Among the things that come with summer, we have the start of the annual City budget process. At an overflow meeting of the Animal Services Board, City Manager Dominguez stated that we are looking at a $2.3 million shortfall this year. Unlike the feds, the city isn't allowed to "print" money. Some combination of new revenue and/or spending cuts will be required.
This Blog began as a site in opposition to the City's half-cent sales tax. In over a decade of opposing the tax, it was defeated three times, then approved by voters twice, last time for a twenty year term with specific projects part of what voters approved. At that time, we agreed it had changed from a multimillion open "slush fund" to a voter approved tax with satisfactory legal limits. We have not opposed the tax itself since.
It has been mentioned our existing authorization by voters is getting short enough to have an impact on our ability to issue bonds backed by the 4b tax. If Council wants to we can have something besides smoking on November's ballot.
Section 327 Tax Code allows us, if the voters approve, to designate one eighth cent of the tax we already pay to a Street Maintenance Tax. Even with a lower sales tax gross, this is about a million bucks a year. It might put off already approved projects a year or so. It would not solve our shortfall, but it could help.
A Street Maintenance tax can be part of a single ballot measure reducing the existing 4b tax by the same amount; we are maxed out, cannot simply add one-eighth cent. Regardless of the length of time we add to 4b in general, the Street tax part expires in 4 years. If we look at it in 4 years, we can reauthorize it; if it didn't work so well, we just let it die.
This special provision does not allow for construction of new streets, only maintenance of what we have. Council and staff have come close to pulling rabbits out of the budget hat to reduce ad valorem tax by a cent a year five years in a row. I will use an argument from the old days: putting some of street maintenance on sales tax will get revenue from people who use the streets but don't live here. It won't increase the tax paid by anyone, but it would give us about a million a year for pot-hole money.
Strikes me as worth a thought. The initiative for this must come from Council, not a petition. Voters still get the final say. If we don't at least give it a look, we are passing up an opportunity.
Showing posts with label Property Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Property Tax. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Onward Through the Fog
City, County and school taxes attract a lot of voter attention. City has managed to reduce its core ad valorem tax rate at least one cent a year five years running, County has held the line against costs and unfunded mandates, and SAISD had to try twice to get part of its bond proposal passed.
A recurring complaint is that "tax rates be damned, my bill is (same/higher) those nasty Appraisers keep pumping up my bill". Posters on the Standard-Times' e-site accuse the city and county of manipulating appraisals as a disguised tax increase. For sure, the Tom Green County Appraisal District is the least understood government entity in the county, and this is likely true statewide.
I'm going to try to de-mystify the District and its functions. For background, the statutory guide is primarily Chapter Six of the Texas Property Tax Code. I also interviewed Bill Benson, our Chief Appraiser. A most forthcoming gentleman, if anything he seemed tickled pink that someone was interested in his usually obscure office.
There is a Board of Directors and a Review Board, each composed of local citizens. Can you name one of them? December 15 is not only the run-off date for Mayor, it is election day for the Appraisal Board of Directors, I'm guessing you didn't know that. Don't feel ignorant, until State Constitutional Amendment Three spurred me to nose around, I didn't have a clue either.
As to the election, don't look for a ballot. The Directors are elected by the taxing entities in a county. In Tom Green, there are 5,000 votes divvied up between the city, county and school districts according to each entity's percentage of the "take". This year's election is based on last year's revenue, so SAISD does not yet get the increase from the bond they will vote next time. The ballots have already been sent, must be returned by Dec. 15. The votes are cast cumulatively by each body and there is no rule against getting together on voting strategy. the voting strength this year is as follows:
San Angelo Independent School District: 1,839 votes
City of San Angelo: 1,521 votes
Tom Green County: 1,180 votes
Wall Independent School District: 130 votes
Grape Creek Independent School District: 93 votes
Christoval Independent School District: 89 votes
Water Valley Independent School District: 84 votes
Veribest Independent School District: 48 votes
Miles Independent School District: 16 votes
Note that next election SAISD's bond issue will count. SAISD will get more votes, the others correspondingly fewer. Rough estimate depending on tax rates; SAISD will have nearly as many votes as City and County combined, increasing its plurality to 40%+. And yes, Miles is in Runnels County, but part of its school district takes in a small chunk of northeast Tom Green. Many years ago I lived north of Orient, my kids and my mail went to Miles. Similarly, Water Valley takes in a small part of Coke County.
OK, now we have a Board, what does that Board do? Ours typically meets 6-8 times a year at the call of the Chair, they must meet once a quarter. The Board hires the Chief Appraiser (who is a non-voting member of the Board); it sets the budget; it appoints the Review Board which rules on taxpayer appeals of evaluation; and every two years they develop and approve a written plan for periodic re-appraisal and approve said plan no later than Sept. 15 of each even-numbered year.
All meetimgs are subject to Open Meetings Act and are posted at the County Courthouse. Under 6.05(i), the biennial plan must follow a public hearing advertized in the local paper of record (Standard-Times). It really was posted, I suspect I paid it as much mind as everyone else, to wit: none.
There are a bunch more details, but I don't want to spend time parsing the difference between the second degree of affinity and the third degree of consanguinity as regards allowable employees.
What is of interest is the appraisal method selected, possibly demanded with Amendment Three. Tom Green uses "highest and best use". Not to wade too far in the weeds in accounting practises I don't follow, h&bu means a property can be valued not for existing use, but the value of the new business a block or two away. The real horror story example is a third generation home a couple blocks from the new Jerry Jones Tax-Payer Ripoff Stadium. {Full disclosure; I am a huge Cowboys fan, but Jerry has plenty of money, he needs mine because...?}
Amendment Two would cover it now, but a $60,000 home was re-valued at $600,000, a not unrealistic value as parking lot. Result: a loss of homestead similar to the infamous Kelo decision without the inconvenience of an eminent domain hearing; taxpayer could not afford a bill ten times higher, and loses property in foreclosure.
Now the "budget" is that of the Appraisal District, building lease, salaries, etc. Board has nothing to do with the budgets of the taxing authorities.
Frankly, I wish I had looked at Amendment Three more closely. I supported 3, which will set a single state-wide standard for appraisal accounting, but upon further review; No. I don't like "highest & best use", but I also realize, metro areas have different requirements than our more residential use property. A standard appropriate to a highly commercial district might over-charge a largely residential district. God's honest, I would prefer a system of gov't revenue that did not rely on "quit-rents" or property taxes, but tarrifs don't seem to be making a big comeback.
I tend to the Libertarian side of government. That is not so much reflexive anti-tax, as anti-gov't spending on silly stuff. Example; the money ($240,000) spent on skinny trees on the Bryant/Harte interchange might have bought synchronized traffic lights.
Really not the point: the Appraisal District is only responsible for raising money. As such it is easily characterized as the black-hooded fellow in the Hagar the Horrible comic strip. Truth is; services must be paid for. The Appraisal District is not the door to knock on for waste or fraud, it is solely charged with raising the money to fund that which we and our elected officials deem necessary.
I'm sure the next complainant about appraisals will have attended an Appraisal Board meeting. Just kidding, but... Also in Chapter Six; we are not only allowed, but once County hits 125,000 population, required to have a Taxpayer Liason officer whose job is making these mysteries public.
On the one hand, Appraisal Districts are the under-appreciated, necessary functionaries of revenue raising, and I have some sympathy for that view. Other hand, a rising view is rather than fight issues one by one, choke off the income and force the gov't to live within its means.
A recurring complaint is that "tax rates be damned, my bill is (same/higher) those nasty Appraisers keep pumping up my bill". Posters on the Standard-Times' e-site accuse the city and county of manipulating appraisals as a disguised tax increase. For sure, the Tom Green County Appraisal District is the least understood government entity in the county, and this is likely true statewide.
I'm going to try to de-mystify the District and its functions. For background, the statutory guide is primarily Chapter Six of the Texas Property Tax Code. I also interviewed Bill Benson, our Chief Appraiser. A most forthcoming gentleman, if anything he seemed tickled pink that someone was interested in his usually obscure office.
There is a Board of Directors and a Review Board, each composed of local citizens. Can you name one of them? December 15 is not only the run-off date for Mayor, it is election day for the Appraisal Board of Directors, I'm guessing you didn't know that. Don't feel ignorant, until State Constitutional Amendment Three spurred me to nose around, I didn't have a clue either.
As to the election, don't look for a ballot. The Directors are elected by the taxing entities in a county. In Tom Green, there are 5,000 votes divvied up between the city, county and school districts according to each entity's percentage of the "take". This year's election is based on last year's revenue, so SAISD does not yet get the increase from the bond they will vote next time. The ballots have already been sent, must be returned by Dec. 15. The votes are cast cumulatively by each body and there is no rule against getting together on voting strategy. the voting strength this year is as follows:
San Angelo Independent School District: 1,839 votes
City of San Angelo: 1,521 votes
Tom Green County: 1,180 votes
Wall Independent School District: 130 votes
Grape Creek Independent School District: 93 votes
Christoval Independent School District: 89 votes
Water Valley Independent School District: 84 votes
Veribest Independent School District: 48 votes
Miles Independent School District: 16 votes
Note that next election SAISD's bond issue will count. SAISD will get more votes, the others correspondingly fewer. Rough estimate depending on tax rates; SAISD will have nearly as many votes as City and County combined, increasing its plurality to 40%+. And yes, Miles is in Runnels County, but part of its school district takes in a small chunk of northeast Tom Green. Many years ago I lived north of Orient, my kids and my mail went to Miles. Similarly, Water Valley takes in a small part of Coke County.
OK, now we have a Board, what does that Board do? Ours typically meets 6-8 times a year at the call of the Chair, they must meet once a quarter. The Board hires the Chief Appraiser (who is a non-voting member of the Board); it sets the budget; it appoints the Review Board which rules on taxpayer appeals of evaluation; and every two years they develop and approve a written plan for periodic re-appraisal and approve said plan no later than Sept. 15 of each even-numbered year.
All meetimgs are subject to Open Meetings Act and are posted at the County Courthouse. Under 6.05(i), the biennial plan must follow a public hearing advertized in the local paper of record (Standard-Times). It really was posted, I suspect I paid it as much mind as everyone else, to wit: none.
There are a bunch more details, but I don't want to spend time parsing the difference between the second degree of affinity and the third degree of consanguinity as regards allowable employees.
What is of interest is the appraisal method selected, possibly demanded with Amendment Three. Tom Green uses "highest and best use". Not to wade too far in the weeds in accounting practises I don't follow, h&bu means a property can be valued not for existing use, but the value of the new business a block or two away. The real horror story example is a third generation home a couple blocks from the new Jerry Jones Tax-Payer Ripoff Stadium. {Full disclosure; I am a huge Cowboys fan, but Jerry has plenty of money, he needs mine because...?}
Amendment Two would cover it now, but a $60,000 home was re-valued at $600,000, a not unrealistic value as parking lot. Result: a loss of homestead similar to the infamous Kelo decision without the inconvenience of an eminent domain hearing; taxpayer could not afford a bill ten times higher, and loses property in foreclosure.
Now the "budget" is that of the Appraisal District, building lease, salaries, etc. Board has nothing to do with the budgets of the taxing authorities.
Frankly, I wish I had looked at Amendment Three more closely. I supported 3, which will set a single state-wide standard for appraisal accounting, but upon further review; No. I don't like "highest & best use", but I also realize, metro areas have different requirements than our more residential use property. A standard appropriate to a highly commercial district might over-charge a largely residential district. God's honest, I would prefer a system of gov't revenue that did not rely on "quit-rents" or property taxes, but tarrifs don't seem to be making a big comeback.
I tend to the Libertarian side of government. That is not so much reflexive anti-tax, as anti-gov't spending on silly stuff. Example; the money ($240,000) spent on skinny trees on the Bryant/Harte interchange might have bought synchronized traffic lights.
Really not the point: the Appraisal District is only responsible for raising money. As such it is easily characterized as the black-hooded fellow in the Hagar the Horrible comic strip. Truth is; services must be paid for. The Appraisal District is not the door to knock on for waste or fraud, it is solely charged with raising the money to fund that which we and our elected officials deem necessary.
I'm sure the next complainant about appraisals will have attended an Appraisal Board meeting. Just kidding, but... Also in Chapter Six; we are not only allowed, but once County hits 125,000 population, required to have a Taxpayer Liason officer whose job is making these mysteries public.
On the one hand, Appraisal Districts are the under-appreciated, necessary functionaries of revenue raising, and I have some sympathy for that view. Other hand, a rising view is rather than fight issues one by one, choke off the income and force the gov't to live within its means.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Darby on the Proposed Constitutional Amendments
Texas State Representative Drew Darby on the proposed Constitutional Amendments from the Oct 14th forum.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
The Un-Mayor Race
Thanks to Mr. Turner for the video of the Democrat Club sponsored Q&A from Monday. Despite going heads up against the highest rated Monday Night NFL game in history, an SRO audience attended. Tells me we have high interest in a very open special election to replace Mayor Lown.
I am referring here to the "Un-Mayor" portion of the Nov. 3 election, the State Constitutional Amendments. I can tell you, election clerks and judges regularly get more questions on these measures than nearly any other item on a ballot: by law, come election day, about all we can do is read what is on the ballot. FYI, while I still can, let me run these Amendments down by the numbers.
Amendment One will give cities with military bases the option to use bonds or tax increment zones to buy buffer land between the base and local development, cutting down on complaints. This would apply more to a base such as Dyess in Abliene with an active and noisy flight line. Goodfellow's training mission is quieter, we have residences cheerfully building right up to the perimeter fence. Our local effect is close to zero, but I will vote yes. It will help cities with a noise problem deal with that and keep good relations with the local base
Amendments 2,3 and 5 are related to property tax appraisals. I hear often from people who first read of an ad valorem reduction, as San Angelo has done five years in a row, but then find their tax bill has not gone down, or has even increased due to a higher appraisal of the property. Amendments Two and Three are on the same issue: On Two, current common standard is "highest and best use". In English, if you live near a commercial establishment with a high evaluation, the Appraial District can evaluate your property as though it were worth the same. Amendment Two will require the District to evaluate that residence property on its residential value. The companion Amendment Three will give State Comptrollers office authority to write a fairer standard than "highest and best use". Amendment Five allows appraisal review boards (equalization boards in ballot language) to consolidate as the appraisal districts have. Two and Three are crucial, Five is housekeeping with a possible lowering of expense. I vote "yea" on all three.
Amendment Four would create a National Research University Fund designed to help major Texas Universities become Tier One research institutions. Though ASU is not one of the seven named schools, we could see some local benefit to ASU through its affiliation with Texas Tech, which is specified in the measure.
Amendment Six will allow the Texas Veterans' Land Board to issue bonds if needed to assure our veterans the Land Board benefits of lower-interest loans for home buying. In the past, each bond request required separate voter approval, the last in 2001. I don't think voters have ever turned down a bond request. This program is self-funding, with a default rate under 0.5%. In a state with 2 million veterans and no cost to taxpayers, I see this as a solid "yes".
Amendment Seven adds the Texas State Guard to others exempt from the rule against "holding two paid civil offices". Many voters are unaware of the Texas State Guard. It is an all volunteer group, separate from the National Guard. Its function is to supplement the Texas National Guard if it is unable to respond due to say, deployment overseas. See hurricane Ike. If we could allow LBJ to run for Senate and VP on the same ballot, surely we can allow a State Guard reservist to be a Councilman or County Commissioner without resigning his/her State Guard position.
Amendment Eight is the diciest. It would allow the State to support and build VA hospitals. HB 2217 has already been passed, and there is valid debate whether Amendment Eight is truly needed to support 2217. I'm probably wouldn't have supported HB 2217. Slight digression here, but I have long supported laws that would eventually replace the separate VA Hospital system with cards/vouchers allowing vets to recieve the care we owe them at the same hospitals we use. Local care, gov't funded. This is going to be my "NO" vote in November.
Amendment Nine is called "Open Beaches". Obviously little local impact unless you vacation at our Texas beaches. Since 1959 the legal definition of Public Beach is the area between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In short, if you choose to "build thy house on shifting sand", your property rights depend on the vagaries of aforementiond shifting sand. Even if you have the grandest house on the waterfront, you can't keep us commoners off the beach between your manse and the beach. Hurricane Ike again; some homeowners found their houses to be a "public beach" due to storm related erosion. I am not completely without sympathy, BUT...Homeowners knew they were building on sand. Nine merely gives Constitutional standing to a law that has been on the books since Eisenhower was President.
Amendment 10 is the sort of housekeeping another state would have had decided by Commissioner's court or some county review board. No local interest I know of, if I bother to vote it, I will vote in favor.
Amendment Eleven on eminent domain. It moves us in the right direction, post the infamous Kelo decision. I would have preferred stronger, more informed debate. With Gov. Perry backing the TTC and its huge appetite for eminent domain, it's hardly a secret he opposes this Amendment. That's OK Gov. Perry, I don't like Amendment 11 either. I think it should have been even stronger. Definite "yes" vote on this. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
There it is, my personal guide to the "un-mayor" issues. Regardless of how the gentle reader votes, I hope you will vote on the Amendments. I hope this helps make it an informed vote.
I am referring here to the "Un-Mayor" portion of the Nov. 3 election, the State Constitutional Amendments. I can tell you, election clerks and judges regularly get more questions on these measures than nearly any other item on a ballot: by law, come election day, about all we can do is read what is on the ballot. FYI, while I still can, let me run these Amendments down by the numbers.
Amendment One will give cities with military bases the option to use bonds or tax increment zones to buy buffer land between the base and local development, cutting down on complaints. This would apply more to a base such as Dyess in Abliene with an active and noisy flight line. Goodfellow's training mission is quieter, we have residences cheerfully building right up to the perimeter fence. Our local effect is close to zero, but I will vote yes. It will help cities with a noise problem deal with that and keep good relations with the local base
Amendments 2,3 and 5 are related to property tax appraisals. I hear often from people who first read of an ad valorem reduction, as San Angelo has done five years in a row, but then find their tax bill has not gone down, or has even increased due to a higher appraisal of the property. Amendments Two and Three are on the same issue: On Two, current common standard is "highest and best use". In English, if you live near a commercial establishment with a high evaluation, the Appraial District can evaluate your property as though it were worth the same. Amendment Two will require the District to evaluate that residence property on its residential value. The companion Amendment Three will give State Comptrollers office authority to write a fairer standard than "highest and best use". Amendment Five allows appraisal review boards (equalization boards in ballot language) to consolidate as the appraisal districts have. Two and Three are crucial, Five is housekeeping with a possible lowering of expense. I vote "yea" on all three.
Amendment Four would create a National Research University Fund designed to help major Texas Universities become Tier One research institutions. Though ASU is not one of the seven named schools, we could see some local benefit to ASU through its affiliation with Texas Tech, which is specified in the measure.
Amendment Six will allow the Texas Veterans' Land Board to issue bonds if needed to assure our veterans the Land Board benefits of lower-interest loans for home buying. In the past, each bond request required separate voter approval, the last in 2001. I don't think voters have ever turned down a bond request. This program is self-funding, with a default rate under 0.5%. In a state with 2 million veterans and no cost to taxpayers, I see this as a solid "yes".
Amendment Seven adds the Texas State Guard to others exempt from the rule against "holding two paid civil offices". Many voters are unaware of the Texas State Guard. It is an all volunteer group, separate from the National Guard. Its function is to supplement the Texas National Guard if it is unable to respond due to say, deployment overseas. See hurricane Ike. If we could allow LBJ to run for Senate and VP on the same ballot, surely we can allow a State Guard reservist to be a Councilman or County Commissioner without resigning his/her State Guard position.
Amendment Eight is the diciest. It would allow the State to support and build VA hospitals. HB 2217 has already been passed, and there is valid debate whether Amendment Eight is truly needed to support 2217. I'm probably wouldn't have supported HB 2217. Slight digression here, but I have long supported laws that would eventually replace the separate VA Hospital system with cards/vouchers allowing vets to recieve the care we owe them at the same hospitals we use. Local care, gov't funded. This is going to be my "NO" vote in November.
Amendment Nine is called "Open Beaches". Obviously little local impact unless you vacation at our Texas beaches. Since 1959 the legal definition of Public Beach is the area between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In short, if you choose to "build thy house on shifting sand", your property rights depend on the vagaries of aforementiond shifting sand. Even if you have the grandest house on the waterfront, you can't keep us commoners off the beach between your manse and the beach. Hurricane Ike again; some homeowners found their houses to be a "public beach" due to storm related erosion. I am not completely without sympathy, BUT...Homeowners knew they were building on sand. Nine merely gives Constitutional standing to a law that has been on the books since Eisenhower was President.
Amendment 10 is the sort of housekeeping another state would have had decided by Commissioner's court or some county review board. No local interest I know of, if I bother to vote it, I will vote in favor.
Amendment Eleven on eminent domain. It moves us in the right direction, post the infamous Kelo decision. I would have preferred stronger, more informed debate. With Gov. Perry backing the TTC and its huge appetite for eminent domain, it's hardly a secret he opposes this Amendment. That's OK Gov. Perry, I don't like Amendment 11 either. I think it should have been even stronger. Definite "yes" vote on this. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
There it is, my personal guide to the "un-mayor" issues. Regardless of how the gentle reader votes, I hope you will vote on the Amendments. I hope this helps make it an informed vote.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
School Board Bond Blitz
A week after the Bond facilities committee finally formed up and promised a "blitz" of informtion to encourage voters to vote "yes", and BTW, 37 days from election Tuesday, we finally see the opener: a quarter page ad, page A-8 of the Standard-Times. Excuse me if I am underwhelmed.
Whichever version of God one believes in, He must have a strong sense of irony. Directly above the SAISD quarter-page ad for the bond is a picture of Board member Art Hernandez selling funeral plots/tombstones. One can hope this accidental confluence of events is not predictive.
This week's economic news does not bode well for any tax increase. I have a record of opposing new taxes, including a decade-long losing battle against the half-cent sales tax. Ironically, after three wins, I lost the last round of that fight to Dr. Brian May, head cheerleader for this bond. Dr. May, I'm on your side this time, feel free to chime in at your convenience.
This bond is a tax increase I can, indeed must, embrace, and it has been many years since my kids were in the system. Last time, SAISD deserved to lose, as they did, for the first time in San Angelo's history. It took them too long, but they really have digested that loss and gone 180 degrees from that bond. Long-term maintenance still needs firming up, but it is vastly better than the system that helped defeat the last bond. Kudos here to people I criticized last bond, Steve Van Hoozer and James Elson have done more with less in a shorter time than I would have believed three years ago.
I know we are in a time of economic uncertainty, but we have seen worse and lived to prosper. The original Central High bond was passed during hard times and drought. It turned into a model school that school systems followed nationwide. We are not putting forth that degree of vision now, we are looking to maintain a basically good system.
If you think we have been poorly served by past or existing school boards, get out and un-elect them. I am asking you now, this November, to give our students the basics. This is not a Taj Mahal bond, it is a down to the nuts and bolts needed bond.
We have spent this summer almost $10 million in addition to regular upkeep, I have personally seen a lot done. We are still WAY behind on ADA (disabled) compliance, something a court could order at any moment. I am talking to teachers who tell me about, shall we say "aromatic" bathrooms that incline one to look for a nearby tree, heat and AC that makes "climate control" a rude joke, and sidewalks or other access that make it difficult for disabled students to overcome.
This bond is NOT bells and whistles. It is basic to a functional system, and honestly, less than the system needs to get back to first-rate. Please, find it in your hearts to provide our kids a decent place in which to learn.
I know you get the tax bill as a combination of city/county/SAISD, but don't confuse the items. School tax, as in most places is top, but schools are expensive enterprises, private or public. I remember an 8th grade class in NC with 65 students and that was the "gifted&talented" appropriation.
Let me give you my vision of good schools. The buildings should be at least adequate, class size down to something that allows personal interaction between student and teacher, and access to the net that almost replaces the library. I say almost, because I am old enough to remember and hold to the love of holding a printed book and reading it at my convenience.
Ballinger, Ballinger for the love of God, is giving its high school students laptops. No, I am not denigrating the fine town of Ballinger, I am praising them. You want an incentive to stay in school and graduate (and a possible reduction in textbook cost, that is currently being adjudicated), give each freshman a laptop, if they graduate, it's theirs to keep and upgrade. Rough cost, $2 million a year, not that big in a $100 million budget, and hardware cost is rapidly declining. The social cost of drop-out students is demonstrably higher.
Frankly, as tight-fisted as San Angelo voters claim to be, they have paid little attention to the high item on their tax bill. We finally have a superintendent I honestly believe has more interest in the district than the next job or San Diego football games. Carol Bonds walked into a mis-directed bond she had no input to, and no choice but to support. The Board has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into an entirely different bond from that which failed. A lot of people have worked hard to present this bond, credit especially to Lorenzo Lasater. Please, overlook the speedbumps and vote "yes" Nov. 4.
Whichever version of God one believes in, He must have a strong sense of irony. Directly above the SAISD quarter-page ad for the bond is a picture of Board member Art Hernandez selling funeral plots/tombstones. One can hope this accidental confluence of events is not predictive.
This week's economic news does not bode well for any tax increase. I have a record of opposing new taxes, including a decade-long losing battle against the half-cent sales tax. Ironically, after three wins, I lost the last round of that fight to Dr. Brian May, head cheerleader for this bond. Dr. May, I'm on your side this time, feel free to chime in at your convenience.
This bond is a tax increase I can, indeed must, embrace, and it has been many years since my kids were in the system. Last time, SAISD deserved to lose, as they did, for the first time in San Angelo's history. It took them too long, but they really have digested that loss and gone 180 degrees from that bond. Long-term maintenance still needs firming up, but it is vastly better than the system that helped defeat the last bond. Kudos here to people I criticized last bond, Steve Van Hoozer and James Elson have done more with less in a shorter time than I would have believed three years ago.
I know we are in a time of economic uncertainty, but we have seen worse and lived to prosper. The original Central High bond was passed during hard times and drought. It turned into a model school that school systems followed nationwide. We are not putting forth that degree of vision now, we are looking to maintain a basically good system.
If you think we have been poorly served by past or existing school boards, get out and un-elect them. I am asking you now, this November, to give our students the basics. This is not a Taj Mahal bond, it is a down to the nuts and bolts needed bond.
We have spent this summer almost $10 million in addition to regular upkeep, I have personally seen a lot done. We are still WAY behind on ADA (disabled) compliance, something a court could order at any moment. I am talking to teachers who tell me about, shall we say "aromatic" bathrooms that incline one to look for a nearby tree, heat and AC that makes "climate control" a rude joke, and sidewalks or other access that make it difficult for disabled students to overcome.
This bond is NOT bells and whistles. It is basic to a functional system, and honestly, less than the system needs to get back to first-rate. Please, find it in your hearts to provide our kids a decent place in which to learn.
I know you get the tax bill as a combination of city/county/SAISD, but don't confuse the items. School tax, as in most places is top, but schools are expensive enterprises, private or public. I remember an 8th grade class in NC with 65 students and that was the "gifted&talented" appropriation.
Let me give you my vision of good schools. The buildings should be at least adequate, class size down to something that allows personal interaction between student and teacher, and access to the net that almost replaces the library. I say almost, because I am old enough to remember and hold to the love of holding a printed book and reading it at my convenience.
Ballinger, Ballinger for the love of God, is giving its high school students laptops. No, I am not denigrating the fine town of Ballinger, I am praising them. You want an incentive to stay in school and graduate (and a possible reduction in textbook cost, that is currently being adjudicated), give each freshman a laptop, if they graduate, it's theirs to keep and upgrade. Rough cost, $2 million a year, not that big in a $100 million budget, and hardware cost is rapidly declining. The social cost of drop-out students is demonstrably higher.
Frankly, as tight-fisted as San Angelo voters claim to be, they have paid little attention to the high item on their tax bill. We finally have a superintendent I honestly believe has more interest in the district than the next job or San Diego football games. Carol Bonds walked into a mis-directed bond she had no input to, and no choice but to support. The Board has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into an entirely different bond from that which failed. A lot of people have worked hard to present this bond, credit especially to Lorenzo Lasater. Please, overlook the speedbumps and vote "yes" Nov. 4.
Friday, May 23, 2008
A note on TIRZ
One of the most contentious issues at the last few City Council meetings was our Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone or TIRZ. Almost a half hour of public comment was devoted to problems with a decision on TIRZ at the last council meeting. We have been remiss in coverage of this issue, and hope to correct that starting now.
First off, what is a TIRZ? A TIRZ is an area where Tax Increment Financing or TIF can be used to attract development or redevelopment. I know, another acronym. Here is how it basically works. Say you have an area that needs some serious help, like our downtown and north Chadbourne areas. At one time they were thriving corridors of commerce. Now they have many run down and vacant buildings, and only a few thriving businesses are located there. TIF is a method of encouraging commercial development in such a zone. When you establish a TIRZ, you set a baseline for all the property values in that zone. Sometimes you do the same for sales taxes. Any property (and sometimes sales) taxes collected on that baseline go into the regular city budget. When property values and sales increase in the zone, a portion of that increase, an increment, is set aside in a special fund that can only be used for public improvements and infrastructure in that zone. This is to help guarantee that the tax growth in the targeted area is used to help that area instead of being siphoned away for projects in the high rent district. This encourages businesses to locate and invest in these areas because they know that as their property value and business increases, most of their extra tax money will go right back into the area they are investing in, which will help grow their business and investment. The TIRZ is overseen by a board that uses this extra tax money to establish programs that develop and diversify the economy of the zone, eliminate unemployment or underemployment in the zone, develop or expand transportation, business or commercial activity in the zone, make grants and loans, and stimulate business and commercial activity in the zone. Key component is that the benefit must be primarily for commercial development within the TIRZ zone.
San Angelo, after years of work, finally established a TIRZ. They could have established two TIRZ, but for reasons of politics and efficiency established a single zone with 2 halves, a north half and a south half. The fund would on paper be split into two funds, but the decisions for both halves would still be made by a single board. When the TIRZ and its board were approved, city council set down the condition that funds collected in each half would be spent in the half where they were collected. Everything was going fine until the April 15th council meeting. The TIRZ board forwarded a recommendation to the city council that $140,000 in TIRZ funds be used as matching funds for a grant for sidewalk and right of way improvements around the new library. This would have to come mostly from the north TIRZ fund because the south fund hadn't collected enough yet to cover the request. At that time, the council voted to send it back to the TIRZ board to consider borrowing the money from the north fund with some repayment plan as the south fund grew. At the May 6th meeting, the original proposal with no changes was resubmitted to the council. After some intense discussion, it was passed by a 4-3 vote. At the next meeting, on May 20th, the bulk of the public comments portion of the meeting was probably close to a dozen speakers, many from WTOS, calling the council to task for going back on a promise of how TIRZ would operate.
So why the controversy. During the discussions at the council meetings, it was stated that the library project was a once in a lifetime project that serves the entire community. It benefits both the north and south halve of the TIRZ, as well as the entire county. There are some problems with these arguments.
First off, this is not the only "once in a lifetime" project that will occur within the TIRZ as a whole. Prior to this another "once in a lifetime" project that will benefit both halves of the TIRZ and the entire community was given north fund money: the new transportation terminal that is going to be built soon just south of the loop on Chadbourne. There was never discussion of using south fund money for this project. It was in the north zone so the north paid for it. There are certain to be more "once in a lifetime" projects in the future. Should north fund be used to help remodel the City Auditorium/City Hall? That is far older than the current library we are moving from, and as a historic landmark improvements definitely qualify as "once in a lifetime." Where else? River walk? Convention center? Parks? The reality is that there are a large number of project that are "once in a lifetime" and "benefit the entire city", but that is not what TIRZ is supposed to do.
If you read the statutes and guidelines on TIRZ, they recognize that all TIRZ projects should benefit the entire community. They also explicitly state that any TIRZ funded project PRIMARILY benefits the TIRZ area. We split our fund in half so that south funds would primarily benefit the south, and the north funds primarily the north. TIRZ was not intended to fund projects just because they benefit the entire community. TIRZ is supposed to promote commercial growth and revitalization within the zone. Then the benefit to the whole community comes when the area is healthy and vital and no longer needs special treatment. That is the promise made to the community when you form a TIRZ. That was the promise the council made to the community when they split the TIRZ into two halves. At the May 20th meeting, a great many citizens said they thought the council broke that promise, and they don't want to see it happen again.
Most of this post I wish I had made after the April 15th meeting. Lots of excuses, but no good reasons. Will try to be more on top of issues like this in the future.
First off, what is a TIRZ? A TIRZ is an area where Tax Increment Financing or TIF can be used to attract development or redevelopment. I know, another acronym. Here is how it basically works. Say you have an area that needs some serious help, like our downtown and north Chadbourne areas. At one time they were thriving corridors of commerce. Now they have many run down and vacant buildings, and only a few thriving businesses are located there. TIF is a method of encouraging commercial development in such a zone. When you establish a TIRZ, you set a baseline for all the property values in that zone. Sometimes you do the same for sales taxes. Any property (and sometimes sales) taxes collected on that baseline go into the regular city budget. When property values and sales increase in the zone, a portion of that increase, an increment, is set aside in a special fund that can only be used for public improvements and infrastructure in that zone. This is to help guarantee that the tax growth in the targeted area is used to help that area instead of being siphoned away for projects in the high rent district. This encourages businesses to locate and invest in these areas because they know that as their property value and business increases, most of their extra tax money will go right back into the area they are investing in, which will help grow their business and investment. The TIRZ is overseen by a board that uses this extra tax money to establish programs that develop and diversify the economy of the zone, eliminate unemployment or underemployment in the zone, develop or expand transportation, business or commercial activity in the zone, make grants and loans, and stimulate business and commercial activity in the zone. Key component is that the benefit must be primarily for commercial development within the TIRZ zone.
San Angelo, after years of work, finally established a TIRZ. They could have established two TIRZ, but for reasons of politics and efficiency established a single zone with 2 halves, a north half and a south half. The fund would on paper be split into two funds, but the decisions for both halves would still be made by a single board. When the TIRZ and its board were approved, city council set down the condition that funds collected in each half would be spent in the half where they were collected. Everything was going fine until the April 15th council meeting. The TIRZ board forwarded a recommendation to the city council that $140,000 in TIRZ funds be used as matching funds for a grant for sidewalk and right of way improvements around the new library. This would have to come mostly from the north TIRZ fund because the south fund hadn't collected enough yet to cover the request. At that time, the council voted to send it back to the TIRZ board to consider borrowing the money from the north fund with some repayment plan as the south fund grew. At the May 6th meeting, the original proposal with no changes was resubmitted to the council. After some intense discussion, it was passed by a 4-3 vote. At the next meeting, on May 20th, the bulk of the public comments portion of the meeting was probably close to a dozen speakers, many from WTOS, calling the council to task for going back on a promise of how TIRZ would operate.
So why the controversy. During the discussions at the council meetings, it was stated that the library project was a once in a lifetime project that serves the entire community. It benefits both the north and south halve of the TIRZ, as well as the entire county. There are some problems with these arguments.
First off, this is not the only "once in a lifetime" project that will occur within the TIRZ as a whole. Prior to this another "once in a lifetime" project that will benefit both halves of the TIRZ and the entire community was given north fund money: the new transportation terminal that is going to be built soon just south of the loop on Chadbourne. There was never discussion of using south fund money for this project. It was in the north zone so the north paid for it. There are certain to be more "once in a lifetime" projects in the future. Should north fund be used to help remodel the City Auditorium/City Hall? That is far older than the current library we are moving from, and as a historic landmark improvements definitely qualify as "once in a lifetime." Where else? River walk? Convention center? Parks? The reality is that there are a large number of project that are "once in a lifetime" and "benefit the entire city", but that is not what TIRZ is supposed to do.
If you read the statutes and guidelines on TIRZ, they recognize that all TIRZ projects should benefit the entire community. They also explicitly state that any TIRZ funded project PRIMARILY benefits the TIRZ area. We split our fund in half so that south funds would primarily benefit the south, and the north funds primarily the north. TIRZ was not intended to fund projects just because they benefit the entire community. TIRZ is supposed to promote commercial growth and revitalization within the zone. Then the benefit to the whole community comes when the area is healthy and vital and no longer needs special treatment. That is the promise made to the community when you form a TIRZ. That was the promise the council made to the community when they split the TIRZ into two halves. At the May 20th meeting, a great many citizens said they thought the council broke that promise, and they don't want to see it happen again.
Most of this post I wish I had made after the April 15th meeting. Lots of excuses, but no good reasons. Will try to be more on top of issues like this in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)