This Just In: Eight Council Members Tell Mary Suhm They Want a 4.91-Cent Tax Hike

By Robert Wilonsky Wed., Sep. 8 2010 at 3:19 PM

Categories: City Hall

Do not expect a repeat of this scene any time soon, at least when it comes to the FY2010-11 budget.

Moments ago I received from council member Angela Hunt's office a memo that follows, in which Hunt and seven of her colleagues (Delia Jasso, Vonciel Hill, Steve Salazar, Carolyn Davis, Pauline Medrano, Tennell Atkins and Dwaine Caraway) call for a significant tax hike -- 4.91 cents per $100 in valuation. The reason:

Reducing basic services and deferring essential city needs, in an attempt to balance the budget, is short sighted and ill-advised. Crumbling infrastructure, shuttered libraries, neglected parks, and vacant recreation centers create neither vibrant, healthy, sustainable neighborhoods nor a city in which businesses will invest. This approach both reduces the quality of life for our citizens and costs taxpayers substantially more in the long-run.

Without question, today's challenging economy requires reduced city spending, and we whole-heartedly agree that the city must tighten its belt. Even with our modest service restorations, this year's overall budget is less than last year's. Jobs have been eliminated and services have been reduced in every department. All city employees -- including our police officers and firefighters -- are taking salary decreases.

Despite these unfortunate, but necessary, cuts, taxpayers still deserve a budget that sustains our quality of life while ensuring that the city lives within its means. To balance these interests, we propose amending the City Manager's budget, to be funded by a tax rate increase of $0491. Although this rate adjustment will result in less property tax revenue than last year due to decreased property values, it will nonetheless allow the city to restore fundamental services.

The proposed restorations to services are contained within the memo on the other side. Still, though, why not the whole 4.93 cents? Tax Hike Memo

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

More About:

We had out-of-town visitors recently. Part of the drill was that our visitors had to get on the airline�s web page to reserve seats 24 hours before the flight. It got me wondering about the city of Dallas budget. What if the budget was like that? Funding items had to get boarding passes before the plane took off and was loaded in the same fashion that my friends were? Right now, it seems that libraries, parks, pools, rec centers, mosquito spraying all seemed to board the plane last on an over-booked flight. The airline (the city) says they won�t fit but with higher taxes we can squeeze them on board. What if the libraries, parks, pools, rec-centers, mosquito spraying got first boarding on the budget plane? What would we hear from the airline about finding room on other passengers and who would they be? They could be things like the interest payments and feasibility studies for the Trinity River toll road, the heliports for helicopters to take Super Bowl patrons to the new stadium, maybe a consultant for discovering that there really is sand in the levees as long suspected. It is all about how you load the budget/airplane. It seems to me that each budget year the libraries, parks, pools, rec centers, mosquito spraying are the last to board and do provide a better reason for higher taxes than $4 million for a white water kayak course, Super Bowl heliports or another suspension bridge would generate. In fact if the latter were the focus of higher taxes then I would imagine that many taxpayers would tell the airline (city council) to take a hike. Considering the vigor that the city has shown in their pet projects and the lengthy budget, on par with federal counterparts in document size, the airline/city has the advantage in the order in which the loading the budget is done with few if anyone who might be able to sift through and digest the flight manifest (budget project funding) to object. I have always liked Angela Hunt and thought that she would have made a good mayor. But if she votes for a tax hike (on top of the value the DCAD has upped my house (again) after last years reduction) I would not support her for that office.
I'm not thrilled with the tax increase, nor the way in which it came about (cutting services the citizens really care about as a means to galvanize support for a tax increase, while simultaneously funding a bunch of crap via bond issues--- thereby insuring that these programs can never be touched, unless one wants the City to default on its debt obligations, something with disastrous consequences). That being said, it is interesting to note that the lion's share of the spending will go to street maintenance, something which makes sense, as dollars supposedly "saved" by cutting back on street maintenance typically end up triggering much larger expenditures later on-- kind of like "saving" on automobile expense by cutting back on oil.
Thanks for this competitive edge! I'll add this to our economic development brochures. Btw, we kept our tax rate the same as last year $.6387. Love ya!
this is insanity. the city of dallas tax rate is already out of proportion high to other north texas communities. if you dont think this will affect new business coming to the city you are crazy. if you dont think this will affect your ability to sell your home you are crazy. i dont know of a singly person who would say the city of dallas is smartly run. why in the world would you give them more $ to waste. we get the government we deserve because we are so easily swayed by BS arguments like libraries and parks. why dont we demand those are funded and something else be cut to make up the difference with no tax increase?
'Cultural programs', $2.5mil. Almost to the penny what the library got. Which means, among others, the Junior Black Academy Dance Letters and Baja Band gets the same wad of our money it's gotten in prior years. And, the blue-haired little old ladies from the Park Cities are chuckling in their tea and crumpets, Dallas property owners are once again paying for their playhouse, the Meyerson. The Council is as irresponsible and untrustworthy as it's always been.
Dani P, Just because the senior dental plan is widely used doesn't mean the City should be footing the bill for it. Those types of health services, in my opinion, are NOT a City function. Couldn't the County or one of the hospitals pick up the tab instead?
Those who support increased taxes for limited use services, just reinforce how they lack data to support their position. Pools don't servie tens of thousands - consider the most recent briefing by Parks Dept on pool use throughout the city. Again, I will restate the obvious other than streets and public safety, the proposal offered by 8 councilmembers in support of a tax increase serve a limited number of citizens and therefore are not deserving of a tax increase in this economy. At the end of the day, it is not about restoring services, it is all about doing the "politically correct" thing. It is not leadership to seek more money. It is leadership to recognize the City cannot be all things to all people. Further, when the economy gets better, will you think these same council members will seek a tax cut, when they have more money to spend? I respect your right to disagree. I just happen to be opposed to any tax increase other than what might be needed to support streets and public safety.
I'll happily cover your $0.0493 per $100 if you promise you'll move to Frisco. BTW, it's really great how people like you think money for libraries is stealing. Please, please, please, please move to Frisco and get them to shut their parks and libraries down... please! Maybe we can raise taxes a little more an develop a douche-portation device directly from Lakewood to Frisco. That actually would get people flocking here! Imagine that! Oh... and if you think that's a bad idea... well, you know the rest...
"The economic climate is rough.' So have government take even more money out of peoples pockets, what a great idea. Btw, it's really great how people like you use government to steal money from your neighbors and then tell them to get the hell out if they don't like it, i'm sure that kind of attitude will have people flocking to Dallas.
Dude... We live in a major city, Dallas. The economic climate is rough. People are not spending enough. The city has made it's large cuts this year and last year. Hundreds of people have been laid off and city services have been cut... it's time for a tax hike. If you don't like it, spend more money or move to a smaller city/ town that has less responsibilities.
I rarely see as direct a consequence as the current quality of some Dallas roads. My family also laments the increasingly limited hours of the library two houses away. It does seem as though a "bond issue" is often the favorite maneuver to defer comeuppance for some must-have service, or construction frivolity. If we're discussing 'quality of life' in Dallas, a modest tax-hike for SPECIFIC uses is not something I would protest....but Dallas government doesn't have a sterling record when it comes to misrepresentation. I still remember a particular bond issue that promised a lot of tempting improvements to the Trinity River. (Turns out I should have 'read between the lines'). As for Leppert...he reminds me of George Bush. As my wife astutely phrased: "It's like dating a guy who is constantly looking over your shoulder at your sister".
Oh, i agree. People come from all over to see the graffiti covered port a potty that sits in our glorious park. They say the stench that permeates the entire block makes the trip worthwhile.
They are community-wide activities and programs that you are also welcome to take part in. You CHOOSE not to. If you opened your mind a little and went exploring, you might find that these programs/parks/pools/etc. are the very things that help make Dallas a great city full of culture, character, and charm. Instead, you choose to limit yourself, to not take advantage of the amenities available to you. Dallas is better for having these things, and to lose them would be a great travesty.
"No, Anonymous. We are not asking for you to pay for our leisure activities." Um, yes, you are. In fact, i'm surprised you're not asking for Netflix subscriptions, you expect people to give literally millions of their hard earned dollars to government so you can go swimming, an $18 a month Netflix subscription is peanuts. I'm sure Angela Hunt and her buddies on the council will include that in the next tax hike in a couple of years though, so you'll be good to go.
And in a couple of years the politicians and their lackeys will be back again demanding more money and promising gloom and doom if they don't get it, it's the same thing every time, pathetic.
No, Anonymous. We are not asking for you to pay for our leisure activities. The government is asking you to take responsibility and be a member of a functioning, democratic community...community being the operative word. Informed Citizen was perhaps wrong in lashing out at those who choose to belong to country clubs, etc - there's nothing wrong with that. But those people also have the choice to attend the same city parks and cultural centers that this tax increase would fund. Do you never go to the theatre or find entertainment at a place run by a non-profit organization? These are the places being affected by the proposed budget cuts. We all pay taxes to help fund these programs so that we ALL have the choice to go there, not just so we have somewhere to send people who can't afford country clubs and tennis courts.
@Anonymous: You consider port-a-pots, dental programs, cultural facilities and city pools to be programs aimed at narrowly-focused constituents? The city pools, port-a-pots and cultural facilities that are currently facing cuts are used by tens of thousands of people every year, and the senior dental program is also widely utilized. Just because there are a few items listed that don't immediately apply to you doesn't mean they're narrowly-focused. Perhaps you ought to go out and visit a cultural center or a public park and see firsthand what wonderful programs are in danger of being cut if this tax increase isn't approved.
"The services being cut (and hopefully now funded with this amendment) are what those of us who can't afford country club memberships and backyard pools and tennis courts count on for our leisure and entertainment." Wow, read that real carefully folks, because informed citizen can't pay for his/her own leisure and entertainment activities, everyone else has to piny up the dough to supply it for him/her. Do you want us to pay for your tickets to the movies and Six Flags too? After all, it's not your fault those evil people have more money than you is it? And they owe it to you to pay for your Netflix subscription don't they? Damn, just damn.
i am against raising taxes b/c all the poor people that want this don' live in preston hollow, don't own homes, don't pay taxes and basically are homeless rif raff looking for govt handouts. i have instructed tom to deny this tax increase and continue his trinity river folly and moving the homeless bums to lake highlands and oak cliff. i thought that the tolls from the new bridge to nowhere would cover the tax shortfall but the solar powered water taxis are a priority and must be paid for.
Nod nod wink wink, I'm thinking they were trying to put pressure on Elba, but she plays on Leppert's team.
This is nothing more than Angela Hunt making up to her "colleagues" after she submarined them on the Love Field Concessions fiasco. Politics is still alive and well in Dallas, that's for sure! Be careful, Angela.
I don't mind restoring funds to basic city services, but I certainly don't want this money going to programs the City has no business doing, like a certain favored senior citizen dental program.
Good move on Angela's part. She's showing the leadership that this city needs -- looking out for what's in the best interest of Dallas citizens. Leppert, on the other hand, is just looking out for himself and his Park Cities donors. @ Anonymous (7:47 pm), if you get your head out of the sand, you'll know that keeping kids busy (in rec centers and after-school programs) and keeping our city clean and mowed (as in parks and medians) is a huge deterrent to crime, a much better ROI in terms of overall public safety than police/incarceration. @Rubbercow, you are so right. The services being cut (and hopefully now funded with this amendment) are what those of us who can't afford country club memberships and backyard pools and tennis courts count on for our leisure and entertainment. Park Cities Mayor doesn't get it, does he?
I don't understand the thought process behind these 8 councilmembers, including my councilmember A. Hunt, assembling programs in which the proposed tax increase is supposed to retain. This is the height of insanity. If these programs were disfunctional to begin with, on top of being reduced in the current Fiscal Year, how do they believe throwing pennies at them, will somehow salvage programs other than to say, we will keep these poor programs we have, funded at current levels. These 8 councilmembers, including my councilmember, should look at radical surgery at removing programs that meet very limited audiences and using funds up to and including a possible tax increase to focus on public safety, roads and programs that reach a wide citizenery - instead of port a pots, dental programs, cultural facilities, pools, etc. Let's throw good money after bad in an effort to meet limited constituents demands, instead of the larger population needs.........if there was to be a tax increase, I would prefer all funds proposed being raised by this tax increase, be used for roads and public safety. At least you would see results from those efforts....... Are you listening to us council members? Especially, my council member A. Hunt.....? And, guess what, when the economy turns around, think of the new found money this tax increase will provide a future council filled with the likes of those proposing this tax increase. What wonderful programs will they have then to pile on to its citizens? This is not about salvaging programs listed it is all about sitting the stage for growth in revenues in the coming good years, to spend on more programs with narrowly focused constituents.
Hell James, all it takes is to refuse to consent to search of your vehicle. They did an non-consented search, making a deliberate mess, going into the very back of my wife's minivan, which for routine traffic stops was recently ruled by the Supreme Court to be unwarranted. You assert your civil rights, they resent the fuck out of it. And as you say, they WILL express their outrage to your face. Of course it would mean taking it to the Supreme Court of Texas all for no economic award to win a judgment--a $100,000 investment for a moral victory. You mention this is the stuff of China--you're wrong. We have more people in jail than China. Considering China has 4 times our population that means we have 5 times per capita the number of people in jail as does China.
Robert You should hear about me being before a judge because I was going to speak to the Dallas City Council about police pay last Wednesday. Look at the ajenda. Police also called me. They did not like the fact that I was going to speak. This is scarry stuff. Now I have to go to FBI and Department of Justice Civil Rights Division tomorrow. The chances that I make it there alive are not good. Seriously. I couldn't make this up. This is the stuff of China and Cuba. I can't believe that I would be threatened by civil servants who have guns as part of their work attire just because my subject was one that was not pleasing to them.
There is space on the letter for a ninth signature. I wonder who backed out? I smell another divide in the city council coming.
I wonder how much effort Leppert will put into kaiboshing the council majority's will. He is being thrown into pretty clear relief here as one who obstructs anything that is not on his own personal agenda. One more reason that he's <b>totally</b> cut out for a stint in the U.S. Senate.
The bond issues that Leppert continues to support have future tax raises in the small print.I didn't know that until the budget hearing and Councilman Adkins said the % of tax increase to pay off bond debt from some years ago and read the language contained in the bond ordinance.To say bonds all the time is simply putting off debt on another generation of Tax payers. Dallas and Texas Republicans talk about Washington but they've been doing it as long as I can remember.Laura Miller left a surplus.
So happy I voted for her I could cry. Parks, roads and libraries, basic city services.
A city can have all the glitter and gold that it wants. However, if it doesn't take care of the basic services (streets, libraries, parks, property maintenance), then the cesspool only gets bigger.
I would pay even more in taxes if the city would would fix roads and adequately enforce code. You know, those insignificant quality of life things that those of us not living in The Park Cities have to deal with...
Go ahead and raise taxes, hell, raise them a little higher than that if we can keep city services going. It's funny, all the teabaggers are all up and arms about taxes as some sort of abstract idea, I'm all for higher-taxes if it provides the services that this country needs. In fact, according to polling most Americans think taxes are fair as much as the teabaggers bitch about moan about being overtaxed. Keep the doors to the library open, the streets repaired and clean and make sure all Americans have access to affordable health care and environmentally friendly transportation and I'd be happy to pay more in income and property taxes.
"Actually, if you read the memo, the council members outlined EXACTLY where the money will be spent -- parks, libraries and streets." An outline is great, but is there anything that will actually hold them to spending it on the things in the outline? And once that money goes into the coffers, is it put aside specifically for the things in the outline and any money not needed saved for a rainy day? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no, and that the money needed for theses "essential services" will actually be much less than projected and the money vanishes into bureaucratic ledgers.
good for them!
@Scotts Merkin: <i>Otherwise, its just a money grab by the city and we may never know where it goes</i> Actually, if you read the memo, the council members outlined EXACTLY where the money will be spent -- parks, libraries and streets.
Its just straight math, You are correc though Amy. I just wanted to look at it as straight numbers, pretending that last yr and this year would both be valued the same that would be the difference
Scott, does that take into account the decrease (offset) of that $150K home being valued at a higher rate last year than this year? It could be even less than $74 if that house was valued at $175 last year.
Prediction: the Tea Party people, who've only recently taken up the torch on local taxing and debt issues, will not realize that Tom Leppert (their Republican champion at the horseshoe) has been dowsing the city's debt-bonfire with kerosine since he took office. Leppy is not "tax and spend;" he's "let the council flunkies tax while he spends." Where were these "limited gov't" drum bangers when Dallas voters were passing bond election after bond election and where were they when Ann Margolin and others DID NOT want to issue more debt this year and Tom Leppert and Mary Suhm were all for doing so, claiming it would be cheaper to borrow money and do construction in a down economy? DON'T LET LEPPERT PLAY THE ANTI-TAX CARD WHEN HE'S OUR BIG DEBT-MAKER/MONEY BORROWER/ BOND ISSUER DOWNTOWN!
So on a $150,000 dollar home its about $74 more, that would be acceptable as long as they actually keep or bring back services that were lost or were going to be lost. Otherwise, its just a money grab by the city and we may never know where it goes