County Commissioners Say "Foxtrot Yankee" to Voters

2,561 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by badbilly
duffelpud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duane "Camacho" Peters yesterday proposes to cram through a county property tax increase of 7.33% this year in order to get ahead of the cap being put in place by the State next year that would require that increases above 3.5% be put to a vote.


"What's this button do?"
TxSquarebody
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Higher rate or higher assessed value...either way, they're gonna squeeze out every drop they can get.
Turf96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heck with all that new money they should be able to put another foot on top of all our road surfaces. Ever seen so much road work that is fine being done before? I guess when you pilfer from your residents when ever you want you can have really thick pavement.
Fonzie Scheme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If they hadn't frozen property taxes for seniors, maybe this wouldn't be a problem.
Muzzleblast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They aren't exactly frozen. They accumulate with a 5% interest rate. When the property is vacated then the bill is due. More like deferred.

I sent the article over to the Texas Public Policy Foundation this morning for their review.
MB19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
City of CS going to raise taxes too. My wallet is bracing for the hit.....
oklaunion
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the case of both the county and CS, it appears, base upon their comments, that this is nothing but establishing a savings account because of new legislation. Which means they don't need all the money they will be collecting for the upcoming year. Which should be unethical.
And these increases in rates come on top of a substantial increase in valuation by the appraisal district. It will never stop.
agnerd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I do some work for a small municipality that's subject to the same rule. It's VERY fiscally conservative to the extent that the tax rate has been lowered each of the last few years. But their lawyer recommended that they at least consider a similar plan if nothing else than to save the $10,000 it would cost to hold an election for their 950 voters. Since they don't overtax, they don't keep a huge reserve. A massive expense would be made even worse by having to hold an election to raise taxes and taking the $10,000 hit. Guessing it would cost CS a ton more to host an election.

But 7.33% does seem very excessive to me.
mwm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe already pointed out, but the increases are the fault of the Legislature. It was the Legislature that basically told the locals that they could not raise taxes more than X%. So, with that facing the municipals, they've decided to go "whole hog". Max out. The Legislature wrote the municipals a blank check and the municipals are filling in the blank with basically everything they want. For them, it's like taking candy from a baby. It is criminal.
deh40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mwm said:

Maybe already pointed out, but the increases are the fault of the Legislature. It was the Legislature that basically told the locals that they could not raise taxes more than X%. So, with that facing the municipals, they've decided to go "whole hog". Max out. The Legislature wrote the municipals a blank check and the municipals are filling in the blank with basically everything they want. For them, it's like taking candy from a baby. It is criminal.
Legislature's fault? Why should the local taxing entities need to raise rates more than 3.5% with the way property tax revenues have recently been going up?
tb9665
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do I hear more developments in Bryan?
Tee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Legislature did not say cities and counties could not raise taxes; instead, cities and counties have to get voter approval for taxes being raised more than 3.5% once the new law takes effect.

So, it appears the County and CS want one last bite at the taxpayer.
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Property should be taxed at the price it was purchased, and the elected official should set the appropriate rate needed for the budget. This puts it all on the elected officials and the voters. They would know the minimum tax base valuation (assuming no property changed hands, and could plan accordingly.

The appraisal district should only be used to asses new values when property changes hands due to inheritance, gifting. or foreclosure. Basically, anytime the property changes hands without going through a sale. There might have to be periodic adjustments for commercial properties owned by corporations, as they could theoretical be owned in perpetuity, without changing hands.

Currently, the appraisal district sets a value, property owners protest it is too high (even though they would not consider selling at that value,) and elected officials are spared having to make major rate changes. The governing bodies get more money and elected officials boast of not raising rates.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
Muzzleblast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's never a money problem. It's a spending addiction. These entities refuse to set priorities on spending.

Remember, most of these cities and counties hired lobbyists to get rid of the original legislation. These lobbyists were paid for with our tax dollars.
It worked for them.

Worth noting; there is no "cap" on tax rates, only a 3.5% trigger point where they are required to go back to the voters for approval. These spendoholics detest this. Their arrogance won't allow them to justify taking money from the lowly taxpayers.
agrab86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tb9665 said:

Do I hear more developments in Bryan?
I hope so. Especially since Bryan is keeping its tax rate steady.
agrab86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
taxpreparer said:

Property should be taxed at the price it was purchased, and the elected official should set the appropriate rate needed for the budget.
I thought that this is what they do/did in California and was one of the major reasons their municipalities/counties got in fiscal difficulties since property tax receipts didn't keep up with cost of services. No one wanted to sell their houses because the house they bought as a replacement, even if significantly downsizing, would have a much higher tax basis than the one they were selling. With this lack of movement, a shortage in housing availability occurred, making houses even more expensive and out of reach for many.

Or am I misremembering?
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agrab86 said:

taxpreparer said:

Property should be taxed at the price it was purchased, and the elected official should set the appropriate rate needed for the budget.
I thought that this is what they do/did in California and was one of the major reasons their municipalities/counties got in fiscal difficulties since property tax receipts didn't keep up with cost of services. No one wanted to sell their houses because the house they bought as a replacement, even if significantly downsizing, would have a much higher tax basis than the one they were selling. With this lack of movement, a shortage in housing availability occurred, making houses even more expensive and out of reach for many.

Or am I misremembering?
You might be right; unintended consequences always occur. I would think the opposite would occur, the price of new housing would be depressed because of lack of demand. My goal is to put the cost of government back on the ELECTED officials and voters instead of using the unelected Appraiser as a scapegoat. As far as services being cut because of lack of funding; the perception is that governments cut the services that hurt the most people before cutting the fluff. It makes taxpayers feel the need to cough up more money.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
badbilly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agnerd said:

I do some work for a small municipality that's subject to the same rule. It's VERY fiscally conservative to the extent that the tax rate has been lowered each of the last few years. But their lawyer recommended that they at least consider a similar plan if nothing else than to save the $10,000 it would cost to hold an election for their 950 voters. Since they don't overtax, they don't keep a huge reserve. A massive expense would be made even worse by having to hold an election to raise taxes and taking the $10,000 hit. Guessing it would cost CS a ton more to host an election.

But 7.33% does seem very excessive to me.




Except the values go up 10% every year not to mention Ag land that gets developed. Wish I got a 10% raise every year
badbilly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
taxpreparer said:

Property should be taxed at the price it was purchased, and the elected official should set the appropriate rate needed for the budget. This puts it all on the elected officials and the voters. They would know the minimum tax base valuation (assuming no property changed hands, and could plan accordingly.

The appraisal district should only be used to asses new values when property changes hands due to inheritance, gifting. or foreclosure. Basically, anytime the property changes hands without going through a sale. There might have to be periodic adjustments for commercial properties owned by corporations, as they could theoretical be owned in perpetuity, without changing hands.

Currently, the appraisal district sets a value, property owners protest it is too high (even though they would not consider selling at that value,) and elected officials are spared having to make major rate changes. The governing bodies get more money and elected officials boast of not raising rates.


This exactly!
Page 1 of 1
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.