Last login: Friday, October 5, 2012
Hi Dale,Yes that’s true, I have worked to lower the actual tax rate each year. Being only 1 of 7 members of city council who make the decision I realized it would be difficult if not impossible to convince 3 other council members to stay at the effective tax rate year after year. I believe I have been more productive using the incremental approach of trying to lower the actual rate when I was able to convince several others on council. The good news is I think we can expect to stay at the effective rate for the upcoming 12-13 budget. Perhaps with all the new growth in town in the coming years we can stay at the effective tax rate or even go lower than the effective rate as we did for the 10-11 budget year.
I disagree with your statement I look forward to the “tax and spend good times”. I do look forward to the growth and opportunity for our citizens. Hopefully the growth will translate into better services and lower taxes but we will wait and see. :^)
I don’t have the total figures for you Dale but I believe each year after multiple meetings/discussions I was able to support the end result which was to pass a balanced budget.
Thanks, Paul Polasek
Flag this comment
Mr. BSSpotter,I firmly disagree with you. I have never attempted to mislead anyone while serving in my position on city council. I am fully aware of the two parts of the equation that make up ad valorem tax revenue collected by the city. I feel you are attempting to spin my words into something else. I find your comments very disappointing.
Zero,The link below is to the “Governmental Funds” portion of the 11-12 city budget. Scroll down and take a look at pages 134 – 137. Everything is broken down there, including the CVB budget. Also please note the film festival project is not on the budget because it came later and the budget was amended to include it.
There will be more info available in the coming months as we begin the budget process for 12-13. Thanks for your interest!
Good morning mzmizer!I had to laugh when I saw your post. I had looked this info up already since it was on our agenda the other night. I found it on the council agenda from 1/3/12, Item F1. Here is a link to the agenda.http://www.ittybittyurl.com/e23
Museum of the Coastal Bend $26,300.00Quilt Guild of Greater Victoria, Inc. 2,180.00Victoria Community Theatre d/b/a Theatre Victoria 60,000.00Victoria Bach Festival Association, Inc. 11,700.00Victoria Ballet Theatre 31,000.00Victoria Regional Museum Association 24,000.00Victoria Symphony Society, Inc. 18,620.00
Total Fiscal Year11-12 Outside Agency Funding $173,800.00
Hope this helps!
regarding the properties sudden rise in value. I would very much like to tell you about it but I am prevented from discussing it because of the contested case hearing. Please ask me again after the hearing is settled.
If memory serves the cost of the convention center study was about 30k.
Mr. Williams,Perhaps we are discussing two different time frames here? I am not sure. I have not had time to go back and read minutes from 2009. I suppose the minutes reflect the city had an interest in the site because we did. I am not sure what the problem is there.
As I mentioned in my earlier post the council was given and did learn more detail about mitigating any potential negative effects the plant may cause, this made the current property more viable from a cost benefit stand point.
The concerned citizens group has caused us to expend more resources due to their refusal to mediate, I do not have a problem with their refusal to mediate that is their right. Mediation would have cost less, that is a fact, I sincerely wish we could have sat down worked this out. On a side note I personally contacted the convent twice within the last 2 years and asked if I could meet with them and help answer any questions they might have. They refused me both times.
I suppose we will not agree on any aspect of this project. There is not “gotcha” to be found here Mr. Williams. Most of the council is simply just trying to find a way to provide the public with an important piece of infrastructure at the most economical method. I am sorry if you do not see it that way.
Hi Dale,I do not believe I am punishing the city residents, I am sorry you feel that way. I am listening to all the facts and trying to get the most economical solution in place. The Water department has its own enterprise fund. The fund is used to support every aspect of the department, including all aspects of construction of the proposed plant. Attempting to get one department to pay part of the expenses of another makes no sense to me, It’s not sound financial planning or reporting.
My loyalty is not to the municipality, my loyalty is to the citizens I serve. As a business owner I can tell you with upmost certainty my federal tax obligation is astronomical compared to the city taxes I pay, perhaps you have those two confused.
Mr. Williams,When the council initially discussed a location for the proposed plant site the city had completed the initial treatment plant assessment only. The assessment included supporting information such as whether or not we should expand the current site, when construction should begin and other general details. There were a couple of potential sites discussed but no final cost estimates were compared between sites. During our very preliminary discussions about potential sites of course we were concerned about the neighbors and any potential negative effect the plant may have. We made no decisions about pursuing any site at that time.
As time passed we were provided with much more detailed information about the proposed plant. After viewing cost estimates it became clear the current site was the most cost effective. Additionally we learned the new plant would include more modern features that would mitigate any bad odors. For example we would completely enclose the headworks, also we would be able use a treatment method that reduced odors. The proposed site also is large enough to have a large buffer between the plant and the neighbors. The site is just over ½ mile from the convent and the school located downtown. We also plan to make aesthetic improvements so the plant site will not be visible to any of the neighbors.
Speaking for myself only I would have nothing to gain by “political posturing”. The council has discussed these issues countless times over the last 6 years. My only goal has been to ensure current and future citizens have a reliable waste water treatment system to serve their needs far into the future. Please note I am not speaking for Mr. Halepaska here, only myself.
Ahab,Yes we do utilize outside consultants. The city often uses engineers, attorneys and other experts in their fields to assist with implementing a program or advising on the construction of a project. In my opinion It saves money for the city by ensuring fewer mistakes and providing quicker results. For example, the engineering firm who is assisting with the design of the proposed wastewater plant has assisted with the construction of over 40 similar facilities. They know what they are doing and will help make sure we do it right the first time. I suppose we could grow our local government and hire additional engineers and attorneys to work for the city, but often the workflow is uneven and there would be times when there services would not be needed, that would be wasteful in my opinion.Regarding the student from UHV. There was no connection between his legal troubles and his participation at the city council meeting, coincidence, yes absolutely. I am sorry you feel the city is not citizen friendly, I can’t really comment on the Mayors expressions, perhaps you should give him a call and visit with him.
Regarding your comments, are you only referring to the topic of the proposed waste water treatment plant? If not can you give specific examples? I would be interested to know, perhaps it would generate a good discussion here.