City staff’s proposed budget for next year is now out.
They are proposing a 3.1% increase in our property tax rate to 69.9 cents per hundred dollars of valuation.
They are also asking each city department to take a 5% budget cut.
Huh?
They want to cut each department by 5% but they need a 3.1% increase in our property taxes. Yikes!
According to the Times the city needs the increase “to pay for debt obligations such as the quality of life bond projects approved by voters in 2012.”
Actually
This graphic from the city’s web site tells us that they have only begun to spend the bond money:
A 5% decrease in spending plus a 3.1% increase in taxes comes to an 8.1% swing. According to the chart above they will only have spent 20% of the quality of life bond money by the end of 2016. So we evidently need 8.1% to pay for other debt.
Either our taxes are going to go up a lot more in the future or this year’s increase is needed to pay for other things than the quality of life bonds. Tearing down city hall and buying and remodeling multiple buildings is probably the answer.
New tax rate comparison told us about how we had the 7th largest property tax rate of the 50 largest cities in the United States in 2013. I guess they want us to do better.
Hold on to your hats!
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Call me Mr. Negative but doesn’t a 5% decease in budget equal a 5% decrease in services? So, following negative logic, shouldn’t that equal a 5% REDUCTION in Propery Taxes?
Or do they need the additional funding to pay for administrative leave for high paid employees?
LikeLike
It our civic duty to pay taxes and vote…
we need less of the former and more of the latter.
LikeLike
El Paso loves to brag about its place in various rankings, so management’s goal is to move us up to #1 in highest taxes. Meanwhile, the new city manager started making excuses from day one, saying that it is too late for him to make any changes to the budget [expenses] and that he will instead look for new revenue streams, including more fees on businesses. He is taking the easy way out even though the budget has not been finalized. If the new city manager is such a great executive, he should immediately cut overhead. That might prove that he has value.
LikeLike
This is further explanation of the budget shortfall from the city Budget Book.
“Revising overly optimistic revenues combined with increasing demands on the expenditure side due to implementation of the Quality of Life (QOL) projects, looming impacts for police and fire collective bargaining negotiations, and maturing economic development incentives make the task even greater.”
Less revenue, more expenses and looming impacts from police and fire benefits — hmmm. I think it’s time to change the city slogan from “It’s all good” to an understatement I heard once from a Japanese man:
“Maybe not so good.”
LikeLike
I am just a tad bit confused. One report states that 1.2 cents of the increase is “for economic incentives the city offers to bring in new businesses and expand existing businesses”.
So, I have to pay more in taxes to subsidize someone else’s business when I need that money for my own business? The city gives tax rebates to Paul Foster for his Fountains development and to other large companies and then asks you and me to cover for them?
The unstated fact is that there are substantial increased costs related to the operation of the ballpark and those costs are buried in this budget. Combine those expenses with the actual cost to build and finance the ballpark, and we’re subsidizing a for-profit business owned by two billionaire “philanthropists”.
When government subsidizes individuals, it’s considered welfare. When we subsidize corporations, many of which are already profitable, it’s labeled economic development. How much of our city budget is related to corporate welfare?
I want to see the specifics related to how that 1.2 cents is being spent. I would be more trusting of the city if it would simply be forthright and honest about the true cost of the ballpark.
LikeLike
Once again, ignorance reigns supreme on this website. Tax rate is only one half of the tax calculation. The other half is property valuation. The valuation went down this year by $400 million, so the tax rate would have to go up to collect the same amount of money as the prior year. (By the way, elected officials often use the reverse scenario to hide tax increases. Valuation goes up, they keep the rate the same and declare no tax increase when, in reality, taxes went up.)
LikeLike
Watching the KVIA news report the “average” ($125,000) home owner will pay an additional $34 next year if the budget passes as it is now.
Further, from the city’s web site: “Based on Preliminary Certified Values, the net taxable home value in FY 2015 is
$125,105, an increase of $914 from $124,191. At the proposed tax rate, the average
homeowner would pay $32.71 more per year in property taxes to the City”.
Lastly, the proposed budget book starts with this statement: “This budget will raise more total property taxes
than last year’s budget by $5,767,922 or 2.66%, and of that amount $4,721,895 is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year.”
Brutus
LikeLike
Again, ignorance. While average home values went up slightly, existing commercial went down. The net result is a decline of $400 million in valuation in property that existed in both years. The $4.7 million in tax revenue from new construction is in there because state law precludes that property from tax increase calculations. So what the sentence is saying is that the city is increasing property taxes by about $1 million under the Truth in Taxation law, an increase of about 0.5%. That is all due to voter actions to increase taxes.
LikeLike
SMH – Thank you stooping to enlighten this lowly peasant. I think it’s probable that property taxes need to be raised to fund more than what voters approved. It’s a complicated budget, but I’m going to look for answers.
LikeLike
You’re right that valuation can keep taxes from going up. That happened a few years ago. Valuation affects the revenue side. But why wouldn’t the city just say that’s the reason. The city itself says the tax increase is because of expenditures and the “looming impacts for police and fire collective bargaining negotiations.” Please educate me, oh mighty one.
LikeLike
It’s time for a reality check. If taxes keep going up while wages are pretty much stagnant and not keeping pace with inflation, how is quality of life getting better? It looks to me like Quality of Life is being used as a propaganda phrase to justify higher taxes and the agendas of special interests. WHOSE quality of life are we improving?
LikeLike
So where does the HOT 2% that is supposed to pay the stadium bond interest factor in? If it falls short I imagine there will be some fancy book cooking to launder funds to cover the deficit without saying it is covering the deficit.
LikeLike