Holy crap. Another way found to fleece tax payers. Sucks!!

This city is trying to hard to become California like.

Sell your property. Problem solved.
Raise the rent. Problem solved.
Anything else we can help you with?

It's been very well established that this city is not developer friendly.

Quote:

---

What if I don't drive?

---

I don't have kids in public school.

Don't we already pay taxes for roads?
How much more money does the city need?

If it was in your property tax it would at least be deductible from your federal return, but noooo. SO we make these silly fees to hide the fact that the effective tax rate is far higher than the published tax rate. And then we rob the enterprise groups so they don't have the money to upgrade infrastructure as it was setup to do so will have to have large bond packages to pay for it and instead pay for things like police that should be included in the standard tax base.

Like every fee, they'll just throw it in the general fund and say that it added $x to improve roads...but where the money goes, nobody knows

But the new facilities they're building for themselves are really nice and all new police cars and pension plans are Cadillac and they'll redone hotels next to existing neighborhoods....

Crappy run city

COCS is far more worried about getting more parks assessment cash out of the multiple family properties.
I am totally against the fees, they are taxes, set a rate that will support the necessary revenue and be done with it. Problem is that if they do it will be far above the amount that is subject to a potential rollback by the taxpayers. But by delaying it there is even more risk because at some point they will not be able to have the tax assessor dial up property values a few percent and increase the tax rate just short of the rollback threshold and have enough money.
I personally believe that the COCS staff, and elected officials drink to much of the Texas Municipal League koolaid. TML's propaganda is the outline for how badly mismanaged cities can grow their way out of a history of bad decisions. Only problem is forced growth got them into making these bad decisions in the first place.
Residents need to understand things like you force developers to fund building a bunch of parks you end needing lots of cash to maintain them, as I remember around $2M/yr in COCS. Bonds should require stating the expected maintenance cost on the ballot. We have a parking garage we would like to sell you!
And most of all they need to understand the quality of life is tied directly to the pace of life. There was an editorial by the last mayor about how we need to figure out how to fund all these new things to maintain the desired quality of life in CS. Guess what as far as many are concerned adding parks, having nice stores and restaurants and fancy medians in the road matter far less than that we have 2x as many people in town than its infrastructure will support. I personally am for keeping the infrastructure and getting rid of half the rooftops, or at a minimum quit removing restrictions and enforcing long ago laid plans to keep growth at a reasonable pace.
The COCS P&Z group is out trying to execute the TML playbook. More rooftops at all cost, it would be horrible if any development was pushed to Bryan or into the county.
If COCS was a business they would be out of business. But cities are not businesses, but some business sense, even a little common sense at city hall would be helpful.

Quote:

How much more money does the city need?

City government, like all government entities, have an insatiable appetite for money.

Quote:

---

I don't have kids in public school.

---

to play devil's advocate, a minimally educated citizenry is a public good, no?


i think property tax is a contradiction of terms and no one should pay it, for the record. You cant say you own something if you have to pay someone not to take it away from you, that's mob protection- not governance.

Maybe some of y'all should go to work for the City and show them how to properly run these departments. You could also run for City Council.

Of course crying on TexAgs is easier than actually doing anything positive to help.

I do not work for City Hall. I have served on several City citizens committes. The City staff I worked with are hard working people. They also care about how the taxpayer's money is spent.

My statement still stands that you would rather complain than help.

jrhmc said:

---

Frio Cielo said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the fee, although much of the money probably can come from taxes already collected, but I don't see the logic in charging a single family dwelling a higher charge than a multi-family residence?

You would think it would be just the oppoisite as many of the multifamily properties have from two to 10 persons living at the property with most all having a vehicle while most single family dwellings have two or three vehicles at the most.

---

But if it was a property tax, most of those people wouldn't be paying it. Since it's a utility, each unit in the multifamily property is paying the fee. I think that might be one reason they made it a fee instead of a tax. If they had made it a tax, we would all be on here complaining that those who rent don't have to pay it.

---

You think landlords wouldn't pass the tax on to renters?

To me the bigger issue here is the precedent set by the council to just tack another 'fee' onto our utility bill when one of them gets a hard on to fund some new pet project. Want a senior center? Add a senior center "fee" to the utility bill. Want a major water feature? Add a water feature fee to the water bill. Want a new improved arts center? Add an arts center fee to the sewage bill, oh, wait...

This new tax makes me realize what a good decision it was to move out of College Station.

I'll continue to drive on your roads.

Quote:

---

Remember many kids do not receive any type of structure or education of any kind at home. Unfortunately, their teachers have to assume the role of parents in that respect.

---

How is that working out?

Choose one:

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)