Thursday, September 17, 2009
No cuts to speak of, commissioners pass final budget and a hike in the tax rate
One of the jewels gleaned from yesterday's budget discussions was that we taxpayers can expect another tax increase in the fiscal 2011 budget of about the same amount
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
By Bob Ochoa
RoundUp Editor
Hays County Commissioners Court adopted a fiscal year 2010 county budget late yesterday afternoon, totaling just short of $100 million, and voted to pass along to the taxpayers a 1.42-cent increase in the property tax rate.
The increase will raise the current rate of 45.5 cents to 46.92 cents on the hundred.
The vote was 4 to 1, with Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley the only hold out. Funny thing about it was Conley supported most, if not all, of the expenditures in the budget but decided – for the record of course – to vote against the budget package. Conley made a 180 flip-flop from his vote of Aug. 19 when he supported the then "declared" tax rate increase of the same amount. It's what we've come to expect from politicians who engage in CYA to maintain some semblance of credibility with their base of supporters. "I voted no after I voted yes."
County Judge Liz Sumter said commissioners, during at least seven hours of discussion, "found no place to cut. The budget stayed exactly the same (with a few added expenditures for the Sheriff's Department, and fire and EMS dispatching resources)."
The RoundUp was present for the morning portion of the budget session.
Sheriff's deputies received a 4% pay raise, county elected officials and employees received no pay raises in the new budget, and an expensive employee bonus payment was put off indefinitely, or until the economy starts turning around for the better.
Sumter noted that Conley "voted for all the expenses . . . the only specific real cut he had was to take a half-cent off the government center." That idea went nowhere.
Commissioners have had a sort of gentleman's agreement to establish a savings account for debt servicing that will be incurred by the planning and construction of a large new county government center in San Marcos. Critics of lavish government spending are already referring to it as the Hays County Taj Mahal. It may or may not be needed – it depends on who you talk to – but you've got to wonder about commissioners' priorities in these difficult economic times.
One could say that by his "No" vote on the final budget Wednesday, Mr. Conley reneged on the government center agreement, and he reneged as well on the unanimous agreement reached in the Aug. 19 vote to pay for the debt being incurred by the the 2008, $207 million Road Bond. Conley, we will all recall, was one of the road bond's head cheerleaders.
Here's how Conley explains his vote: "We needed to cut the budget by a little over a million and half dollars in order to not have a tax rate increase on the citizens of our community. I proposed many different ways that we could get there. At the end of the day the court didn't want to do that. I told my colleagues yesterday that I don't necessarily believe what they passed was irresponsible. I just think we have different philosophies. I made all kinds of public comments and proposals and they just weren't accepted by my colleagues."
In a previous budget workshop, Conley reportedly proposed cutting $25,000 from the county's $100,000 supporting grant to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. He lost that bid, too, once again showing his disregard for the important work being accomplished by the district which in fact has no decent alternative sources of funding. The cut would not have affected the tax rate, in any event. Conley was nonspecific when he said there are other water conservation projects that could use the money. We wonder what constituency Mr. Conley is representing when he advocates cuts in funding that supports our groundwater conservation district.
One of the jewels gleaned from yesterday's budget discussions was that we taxpayers can expect another tax increase in the fiscal 2011 budget of about the same amount. That would be back-to-back tax rate increases. We'll check the records to see if that has ever occurred before.
Judge Sumter was not exactly elated when asked the question, but nonetheless explained: "Next year we have projected that, yes, our indebtedness will be an additional 3 cents on debt service. It is what we have projected out for 20 years if we continue to borrow to make these roads and parks. For 2011 it would be 3 cents. New growth (revenues) would take up some of that, so it will probably be about a penny and a half."
We'll try to get back with more details on where the near $100 million in our 2010 county budget and hard-earned tax money is being spent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
This is outrageous. With unemployment and home foreclosures at a record high these irresponsible commissioners could not find anything to cut?
How about their salaries? How about placing a hold on salary increases throughout the county?
There are many ways the budget could be reduced.
I don't care what anyone says, we need to get rid of these varmints and let some other people try to lead this county into the light of the 21st Century.
These commissioners can NOT do it and getting rid of all of them in the next several elections will send a clear message.
Throw 'em all out except Conley.
Conley's the first who should go, followed by Barton. Two peas in a pod, representing the special interests first and then throwing the citizens a bone or two for appeasement, with strings. The two are always working behind the scenes, never openly informing their constituents what they're up to until we read about it in the newspaper or here in the Roundup. If we're going to throw 'em all out, there should be no exceptions, including, especially, Conley. He's a bully and casts off an air of incredible dishonesty. Not a humble bone in his political body.
Anonymous, I'm curious. Why do you want to keep Conley?
If you have some allegiance or have a business or personal relationship with him, I can understand that.
However, Conley is two-faced.
He opted to approve the increases when developing the budget, but then voted against them to try to "show" people, "Well, I voted against the taxes and increased budget." even though he wants them and pushed for them.
ALL commissioners must be voted-out.
Until then, they should be voters should demand they all sign a contract that they will work together more to act on and resolve those issues urgent to residents.
We do need more responsible, lighter spending commissioners.
Conley voters see a light at the end of the tunnel and Conley tells them it's better times ahead...then the train runs over the voters. You'd think they learn not to believe Conley---but he tells them what they want to hear.
At the end of the day, though, who was the ONLY one not to vote for a budget that raises our taxes? Conley.
Except for that, I don't care about Conley one way or the other. No personal relationship, no business, no nothin'.
It's much simpler than that: I'll vote AGAINST every politician that raises our taxes--and FOR every politician who votes against tax increases--until our taxes are reasonable. Period.
Maybe eventually, enough people will do the same to where the politicians finally "get it."
Anonymous #1
Tell me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Conley push for the Mega Road Bonds that necessitated the Tax increase? My memory is not as good as it used to be but hat’s the way I remember it. Still I agree, vote ‘em all out no matter how long that takes, no promotions to Judge or and re-elections, period.
To the Anonymous who wants to keep Conley:
You have been snowed by Conley as have so many others in the county.
Conley works hard to get the money from taxpayers but tries to cover it up by certain actions like voting against the tax increase because he knew all the other commissioners would vote for it.
He is a slick guy that way and has learned that he can fool the residents with these tactics. He fooled you that way.
Try to see Conley for what he is and NOT for what he wants you to believe.
Look at ALL Conley's behavior and actions and NOT those he just wants you to see.
Then vote him our in next year's election because he doesn't deserve to be one of our leaders.
Still, no one has answered exactly why residents continue to vote for these lackluster and wealthy special interest politicians.
Why do they continue to vote for them when it is clear our taxes continue to rise but we get so little in return?
FYI - Conley isn't up for reelection until 2012.
Eye on Hays County: The proof is in the vote.
Anonymous #1.
The proof about Conley is NOT in the vote. It is in his total actions regarding the vote.
Anonymous #1:
Either you have been fooled by Conley, are related to Conley, ARE Conley or are one of his special interests.
Nice try though. .)
None of the above. Just stationed overseas, and watching via remote who--at the end of the day--votes to raise our taxes, and who doesn't.
Anonymous #1
Well, while I respect and applaud you being stationed overseas, you are not seeing the whole political ball game here.
You are seeing what Conley wants you and others to see, a.k.a., what you call the end result.
The end result really is.... If you push for certain legislation, get everyone on board to vote for it, know that it will pass and then reverse yourself by voting against what you promoted you are a con-man. And that's what Conley is.
I won't argue further with you.
When Commissioner Conley votes FOR tax busting projects time and time again ($172 million road bond, $207 million road bond, a $19.5 million citizen-proof slush bond, $30 million parks give away bond, $90 million new county government center, increased county operating budgets, etc) and then votes NO for the tax increase necessary to pay for his tax busting votes---what's a thinking person to believe? How Commissioner Conley votes for tax busting projects---or how Commissioner Conley let's the other four court members pass the tax increase so Commissioner Conley can boast in his election campaigns that, "I voted against increasing your taxes"? Just how bright do you have to be to see through that political hypocrisy---if you are seeking honest, competent government. Being stationed overseas (I assume in the military) doesn't mean you can't exercise s degree of logic. Or has the training to obey orders numbed your common sense in civil matters? No one knows or questions your reason for serving in the military---patriotism, financial needs, peer pressure, or any other reason, but one thing is clear to me---you are more apt to believe what those in authority say, rather than what they do. I don't care if Commissioner Conley were your brother---his actions speak much louder than his sneaky and often false words. Stay safe and look out for your buddies.
I have never in my life, until now, ever considered the slogan "toss all the incumbants out", to be an intelligent response to bad political actions.
I was a voter who voted for the "reform candidates"- Sumter and Ford.
I am hoping some intelligent, progressive, honest, fiscally conservative candidates- from either party- I don't care which party- step up to oppose these two.
The road bonds, the open space bond; the fact that Hays County residents are so unhappy with County government, makes me wish some honest "what would I do if I were in their shoes" candidates step up to the plate. Now.
Gosh, O'Dell, that's quite a statement. Slavishly characterizing America's military as a bunch of illogical dupes, common sense numbed by training to obey orders, and blindly following authority regardless of where it leads or from whence it derives.
Pretty blistering attack on America's military folks, just because they happen to express an opinion that you don't agree with.
Anybody else find O'Dell's condescending view of America's deployed military way over the top?
By the way, O'Dell: I'm not military. But I've served with them all over the world, including in the field in Afghanistan, and I have a while lot more respect for them and their opinions than I do for you and yours.
Anonymous #1
That's a bit much, Charles. Regardless of your varied opinions, I think an apology is due this man and our military men and women.
Don't you?
On this one you seem to be letting your emotions cloud your thinking and rule your writing.
I hope that wasn't really O'Dell commenting. Perhaps it was one of his antagonists using his name?
If not...
Dr. O'Dell, were you in the military --- ever?
I am a Veteran.
I find it interesting that for a bright guy you can be amazingly myopic.
When in the military we follow orders, but we also use our heads to consider all the "plays".
You may want to rethink that comment of yours. It's bigoted.
I mean, I don't say that all PH.D.'s are all eggheads and not reality-based, do I?
Some of you folks really do get off topic. The report says Conley supported most of the expenses in the budget, supported the tax rate increase first, then voted no on the budget. That doesn't sound to me like honest representation. Looks to me like he wants to take credit for doling out the money, then tell is political supporters he voted against a tax increase. A mark of a crafty politician, but a person of poor character, from this view. It would be informative to see what realistic budget cuts he proposed.
My response was confined to a single poster, and subsequent posters attempting to characterize my comments to that one poster as a blanket comment on those who serve in the military is a classic misdirection tactic. The implication that all who now serve or who have served in the military are of one mind is absurd. Anyone who fails to distinguish between what Commissioner Conley says and what Commissioner Conley does is either ill informed, or values politics over good government. To suggest, as my detractors do, that those who serve in the military are above having their civic shortcomings or logic questioned, demonstrates the detractors disregard for good governance. And yes, I served and received an honorable discharge from the US Navy, as if that were a precondition for responding to the poster who implied that he was in the military. The purpose of the detractors was to turn the discussion away from Commissioner Conley's hypocrisy.
Charles,
Thanks for your service in our country's defense and for your honorable service and receipt of the same discharge as millions of others before you.
If nothing else earns you the right to speak your piece, this certainly does. (Granted all citizens have the right to voice their opinion - right or wrong.)
I seldom agree with you, but salute you for your service to your country in a way that a great many who criticize never will, but that is also their privilege that many of us who served fought and died to protect that freedom to speak freely.
Semper fidelis,
Fellow DS Veteran
Post a Comment