Allowing one segment a freeze as to what they pay in property taxes is not a guarantee of any reduction in the overall amount of tax revenue demanded and collected by a city from property owners. Think of a tube of toothpaste. If you squeeze on one part of it, the paste is going to move, somewhere.
Regarding your other comments, I have no information on the hiring of illegal workers by contractors hired by the city. I do know of complaints and problems regarding workmanship of crews installing sidewalks and have contacted the city in the past with partial remedial responses resulting. Communication and language issues were pointed to as one of the causes for workmanship problems. If the city is hiring contractors whose crews are composed of illegal workers, this is a problem.I do think it was slight of hand that additional planned certificate of obligation bond debt was announced the Monday following the passage of the general bond package (voter approval to move forward with that other package) so if that is what you mean by “obscure their intentions,” I agree that it was a less than forthright move by the Council and City Management. I have also commented that there are open ended items in the bond and that it had excessive contingency amounts added to project estimates. Lack of sufficient information on a number of projects is a problem. You can read everything else I wrote below. I agree with the statement, "taking on additional debt in this manner at this time, in the amount proposed and under this packaging without sufficient controls and disclosures in place, would not be prudent."
I hope the City is able to secure low interest rates on its planned borrowing and refunding if and when it happens, that it is able to start and complete the needed projects well and within or under budget. If the City is successful to that extent, the tax payers should see not only desired projects completed, but a lower tax rate increase or a faster debt reduction (pay off). This last part is what I am skeptical of because of the practice of sweeping and lack of public tracking and public accounting for each project cost and the tendency of absorbing any increase in revenue coming into the city without reducing taxes or debt.
Because of a loose fashion of operating, the city is able to provide ad hoc funding to ad hoc projects that were never discussed (in the budget or bond) with or in the public, the public who approved the bond amounts for certain projects, not those projects. The general fund is treated much the same way. You might ask where $5 million came from or $380,000 came from, or an extra $65,000 annually promised, or $120,000 (that turns out not needed, but where is it assigned after), and so on, to pay for ad hoc items.
I respect the people who go out and lobby for good things for the city that they truly believe will make things better as long as they do not mislead people intentionally. I think our money would go a lot further and our city reputation not be damaged if better checks, balances, and transparency in city finances and adherence to (needed) city administrative standards and policies.
This includes online checkbook and credit card reporting, charter and compliance reveiw, ethics policy, and administrative policy, including publicly showing how the agenda is publicly set and reducing all the “offline” policy and decision making between the council and city manager in outside meetings, group phone calls, lunches, and "offline" meetings. These offline meetings also include the ones with select citizen groups, staff, and mayor (and or some council or not) where no minutes are reported or input are allowed by those impacted who happen to not be"invited" where decisions are fomented and "data" or "facts" established, sometimes using an approach that involves not legitimate "leading" so much as "misleading" to achieve a particular desired result.
Maggie May
