City Budget and Tax Rates

[council4_vaughan]

Fellow councilmembers,

We were divided at the last meeting as to the tax rate we should adopt. Half of us expressed interest in the rate of 0.519382 (what was needed to make the budget as proposed) and half of us were interested in the alternate proposal of 0.509382. The difference would result in a budget impact of approximately $200,000.

We have several ways to accomplish this, including:

1. Allocating a little less venue tax to the golf course (reducing the current venue tax funding from $1.175 million to $0.975 million) and increasing the amount for parks by the same amount. The golf course does not need the money this year as it has $3.5 million in reserves (per page 2 of the budget...well above the 6 month mark we set (approximately $2.1 million)). Keep in mind that another $1.8 million in venue tax will be coming every year that future councils can decide to give to the golf course. This method allows the golf course and general fund to spend everything they have asked for...No cuts.

2. Reducing the general fund budget by 1%. I have provided City staff with some low hanging fruit that I think they should adjust, but they can decide for themselves. It is important to understand that even this method is not a "cut". The general fund budget for 2025 presents an increase in general fund operating expenditures of $1.1 million over the 2024 budgeted level and $3.1 million over the 2023 actual level. This would not be a cut but a request to slow the growth.

3. Combination of the two

Below is a figure showing the actual general fund spending per the last 6 annual audits compared to the last two proposed budgets. One-time capital spending and transfers are moved to the bottom to reduce distorting factors.

We are presented with an opportunity to reduce our high tax rate with minimal impact on the City. Below is a comparison of the tax rates in the area. We continue to be the 6th highest rate and well above the average.

I urge my fellow councilmembers to consider adopting the proposed rate of 0.509382 in a step towards reducing the burden on our taxpayers and businesses. Several of us campaigned on reducing property taxes and this would seem an easy opportunity to do so.

 

[council5_bulman]

I feel very strongly that if you are a candidate and your website, flyers etc say you are going to lower taxes you should stick by that. Asking for a 1% decrease in the budget is not a lot but would help us get closer to cities around us and I believe encourage more business owners to set up shop here. I believe there are several options to reduce the tax rate with very minimal effect to the city. Just my two cents.

 

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers,
Previously I respectfully asked the Council to support a motion for staff preparation of a budget that included a four-tiered prioritization of needs for both line-item expenses and personnel requirements. The intent was clear that we should first ensure that our needs are met and that we live within our means.
Tier 1: Essential Services and personnel
Tier 2: All basic residential services without amenities and nonessential enterprise operations.
Tier 3: Expense and personnel cost for amenities and nonessential enterprise operations.
Tier 4: Expenses for nonessential external staff training and the significant needs foreseen within the next 5 years.
This motion did not receive a second.

I was disappointed at a prior Council meeting when the City Manager inferred that the proposed budget could not be cut by 1% without cutting essential services. I fail to understand how this can be factually true. Perhaps our City Manager can enlighten the Council on this point at our next Council meeting.
A comment was made by a fellow Councilmember to the effect that things just get more expensive, and we must buy now (paraphrased). I respect this opinion but call Councils’ attention to the Budget that shows both the expansion in programs and capital expenses and the latter could be better phased.
Finally, we must find the courage within the Council to relieve our tax-burdened residents by reallocation of the venue tax to the General Fund to better address infrastructure needs. The venue tax represents approximately $1.8M per year in sales tax revenue. If prior Councils had moved forward with the reallocation, ad valorem tax could have been reduced, everything in the proposed budget could have been funded, and the GC maintain a >$3M reserve! I consider the 0.509 rate prudent for this FY (would happily support less). I am committed to working with the Council to decrease the property tax rate to <0.500 by the next fiscal year (hoping <0.495)!

[Given Councilmember Vaughan's numbers above and if the staff proposed rate is approved, UC residents would pay approximately $401 per year more than Converse and $990 more per year than Selma for a house valued at $300K]. For those who have campaigned to reduce property taxes and those who were a lone voice on past Councils for this goal, please support a 1% reduction in the budget without sacrificing essential and basic services! May we be trusted stewards.

 

[council5_bulman]

Fellow Councilmembers,
Previously I respectfully asked the Council to support a motion for staff preparation of a budget that included a four-tiered prioritization of needs for both line-item expenses and personnel requirements. The intent was clear that we should first ensure that our needs are met and that we live within our means.
Tier 1: Essential Services and personnel
Tier 2: All basic residential services without amenities and nonessential enterprise operations.
Tier 3: Expense and personnel cost for amenities and nonessential enterprise operations.
Tier 4: Expenses for nonessential external staff training and the significant needs foreseen within the next 5 years.
This motion did not receive a second.

I was disappointed at a prior Council meeting when the City Manager inferred that the proposed budget could not be cut by 1% without cutting essential services. I fail to understand how this can be factually true. Perhaps our City Manager can enlighten the Council on this point at our next Council meeting.
A comment was made by a fellow Councilmember to the effect that things just get more expensive, and we must buy now (paraphrased). I respect this opinion but call Councils’ attention to the Budget that shows both the expansion in programs and capital expenses and the latter could be better phased.
Finally, we must find the courage within the Council to relieve our tax-burdened residents by reallocation of the venue tax to the General Fund to better address infrastructure needs. The venue tax represents approximately $1.8M per year in sales tax revenue. If prior Councils had moved forward with the reallocation, ad valorem tax could have been reduced, everything in the proposed budget could have been funded, and the GC maintain a >$3M reserve! I consider the 0.509 rate prudent for this FY (would happily support less). I am committed to working with the Council to decrease the property tax rate to <0.500 by the next fiscal year (hoping <0.495)!

[Given Councilmember Vaughan's numbers above and if the staff proposed rate is approved, UC residents would pay approximately $401 per year more than Converse and $990 more per year than Selma for a house valued at $300K]. For those who have campaigned to reduce property taxes and those who were a lone voice on past Councils for this goal, please support a 1% reduction in the budget without sacrificing essential and basic services! May we be trusted stewards.

Ideally I would LOVE a .49 cent tax rate as well. It just felt like .509 was more doable with the current council. .509 is a small decrease , but at least it’s a tax decrease and a small step in the right direction. -Ashton