Question from Brian Presley

It has become pretty evident through what research I have done that the 3% restaurant tax passed a while back was passed against the wishes of the majority of the town. One could possibly excuse this manner of governmental practice were the tax for the benefit of something that is necessary. Adding to the tourism budget is NOT necessary. The people spoke, the council and the Mayor's office did not listen. How does the city justify taxing the citizens at a rate of 3% for an industry that does just fine on its own when the city is too cheap to pay for Hazardous Duty benefits for the police and fire departments? I am aware of Randy Stone's views on Hazardous Duty benefits as well. If he doesn't feel the service that our Police and Fire fighters render day in and day out is worthy of the city taking care of them appropriately, maybe his pay should be suspended. That should free up some revenue. He will not justify to the citizenry of this town the city's blatant and willful failure to care for their police and firefighters. I am sure the money generated by this 3% restaurant tax could go a ways toward covering this expense. Tourism is not more important than taking care of those who take care of us, our families, our homes, and our businesses.

Steve Connelly answered:

How did you determine from your research the opinion of a majority of the populace in Berea?

You seem to want to link the restaurant tax with hazardous retirement benefits. (I don't think that Kentucky provides for hazardous duty benefits). You might also want to research KRS 91A.400 and KRS 91A.350-390 which prohibit using the restaurant tax proceeds for paying police and fire personnel costs.

You should perhaps take notice that the General Assembly found a sufficient nexus between restaurant sales and tourist activty to justify such a tax and the required use of the proceeds to support and enhance economic development through tourism.