Credit to Mr. Vascellaro for spending his own money to pay for the “public safety service fee” ad in last week’s paper. Unfortunately, his ad included some misleading information.

Fountain Hills is not a charter city; it is a general law town. As such, the town council has no authority to apply, collect or enforce any kind of a fee or tax applied “in proportion to property value.” Council does have the authority to charge a flat fee, like our $36 environmental fee on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to each “property owner” within the town limits.

What this means is that the owner of a one-bed, one-bath condo would be billed the same amount as would the owners of 7,000-square-foot homes, and also the same amount as would be billed to the owners of Target, Park Place, Safeway, Basha’s and Ace. To meet the $7 million target, instead of a relatively modest annual tax of maybe $120-$150, the condo owner could expect to be billed in excess of $400-$500. What do you think the chances of the town being able to collect such a fee? Not bloody likely!

There is an expense to living well, as we do in our town, currently at a cost far below most places in the state, and well below almost anywhere in the nation. Most people agree the fair and equitable way to share that expense is in proportion to how much you own and want or need to protect. Like it or not, the only fair, equitable and justifiable method available for doing that is via a voter-approved property tax.

We have run the gambit of fees, districts and growth schemes many times over the years. Let’s not run down those same rabbit holes again.