Hitting the wall

April 2, 2015

It looks like some things are going to have to change.  The Times reported yesterday that next year’s city budget could grow by $24.2 million unless some expenses are dropped.

Property tax near maximum

The city raised about $149 million in property taxes last year.  The tax rate, which includes operations as well as debt service, was at $.6997 per hundred.  Council could raise the tax rate but if they raise the operations portion more than 8% we can ask for a rollback election.  An 8% increase would bring us to $.7557 per hundred and provide an additional $11 million.

We would still be $13 million short.  If council decided to raise the tax rate to the maximum that Texas will allow we would be at $.80 per hundred.  That would provide $170 million if the voters did not vote it down in a rollback election.  Even the maximum would only raise $21 million, leaving them $3.2 million short.

More revenue?

We might see an increase in fees like the franchise fee that the city imposed on the water utility this year.  We can expect to see members of council offering up all sorts of ways to soak the taxpayers.  Trash collection rates and bridge rates could go up.  The might even try to  impose a speaker’s fee if you wish to speak before city council.

Less expense?

It is possible that we might see layoffs but most of us doubt that would happen.  We might see cutbacks in spending like the 5% of capital spending that we allocate to public art.  Services might be cut.

They might even vote to stop the quality of life projects.  We voted to build the facilities but the city will have to come up with even more money to operate and maintain them.

Whatever happens, this is not going to be pretty.

It looks like the real “crazies” were the ones on council.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

7 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Another two step

April 1, 2015

One of the reasons some of our city council members has been giving for changing the agenda setting procedure is that items are being placed on the agenda without backup material.

Self inflicted

There was a time when the backup material was required to be submitted when the item was placed on the agenda.  If it wasn’t then a special vote of city council was required to consider the item.  They often ignored this rule when it was convenient.  The city parliamentarian, who is also the city attorney, admitted in a council meeting that she had not been enforcing the rule.

This council removed that requirement as one of their first things they did after being elected.  Testing the newbies warned of the consequences of this action back on June 23, 2013.

Now council is complaining about the lack of backup material.  The obvious solution is to go back to the old rules.  Instead they are taking the opportunity to shut down public discussion.

Is it a coincidence that they took step one at the beginning of their terms and are now taking step two at the end?  Are they hoping that we don’t remember?

We deserve better

Brutus

8 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Is there no limit?

March 31, 2015

A couple of our readers pointed this out already.  For those of you who missed their comments, this is hard to believe:

charteradvisorycommittee

One of our city representatives wants to put our former city manager on the Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee.

Have they no shame?

Please don’t tell me that she is just like any other citizen.  We would object if anyone of similar  former rank with the city was put on the committee.

We deserve better

Brutus

12 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Sleight of hand?

March 30, 2015

Watching the city council discussion about the potential resolution limiting the placement of agenda items to those that have three city council sponsors, we saw some members of council saying that the resolution would make council meetings more efficient.  They pointed out that any council member could put an item on the agenda of what some used to call the “pre council” meeting but now call “legislative review”.

The argument is another effort that contradicts city goal number 5:  “Promote Transparent and Consistent Communication Amongst All Members of the Community”.

How?

Quite simply the legislative review meetings do not have their agendas posted on the city web site, nor are videos of the meetings on the web site.

We don’t know what happens in these meetings unless we attend personally.

To us they are much like backroom meetings.

The city manager could resolve this by making the agendas and videos of the legislative review meetings available on the city web site.  Transparency is their goal after all.

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Is the city serious about it’s stated goals?

March 29, 2015

One of our readers sent a link to this web page with two  good questions.  Following the link we got this display:

calltothepublic

If you wish to speak at a council meeting, the city requires that you sign up in advance.  The questions asked were “Why is this online sign-up only available for limited hours prior to weekly council meetings?” and  “Another tactic to limit public comment?”

Many of us believe that the recent initiative to require three members of city council to sponsor an agenda item will limit public discussion too.

Is the city following their goal number 5:  “Promote Transparent and Consistent Communication Amongst All Members of the Community”?

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »