On February 1st, 2003, the voters of North Richland Hills will have the opportunity to express their views on how their tax money is going to be spent over the next 10 years. Early voting will be from January 15th through January 28th. The vote will either authorize or deny the issuance of a total of $38.2 Million in new bonds to be paid for with property taxes.

Apparently because of signs "cluttering up the city" in opposition to the bond issue, members of the Capital Improvements Study Committee have converted themselves into the "NRH Civic Association" to support the bond issue. The study committee was commissioned and appointed by the City Council and charged by the ordinance that created the committee to actively support the issuance of any bonds recommended by the committee to the council. With 20 members on the committee, it looks like a "who's who" of people that may benefit directly in some way from the issuance of the bonds. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Charles Brinkley who is in active support of the bonds, owns a portion of, and is Chairman of Liberty Bank where it is believed that significant sums of City money are on deposit. It should be noted that there were no ethics requirements for appointment to the committee so there can be no violation of any "normal" ethical considerations.

Support for the bonds is coming from the city by inserts in the Water Bills and is apparently planned by a mailing - supported by the above committee - to people who voted in the last election. Obviously the ability to provide any opposing viewpoint via Water Bills is not open to the public.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram article dated 1/10/2003 quotes unnamed "association members" as saying that "West automatically opposes everything the city offers" which is an untrue statement. As noted elsewhere on this website, I am in support of the Animal Shelter expansion bond issue. While such expansion is over priced, much of the money the city will spend in this area is provided by operating fees and prudent management of the current facility.

I am opposed to the extravagant plans for street reconstruction. The price is just too high and there has been little real analysis of the needs. There are a number of less costly options to accomplish the necessary "refurbishment" of virtually all of the streets included in this bond issue. The Capital Improvements Study Committee met only 5 times for 1 hour each meeting. During this period they considered over 60 "wishes" from city staff. The only limiting factor they seemed to consider was what was the total money they could spend and still hold the current tax rate. To accomplish this, they projected the increase in property valuations over the next 10 years and effectively planned to spend all of the increased tax revenue on this group of projects. Over the past 6 years, valuation increases have increased property taxes by 51% for residents of N. Richland Hills.

I am opposed to drainage ditch reconstruction and instead favor doing repairs at a fraction of the cost.

I am opposed to frivolous requests such as those by the fire department for a training facility that would be a poor second to the new facilities recently completed by Tarrant County College for this same purpose. Our fire department has full access to this new facility at a small fraction of the cost of this bond issue and building its own. I believe that the other expensive items requested by the fire department are also frivolous and highly unnecessary.

I am opposed to the expansion of the city vehicle maintenance facility because it is unnecessary and a very, very costly way to achieve the desired results. This expansion would then trigger the hiring of even more city employees when the work to be done could be done better, faster and at a lower cost by private business sources.

Lastly, I am opposed to the extravagant expenditures for "beautification of a small section of Rufe Snow" proposed by Councilwoman Johnson with our tax money. I cannot imagine spending tax money to "paint" the median to make it prettier!

One last thought, before some "association member" suggests more misinformation, I have no direct connection with any organization that receives any direct benefit from the city of North Richland Hills. I do not contract with - nor seek funds from NRH in any manner or form. My opposition is based on the fact that I believe that my ownership of my home in NRH should not be taxed out of my ability to occupy it by spendthrift local politicians. I believe that our City Council has the responsibility to be frugal with our tax money and to be accountable to the voters for such expenditures. I also believe that no council member or NRH Civic Association member should be direct beneficiaries of any bond issue proposed by them.

The real bottom line is that this may be a close election and it is up to us as voters to let our City Council know our wishes. If the bonds pass, we all get to pay for them whether we supported them or not. If they do not pass, virtually all of the "wishes" could be accomplished by prudent management of an existing annual budget of over $80 Million per year.