Unless and until I hear a compelling argument based on need and service provided, I will be a no vote. This smells an awful lot like moving these significant expenses off the city’s books to make way for using the funds in other ways, all while increasing costs charged by a new entity that will lack ballot box accountability. The argument about how the funding mechanism is structured is a smoke screen to distract from the lack of a cogent argument in favor of actually making this structural change.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
