Paul McIntosh - Letter to Rutherford912 Group

For details on the Rutherford912 pledge, click here to visit our page dedicated to the pledge

Pledge Signature


Letter From Candidate


An Email From Mr. McIntosh Detailing Some Points in His Letter

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul McIntosh
Subject: Re: Clarification of Pledge Response
To: RutherfordTeaParty <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul McIntosh


These are my comments on the questions you asked.

Property taxes were reduced in 2002 from .63 to .62 with a corresponding budget reduction.
Again reduced in 2005  from .62 to .53 with another budget reduction. In 2005 more than
50% of County residents saw a COUNTY (not city)tax reduction. The County tax rate went
from the 36th lowest in the state to the 22nd lowest since I have been in office because of
zero based budgeting that I introduced. We have reduced the budget by over $14 Million in the 
past three years. Last year I was the only commissioner to vote against the budget because
it contained spending I didn't think was necessary - especially because the proposed budget
required County employees to take days off without pay to cover part of the shortfall.
Check the record.

We don't issue debt without a plan to pay it off. There is a specific amortization schedule
that is contained in the County budget book. A good portion of it starts reducing in 2012.
Over 71% ($46,687,838 as of June 30, 2010) of the County debt is for school construction
(Sunshine, Ellenboro, Pinnacle, Rutherford Elementary, Reach High Schools and others) that
is NOT again NOT paid for with property taxes, it is paid for with Sales taxes and lottery money
that is put into a reserve fund when collected and then paid from the fund when due.  What
has been said about the debt being paid with property taxes is simply not so. County debt has
been steadily decreasing for the past two years and will continue to do so.

Three years ago we did a long range building study (at my suggestion) which incorporates
consolidation of various functions within the County into a central facility with significant
savings. The vacated property would be sold. The plan is still on the table but we are NOT
going to incur additional debt of this magnitude at this time to build or buy the size facility
that we would need.

The property tax on easements was to be adopted with the next re- evaluation, but because
of litigation will be completed this year.The tax consequences of this sre incidental but because
this had to be accomplished early, instead of at re-evaluation, the County incurred additional
expense it was not expecting. In one property owner's case it was a .56 cent adjustment.

Paul McIntosh
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License