This Thursday my article in favor of a Street Maintenence Tax was published in the Standard-Times. I won't reprint it here, it is available at www.gosanangelo.com
I do want to expand on the topic and cover some issues that came up in comments at gosanangelo.
I was promoting a diversion of one-eigth cent of the existing half-cent tax to streets. As is our current half cent tax, this is regulated by state statute. Actually, it could be twice that, but has to move in eigth-cent increments. It cannot increase our total tax, we are capped there by state law.
It can only be put in effect with voter approval. Council can decide to give us the option, but only if voters approve can this happen. As I mentioned in the article, unlike the 4B we now pay, a street tax HAS to "sunset" or come up for reapproval by voters again, every four years.
Legislature has provided for the street tax in a capped city to take place in one ballot proposition. In other words, we cannot find ourselves in the absurd position of approving a street tax but not approving the reallocation of the 4b tax.
The sales tax eigth-cent has to be accounted for. It cannot be used for new streets. It cannot be used for sidewalks along streets. It can only be used for "maintenece of existing streets". Sealcoat, potholes, total resurface if needed, yes.
I mentioned in the article; an eigth of anything sounds small, but here, depending on the economy and total sales tax receipts that is at least $1 million, $1.5 million
in a good year, and we've seen a bit better than that. Now we are talking eigth-cent that could replace the general fund money we now spend on streets.
Here we come to why this is a winner. While the limits on using Street Maintenence sales tax revenue are strict, the use of the general fund money freed up is limited only to what a home rule city can do now. Money is fungible. If we decide to spend that $1.5 money doubling up on street expenditures; if we decide to spend it on employee benefits; if we decide to use it for (Heaven forfend) tax reduction: we can do any of the above or any mix of the above. I would hope for some reasonable mix.
Look at it this way, if you had any involvement in last year's budget process, wouldn't you have absolutely loved a buck-and-a-half wiggle room?
The down side, if one wants to call it that is this. The 4b tax we just extended without a sunset had certain specific projects in it that are now locked in from coliseum/fairgrounds improvements to river improvements to sports facilities. Let us not forget the "water" issues, but those, being on ballot, are inviolable, they will be done. Uh, no, it won't pay for all the Hickory costs, sorry about the voters who thought that, but no one ever quite said that, best case 4b will pay about $30 million out of $150 million.
No the down side is if we approve a Street Maintenence Tax, the City of San Angelo Development Corporation will have less money to spend on what I rudely call "corporate bribery". I cannot buy the idea of government picking winners and losers and doing it better than the market. Governments love to brag on it when "economic incentives" work and hope voters will forget the ones that don't. Anybody remember Taylor Publishing? If you know someone who can use a nice empty building east of town, we have one; CHEAP!
Me, I have a job, might like better pay, but I'll get that on my own before the city gets it for me. I'd be happy with good streets to get to and from work on.
Showing posts with label sales tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sales tax. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
They keep on giving
The elections have been over for three months now and we will soon be seeing the impacts. In just a few days the smoking ban will go into effect, and we will finally see the impact this ban will have on local businesses. I hope the small neighborhood bars can weather this storm.
We also had a hint of the impact the Hickory water project will have on the local economy. They finally admitted in the last city council meeting that city water bills will have to go up by an average of $10 to $20 just to pay for the construction of the project. That is before they actually throw the switch and start pumping Hickory water. When that happens, if the city estimates are close, another $10 to $20 will have to be added to our water bills to pay for the utilities, people to operate the system, and everything else it takes to operate and maintain this project for the next 30 years. This doesn't take into account the fact that we're likely going to be draining the aquifer faster than it can recharge. We will probably have to fight lawsuits from the people who live over the aquifer whose wells are going dry. We might actually still have water there when we pay off the loan.
I'm sure some of you want to know who made this all possible, and the simple answer would be to check the campaign finance reports. They are on the city website under the city clerk's election section. All of Speak Out San Angelo's reports are there. Unfortunately both Smoke Free San Angelo and Citizens for San Angelo's Future are late with their required January 15 semi-annual filing. Hopefully, they will correct that ASAP. Once you check those reports, I'm sure you will know the appropriate way to thank everyone involved.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Another Sunday Ramble
Lakeview has, again, gotten the fuzzy end of the lollipop on the Northside Park closing. Now, I understand, there are problems with the site that would make it good policy to relocate from the old caliche pit; my opinion, Council acted in haste and a replacement park should have been built or at least budgeted before closing Northside. There are vacant properties reasonably close to Northside.
It seemed to me Council was "nudged" by the emotional appeal of Gloria Griffin, whose 9 year old son drowned there 23 years ago. I cannot claim to "feel" her pain, my closest would be the death of my Mother this year, but Mother was 83 and in poor health. It was the anticipated order of things, parents precede children in death. The loss of a child is a much harder thing to bear.
Still, in the 23 years since her son's drowning, no one else has died in this allegedly deadly park. Then we find that the City has two churches contesting for a lease on the property to be used as: a park. Now that may turn out to be a good budgetary move by the city, but it kind of undercuts the safety issue don't ya' think?
If we were to apply the same standard to other city owned properties (no deaths in 23 years) we would close half our streets, the thoroughfares might remain as they are TXDOT roads, but streets, sidewalks and fadaluvagod erect a tall fence around Lake Nasworthy, cut off all public access, maybe drain it: it's an absolute deathtrap, especially now that "everybody knows" it has an alligator.
On this I have to agree with Councilman Morrison, it was a "stupid, stupid thing".
Now shifting gears without a segue; I would not usually pick on a particular business, but an exception I am making. Eyemart, should I find myself needing new spectacles and you have exactly what I need for half the price of X, I will go to X.
I have a longstanding exception to my normal practice; Sunday morning, I read the comics first. I have all day to catch up on the news, it is one of life's little luxuries with which I indulge myself. Before I can do that, I have to tear off your half-page perforated ad. Yes, a minor item, yes that is great ad placement in that it guarantees I will see it, but in that it mildly honks me off every time I see it, it is not, in this household, a plus for your business.
I have resisted the urge to comment on the smoking ordinance. Terms such as "carpetbagger" and "nanny" might offend, so I won't use them. I am glad that Council seems willing to amend the ordinance to allow the Colonel's Pipe and Cigar shop. Entirely appropriate, I cannot imagine either an employee or customer who found smoke offensive wanting to walk in the door of a tobacco shop.
Now we see bar owners coming before Council requesting an exemption. Sorry guys, in the face of a 60/40 vote, Council isn't going there, at least not until some businesses have actually closed, by which time it will be too late for them. I've got to ask; owners, where were you when I was asking for support as treasurer of the opposition? We got outspent at least 5/1, over half of that money from the Austin American Cancer Society. I could give better numbers, but Smoke-Free has not filed a campaign finance report covering the 10 days prior to election. Speak Out San Angelo's is posted online at city's website.
I think this is an unfortunate intrusion on the rights of property owners, but it was approved by a large majority of voters in a large turnout election. My "barkeep" handle aside, it has been several years since I was personally involved in the trade. I don't have "a dog in this hunt", I drink at home where the smoking law doesn't reach (yet).
A final note, you make the call if it is connected. On this day in history, Utah, home of the teetotalling Mormons, became the 36th state to approve the XXI amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition. Hmmm.
It seemed to me Council was "nudged" by the emotional appeal of Gloria Griffin, whose 9 year old son drowned there 23 years ago. I cannot claim to "feel" her pain, my closest would be the death of my Mother this year, but Mother was 83 and in poor health. It was the anticipated order of things, parents precede children in death. The loss of a child is a much harder thing to bear.
Still, in the 23 years since her son's drowning, no one else has died in this allegedly deadly park. Then we find that the City has two churches contesting for a lease on the property to be used as: a park. Now that may turn out to be a good budgetary move by the city, but it kind of undercuts the safety issue don't ya' think?
If we were to apply the same standard to other city owned properties (no deaths in 23 years) we would close half our streets, the thoroughfares might remain as they are TXDOT roads, but streets, sidewalks and fadaluvagod erect a tall fence around Lake Nasworthy, cut off all public access, maybe drain it: it's an absolute deathtrap, especially now that "everybody knows" it has an alligator.
On this I have to agree with Councilman Morrison, it was a "stupid, stupid thing".
Now shifting gears without a segue; I would not usually pick on a particular business, but an exception I am making. Eyemart, should I find myself needing new spectacles and you have exactly what I need for half the price of X, I will go to X.
I have a longstanding exception to my normal practice; Sunday morning, I read the comics first. I have all day to catch up on the news, it is one of life's little luxuries with which I indulge myself. Before I can do that, I have to tear off your half-page perforated ad. Yes, a minor item, yes that is great ad placement in that it guarantees I will see it, but in that it mildly honks me off every time I see it, it is not, in this household, a plus for your business.
I have resisted the urge to comment on the smoking ordinance. Terms such as "carpetbagger" and "nanny" might offend, so I won't use them. I am glad that Council seems willing to amend the ordinance to allow the Colonel's Pipe and Cigar shop. Entirely appropriate, I cannot imagine either an employee or customer who found smoke offensive wanting to walk in the door of a tobacco shop.
Now we see bar owners coming before Council requesting an exemption. Sorry guys, in the face of a 60/40 vote, Council isn't going there, at least not until some businesses have actually closed, by which time it will be too late for them. I've got to ask; owners, where were you when I was asking for support as treasurer of the opposition? We got outspent at least 5/1, over half of that money from the Austin American Cancer Society. I could give better numbers, but Smoke-Free has not filed a campaign finance report covering the 10 days prior to election. Speak Out San Angelo's is posted online at city's website.
I think this is an unfortunate intrusion on the rights of property owners, but it was approved by a large majority of voters in a large turnout election. My "barkeep" handle aside, it has been several years since I was personally involved in the trade. I don't have "a dog in this hunt", I drink at home where the smoking law doesn't reach (yet).
A final note, you make the call if it is connected. On this day in history, Utah, home of the teetotalling Mormons, became the 36th state to approve the XXI amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition. Hmmm.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
What's at stake
There is only one sales tax measure on the ballot in November but it encompasses several major issues and concerns for San Angelo. It is first and foremost a referendum on local tax policy. Does San Angelo really need one of the several optional sales taxes that are available in Texas? Should it be a 4B economic development tax or would a street maintenance sales tax be better, or maybe a sales tax to reduce property tax? Maybe a mixture of these taxes or even none of the above? Can't at least some of these projects pay there own way? How did they decide, and is it time to rethink the decision.
This is a vote on a strategy for meeting the water needs of San Angelo and the Concho Valley for the long term. Is the Hickory Aquifer the best available option? How much will have to be added to the water bill to pay for the pipeline and to pump and process the water? Are we using our local water resources wisely? What about conservation and reuse efforts?
The vote in November will also affect our efforts to clean up the river. No doubt the river needs critical attention, but is this how we should do it? Is this about what's best for San Angelo, or just an attempt to mimic San Antonio?
This will be a referendum on how we do economic development and create jobs. Is the current use of incentives bringing us real value for the money spent? Are we spending to little or too much. Are we, perhaps, wasting time hunting snipe with handouts and industrial parks when we should be doing more to support existing businesses with strategies like Economic Gardening and Business Facilitation.
In addition, this will be a referendum on how we select, prioritize, and develop special projects. Besides water, the river, and job creation there are six special projects that aren't critical to the cities future like water, and that will never create good paying jobs. You might call them quality of life projects, but how were they selected? I don't remember any town hall meetings or recent polling on these projects like we had before the last sales tax election. I can't find where they were recommended or even looked at by any of the numerous citizen advisory boards the city has available. What was SADC's involvement? Out of the dozens of projects that have been discussed in the past and are in plans like RUDAT and the Strategic Plan, how did they decide on these?
Lastly, this will be a vote on the openness of our city government, the effectiveness of its communication, and the quality of the connections city hall has with the citizens of San Angelo. Isn't it interesting that we have been completing sales tax projects all over town for the last nine years but it wasn't until just before a new election on the sales tax that we are finally seeing signs in front of these projects telling us about it? Is this the type of communication we want with our city government? Is this openness or just an attempt to market taxes and services like hamburgers and corn flakes?
I will be writing more on all of these issues before the election, but I wanted to give you an early glimpse into where I'm going and what I see as the points that need to be covered. Lots to think about, and I may miss something so give me your feedback and ideas. I want the critical questions about the sales tax answered before we vote in November. This is an important election. The future of our city is at stake.
This is a vote on a strategy for meeting the water needs of San Angelo and the Concho Valley for the long term. Is the Hickory Aquifer the best available option? How much will have to be added to the water bill to pay for the pipeline and to pump and process the water? Are we using our local water resources wisely? What about conservation and reuse efforts?
The vote in November will also affect our efforts to clean up the river. No doubt the river needs critical attention, but is this how we should do it? Is this about what's best for San Angelo, or just an attempt to mimic San Antonio?
This will be a referendum on how we do economic development and create jobs. Is the current use of incentives bringing us real value for the money spent? Are we spending to little or too much. Are we, perhaps, wasting time hunting snipe with handouts and industrial parks when we should be doing more to support existing businesses with strategies like Economic Gardening and Business Facilitation.
In addition, this will be a referendum on how we select, prioritize, and develop special projects. Besides water, the river, and job creation there are six special projects that aren't critical to the cities future like water, and that will never create good paying jobs. You might call them quality of life projects, but how were they selected? I don't remember any town hall meetings or recent polling on these projects like we had before the last sales tax election. I can't find where they were recommended or even looked at by any of the numerous citizen advisory boards the city has available. What was SADC's involvement? Out of the dozens of projects that have been discussed in the past and are in plans like RUDAT and the Strategic Plan, how did they decide on these?
Lastly, this will be a vote on the openness of our city government, the effectiveness of its communication, and the quality of the connections city hall has with the citizens of San Angelo. Isn't it interesting that we have been completing sales tax projects all over town for the last nine years but it wasn't until just before a new election on the sales tax that we are finally seeing signs in front of these projects telling us about it? Is this the type of communication we want with our city government? Is this openness or just an attempt to market taxes and services like hamburgers and corn flakes?
I will be writing more on all of these issues before the election, but I wanted to give you an early glimpse into where I'm going and what I see as the points that need to be covered. Lots to think about, and I may miss something so give me your feedback and ideas. I want the critical questions about the sales tax answered before we vote in November. This is an important election. The future of our city is at stake.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Sales Tax Election 2010
One of the two local measures on the November election is a re-authorization of the current 1/2 cent 4B sales tax for economic development. We plan on publishing a series of articles where we look at the issues surrounding this measure in depth and get some little known and critical facts before the public. We will try to fill in some of the missing numbers to help create context and clarify real impact. We will cover subjects like what's at stake in this election, what is a 4B sales tax and what can it be used for, local water history, local tax history, the Hickory Aquifer and alternative long term water possibilities, the impact of this proposal on our water bill, and a look at the special projects that are part of the measure we will vote on in November.
A disclaimer is needed here. I actively campaigned against the previous 2 sales tax propositions. Conchoinfo grew out of the last sales tax campaign. I am not automatically against optional sales taxes such as the 4B sales tax we have today. They can be useful and do have their place. Still, I have some serious concerns about what is being put before the voters, and I keep finding problems with the Hickory Aquifer and how they are trying to fit it into a dependable long term water supply for San Angelo and the Concho valley. I will try to make it clear what is fact, what is analysis, and what is just my opinion. I also welcome your feedback, analysis, and opinions. Just keep it relevant to the topic of the post, and don't make it personal.
In my opinion, you seldom get a good election result without good information and discussion of all the issues. This isn't about selling a position to the voters. The long term water supply and economic health of our community shouldn't be marketed like just a fancy box of Cracker Jacks.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Thoughts for when I'm on the Jury
Because of jury duty, it's unlikely that I will be able to be at Tuesday's City Council Meeting. If I'm not selected, I will be at the meeting but the selection starts at 9:00am. These are some of the issues I would like to address to council if I were there.
First, during the public comments, I would like to know when the Board and Commission review process will start. The process was adopted in March, and here it is half past August and we have yet to do any of the boards or commissions. This was seen as very important by the council at the time, and was supposed to start shortly after the election. I realize that there have been some complex problems surface since then, such as problems with the Anti-Smoking initiative, and a $2.3 million budget short fall that has since been addressed. Still, this is important and needs to be started very soon.
I would also take back an atta boy we gave the city in May for putting agenda packets online. They still don't have it quite right. First, they only leave the agenda packets up until the next council meeting, second they have missed getting some of the packets online. Third, some of the packets are not readable with the free Adobe reader. They are somehow getting corrupted. Last, but not least they are not put up in a timely manner. They should be there on Friday the same time as the agenda is. This is something the School Board does much better.
I am sure I would have some comments on the discussion on Hillside Drive/Gun Club road pedestrian use. There needs to be a balance of all traffic needs whether pedestrian or motorized. At the same time, the regulations need to be limited to only those necessary for the safe flow of traffic, public safety, and protection of property owners rights. We need to be careful not to go overboard.
There are 16 deals for easements for the Hickory Pipeline. Total $75,546.00 if my spreadsheet is right. Not an outrageous amount of money, but this looks like this is most of the easements in Tom Green and Concho Counties. Somehow I got the impression from earlier council meetings that most of these easements were already acquired. I guess we will have to wait for more information, but it makes me want to go Hmmm.
We follow this with easements for the 50 th street extension project. This project started shortly after the last ½ cent sales tax election in 2004, with the actual full plan approved about 2 years ago. We need to be very careful that construction doesn't end up going on during the main money making months for the Fair Grounds and Colosseum complex. Bull riding through road construction is not an approved rodeo event. Why did it take this long to get here?
Next, the old Edgewater Inn property is being bought by the city. What are they buying it for? What is the reason we are taking it off the tax roles? What kind of project do they have in mind, and is it likely the master developer will agree? Inquiring minds want to know.
Getting to the end of the agenda, we come to the final hearing and adoption on the two special elections for November. There is nothing more to talk about on the Smoke Free Initiative. The process was extremely rocky and not handled very well, but the initiative will be on the ballot in the form Smoke Free San Angelo put before the petition signers. It will be an interesting campaign. Vote for Freedom - Speak Out San Angelo.
At last we come to an item I wish I could support – the extension of the 4B sales tax. I really wish I could support this. In truth, there are parts of it I do. I support using the sales tax money to spread out the burden of developing long term water resources. I can support using it to finish cleaning up the Concho River, which should be the jewel of this city. When done right, the job creation projects have shown their worth. Don't need to waste more money on the industrial park but there have been more successes than failures. The affordable housing projects are off to a good start, and the cost is minimal and support probably should be continued till the program is self supporting. If the extension only authorized these uses, I could support it. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.
There are 5 additional projects included in the 4B sales tax extension. At the last council meeting, I critiqued the process by which these additional projects were selected. In response, the Mayor made the following assertions. First, he stated that these projects complied with or were in the comprehensive plan. To some extent, that's true. The comprehensive plan, and its updates in the strategic plan, is 123 pages of long range goals for twenty years in the future. It is a view from orbit of what we would like the city to look like in 2030. Dozens of projects and possibilities are in the comprehensive plan, including, in a very broad and inclusive sense, these. There is no ranking or priorities of projects there. There are almost no specifics. It is, for the most part, guidance on land use so that you have balanced communities, a strong economy, and a high quality of life. The first line of the Vision Statement from the current plan states “By the year 2027, San Angelo will be acknowledged as the most livable mid-sized city in Texas.” A wonderful goal, but the plan is very general and takes a very broad, long view. It talks about the types of projects and the areas where they would be suitable. It does not give guidance or sufficient detail to select between projects such as the City Auditorium or the Texas Theater or a water park or a new recreation center. Any tax funded project should fit in within the framework of the comprehensive plan, but that framework is pretty broad and hundreds of projects could fit the plan. It can't be used to get us down to these 5. Any process or plan that can fairly and objectively decide between the multiple quality of life projects this city deserves needs to come down from orbit and do a real comparison at ground level. We need a criteria based rating and planning process like we are using for capital projects. Which brings me to the next statement the Mayor made.
It was stated that these projects were in the CIP. Looking over the proposed CIP and the CIP's from the beginning these projects for the most part aren't covered. None of them are in the ½ cent sales tax section, although you might be able to say that the little league field improvements fall under “ sports consolidation”. There are plenty of projects for Ft. Concho listed but all of them are listed under general fund. There are no additional projects listed for the City Hall or Auditorium Plaza beyond those currently funded and under construction. Phase 3 fairground projects don't exist at all in the CIP. And no airport projects show no projects that fit the description of the proposed airport project. The Mayor is right that they will have to go on a future CIP, but they aren't there today, so the CIP can't be used to justify them.
Much was made of the fact that some of these projects could be seen as continuations of existing projects, and that does have at least some merit. Still you have to ask at least three questions. First, aren't some of these projects really new projects next to old projects? Second aren't some of the projects that we are “continuing” at a natural break point where they have met the original project goals and we should see if there aren't other projects that might be better? And last, aren't there other, probably better ways we can pay for some of theses projects instead of using tax dollars? Isn't the fairgrounds complex successful enough that at least part of phase 3 can be paid for out of gate receipts and merchandising? Isn't there potential for a revenue stream there that could pay for most, if not all, of several of these projects?
One last point that the Mayor made causes me great concern. He stated that some of these projects may have been impacted because some of them are related to executive discussions about real estate. Real estate considerations for any QoL type project, as in most projects, should come after the basics of the project have already been discussed, priorities assigned and the project given the go ahead. It should not interfere with those project discussions not dealing directly with acquiring real estate for the project. I trust that the Mayor misspoke or I misunderstood, but I would hate to think that the city in executive session proposed a project just to support a land deal. The city already owns a lot of land that it has no use for. We need to be very careful here. We have been getting better at transparency and openness.
So if we take everything that was said in response to my comments, I still see no process here. We need to have a Quality of life project planning, prioritizing, and selection process that is comparable to the CIP. Until then, I will wait for them to bring back a better sales tax extension proposal. The next election opportunity is in May. Maybe they'll be ready by then.
First, during the public comments, I would like to know when the Board and Commission review process will start. The process was adopted in March, and here it is half past August and we have yet to do any of the boards or commissions. This was seen as very important by the council at the time, and was supposed to start shortly after the election. I realize that there have been some complex problems surface since then, such as problems with the Anti-Smoking initiative, and a $2.3 million budget short fall that has since been addressed. Still, this is important and needs to be started very soon.
I would also take back an atta boy we gave the city in May for putting agenda packets online. They still don't have it quite right. First, they only leave the agenda packets up until the next council meeting, second they have missed getting some of the packets online. Third, some of the packets are not readable with the free Adobe reader. They are somehow getting corrupted. Last, but not least they are not put up in a timely manner. They should be there on Friday the same time as the agenda is. This is something the School Board does much better.
I am sure I would have some comments on the discussion on Hillside Drive/Gun Club road pedestrian use. There needs to be a balance of all traffic needs whether pedestrian or motorized. At the same time, the regulations need to be limited to only those necessary for the safe flow of traffic, public safety, and protection of property owners rights. We need to be careful not to go overboard.
There are 16 deals for easements for the Hickory Pipeline. Total $75,546.00 if my spreadsheet is right. Not an outrageous amount of money, but this looks like this is most of the easements in Tom Green and Concho Counties. Somehow I got the impression from earlier council meetings that most of these easements were already acquired. I guess we will have to wait for more information, but it makes me want to go Hmmm.
We follow this with easements for the 50 th street extension project. This project started shortly after the last ½ cent sales tax election in 2004, with the actual full plan approved about 2 years ago. We need to be very careful that construction doesn't end up going on during the main money making months for the Fair Grounds and Colosseum complex. Bull riding through road construction is not an approved rodeo event. Why did it take this long to get here?
Next, the old Edgewater Inn property is being bought by the city. What are they buying it for? What is the reason we are taking it off the tax roles? What kind of project do they have in mind, and is it likely the master developer will agree? Inquiring minds want to know.
Getting to the end of the agenda, we come to the final hearing and adoption on the two special elections for November. There is nothing more to talk about on the Smoke Free Initiative. The process was extremely rocky and not handled very well, but the initiative will be on the ballot in the form Smoke Free San Angelo put before the petition signers. It will be an interesting campaign. Vote for Freedom - Speak Out San Angelo.
At last we come to an item I wish I could support – the extension of the 4B sales tax. I really wish I could support this. In truth, there are parts of it I do. I support using the sales tax money to spread out the burden of developing long term water resources. I can support using it to finish cleaning up the Concho River, which should be the jewel of this city. When done right, the job creation projects have shown their worth. Don't need to waste more money on the industrial park but there have been more successes than failures. The affordable housing projects are off to a good start, and the cost is minimal and support probably should be continued till the program is self supporting. If the extension only authorized these uses, I could support it. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.
There are 5 additional projects included in the 4B sales tax extension. At the last council meeting, I critiqued the process by which these additional projects were selected. In response, the Mayor made the following assertions. First, he stated that these projects complied with or were in the comprehensive plan. To some extent, that's true. The comprehensive plan, and its updates in the strategic plan, is 123 pages of long range goals for twenty years in the future. It is a view from orbit of what we would like the city to look like in 2030. Dozens of projects and possibilities are in the comprehensive plan, including, in a very broad and inclusive sense, these. There is no ranking or priorities of projects there. There are almost no specifics. It is, for the most part, guidance on land use so that you have balanced communities, a strong economy, and a high quality of life. The first line of the Vision Statement from the current plan states “By the year 2027, San Angelo will be acknowledged as the most livable mid-sized city in Texas.” A wonderful goal, but the plan is very general and takes a very broad, long view. It talks about the types of projects and the areas where they would be suitable. It does not give guidance or sufficient detail to select between projects such as the City Auditorium or the Texas Theater or a water park or a new recreation center. Any tax funded project should fit in within the framework of the comprehensive plan, but that framework is pretty broad and hundreds of projects could fit the plan. It can't be used to get us down to these 5. Any process or plan that can fairly and objectively decide between the multiple quality of life projects this city deserves needs to come down from orbit and do a real comparison at ground level. We need a criteria based rating and planning process like we are using for capital projects. Which brings me to the next statement the Mayor made.
It was stated that these projects were in the CIP. Looking over the proposed CIP and the CIP's from the beginning these projects for the most part aren't covered. None of them are in the ½ cent sales tax section, although you might be able to say that the little league field improvements fall under “ sports consolidation”. There are plenty of projects for Ft. Concho listed but all of them are listed under general fund. There are no additional projects listed for the City Hall or Auditorium Plaza beyond those currently funded and under construction. Phase 3 fairground projects don't exist at all in the CIP. And no airport projects show no projects that fit the description of the proposed airport project. The Mayor is right that they will have to go on a future CIP, but they aren't there today, so the CIP can't be used to justify them.
Much was made of the fact that some of these projects could be seen as continuations of existing projects, and that does have at least some merit. Still you have to ask at least three questions. First, aren't some of these projects really new projects next to old projects? Second aren't some of the projects that we are “continuing” at a natural break point where they have met the original project goals and we should see if there aren't other projects that might be better? And last, aren't there other, probably better ways we can pay for some of theses projects instead of using tax dollars? Isn't the fairgrounds complex successful enough that at least part of phase 3 can be paid for out of gate receipts and merchandising? Isn't there potential for a revenue stream there that could pay for most, if not all, of several of these projects?
One last point that the Mayor made causes me great concern. He stated that some of these projects may have been impacted because some of them are related to executive discussions about real estate. Real estate considerations for any QoL type project, as in most projects, should come after the basics of the project have already been discussed, priorities assigned and the project given the go ahead. It should not interfere with those project discussions not dealing directly with acquiring real estate for the project. I trust that the Mayor misspoke or I misunderstood, but I would hate to think that the city in executive session proposed a project just to support a land deal. The city already owns a lot of land that it has no use for. We need to be very careful here. We have been getting better at transparency and openness.
So if we take everything that was said in response to my comments, I still see no process here. We need to have a Quality of life project planning, prioritizing, and selection process that is comparable to the CIP. Until then, I will wait for them to bring back a better sales tax extension proposal. The next election opportunity is in May. Maybe they'll be ready by then.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What about the Sales Tax
If you have been following me on FaceBook lately, you probably noticed that I don't favor the approach presented at the last council meeting for removing the end date on the ½ cent 4B economic development sales tax. I have even called it pandering pork barrel politics as usual. It's time for me to explain this in more detail.
Some of you may remember I was part of the opposition to the 4B sales tax for a long time. I worked against its passage in 1999, and started the site that became ConchoInfo.org as part of the campaign against the 2004 proposal. In the end we ended up with a much better sales tax than what was originally proposed and they have done a better than expected job of sticking to what they promised the voters. Some parts have not worked out well, but it has been a useful tool in at least a few cases. We have made better use of this economic development tax than the average city does.
One of my main objections to this type of sales tax is how it frequently becomes a “ candy store”. Projects are proposed and handed out on the basis of political factors such as getting the proposal passed or returning favors instead of what is good for economic development and community needs. It frequently amounts to pandering to local special interests in exchange for support and donations. The current projects added to the proposed extension come across that way to me.
The core reason for an economic development sales tax is to aid in the creation and retention of long term good paying jobs. Without an adequate water supply, jobs will not be created or retained, and paying for all the development costs out of property taxes or the water bill is also going to hurt economic and community development. The 4B sales tax is a good way to pay for at least part of that. In those cases where primary jobs that pay above average wages are created or retained, the city has good guidelines and procedures in place for using these 4B funds. Still needs work, and needs more local focus on stage 2 companies, but overall the city has seen benefit from these economic development investments.
There are uses authorized under a 4B tax that do not create primary jobs or high paying jobs. These include sports facilities, open space development, affordable housing, and some related retail developments and infrastructure projects. These don't create good paying or primary jobs. I can see that some projects of this type should be done, but these projects need to be prioritized so that the community as a whole gets the benefits where needed. And truthfully, many of these projects could and should become self sustaining or at least help pay their way. We should look at creating a public facilities corporation to help make that possible.
Looking long term, there are legitimate uses for the 4B sales tax besides developing water resources and creating high paying primary jobs. The short term goal of picking a couple projects to help get it passed does a disservice to the voters and our community. I'm not saying these projects are unworthy of consideration. Instead these projects need to compete against other similar projects on a level playing field based on the long term benefits they bring to the community as a whole. We should fund projects that can show benefit to the city for the long term. We need to think further than just until the next election cycle.
Some of you may remember I was part of the opposition to the 4B sales tax for a long time. I worked against its passage in 1999, and started the site that became ConchoInfo.org as part of the campaign against the 2004 proposal. In the end we ended up with a much better sales tax than what was originally proposed and they have done a better than expected job of sticking to what they promised the voters. Some parts have not worked out well, but it has been a useful tool in at least a few cases. We have made better use of this economic development tax than the average city does.
One of my main objections to this type of sales tax is how it frequently becomes a “ candy store”. Projects are proposed and handed out on the basis of political factors such as getting the proposal passed or returning favors instead of what is good for economic development and community needs. It frequently amounts to pandering to local special interests in exchange for support and donations. The current projects added to the proposed extension come across that way to me.
The core reason for an economic development sales tax is to aid in the creation and retention of long term good paying jobs. Without an adequate water supply, jobs will not be created or retained, and paying for all the development costs out of property taxes or the water bill is also going to hurt economic and community development. The 4B sales tax is a good way to pay for at least part of that. In those cases where primary jobs that pay above average wages are created or retained, the city has good guidelines and procedures in place for using these 4B funds. Still needs work, and needs more local focus on stage 2 companies, but overall the city has seen benefit from these economic development investments.
There are uses authorized under a 4B tax that do not create primary jobs or high paying jobs. These include sports facilities, open space development, affordable housing, and some related retail developments and infrastructure projects. These don't create good paying or primary jobs. I can see that some projects of this type should be done, but these projects need to be prioritized so that the community as a whole gets the benefits where needed. And truthfully, many of these projects could and should become self sustaining or at least help pay their way. We should look at creating a public facilities corporation to help make that possible.
Looking long term, there are legitimate uses for the 4B sales tax besides developing water resources and creating high paying primary jobs. The short term goal of picking a couple projects to help get it passed does a disservice to the voters and our community. I'm not saying these projects are unworthy of consideration. Instead these projects need to compete against other similar projects on a level playing field based on the long term benefits they bring to the community as a whole. We should fund projects that can show benefit to the city for the long term. We need to think further than just until the next election cycle.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Street Sales Tax
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.
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Growing our Economy
Back in March, I did a post on growing jobs. We have some good news on this front. Last Friday, Oct 12th, there was a conference on Economic Gardening given by Chris Gibbons, who developed the concept for Littleton, Colorado.
I was one of the fortunate few who attended this conference. There were many key players there. The entire Small Business Development Center staff was there. There members of the CVCED, COSADC, the city council, and various other local groups that are actively involved and interested in our local economy. The conference lasted about 4 hours, and at the end of the conference, I could tell that the concepts and ideas presented generated a lot of interest and excitement. I expect to start seeing plans and programs integrate these ideas very soon.
I will be presenting some of my thoughts about the conference and where we go from here in later posts, but for now I am excited. This conference is a milestone in a better approach to growing our economy.
Chris Gibbons has given a name to fast growing, job producing entrepreneurial companies. He calls them gazelles. I think we need to cross the concept of gazelles with the toughness and independence of our local armadillos. We need to become known for our gazelladillos.
I was one of the fortunate few who attended this conference. There were many key players there. The entire Small Business Development Center staff was there. There members of the CVCED, COSADC, the city council, and various other local groups that are actively involved and interested in our local economy. The conference lasted about 4 hours, and at the end of the conference, I could tell that the concepts and ideas presented generated a lot of interest and excitement. I expect to start seeing plans and programs integrate these ideas very soon.
I will be presenting some of my thoughts about the conference and where we go from here in later posts, but for now I am excited. This conference is a milestone in a better approach to growing our economy.
Chris Gibbons has given a name to fast growing, job producing entrepreneurial companies. He calls them gazelles. I think we need to cross the concept of gazelles with the toughness and independence of our local armadillos. We need to become known for our gazelladillos.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Economics of Giving Back
We have been putting most of our effort here on the charter amendments and the upcoming election. That doesn't mean we have forgotten about other key issues such as economic development. Much is happening on that front.
Multi-Chem just received a very large incentive package. I have major concerns about the wisdom of such subsidies, but if you are going to do it, this one makes more sense than most. The pay rate of the jobs is high, the number of jobs is good, the company is growing rapidly and it already has roots in the area. There are risks, of course. They are in a very competitive part of the oil industry. A new competitor could hurt their market share, which is not a very large risk. It is more likely they could be acquired by another company with no roots here. Good for them, bad for us. Still, it's probably one of the more rational subsidies made. During the discussion the idea was brought up of requiring the company to give back something like 1% of the subsidy to the city. I like the thought but think the method needs to be looked at.
I fully support the goal of making sure these companies we subsidize develop a strong connection with the city and give something back. I think that a 1% forced return is not an effective way to develop such a connection. First off, the 1% return ends up being little more than an additional tax or user fee to the company involved. Just another small, annoying, cost of doing business. Second, in terms of economic impact the 1% figure ends up being vanishingly small. Lets just do a little abbreviated table top economic analysis. The goal here is 145 jobs that pay an average of at least $50k per year. That's an annual payroll of $7.25 million per year. Over the 5 year life of the subsidy, that's $36.25 million. With no multiplier effects and assuming that only 1% of their payroll ends up coming back to us in tax revenues they will “give back” $362.5k, which is 25 times higher than the $14.5k asked for. Add in the various multiplier effects, permit fees, property taxes, etc. and their contribution to the tax base will far out weigh 1% of the subsidy. I would be surprised if a full economic analysis didn't put their taxes paid back into the area at least 3 times the subsidy. The real additional impact of the 1% set aside would be very small.
I think there is an even more fundamental flaw with this approach. Dollar figures are a poor way to measure connection with the community and what a company is giving back. It reduces the multi-dimensional space of human and community interaction to a single impersonal dimension of dollars and cents. Let's look at a couple hypothetical examples.
Spacely Sprockets, the multinational sprocket leader, comes to town on the promise of a $1 million incentive. They dutifully put 1% in a special fund, but otherwise remain disconnected from much that happens in the city. At the end of 5 years they move all of their local operation when Midland offers them $2million to put their new sprocktless sprocket plant in Midlands vacant industrial park building.
Wendals Widgets comes to town because one of the owners grew up in San Angelo, and they get a similar incentive. As the company gets established the management team joins various local organizations, the company joins the chamber of commerce and the CIO's husband runs for school board. They put the main office in an historic building downtown and get awards for how well it fits in to the area. Their employees are found everywhere being coaches and mentors.
Which company connected with San Angelo? Which company really gave back to San Angelo? Which one had the greatest benefit.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Rates & progress
If you have been paying attention lately, one thing is clear. Water and sewer rates are going to have to go up. We may be lucky and get state or federal assistance to fix our infrastructure. We must get creative and figure out how to use the 4b sales tax to pay for some repairs where appropriate and legal, but in the end the rates will have to go up. The only question left is how do you raise the rates.
A flat, $15.00 per meter increase is too simplistic. It's not equitable and it's very regressive. To use a very overworked term, it isn't fair.
There is a strong case for putting at least the majority of the increase into the meter charge or a separate capital fund charge on the water bill. It makes sense to have capital projects paid for by the fixed part of the bill, but make sure that the meter charge is raised proportionally. At the current rate and a $15.00 increase, a 5/8" meter users rate would rise from $10.08 to $25.08, an increase of 149%. An 8" meter users rate would go from $136.03 to $151.03, an increase of only 11%. A Rough estimate tells me that a 140% to 145% increase on all the meters would still raise the same money, with a more equal distribution of the capital repair costs, and a savings to the smaller user of $.30 to $.60. Not a lot but significant to those on a fixed income.
There are probably other questions that need to be asked about how to do this rate. I will grant that prior rate increases were too heavy on the per gallon charge for the politically popular goal of keeping meter rates low, but we need to be wary of going too far the other way. An 80% to the meter with 20% to the per gallon charge would leave a per meter increase of $12.00, and if the 20 split is based on a very conservative usage rate of 140 gpd (the Texas conservation goal) which is 13 gpd below current usage we should be safe. Sewer rates definitely need to be raised so that waste treatment is more self supporting.
In the end, there need to be rate increases. We still need to fine tune where and how much they will be.
A flat, $15.00 per meter increase is too simplistic. It's not equitable and it's very regressive. To use a very overworked term, it isn't fair.
There is a strong case for putting at least the majority of the increase into the meter charge or a separate capital fund charge on the water bill. It makes sense to have capital projects paid for by the fixed part of the bill, but make sure that the meter charge is raised proportionally. At the current rate and a $15.00 increase, a 5/8" meter users rate would rise from $10.08 to $25.08, an increase of 149%. An 8" meter users rate would go from $136.03 to $151.03, an increase of only 11%. A Rough estimate tells me that a 140% to 145% increase on all the meters would still raise the same money, with a more equal distribution of the capital repair costs, and a savings to the smaller user of $.30 to $.60. Not a lot but significant to those on a fixed income.
There are probably other questions that need to be asked about how to do this rate. I will grant that prior rate increases were too heavy on the per gallon charge for the politically popular goal of keeping meter rates low, but we need to be wary of going too far the other way. An 80% to the meter with 20% to the per gallon charge would leave a per meter increase of $12.00, and if the 20 split is based on a very conservative usage rate of 140 gpd (the Texas conservation goal) which is 13 gpd below current usage we should be safe. Sewer rates definitely need to be raised so that waste treatment is more self supporting.
In the end, there need to be rate increases. We still need to fine tune where and how much they will be.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Karnak at the Council
Back in the day when this author was one of the more vocal opponents of the 4B half-cent tax, one of the arguments I used through five campaigns was to point out an inevitable downside, namely the predictable howls of outrage when the Development Corp. gave a (grant, subsidy, bribe, pick your term) to a new business which would be directly competing with an established firm.
Well, just that played out in Council meeting today, in four part harmony. Diversified Collection Services got a package of incentives in 2002, has created 400 some jobs, and has since come under new ownership. COSADC had negotiated a similar, but larger package for Account Control Technologies, which also specializes in student loan collections. Jon Shaver, owner of DCS cut no slack in letting Council know his company felt betrayed and that this move would kill a 200 job expansion DCS had planned. If he was peeved that ACT was to get a more generous package than had DCS, that beef was soft-pedaled in an hour long protest by Shaver and several DCS employees.
As I predicted over 10 years ago, it was far from pretty. DCS won this scrimmage, ACT threatened to pick up their marbles and go home. Meanwhile Council accused COSADC of leaving Council in the dark during the process, and COSADC's feeling were hurt, after all, you told us to go bribe companies boss, Whassamata now? Matt Lewis told a reporter we need a new mayor, but declined to run himself. A kiss-and-make-up joint meeting of Council and COSADC is scheduled, but at Council meeting Tuesday Jon Shaver and employees owned the only happy faces in the house. Chalk one up for my Karnak the Magnificent file.
Interestingly, ACT relented and announced, with a slight backhand to Mayor and Council, that they would be coming to Angelo anyway. Seems debt collector is a hard job to fill and our pool of workers, including former DCS employees is hard to find. Allow me to don the Karnak turban: ACT will be here longer and will create more jobs at higher pay than say, Taylor Publishing. Not unlike a romantic relationship. If you court and woo a lady, convince her your interests coincide, you might end up with a wife. If you short circuit the process with cash, you get what you pay for and they don't respect you in the morning.
In other action, Council approved, as expected, the tennis courts deal. I seem to have gotten their attention by appealing, tongue in cheek, for funds to provide the San Angelo Billiards Association, of which I am a member, a central pool hall with say, 24 regulation size tables. Discussing this later with individual members, I was surprised that almost none seemed to have considered the possibility of creating a Facilities Corp. to deal with the now inevitable requests from every sports group in town. “If tennis gets money, why can't (curling, archery, paintball, pick your pet)”, will be the litany. Tennis got a rather substantial sum, by the way, $750,000 total. With that precedent, I can promise you other sports enthusiasts will be appearing before Council, hat in hand, asking that said hat be filled with public money.
I was surprised at the lack of consideration of a facilities Corp. as it played so large a part in the Faith-based Prison issue. Actually, the only reason it would not have worked for the prison was that other laws would reasonably not allow us abandon a few hundred human inmates post-default. If a group of sports enthusiasts raises money for their idea under the facilities umbrella, the money is entirely between them and the bondholders, worst the city gets is a padlocked playground.
There will be more detail on the Facilities Corp. idea here, especially as other groups come forward . I can tell you, that of the members I was able to personally speak to on this, the initial reaction to the rough sketch of the concept was favorable.
Well, just that played out in Council meeting today, in four part harmony. Diversified Collection Services got a package of incentives in 2002, has created 400 some jobs, and has since come under new ownership. COSADC had negotiated a similar, but larger package for Account Control Technologies, which also specializes in student loan collections. Jon Shaver, owner of DCS cut no slack in letting Council know his company felt betrayed and that this move would kill a 200 job expansion DCS had planned. If he was peeved that ACT was to get a more generous package than had DCS, that beef was soft-pedaled in an hour long protest by Shaver and several DCS employees.
As I predicted over 10 years ago, it was far from pretty. DCS won this scrimmage, ACT threatened to pick up their marbles and go home. Meanwhile Council accused COSADC of leaving Council in the dark during the process, and COSADC's feeling were hurt, after all, you told us to go bribe companies boss, Whassamata now? Matt Lewis told a reporter we need a new mayor, but declined to run himself. A kiss-and-make-up joint meeting of Council and COSADC is scheduled, but at Council meeting Tuesday Jon Shaver and employees owned the only happy faces in the house. Chalk one up for my Karnak the Magnificent file.
Interestingly, ACT relented and announced, with a slight backhand to Mayor and Council, that they would be coming to Angelo anyway. Seems debt collector is a hard job to fill and our pool of workers, including former DCS employees is hard to find. Allow me to don the Karnak turban: ACT will be here longer and will create more jobs at higher pay than say, Taylor Publishing. Not unlike a romantic relationship. If you court and woo a lady, convince her your interests coincide, you might end up with a wife. If you short circuit the process with cash, you get what you pay for and they don't respect you in the morning.
In other action, Council approved, as expected, the tennis courts deal. I seem to have gotten their attention by appealing, tongue in cheek, for funds to provide the San Angelo Billiards Association, of which I am a member, a central pool hall with say, 24 regulation size tables. Discussing this later with individual members, I was surprised that almost none seemed to have considered the possibility of creating a Facilities Corp. to deal with the now inevitable requests from every sports group in town. “If tennis gets money, why can't (curling, archery, paintball, pick your pet)”, will be the litany. Tennis got a rather substantial sum, by the way, $750,000 total. With that precedent, I can promise you other sports enthusiasts will be appearing before Council, hat in hand, asking that said hat be filled with public money.
I was surprised at the lack of consideration of a facilities Corp. as it played so large a part in the Faith-based Prison issue. Actually, the only reason it would not have worked for the prison was that other laws would reasonably not allow us abandon a few hundred human inmates post-default. If a group of sports enthusiasts raises money for their idea under the facilities umbrella, the money is entirely between them and the bondholders, worst the city gets is a padlocked playground.
There will be more detail on the Facilities Corp. idea here, especially as other groups come forward . I can tell you, that of the members I was able to personally speak to on this, the initial reaction to the rough sketch of the concept was favorable.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Tennis Thoughts
- There has been a lot of criticism of the councils decision not to fund the tennis complex. Criticism is deserved, but not for the reasons I hear the most. I really feel the council made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.
-
- Tennis is a popular sport around the country. Locally, there are a number of tennis players that play at country clubs, at school or on various free courts such as those at the recreation centers. The following is not as large as football, baseball or soccer, but there are a number of people that play. I support them having quality facilities that are open to the public. That is not where I have a problem.
-
- I have a problem with what the ½ cent sales tax is degenerating into. Watching and following the debate on the tennis facility is like watching kids in a candy store complaining because someone got more chocolates or peanuts or peppermint than they did and its just not fair. Realistically, candy has been distributed pretty broadly with various sales tax projects in all the cities districts. When we have to get out scales or tape measures or balance sheets to make sure the split is "fair", there is a problem.
- I have a problem with the continual justification of these projects for their economic impact. Last time I looked at a breakdown of San Angelo's jobs, two things jumped out at me. First, the travel, tourism, food service, and leisure business areas which are where the sports facilities create jobs, are among the lowest paid jobs we have. Second, I notice that San Angelo's median income is about 20% below that of Texas as a whole. This is in spite of the fact that our cost of living has caught up with other cities our size. One of the reasons for this gap is the number of jobs in the industries I have just mentioned. One quarter of the sales tax is required to be used to attract or support jobs close to the average wage of San Angelo. Much of the rest of the tax money supports projects that only create jobs at the lowest pay scale. I have a problem calling that economic development.
-
- Finally, I have a problem with government at any level promoting sports and deciding what sports should be subsidized with free money. Tennis is a wonderful sport. It is one of 35 sports currently in the Olympics. That doesn't include the sports recognized by the Olympics and the International Sports Federations, popular sports such as bowling and billiards, or up and coming sports such as skate boarding and paintball. Many of these sports are at least as popular as tennis so what do we do when they ask for a public facility of their own? There are alternatives to tax handouts to build sports facilities. We need to look at them closely. There are also opportunities for multi-use facilities that can react to changing public tastes, and can have strong, popular sports help support new sports as they get established.
-
- In the end, I hope that a tennis facility, hopefully as part of a flexible multi use facility gets built. At the same time, I believe that tax dollars should be used to provide a healthy economic diet before supporting candy store projects. That will take some political courage and voter approved changes to the sales tax, but I don't see a better solution.
-
Friday, December 22, 2006
Water they up to
The water main break is the big story in town right now, and for good reason. Water is essential to the citizens and businesses of San Angelo. Basic maintenance shouldn't have been ignored for as long as it was. That is not acceptable.
Before we break out the torches and pitch forks and go after the city council, lets take a deep breath and look at some basic facts. Our current city council is relatively new. Three of the members just took office this year (although Mr. Cardenas had been on council 10 years ago.) The majority of the council has less than 2 years in office. Only Mr. Cardenas has more than 4 years experiance on the council, and much of his is not recent.
The current council has not ignored maintenance issues. They finally stopped treating water as little more than a revenue source when they eliminated the PILOT transfer of money from the water fund to the general fund, and started looking at water as a fundamental service. They directed staff to come up with a plan on maintenance and improvements to infrastructure. They specifically asked about using the current 1/2 cent sales tax to fix some of these problems. They have been trying to fix a problem that was left for them by previous councils and city managers.
There has been some interesting timing for these water line problems. The Honey Creek fire happened just before the council had a 2 day workshop. When tough questions were asked about why the hydrants weren't working in the honey creek area, it was pointed out that a previous council had eliminated the hydrant and valve inspection and maintenance team in the water department to "save money." Other "savings" such as eliminating some road and bridge maintenance capabilities were also mentioned. Council put money into the budget for the hydrant and valve maintenance program, allocated a much higher amount of money to maintenance, and directed staff to come back with more information and to develop a plan of attack including priorities.
Money was allocated to fix the mains in the current budget. They were planning for when and where to start when the mains made that decision for them. A capital improvement plan outline was presented to the council last Tuesday. This presentation had been scheduled long before the main broke. It added emphasis to the presentation, but didn't change the core of it. The picture presented was not good. The false economy of putting off maintenance by previous councils and management is going to cost the city millions of dollars to fix. The current council is at least addressing the issue head on.
One question that keeps coming up is "why don't they use 1/2 cent sales tax money to fix some of this?" Short answer is that by law they can't. Type 4B economic development sales taxes can't be used for capital and infrastructure unless it is an improvement that will help promote or expand business, or is tied to another 4B project. Check here for more information. The ballot language voters approved for our local 4B tax further limits how that money can be spent.
There are alternative sales taxes available to cities. They can adopt a sales tax that is dedicated to road and bridge projects. They can also adopt a sales tax to reduce property taxes. Any of these options would have to be voted on by the citizens of San Angelo. It is probably time to look at these options. Lets see if the council will bring this before the voters.
The council and city staff have a lot of work to do. They have a problem to fix that is left over from their predecessors. Let's give them a chance to do a long term fix. The infrastructure didn't get this bad in 2 years, it won't get fixed in 2 years. Let's also remind the other local government bodies, like the school board, that maintenance must be a priority. And let's not forget to thank previous mayors and council members for the fine shape they left the city in.
Before we break out the torches and pitch forks and go after the city council, lets take a deep breath and look at some basic facts. Our current city council is relatively new. Three of the members just took office this year (although Mr. Cardenas had been on council 10 years ago.) The majority of the council has less than 2 years in office. Only Mr. Cardenas has more than 4 years experiance on the council, and much of his is not recent.
The current council has not ignored maintenance issues. They finally stopped treating water as little more than a revenue source when they eliminated the PILOT transfer of money from the water fund to the general fund, and started looking at water as a fundamental service. They directed staff to come up with a plan on maintenance and improvements to infrastructure. They specifically asked about using the current 1/2 cent sales tax to fix some of these problems. They have been trying to fix a problem that was left for them by previous councils and city managers.
There has been some interesting timing for these water line problems. The Honey Creek fire happened just before the council had a 2 day workshop. When tough questions were asked about why the hydrants weren't working in the honey creek area, it was pointed out that a previous council had eliminated the hydrant and valve inspection and maintenance team in the water department to "save money." Other "savings" such as eliminating some road and bridge maintenance capabilities were also mentioned. Council put money into the budget for the hydrant and valve maintenance program, allocated a much higher amount of money to maintenance, and directed staff to come back with more information and to develop a plan of attack including priorities.
Money was allocated to fix the mains in the current budget. They were planning for when and where to start when the mains made that decision for them. A capital improvement plan outline was presented to the council last Tuesday. This presentation had been scheduled long before the main broke. It added emphasis to the presentation, but didn't change the core of it. The picture presented was not good. The false economy of putting off maintenance by previous councils and management is going to cost the city millions of dollars to fix. The current council is at least addressing the issue head on.
One question that keeps coming up is "why don't they use 1/2 cent sales tax money to fix some of this?" Short answer is that by law they can't. Type 4B economic development sales taxes can't be used for capital and infrastructure unless it is an improvement that will help promote or expand business, or is tied to another 4B project. Check here for more information. The ballot language voters approved for our local 4B tax further limits how that money can be spent.
There are alternative sales taxes available to cities. They can adopt a sales tax that is dedicated to road and bridge projects. They can also adopt a sales tax to reduce property taxes. Any of these options would have to be voted on by the citizens of San Angelo. It is probably time to look at these options. Lets see if the council will bring this before the voters.
The council and city staff have a lot of work to do. They have a problem to fix that is left over from their predecessors. Let's give them a chance to do a long term fix. The infrastructure didn't get this bad in 2 years, it won't get fixed in 2 years. Let's also remind the other local government bodies, like the school board, that maintenance must be a priority. And let's not forget to thank previous mayors and council members for the fine shape they left the city in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)