get fixed in north Louisiana, so I would suggest that you start voting against ALL taxes since their intended uses never get realized anyway. I’ve always voted against EVERY tax since the intended purposes of the taxes never get realized. One thing about the LPPJ, decades ago, the LPPJ embarked on a plan to repave a set portion of parish roads. This plan worked well and Lincoln Parish has some of the best roads in north Louisiana in contrast to the state roads which have been allowed to fall apart. I can’t speak to the road in front of your house, but I’ve traveled over a lot of the parish roads and found them to be in excellent overall shape. It’s the state roads like Hwy 151 I hate to drive on (Hwy 167 being a rare exception).

  6. Anonymous Says:

    “I’m not going to roll the millages forward and confiscate 7 1/2% more money from people when they don’t realize what is happening.” That doesn’t sound like a guy with poor situational awareness voting for the wrong thing.

    Cowboy I would refer you to the link in the above article under “found Here” that link clearly states that after an assessment the millages are to be reduced(rolled back) so as to bring in the same amount of money as they did the previous year. Mr Roberson is either intentionally miss leading folks by saying their taxes where going up 7 1/2 percent or does not understand how the roll back works. Either way because of Roberson etal a chance to cut the total property taxes in the Parish by100K was lost.

    • Anonymous Says:

      I think you’re about as confused as the jury members trying to follow Backus!

      • Anonymous Says:

        apparently I wasn’t. Please read the post below and see if you can understand it.

        • Anonymous Says:

          I understand it! Apparently you don’t! Other than a few misspelled words, It’s clear to me.

          • Anonymous Says:

            still no explanation of why he said 71/2 % increase. I guess he’s like Hillary just miss quoted by the media.

    • Big Bad Wolf Says:

      Ok this is Roberson.
      Te millage rates automaticall “roll back” or are lowered after a reassessment, so there is not increased taxation from the increase in the amount of taxable property. That is the first ordinance voted on and passed Tuesday evening.
      It is provided in state law that, after notification of the public, a public hearing can be held, after which the taxing authority ( in this case, the Police Jury) may by 2/3 bote, roll the millages forward to the old, higher rates, and thereby gain the added income.
      In this case there is another driver: having previously determined the library operating millage of 4.99 was taking too much money and had caused the library to have an excessive surplus, the jury administration had developed a plan to decrease the surplus balance by cuttingbthe operating millage to 3.50 and taking money from the surplus to balance income with spending at the library until the fund balance was more appropriate.
      I and apparently four other Jurors, intended to allow the millages to roll back AND reduce the library
      Millage to 3.50 as previoudly agreed; however, the ordinance as presented did not allow this: it required a vote to “roll forward” the other millages in order to set the library millage at the desired, lower rate. It is true that, even though the tax from the increased millages would be higher, the teduction of the library millage would more than offset that increase, netting about a $100,000 reduction next year. However, the increase in the other millages would be in place while the library decrease will have to be reversed and increased back to approximately what it was once the gund surplus is spent down (corrected). That equsls an overall tax increase in the future built into the rates.
      Additionally, I myself, and apparently four other Jurors, intended to both keep the rolled back (lower) millages in place AND lower the library millage to 3.50 as previously agreed. This would have netted a reduction in these taxes next year of almost $500,000.
      That is what we were prevented grom accomplishing Tuesday evening. We fully intend to address this issue at the September meeting, and lower the library operating millage to 3.50 as previously agreed: if the jury
      Leadership does not block it. Anything else will be a tax increase but I will not vote for a tax increase accomplished this way.
      I hope this helps you understand what was happening at the meeting. The Leader article certainly got it wrong. No reporter asked me why I boted as I did after the meeting. I will say that I only have one of twelve votes like each other juror.

      • Mrs Kay Says:

        Thank you for taking a minute to try and explain the situation but I have to ask why didn’t you or one of the other four go to MR Backus and try to seek some kind of compromise? Surely all of the jurors new what was going to be proposed before Tuesday night?

  7. D'Arbonne Says:

    I’ve already tossed in my two cents so I guess this is four cents.
    Proposal:
    The people of #7 recall Backus. I believe it takes 40% of the electorate to trigger an election.
    Second, and independent of the first, replace Backus with Roberson as President. I have no idea how a PJ replaces a President in the middle of a term.
    Backus’ recent behavior shows he shouldn’t serve the people of #7, or the Parish as President.

    • Claiborne Says:

      So does Roberson’s. Playing politics instead of representing the people in the Parish is wrong.

    • Anonymous Says:

      Roberson would be just as bad. They were all aware of what was to be proposed that night. They get a packet of information several days in advance. It is their duty to review and ask questions. THATS WHAT THEY GET PAID TO DO!!! They almost make more than what some of their employees do in a month so they need to do something. They need to start voting on what is best for the Parish vs childish petty reasons. Seems as if all but about 2 or 3 need to be replaced!!!

      • Mr. E Says:

        Judging from the article and Roberson’s comments above, it appears Roberson as one of the Jurors who actually DID read the packet. Roberson explains in the comments above the entire situation and his attempt to save the taxpayers a great deal of money down the road. That tells me right there that Roberson WAS working for the people AND was doing what was right for Lincoln Parish.

        Contrary to the comment above, Roberson wasn’t “playing politics” in this situation, but attempting to do the right thing for us taxpayers. Claiborne needs to stop buying the liberal bullschitt put out by the media! Same goes for Mrs Kay above invoking the liberal shibboleth of “compromise” which in the liberal sense would be imploring Roberson to accept whatever Backus and his gang want.

        Let me put this bluntly: when it comes to doing the right thing, one should never, ever compromise! That means sticking to one’s principles, and is expounded upon in no less an authority as The Bible itself! Saving taxpayers money in this age of political excess is not an issue to ever be compromised! We’re not talking about investing in needed infrastructure to improve the economic situation or righting some great wrong here. We’re talking about members of the LPPJ wanting to increase the share of our wealth they confiscate in an underhanded manner because they know without a doubt that we will not vote for a tax increase. Backus and Henderson sought to increase our taxes without holding a vote they know they would lose! Roberson called them out for it, plain and simple.

        What Roberson did isn’t playing politics, and it isn’t failing to do one’s job. What it is is honorable public service, and we don’t get near enough of that anymore!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: