While I am sure that all of these projects are worthwhile, none is owned or controlled by the citizens of Hays County, you know, the folks putting up all the money. If we buy something, we should own it
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or to mlmoden@texas-skies.com
By Merle Moden
On May 12, 2007 Hays County voters approved a $30 million parks bond proposition. The ballot language for this proposition was “THE ISSUANCE OF $30,000,000 OF HAYS COUNTY TAX BONDS FOR PARKS, NATURAL AREAS, OPEN SPACE, AND RELATED PROJECTS, AND THE PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY, AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND THE LEVYING OF A TAX IN PAYMENT THEREOF," and was approved by the Hays County Commissioners’ Court on March 12, 2007.The Hays County Commissioners’ Court appointed a group of citizens – the Citizens Parks Advisory Team – to recommend projects for funding out of the proceeds of the sales of the $30 million in tax bonds. The Citizens Parks Advisory Team and the Hays County Commissioners’ Court proceeded to allocate the parks bond proceeds to several projects sponsored by an individual, nonprofit corporations, and municipal corporations, and no allocations were made for new county-owned parks, natural areas, open space, etc.
When I voted for the parks bond proposition, I thought that parks, natural areas, open space, etc. meant county-owned and controlled parks, natural areas, open space, etc. I did not know that “parks” meant parks for the City of Buda, the City of Dripping Springs, the City of Kyle, the City of San Marcos, and the City of Wimberley; that “related projects” meant athletic facilities for the Village of San Marcos, the Gary Sports Complex, the North Hays Optimist Foundation Sports Complex, and the Dripping Springs Youth Sports Association; that “natural areas” meant funding for land at Jacob’s Well for the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association; and, that “preservation of water quality, aquifer recharge areas, and wildlife habitat” meant a conservation easement for the individual who owns Dahlstrom Ranch.
While I am sure that all of these projects are worthwhile, none is owned or controlled by the citizens of Hays County, you know, the folks putting up all the money. If we buy something, we should own it. Had I known the uses to which the bond proceeds were to be put, I would not have voted in favor of these bonds, notwithstanding the fact that I am a member of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association and support the efforts to preserve Jacob’s Well, and I contribute to and support the development of the Blue Hole Regional Park in the City of Wimberley.
$21.4 million spent and not one square inch is new county park land
As of January 23, 2009, the Citizens Parks Advisory Team and the Hays County Commissioners’ Court have allocated $21,430,249 (71.4%) of the $30 million, but have not committed funds to purchase one square inch of new county park land. It is difficult to understand how one can have a new county park without new county park land. However, $19,845,336 have been allocated to these non county-owned and controlled projects:
– $8,629,000 for various city parks in Hays County
– $775,000 for the City of Buda, Stagecoach Park
– $775,000 for the City of Dripping Springs, Harrison Park
– $2,479,000 for the City of Kyle, Northeast Regional Park
– $2,600,000 for the City of San Marcos, combined park projects
– $2,000,000 for the City of Wimberley, Blue Hole Regional Park
– $2,966,336 for various nonprofit corporations and the City of San Marcos for athletic facilities, including $500,000 for the Gary Sports Complex which lies entirely in Caldwell County, but within the city limits of San Marcos (I’m sure the Caldwell County Commissioners’ Court is real tickled by Hays County taxpayers paying for a Caldwell County sports complex.)
– $3,000,000 for the nonprofit corporation, Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, for purchase of land adjacent to Jacob’s Well, and
– $5,250,000 for the individual who owns Dahlstrom Ranch.
– $4,900,000 for a conservation easement (whatever that is) which represents about 49.5% of the $9,900,000 total asking price for this easement
– $500,000 for Phase 1 Public Access Park (whatever that is) consisting of about 375 acres upon which the public will be allowed to tread, at some unknown time in the future, out of a total of 2,252 acres
Out of the original $30 million, only $1,311,500 has been allocated for a county-owned and controlled park, and that was for improvements to an existing county park – Five Mile Dam Park. After subtracting an allocation of $273,413 for “Other Commitments," there remains $8,569,751 of unallocated parks bond proceeds.
This strange allocation process took a bizarre twist when the Hays County Commissioners’ Court passed a motion (5 for and 0 against) on December 4, 2007 “to adopt a policy which states Hays County Commissioners Court interest and intention to expand our parks program to include ownership as the court believes is in the interest of the citizens of Hays County and is deemed feasible by the court.”
As of the date of this statement of policy, only one project had been allocated any funds – the county park improvements to Five Mile Dam Park – which were approved on August 14, 2007 for an amount of $826,500 (an additional $485,000 was allocated on August 12, 2008). It appears that this statement of policy by the Hays County Commissioners’ Court had no force and effect, since no subsequent allocations have been made for new county-owned parks, naturals areas, open spaces, etc.
Taxpayers get the "bait and switch," and a troublesome constitutional question looms largeIf the Hays County Commissioners’ Court only decided on December 4, 2007 that it had “interest and intention to expand our parks program to include ownership," what were its intentions when it adopted the ballot language on March 12, 2007? If their intent on March 12, 2007 was to allocate these funds to individuals, nonprofit corporations, and municipal corporations, then why was that not spelled out on the ballot? Had I known of their true intentions, I would have opposed these bonds. I believe this was a classic “bait and switch.”
Another troubling aspect of the allocations of parks bond proceeds to an individual, nonprofit corporations, and municipal corporations is that Article 3, Section 52 (a) of the Texas Constitution expressly forbids such allocations. This provision states that “(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever . . .”
There is no exception for any of the items listed in the bond proposition. The allocations of parks bond proceeds to this individual, these nonprofit corporations, and these municipal corporations are clearly unconstitutional. Hays County legal staff would not address the question of the constitutionality of these allocations. They preferred to obfuscate the issue by quoting various and sundry statutory provisions and Attorney General opinions which are all irrelevant to the question of constitutionality. The Texas Legislature or the Texas Attorney General cannot grant what the Texas Constitution forbids.
The oath of office in Article 16, Sec. 1 of the Texas Constitution requires, among other things, that each County Commissioner “ . . . will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State . . .” Since the Hays County Commissioners had no qualms in engaging in a “bait and switch” regarding their true intentions for the use of the parks bond proceeds, little wonder that they would violate their oaths of office by ignoring the prohibitions in Article 3, Section 52 (a) of the Texas Constitution.
Merle L. Moden is a retired economist. He and his wife, Joy, moved to the Wimberley area from Austin in 1997. He served on the Austin Electric Utility Commission for several years, chaired a citizen’s committee on City of Austin Water and Wastewater cost of service, served on the Travis Central Appraisal District Board of Review, and was president of two neighborhood associations in Austin.
8 comments:
Hays County has some of the most incompetent legal support that I've ever seen. It doesn't make any difference if it is the County Attorney or the District Attorney. Each is in the tank for special interests. They could be in their positions for 100 years and you would never (I repeat, never) see or hear either one of them stand up for the citizenry. You can, however, bet your life that they will stand up for the likes of Commissoner Carwash and Commissioner Bargain (that's Bargain, as in cheap at any price as far as developers are converned).
Mr. Moden:
I would offer the following: the County when discussing this second of two park bond issues has consistently approved the use of the funds to "leverage" the amount of parkland in the County that is PUBLIC property and is available to the use of the PUBLIC (whether residents of Hays County or Travis County or a tourist from another country). The idea is that the use of leveraging funds allowed for entities other than the County to have to pay to maintain these parks with THEIR tax dollars, and not the County's general taxes, thus stretching the amount of parkland that existed in the 1990s (Five Mile Dam Park being the ONLY County park, and then only serving the eastern portion of the County). Now with the assistance of the County other smaller communities have been able to purchase land that are now set aside from potential development, thus contributing to water quality and open space. However, again, the idea was through leveraging funds, the County's money for say Harrison Park in Dripping Springs meant that the City of Dripping Springs had to come up with the other $775,000, meaning that the cost of the park as a whole was $1.5 million - of which the taxpayers of the ENTIRE County (including the tax payers in Dripping Springs) helped foot half the bill. Of course, with previous park purchases, Dripping Springs taxpayers helped to foot the bill for no slice of the park fund in the first vote at all - but now has at least been given the opportunity to purchase a 64 acre park for the general public in Northern Hays County. Unlike Austin, who likes to use taxpayer money to set aside land that no one can use except special friends of the environmental community, the parkland funds were set aside for the enjoyment of the open space by the general public.
wandering pilgrim, you provide a good rationalization of leveraging county dollars to improve city parks with public access, but you skip around mr. moden's point that not a dollar of the investments has purchased a single piece of new "county" parkland. the city parks mentioned are used mostly by the locals. I am sure that a portion of the $21.4 million spent could have gone into acquiring & developing one or two brand new parks in other areas of the county, like west along the Blanco. it seems like the leveraging was done to please the most number of voters in the population centers. i'd like to know why our commissioners have disbursed this money in apparent violation of our state constitution.
Anonymous:
Sorry for not responding to Mr. Moden's point of the "taxpayers" of Hays County "owning" more parkland, or the lack of the creation of new "County" parkland. To clarify - again, the "taxpayers" of Hays County do own new parks. Remember taxpayers in Hays County include those who live in the municipalities in the County. For years the residents of Dripping Springs supported the only County park that did not serve them at all, but only those residents on the east side of the County (Five Mile Dam Park). They owned it, but gained no benefit from it unless they traveled all the way over to Kyle to use it. In the same way, with the use of bond money to support the leveraging of the purchasing of parkland in partnership with municipalities, the County has taken a limited amount of money (taxpayer money) and have helped to buy more land than they could have purchased alone with the same money. Regardless of whether it is inside of a municipality's boundaries, the County is still a stakeholder in the ownership; and thus the taxpayers of Hays County (including the ones who live in the cities) own together parkland that is available for anyone and everyone, and is spread out more equitably and geographically.
Now as to your question regarding the assumed "unconstitutional" use of taxpayer bond money to make these deals happen. If Mr. Moden quoted the statute properly, it did not say that counties could not help partner with municipalities in the purchase of parkland. The statute stated that bond money could not be given to "corporations, individuals or associations". Remember reading the first part of the same sentence? It said that "cities, counties, towns, or other political subdivisions of the State..." could not "lend its credit, or grant public money" to "corporations, individuals, or associations". Think about the difference between these organizations.
When the County partnered with different CITIES (Buda, Kyle, Wimberley, Dripping Springs) the County was partnering with ANOTHER SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE (sorry for the caps, no way to italicize), NOT a CORPORATION, INDIVIDUAL, OR ASSOCIATION. It did not violate the State law or constitution by working with other political subdivisions of the State. There were obviously some private organizations who were also donating time and money to the purchase and improvement of the parks being purchased (I believe) but the actual ownership of the same is a political subdivision of the State (namely a city). Now it is a curious question that is posted that the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association was allowed to receive $3,000,000 of taxpayer money since that would be a violation of the quoted statute or constitutional provision since the WVWA is an "ASSOCIATION". Now THAT deserves some investigation. Who owns that land that was purchased? The County or the WVWA? If the WVWA owns it, then there are crimes having been committed; the same cannot be said of the partnering with cities because counties and cities are cousins under the umbrella of the State Constitution. These partnerships are not apparently banned based on the statute or constitutional provision stated. The obvious intent of the statute or constitutional provision is to prevent the public political subdivision (county or city) from giving their money to a private entity (association, corporation or individual). Monies partnered up from the County to the Cities are still legitimate due to the idea that they are both PUBLIC.
As for Mr. Moden's comments that there was a bait and switch, the original bond issue in the early or late 90's was used to do the same thing that the second bond issue has done. If he read his paper, or stayed even slightly in tune with what is going on he wouldn't have missed the intent. There was no hidden agenda, only vote apathy and ignorance of the issues. (as my dad used to say - the problem with America is that voters - the general public - "don't know and don't give a sh*t". Nothing personal against Mr. Moden, but it sounds like sour grapes when the vote happens and the issues are discussed and no one shows up to talk about it, they go vote, and then hate what they voted for, when if they were to have taken the time to investigate what they were voting for, they may have voted differently. (Sort of like the recent Democratic rush to push the stimulus bill through Congress without giving anyone time to read that mess.)
Anyway, sorry for the long diatribe, but glad for the opportunity to share.
Blessings ~
Pilgrim, you write with great fervor attempting to defend the commissioners court's leveraging strategy. I'm guessing that 30% to 40% of our population resides outside of the municipalities that have benefited handsomely from the county's subsidies to city parks. I believe the point here is ownership not partnership, and expanding the park system to include something new for taxpayers in unincorporated areas. As it is, we rural types are having to prop up the cities' transportation network via the $200 million road bond! Give me a break. You also forgot to mention the court-approved (another constitutionally questionable) subsidy to the sports complex in San Marcos, which I believe is managed/operated by non-profit policeman's organization. What's up with that? I suggest commissioners take a very careful look at how they expend the $8 million remaining in the park kitty. I imagine he rural folks are gonna be pretty upset once they start catching on the real effects and intents of this game of leveraging.
Pilgrim--
Your writing style is so familiar, and you seem to have a lot of background information. Maybe knowing how you obtained it would help us understand your point of view.
Are you Jon Thompson, Development Coordinator of the City of Dripping Springs and former Subdivision Coordinator for Hays County?
If you are, then that might explain some of your insights. If you're not, well, that's okay, too!
Mr. Moden....
I live in Hays County and currently reside in San Marcos. I pay County taxes just like you do (I assume). Those parks are for me and family as well. If citizen's of the incorporated areas of Hays County did not also pay County taxes, you might have an argument. However that is not the case and you are way off base.
I can not speak with any knowledge about the projects you mention. I do know the Village sports project in San Marcos will benefit thousands of childrens over the years and the County should be proud to be part of this project. That is money well spent.
You are right on the button! Step right up and get a prize Mike...Are you "anonymous?"
What are my insights? Having lived in Hays County for the last 21 years is my first insight perspective. Another is that as the post right behind (or before) you said, taxpayers include those who live in the City as well. However, that perspective does not include me since I live in the rural part of the County. I think in more broad terms in the sense of fair representation and use of tax dollars. The argument of not using "rural" taxpayer dollars for the use of partnering with city taxpayers, even though these are public parks open to all and are more conveniently located for ALL County residents, and the County doesn't have the responsibility of MAINTAINING these parks, I think that the idea was excellent. Aside from that neither job that I have had at the County or the City involves parks - I do development review (and now with the City building permits and GIS). My involvement with and perspective on parks is only as a taxpayer, and as one who has PAID ATTENTION to the arguments of both sides.
As a way of closing the argument - the idea of sharing tax dollars for projects that you may or may not agree with is entirely consistent with the public school system's taxing policy (tax all property owners - whether or not they have kids for the benefit of all - in other words, an educated citizenry is a productive citizenry, unless one political party and their affiliates so load down the curriculum with liberal nonsense that it is no longer about reading and writing and arithmetic, but about touchy-feely socialism), and federal "stimulus" programs that go to fix up Presidential libraries in certain states, but not all. Same program and theory behind the parks and open space program here in Hays County - the opportunity to leverage the available monies for parkland to use them to better the County's citizens chances for obtaining and acquiring open space and parkland that would otherwise be unavailable if the County tried to buy it all by itself.
Now Mike, give us YOUR perspective...
Post a Comment