Resident urges Mount Sterling leaders to reject proposed restaurant tax increase and restore social‑media comment access

A resident addressing the Mount Sterling council on Saturday said the city’s parks are "beautiful" but unaffordable and urged officials to reject a proposed restaurant-tax increase intended to raise funds for parks and recreation.

"We cannot afford it," the resident said, adding that "either we have more parks than we can properly maintain or we need to manage them better." The speaker also criticized the city’s parks and recreation social media accounts for having comments disabled and said restoring comment functions would let more residents participate in the debate.

The remarks came during a public-comment period where few members of the public were present. The speaker counted roughly four people in the room and argued that many residents cannot attend weekday meetings because of work; the commenter suggested placing the question on a referendum so broader voter input could be obtained.

City staff and commenters discussed how the measure has been described. The resident characterized the change as a "50% tax increase," while staff described the current proposal in the meeting record as a one–percentage‑point increase projected to generate about $575,000 annually. Officials said they were collecting data and that no council borrowing plan tied to the proposal had been presented at the meeting.

The resident also raised concerns that an increase in tax revenues could be used to expand the city’s bonding capacity and argued that could enable future large borrowings; they cited possible borrowing figures discussed informally in the meeting and said the effect is part of why residents oppose the measure. A city representative responding during the meeting said parks staff had listed maintenance and improvement needs and that large projects would require council approval and competitive bidding; the speaker said the only existing debt noted in the record was for the community pool.

Other commentators defending the parks noted that earlier local leaders and ordinances helped create the current system and that park amenities have attracted visitors. The session included a debate over whether the original ordinance that created the park tax included a sunset clause or explicit promise the tax would end once a mortgage was paid; participants disagreed about past intent and what the ordinance text shows.

No formal vote or motion on the tax occurred at the meeting. City officials said they will continue to collect information, and council members will make any decision on whether to proceed, to place a measure on a ballot, or to explore alternate revenue sources.

The council adjourned the public-comment period without taking formal action on a tax increase; further discussion and decisions are expected at future meetings.