|
|
NRH Reaffirms Intent to Raise Property Taxes Each Year
for Next 10 Years! |
|
Update: This article was
originally written on January 14th, 2003. At that time, I was fighting against
millions of dollars in pork barrel bonds that were coming up for a vote. We were successful at defeating only one of
five bond issues with only 988 total voters participating in the
election. As a result of this voter
disinterest, the Mayor and City Council were empowered to spend over $37
Million tax dollars for some of their pet pork projects. As this update is written, there is a battle on for the Mayor and
3 City Council Seats and never before has the choice before the citizens been
so contrasted. The Mayor and the
sitting city council are committed to raising property tax revenue by “holding
the rate”. This means that they are
projecting to spend approximately 10% more per year increased due to
valuations – every year for the next 10 years. If they are continued in office, the
citizens of NRH can safely project that their property taxes will double in
the next 7 to 10 years. I wonder if
anyone can truly afford this. There is hard documentation of this on the Mayor’s reelection web
site and on the City’s site under goals.
Please check it out for yourself. The challengers to the Mayor and the City Council are committed
to reigning in spending and fighting for reductions in property tax
rates. They are also committed to
placing a cap on property taxes for seniors. This is an important election – I hope you plan to vote for a
real change this time! Watching the North Richland Hills City
Council Meeting is certainly not very entertaining TV! Yesterday, At the heart of the resolution is the rhetoric by the council that they do not plan to raise taxes - when in fact, they do. This takes a little understanding to see why their "not raising taxes" is in fact an untruth. In the current city goals and in the planning documents for the bond issue from the Capital Improvements Study Committee is information that states that the city "expects to hold the current tax rate" for the entire period covered by the bond issue which is currently 10 years. The same documents indicate that the city expects property valuations to INCREASE at a minimum rate of 3 to 5% per year during the period. This increase in valuations is projected to increase property tax revenue sufficiently to cover both increases in the city's general budget and the increases needed to repay any bonds issued. The proof of the city's knowledge is in print every year. See the attached city publication in the Star Telegram regarding the setting of the budget and rate for 2003. (Exhibit A) In this example, the city held the tax rate and increased the taxes on an "average homestead" by 10.74%. In Exhibit B, the city published information indicating their knowledge of "increasing total tax revenues from NRH properties on the tax roll in the preceding year by 7.3%". Since the city publishes this information for the public to see, you must assume that the sitting city council is at least aware of these numbers. Their position seems to be that if they talk loud enough and long enough about "holding the rate" that most people will assume that they are not raising taxes - when in fact, they know that they are. The hardening of this line by placing the holding of the rate in city goals while projecting increases in valuations - in addition to new construction - proves that they intend to continue their extravagant "tax and spend" pattern. Unfortunately, their greatest ally is voter apathy. The upcoming bond issue may be assured of passage by those with direct benefit only, voting for the issue. City employees, firemen, policemen and politicians will all directly benefit and most of them will vote. These votes alone may be sufficient to pass the bond issue and the ensuing requirement to raise additional tax revenue to pay for them. The city council's rhetoric would have you believe that people opposed to the bond issue are against progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. The use of bonds is an accepted method of funding needed city improvements. In this particular bond issue, the problem is extravagance and inefficiency. There are better ways to accomplish needed items and a number of the items are simply wishes that should not be funded at all. The bottom line of the city council meeting's "resolution in support of bond issue" is that they are afraid that the voters are going to vote down their latest tax and spend idea. Nothing is worse for a politician than to be denied the use of your tax dollars to spend. I truly hope they are right about the voters voting down this pork barrel bond issue! |
|
|
Early voting begins on January 15th Regular election scheduled for February 1st |
|
