Prepared Comments by Ron C. West for the NRH Tax Hearing - 8/26/02

From your "Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase" you lead with an advertisement that I quote " The City Council and management of the City of North Richland Hills are proud of the progress we have made while demonstrating sound financial management of our Citizens' tax dollars." This would have read more correctly if it stated " management of the EVER INCREASING Citizens' TAX dollars."

You proudly announce that you have "maintained the rate of $.57 per $100 valuation for 10 CONSECUTIVE YEARS! Your ad fails to point out that just since 1998, the Property Taxes you have collected have gone up approximately 45%. Similar increases were realized in years prior to 1998. In fact, you have raised taxes every year for the past 10 years.

For the upcoming year, your adoption of the $.57 rate raises approximately $549,000 more than the published effective rate would raise. The Effective Rate, itself, would yield $510,000 more property tax revenue to you for 2003 than this year. The Effective Rate is $.549631 per $100 valuation but apparently you feel you cannot live on that. There appears to be no consideration to those in our City on fixed incomes. Even with your raising the senior exemption by $1,000 - many of our senior citizens will be faced with very large tax increases due to the ever increasing valuations.

Sound financial management in my book would be a review of your $79 Million Plus Budget for 2003 with an effort to trim back new expenditures. It is NEW expenditures that you want to spend that need to be trimmed since the Effective rate yields over $500,000 in new taxes anyway.

Consider that:

• City Council Expenses have increased by 50.64% since 1998! Is that sound management?
• Equipment Expenses have increased by 58.84% since 1998! Population and services certainly haven't increased by 58+%!
• Crime Control Uniformed Patrol expense has increased by 58.82% since 1998! Unfortunately, for the citizens of our city, the crime that is controlled is primarily traffic citations because of the revenue yield. I wonder at what point we stop effectively policing and become a "police state city"? I also ask myself if a city the size of NRH actually needs a SWAT team - or could this be contracted out as necessary with the Tarrant County Sheriff's Dept.?
• We truly ought to be rid of crime because Crime Control Tech Services has increased by 1830.6% since 1998. I wonder what new gadgets are in the budget for next year since there appears to be no limits on these expenditures.

I am encouraging you to take another look at your budget for 2003. I am NOT advocating Cutting Services as politicians so often proclaim when they can't collect enough taxes to spend what they want. By simply adopting the Effective Rate, you have more property tax dollars than last year to spend next year. By adopting the Effective rate, you recognize the problems of those on fixed incomes. By adopting the Effective Rate, you do not have to CUT ANY SERVICES at all. You simply have to exercise the same restraint that any business or family does on a regular basis.

Sound financial management of our city is NOT holding the rate with an average 10% tax increase each year

E-mail from Ron West to NRH City Council following the Tax Hearing: 8/27/02

Dear Mayor & Council Members,

Being relatively new to active politics, it was obvious last night that I did not understand the rules. Had I known in advance that all of your decisions regarding taxes were already made and that you did not truly seek input from citizens, I might not have burdened you with my "3 minutes" of input. I am glad to see that you certainly didn't have to discuss any issue I brought up to further waste your valuable time. I probably should commend you for already having the resolution formalized and drawn up for adoption, without a lot more discussion, for your efficiency!

I would like to especially thank, Mayor Trevino, for his careful monitoring of the clock during my presentation to see that I did not violate the "3 minute" rule.

I now understand that the only reason you have "public hearings" is to fulfill state laws. It is certainly not to encourage or truly hear from the citizens. It is obvious that this council knows how to discourage any input!

I therefore apologize to you for wasting both your time and mine. (I plan to work on a bigger audience of voters prior to my next appearance before you!)

Sincerely,

Ron C. West

An E-Mail from Oscar Trevino, Mayor of NRH to Larry Cunningham, City Manager

Larry,

Could you please respond to this in a letter form since I dare not respond in e-mail. It seems that this individual has twisted my responses in the past and I would rather have it in a hard copy. I would like to make sure to include that his issues were listened to but that we serve better than 59,000 residents and it seems that I talk to a lot more that want the services to continue and that want the employees compensated for what they do. Please also address the fact that Mayor Pro-Tem Metts was the clock watcher and that to be fair, we do not give more than three minutes to any one presenting issues.

I wonder if I could find out how unjustly his own taxes have been raised in the last 10 years?

Thanks,

(Sent by Oscar Trevino) 8/27/02

Reply from Ron West to Oscar Trevino re: above email: 8/28/02

Dear Mayor Trevino,

I will look forward to the "formal" response from Mr. Cunningham per your request to him.

In the meanwhile, would you please address in writing - email or otherwise - all incidents where I have "twisted" your responses to anything. If possible, I will attempt to correct any such "twisting".

Since you "listened" to my remarks, it would do little good to restate that my request was not to cut any services. It was not to not pay employees of the city. My remarks were directed simply at not INCREASING expenditures with new expenses and programs. Had the city enacted the Effective Tax Rate, you would have had over $500,000 in new property tax revenue anyway. The enactment of the existing rate of $.57 per $100 valuation gave you approximately $549,000 additional tax dollars to spend on new programs. Obviously, you needed that as part of the $79,000,000+ you will spend next year and there was no room to look at any savings for the tax payers.

Mayor, I just don't believe that all 59,000 NRH citizens truly want to see their taxes increased every year. Out of a $79 Million plus budget, I was hoping that you and the council would have found it in your hearts to consider trying to find just $549,000 in budget savings so that everyone would have gotten a break.

It is obvious from my personal participation this tax "hearing" and another that I recently participated in, that the current state law does not properly direct the handling of such hearings. If a taxing body is to truly consider the input of tax paying citizens, then any resulting hearings should be held well in advance of any "setting" of tax rates. In the case of NRH, all decisions and all detail regarding the rate for 2003 were already set prior to the hearing. City staff had already typed up the ordinance for setting the rate at $.57 BEFORE the hearing. I do not think that this type of hearing was the "intent" of the hearing legislation for our state.

In like manner, the "hearing" on the budget for 2003 was a farce. Since citizens could only view the budget at the public library and even summary copies of the budget were not available to the taxpayers, how could the council reasonably expect any citizen to be prepared to comment on the budget. Although you and the council upheld the letter of the law, you seem to certainly have pushed it to the "legal limits". You obviously do not want input and do not consider any citizen input as regards tax rates or budgets. Your "conversations" with all of the residents of NRH are not formal input to the city and I do not believe that they should not be considered valid as such.

As I stated during the "Budget Hearing", I also believe that all budget data should be made available to the public as it is developed. It is easy technology to post this information on your web site. While it would be impossible to prove, I believe that the omission of this information is by deliberate decision. I would hope that you would direct city staff to post this information on the web as developed in the future. With my new understanding of "operations" at NRH city hall, I will be requesting this by Open Records Requests in the future if it is not forthcoming on the website or otherwise made available to the NRH citizenry.

As for your personal interest in my personal taxes, was that a veiled threat of some kind?

Sincerely,

Ron C. West

A Letter From: NRH, city of North Richland Hills - Office of the Mayor - To Ron West September 3, 2002

Dear Mr. West:

I received your e-mail Tuesday and was surprised and disappointed by your reaction to the public hearing process. The budget hearing process is structured to afford citizens an opportunity to provide comments about City services, taxes, and other areas they choose. Mayor Pro Tem Metts is responsible for monitoring time so that all individuals can be heard equally. The Council and I certainly listen to citizens' comments at the hearings, and if we differ with a view that you or others may offer, it does not indicate that we do not listen.

Before the budget is brought forth for consideration, it has been through quite an extensive review process that begins in early spring. During this process, the budget is reviewed by department directors, city management, and the City Council. In addition, an open meeting is held in early August in which City staff and City Council discuss the details of the budget. Throughout the year, and even prior to development of a budget, Council hears requests from citizens regarding services and programs. Therefore, we strive to incorporate collective concerns and needs into our program of service for the coming year. The budget hearing is only one of many ways in which citizen comments are made to Council. The City Council is elected to serve a population of more than 56,000 people. We feel that the priorities and services provided for in the City budget reflect the necessary services that the majority of NRH citizens value and want to see continued. Furthermore, we feel that the tax rate is justified in order to provide necessary services. The concerns you mentioned Monday night were listened to and considered even though, as you stated, they were not discussed point by point.

For your information, many of the statements you made during your comments about the tax rate were quite simply incorrect. We did not take the time to discuss each one during the hearing as we are at the hearing to listen to the comments of any citizen who wishes to make them, not to argue differences of opinion. However, I will take the time to address these in this letter.

You stated that in order to be fiscally prudent, the City simply needed to cut back new expenditures. As stated above, this budget has been through an extensive review process, and I can assure you that any new expenditures are minimal. However, as with any business, there are increased operating costs every year. This year was no exception. The majority of the increases in expenditures can be directly related to an increase in "the cost of doing business". These include such expenditures as personnel, medical insurance, supplies, maintenance costs, electrical costs, the purchase of water to provide to our citizens and the like. You also stated that many costs have increased substantially while the population has not increased at the same rate. While this statement is true in some respects, it does not take into account the entire picture. North Richland Hills serves more than just a resident population of over 56,000. According to estimates by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, NRH now serves a daytime population of more than 180,000 people. As a result, services must be provided to insure the safety and security of not only the residents of our city, but also those who work in our city, do business in our City, shop in our City, and otherwise pass through our City every day.

I also beg to differ with you on the statements you made with regard to crime control and our Police Department. One need only take a look at the statistics to show that our officers do more than just address traffic violations. We have substantially improved our response times to emergency calls for police services, going from 6:51 minutes in 1998/1999 to 5:17 minutes in 2001/2002. At the CCD hearing Monday night, the Police Chief stated that response times to emergency calls are now just below 5 minutes. Furthermore, since the inception of the Crime Control & Prevention District, criminal investigation case clearance rates have improved going from 36% to 39%. This is well above the national case clearance rate of 22%. In addition, our Police Department addresses almost 3,000 offenses annually, which includes robbery, rape, murder, theft and the like. This number does not take into account the numerous calls for service the NRHPD responds to every day.

You also made a statement regarding the increase in expenditures in Police technical services since 1998. Technology has changed significantly since 1998, and it is imperative that police agencies not only utilize technology in their efforts to address crime, most importantly crimes against children and drugs, but also that they stay current with technology so that this can effectively insure our safety and fight crimes that are increasingly technical.

As you are aware, the majority of voters approved the Crime Control & Prevention District in 1995, and an overwhelming majority of voters reauthorized the District in the year 2000. This is a clear message that the majority of North Richland Hills citizens believe that this funding is valuable and necessary for the safety of our city.

I do appreciate your involvement in the process and your willingness to question decisions. In doing so, keep in mind that the City Council is elected to serve the majority and the professional City Staff serves according to the will and direction of the City Council.

Because we may differ on priorities and services does not mean we do not listen. We listen to all citizens, and make decisions based on what we believe to be of greatest benefits and importance to the community as a whole. I believe I speak for the entire City Council when I say that we believe we are providing the most efficient, cost-effective, quality services to the citizens of North Richland Hills.

Sincerely,

Oscar Trevino Mayor

Reply from Ron West to Oscar Trevino re: above letter: 9/05/02

Dear Mr. Mayor,

Thank you for taking the time to respond personally to my e-mail and remarks at the recent Tax Hearing. I was very pleased to hear from you personally after you had directed the response to come from Mr. Cunningham. I also am very pleased that you did not provide any further comments regarding the "twisting" of words.

This reply should probably close this issue for this time but I would like to leave you with some thoughts for future consideration.

First of all, to borrow words from a preacher on Wednesday night - This is not about me! I have little to gain by fighting city hall about taxes. I retain a tax professional to represent all properties that I own and I pay my fair share of taxes. I am not a senior (yet). I am not anti-government. While I am involved in a political race, the local situation in NRH is only a small part of the tax issue and I could ignore it without any impact to my campaign for State Representative. (As you probably know, Mr. Griggs is already claiming to be elected anyway.)

My fight against ever-higher property taxes is hopefully for many people. Some people purchased their homes many years ago. They spent the next 30 years paying for them and now - property taxes are higher than their house payment was. If that is not bad enough, all property taxes are going up as the valuations skyrocket. Economic conditions have changed as your discussions relating to sales tax prove. Businesses have to cut back, layoff and do without. Only our government can continue the unrestrained growth in spending in all areas.

My fight is not just for the "now" time frame. I am learning ever more about the system. Now that I have learned that I must demand information in order to be able to fight it, I will work harder next year to detail excessive spending prior to the "hearing". I believe that I will be able to identify many specific areas of potential restraint and cut-backs from requested budget increases.

As to your response, I would take exception to property owners being responsible for the "180,000" people who may work or pass through our city at any given time. Sales taxes are supposed to pay for that - at least that is what we were told. You mention the "higher cost of water" but any such cost is passed on to the customers who pay for the water. I believe that there are significant "profit" revenues in your budget from the sale of water.

I respect and recognize that you have many casual conversations with citizens as you perform the many tasks of the office of mayor. I wonder how many of them are the quiet majorities - many of which are on fixed incomes? I wonder how many of them are aware of all the fees and taxes the city is imposing on them. The people I am most concerned for have little time for politics and rarely if ever have time for golf or social events. Perhaps all of us would learn more if there were periodic town hall meetings to discuss specific subjects such as taxes, fees and the related costs of requested services.

My actual remarks, which I have copied for your reference, were directed at a very, very small target. The difference I spoke in favor of was .007% of the budget (approx.). With your experience and that of other council members, a simple directive to city staff to come up with 1% savings in the budget would have provided this little breather for the taxpayers. Unfortunately, by the time my remarks were heard, the ordinance setting the rate was formalized and the budget was cast in stone. As usual, the property tax payer in NRH got the 10th or 11th consecutive year of 10% plus tax hikes.

North Richland Hills does indeed have a very professional staff of city employees. It would appear that they also set the agenda and budget for the city. The council, in the time allotted to the analysis process would be hard pressed to do any type of real analysis of an $80+ Million budget. My copy of the budget for 2001-2002 is 442 pages long. I don't know the length of the 2002-03 budget since it was not released prior to the hearing. I would hope that in the future, the City Council would set some guidelines for city staff - including limitations on the growth of all areas. I still would like to hear the justification for the NRH SWAT team and the costs associated with it - but that can be a future battle.

I will pledge to you that I will do all in my power not to "twist" your words - ever! If you find any incidence of this, please contact me so I can correct my error. I would also pledge to you that I will continue my fight for responsible, responsive and cost effective government at all levels which may involve direct quotes from any source, where applicable. What I, and Ken Sapp, experienced at the recent "tax hearing" leaves me very, very disappointed with the city council and the staff of NRH. I know that it fulfilled the "law" but I do not believe that it fulfilled the intent of the law.

As part of my ongoing efforts to provide information to those affected by it, this letter, my comments and the reproduced copy of your letter to me, along with applicable email, will be published under letters on the web site: www.netarrant.info. All information to be published follows for your records.

Thank you again for your response. As you have so aptly stated before, we agree to disagree.

Sincerely,

Ron C. West