PS3D said:
Then some of the other stuff could be funded by selling the old city hall location on Texas Avenue to a developer, where the front can be new restaurants and the back could be new housing.
Only if there's a chicken joint included.
CS City Council Asking for Property Tax Increase
20,190 Views |
190 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Stucco
Only if there's a chicken joint included.
Kitten With A Whip said:You really can't compare it with larger cities because we are NOT a larger city. Compare us to cities of a similar size and report back on that.Captn_Ag05 said:Cyp0111 said:
College Station still has a very fair tax rate compared to the larger cities.
Give them a few years.
Bottom 1/3 of Texas cities between 75k and 125k.
Ah the low taste rate excuse. But add in the fact that many are forced to use cs electric at over twice the market rate, and just added transportation fee that is covered by taxes in other cities. There have been several local studies that conclude that out of pocket with the fees and non market rate for services the effect is near par rate with bryan's higher tax rate.
Well something is coming. A hue and cry was raised over the luxury fire station. Then a much larger outburst over the proposed Taj Ma City Hall and Chimney Hill Convention Center. They're frustrated, and they're gonna build something.BigBubba said:
Oh hell NO!! I don't care if they need a new police building. Total revenues have been going up due to increased property values. They should not need even more money on top of that. In fact, they should be looking at how to LOWER OUR TAX RATE due to the increased revenues.
A little irony that a thread complaining about a proposed tax rate increase has comments suggesting prime retail (Gander and Academy) be repurposed and used for city buildings. While I understand they are vacant at the moment they do have a taxable base of $17 million and then factor in the loss of future sales tax revenues.
Sounds like an excellent plan for CS.
Sounds like an excellent plan for CS.
InMyOpinion said:
A little irony that a thread complaining about a proposed tax rate increase has comments suggesting prime retail (Gander and Academy) be repurposed and used for city buildings. While I understand they are vacant at the moment they do have a taxable base of $17 million and then factor in the loss of future sales tax revenues.
Sounds like an excellent plan for CS.
1) If the city leased those buildings, would the property still be taxed?
2) if the city bought and remodeled, would it be less than new construction?
2A) if so, let's assume the city saves $10 million.
3) lets assume the total tax income for the city is $500K annually from the properties
4) it would take 20 years before the city would lose money on the remodel
5) but 4 doesn't include the sale or lease of the current facilities which would put them back into the tax base.
I see no one has mentioned that the largest employer in town (TAMU) is not giving merit raises to staff this upcoming year. Why would the CoCS do this when a large sector of the population isn't getting any cost of living increase. Poor timing. We need more insdustry in this town to keep salaries competitive and contributors to the tax base. The local government needs to get out of my checkbook.
Rather than using the money for a new city building, maybe they could offer tax incentives to some industry/business to relocate or startup here.
Partly because a couple of years back, the City had a study done comparing staff wages with other comparable cities and found out...shocker...the wages were considerably lower than other towns paid (part of the reason many city employees leave not long after getting hired). They've slowly been trying to incrementally close the gap without a much larger tax increase.
AgGunNut said:
Partly because a couple of years back, the City had a study done comparing staff wages with other comparable cities and found out...shocker...the wages were considerably lower than other towns paid (part of the reason many city employees leave not long after getting hired). They've slowly been trying to incrementally close the gap without a much larger tax increase.
Wages are lower here for nearly all industries. Until the residents start making a lot more, taxes need to go lower not higher. People leave for many reasons, not just salary. People also stay here for many reasons, and salary is usually not at the top. You're going to make more living in a Houston or Dallas suburb.
If the city rents a building, it is taxed.
Slocum on a mobile said:Wages are low here because the big maroon elephant in the room makes them that way. Being the top employer in the area tends to have a lot of weight when there are no other businesses to compete. I'm surprised more bigger businesses haven't opened call centers / etc. here.Quote:
Wages are lower here for nearly all industries. Until the residents start making a lot more, taxes need to go lower not higher. People leave for many reasons, not just salary. People also stay here for many reasons, and salary is usually not at the top. You're going to make more living in a Houston or Dallas suburb.
Exactly! And you have folks on here trying to compare us to places with significantly higher wages. And to your last point, I agree. We've already got Reynolds taking advantage of the low salary situation, why aren't others?
http://cstx.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=24658
For those asking for a copy of the proposed budget.
For those asking for a copy of the proposed budget.
There they go comparing cities based solely on population. Now compare the same cities based on current property values and wages. With those factored in CS would likely be at the top of the list.
If 31% of the budget is from ad valorem taxes and 15.46% of the budget is from utility transfers, wouldn't that in effect mean the effective "tax" rate is more like 75 cents rather than 50 cents per $100? Again, claiming that similar sized cities average 59 cents is not apples to apples.
Let's compare ourselves to Tyler with a proposed tax rate of 24cents with a population of 97,000.
Anyone want to dig into the budgets of those two cities to see how Tyler can survive with half the ad valorem taxes as CS?
Let's compare ourselves to Tyler with a proposed tax rate of 24cents with a population of 97,000.
Anyone want to dig into the budgets of those two cities to see how Tyler can survive with half the ad valorem taxes as CS?
http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/College-Station-City-Council-approves-increase-in-property-tax-rate-440655533.html
KBTX article states "College Station City Council approves increase in property tax rate".
https://blog.cstx.gov/2017/08/15/council-wraps-up-final-day-of-budget-workshops/
Reading the CSTX city council blog it says "A public hearing on the proposed tax rate is scheduled for 7 p.m. on August 30 at city hall. A public hearing on the budget and tax rate will be at 7 p.m. on Sept. 11 at city hall. Budget and tax rate adoption is set for Sept. 25."
SO WHICH IS IT? Was it approved or is there still time to lobby our council members before a final vote?
KBTX article states "College Station City Council approves increase in property tax rate".
https://blog.cstx.gov/2017/08/15/council-wraps-up-final-day-of-budget-workshops/
Reading the CSTX city council blog it says "A public hearing on the proposed tax rate is scheduled for 7 p.m. on August 30 at city hall. A public hearing on the budget and tax rate will be at 7 p.m. on Sept. 11 at city hall. Budget and tax rate adoption is set for Sept. 25."
SO WHICH IS IT? Was it approved or is there still time to lobby our council members before a final vote?
Awesome! The overlords are pushing for a 2.5 cent raise to fund a new PD building. Aaaaaannnnnd, they promise the rate will drop when the building is paid for!! Yaaaay!!
Like posted, they've gained funds with the valuation increase each year, and I'd stake my life on that 2.5 cent increase never getting cut.
Like posted, they've gained funds with the valuation increase each year, and I'd stake my life on that 2.5 cent increase never getting cut.
The workshops this week were for the City Manager's office to present the proposed budget to council. Department heads also answer questions, give clarification, if needed.
State law requires a certain number of public hearings before a vote can be taken on the budget/tax rate. The blog link is more accurate.
State law requires a certain number of public hearings before a vote can be taken on the budget/tax rate. The blog link is more accurate.
So everyone could go to the public meeting and oppose the tax increase and they would still approve the rate hike. What is the point of the public meetings? The only way to really solve it is to vote everyone out, I am still so angry over the roadway maintenance fee 7.78 per rooftop simply unbelievable how they find ways to take our money
happyinBCS said:
I am still so angry over the roadway maintenance fee 7.78 per rooftop simply unbelievable how they find ways to take our money
User name does not check out.....
(1) this is why you fight your property valuation every year, because of stuff like this.
(2) this made me laugh: "The council hopes to retract the tax increase after the new police department is paid for."... right I bet we will see that, absolute BS comment.
(3) the city council actually wished they could have raised it by more our friend James Brenham: "We've held the line on property taxes for our operations of the city government because we recognize the taxpayers can't afford more"... i.e. we wish we could raise it even more but we can't because we like our positions of power.
(4) They will just increase your utility rate and pass another "fee" for road maintenance/etc. Nice ways to basically tax you without calling it a tax. What is sad about Utilities, is how insane our rate is compared to Houston/Dallas etc. (http://www.powertochoose.org/).. I think you will be amazed at how much you are taxed through utilities.
(2) this made me laugh: "The council hopes to retract the tax increase after the new police department is paid for."... right I bet we will see that, absolute BS comment.
(3) the city council actually wished they could have raised it by more our friend James Brenham: "We've held the line on property taxes for our operations of the city government because we recognize the taxpayers can't afford more"... i.e. we wish we could raise it even more but we can't because we like our positions of power.
(4) They will just increase your utility rate and pass another "fee" for road maintenance/etc. Nice ways to basically tax you without calling it a tax. What is sad about Utilities, is how insane our rate is compared to Houston/Dallas etc. (http://www.powertochoose.org/).. I think you will be amazed at how much you are taxed through utilities.
So assuming they pass it despite disagreement from the voters, what would the process be to undo it besides voting them out next time around and getting a new council to undo it? What is the petition/special election process for the voters to just say no, enough is enough.
It isn't clear that much thought at all was given to alternative solutions instead of another big tax grab from the pockets of the people.
It isn't clear that much thought at all was given to alternative solutions instead of another big tax grab from the pockets of the people.
Quote from BCS Eagle.Quote:
Councilwoman Julie Schultz said, but she also has to keep citizens in mind. Schultz urged the council to remember Tuesday's discussion when it has the opportunity to expand the city's tax base through new development, sales tax and other revenue streams. "Let's keep this in our heads before we say 'no' to those things because somebody doesn't want it near their house or whatever," Schultz said. "That's why we're in this place, in my opinion."
Her engineering company and its developer clients better get to building, then. If I understand it right, if developers get their permits in by Novermber 30th of this year there are no impact fees, but during the following year they get a one year "break-in" period, and then after December 1 of 2018 they double. So, while you and I are paying the Roadway Maintenance fee and the Wastewater fee, they will be trying to stave off the $$ they are about to be assessed for new development. I don't always buy into the line that we need to have more rooftops in order to get relief from taxes. Since when has it really worked? (I honestly don't know)
They keep raising taxes and people keep moving further out, which means we keep raising taxes. It becomes the Highway 290 of perpetual misery. Anyone got any ideas?
More rooftops do not necessarily equal lower taxes, especially when it takes at least a $250-275k home to generate any revenue. Anything less, and the City is losing money.
It sounds like several reforms are needed.
1) Cancel any additional spending on a new police station and city hall
2) Utilize existing, empty structures for both
3) Liquidate city property being used for those functions now
4) Eliminate 'stealth' taxes on utilities
5) Open up utilities to competition
Others?
1) Cancel any additional spending on a new police station and city hall
2) Utilize existing, empty structures for both
3) Liquidate city property being used for those functions now
4) Eliminate 'stealth' taxes on utilities
5) Open up utilities to competition
Others?
The reason all of this is occurring is because past city administrations and councils did absolutely no planning for future growth. Meanwhile CSISD did and took every opportunity they could to raise their portions of taxes. Now we have a high tax rate due to the schools and are on the verge of collapsing city services like police.
As said above more homes does not provide revenue until they are near 300K. The city has failed to bring in any industry as a source of revenue forcing tax evaluations etc. Now we have homes our wages can't afford, and a population that vastly surpasses what our public safety can handle.
As said above more homes does not provide revenue until they are near 300K. The city has failed to bring in any industry as a source of revenue forcing tax evaluations etc. Now we have homes our wages can't afford, and a population that vastly surpasses what our public safety can handle.
Spot on. Years of neglect got us to where we currently are.
CS Iron 25 said:
The reason all of this is occurring is because past city administrations and councils did absolutely no planning for future growth. Meanwhile CSISD did and took every opportunity they could to raise their portions of taxes. Now we have a high tax rate due to the schools and are on the verge of collapsing city services like police.
As said above more homes does not provide revenue until they are near 300K. The city has failed to bring in any industry as a source of revenue forcing tax evaluations etc. Now we have homes our wages can't afford, and a population that vastly surpasses what our public safety can handle.
I find this hard to believe when all the police driving new cars and the admin, police station and utility building are ALL fairly new. Govt types just want (think they deserve) all the best latest and greatest. The swamp is deep
Utilizing "existing, empty structures for both" basically narrows it down to Gander Mountain and Academy, which, as someone pointed out, would effectively take those off the tax rolls indefinitely. A lot of the retail-to-civic conversions you hear of usually aren't in quite a prominent place. I suppose you could also count the old SWP Kroger but it would require a lot of work to expand it.duffelpud said:
It sounds like several reforms are needed.
1) Cancel any additional spending on a new police station and city hall
2) Utilize existing, empty structures for both
3) Liquidate city property being used for those functions now
4) Eliminate 'stealth' taxes on utilities
5) Open up utilities to competition
Others?
The city appears to own the land at the northwest corner of Foster and Gilchrist, it begs the question why don't they convert THAT to new parking and just expand/renovate the existing facilities?
KerrvilleAg said:
in city government....you ain't trying unless you build a Taj Mahal
and have a bunch people working for you and new positions opened with fancy titles so you can pay them a lot and....your salary gets bumped
its a game they all play
Spot on.
I fail to understand this. On the midpoint of a $150-250 K house, current city tax rate yields about $1,000 to the city, plus other fees such as transportation and development fees imbedded in the cost of the house, and other charges such as sewer, water, and electric where applicable. That's not chump change.CS Iron 25 said:
As said above more homes does not provide revenue until they are near 300K.
So one question is just how much above that amount in city services are provided to the residents of that new house? I'd venture to say that until at least 50 new houses are built in close proximity to each other, the increase in costs to the city to provide police & fire protection as well as parks is negligible. If those 50 houses are dispersed around the city, then the increase in costs is likely negligible, yet the city collects $50,000 in new property tax revenue as well as other fees.
How many new homes must be built (in close proximity to each other or dispersed around town) in order to really impact the cost of city services/require additional services?
I call bs on the no money is made until the property is worth x. It's a voodoo number, especially in light of all the areas they annex and provide nothing. Its based on the total expendatures including they large waste divided by taxpayers to get the number that your taxes have to reach to be considered worth it to them. Where I live the provide nothing I did not already have. At the public meeting the only thing Lance could come up with that they were going to provide that i did not have was code enforcement. So no sewer, had trash, police, water, electric, fire, ambulance, what do they bring to me other than a $2500/YR tax bill. But they annex me because they want to annex places south and it has to be contiguous.
Fact is that they need to raise taxes, but not for the bs that is on the list. They need to tax at level required to pay for essential services and police and fire and eleminate stupid and unfair fees. They need to put items like police station on the a ballot to approve the bond purchase. They need to include in bond packages the required maintenance, lovely parks cost several million to keep up.
But not going to happen. They would be subject to rollback and they know that vote for police station would absolutely be voted down.
Consider yourself lucky, the last proposed city hall had 12M in it for the causeway over the lake, and that did not include the construction of the lake or any buildings.
Fact is that they need to raise taxes, but not for the bs that is on the list. They need to tax at level required to pay for essential services and police and fire and eleminate stupid and unfair fees. They need to put items like police station on the a ballot to approve the bond purchase. They need to include in bond packages the required maintenance, lovely parks cost several million to keep up.
But not going to happen. They would be subject to rollback and they know that vote for police station would absolutely be voted down.
Consider yourself lucky, the last proposed city hall had 12M in it for the causeway over the lake, and that did not include the construction of the lake or any buildings.
I also agree with the BS that they will reduce taxes afterwards. However I have no problem with the new police station. I was here for the Taj vote and smiled as I voted no. But the current station is laughable. If you haven't seen it then go and ask.