Wallach provides explanation of Prop S vote

To the editor:

In regards to the recent editorial, I did agree with the additional two years rather than three years on the Prop S tax as op-posed to halting it today as I expressed at the March 2009 forum.

The question that I had asked during the recent meeting was whether the objectives of the Prop S have been satisfied.

While the majority of the objectives have been reached, my concerns, however center on the objective of “providing sufficient funds for cash flow to remove the need for a line of credit.”

When the residents voted in April 2006. we didn’t know that Dillard’s was going to leave Crestwood in 2007, Macy’s in 2009 and the current economic condition that faces us and most cities today.

There has been a sharp decline in the general fund sales tax revenue of approximately $800,000 since Dec. 31, 2006.

The main reason that I did not vote to halt the collection of the Prop S is based upon foresight of reviewing the five-year projections of our general fund, such as that fund balance would be a negative balance of $170,000 as of Dec. 31, 2013 if halted, compared to $909,000 based upon the additional two years collected.

The objectives of providing sufficient funds for cash flow are not met if we halt the Prop S today. However, I do encourage all residents to contact their respective alder-man and provide us your thoughts on this subject matter for further consideration.

Darryl Wallach

Crestwood Ward 1 alderman