Here is the response from Henderson Mayor Pete O’Geary to remarks made by former Henderson City Council member Bobby Gupton at the Ward 1 Listening Post meeting held on May 12, 2009.
In a brief telephone conversation, Gupton told Home in Henderson that he has a meeting scheduled with City Manager Ray Griffin for Tuesday, May 26, 2009 to discuss his methodology in how he derives the ratio of contribution to joint programs of city and county taxpayers.
Below the letter sent from O’Geary to Gupton is a copy of Gupton’s original remarks.
Dear Mr. Gupton:
Thank you for participating in the Ward 1 Listening Post meeting held on 12 May 2009. You made several comments about the use of city taxes to fund joint ventures other services. In so doing, you posed three questions.
The FY10 estimated current year City property tax does not yield enough revenues to even pay for the full cost of paying for the operations, salaries and capital needs of the Police and Fire departments. In FY10, taxes would have to be increased to 89.1 cents just to pay for Police, Fire and Emergency Communications. This is a far cry from the revenues generated by the 56.5 cents tax rate. It is disingenuous to suggest that the property tax could, or even should, pay for all municipal services, including water and sanitary sewer services.
The City Council is very concerned about how it allocates its limited resources and through the budgetary process, it seeks to balance the needs and desires of the various segments of the community. In times of Recession, such as we are now experiencing, the balancing of needs and wants becomes even more difficult due to shrinking resources.
In response to your three questions, I offer the following comments:
1. Why have you not met with the County Commissioners to negotiate the needed changes?
The City Manager is seeking information from other localities within the state to determine how other joint programs are structured and funded. This information will assist the Council in determining if it feels some changes are needed. If it is determined that some changes are needed, the Council will address this with the County.
2. Why don’t you insist on a fair share of the ABC revenues?
There should be a better way to distribute the ABC revenues and the City will pursue the options to this.
3. But the main question I have for you is why do we as residents of the city pay 4 times that those in the county pay for exactly the same benefits by way of the joint ventures?
I am not sure that I understand how you come up with city residents paying four times that of county residents. Would you please share your methodology with me as to how you have made this determination?
Thank you again for participating in the Listening Post. I look forward to hearing from you about Question 3.
James D. O’Geary, Mayor
Cc: City Council Members City Manager
Please let me set the record straight from the very beginning. Joint Ventures are not the issue with me, it is the method of funding for the joint ventures that weigh heavily on the city residents. It is very unfair and should be changed. By city residents I include everyone living in the city, renters and property owners alike. Any monies going into the General Fund are used to pay the joint ventures. Property owners pay property taxes and the renters are assessed the property owners property taxes as a portion of their rent.
City residents should not be asked to support maintenance and upkeep for:
My recent tax bill should have been reduced by 31% or $466.36. This would have been a savings of $38.87 per month.
All of our elected leaders are aware of this tax disparity, but refuse to correct it. The reasons I get are:
Chick Young – It’s the only way it will work.
Watkins, when shown the documents: “I don’t care what you have.”
Clem Seifert – You are right Mr. Gupton, but the people don’t care.
City residents have more and they can afford it.
Ridiculous.
Garrison and Hester – We will look at it but probably won’t change any thing.
“Chuckle.”
Several other organizations have been shown the facts and some deny it, but none have yet to offer information as to why it is wrong.
All of the above and any joint ventures especially the pending Economic Development Commission should be closely scrutinized to insure that city residents pay equally and no more than county only residents.
Every year that the existing funding is allowed to exist the tax burden on city residents grow heavier and heavier. It is a fairness issue plain and simple.
I don’t feel that our voices are being heard.
Are our city taxes being used for the sole benefit of those residing in the city? Absolutely not.
If you live in the city your city taxes should pay for things like police, fire protection, water, sewage, sanitation, streets, street lights, leaf collection, and, lastly, but probably one of the more important, the salaries of municipal employees. Our city employees need an increase in salary, and our present tax rate should and will provide for this increase. Your city taxes should not be co-mingled with county taxes for libraries, recreation, airports and 911. These are county functions and should be funded with county taxes. I am tired of this double taxation and feel you should be also.
County taxes should be used to fund county services. Our county representatives are of the mind that those residing in the city are not entitled to the same benefits as those residing in the county.
We pay equally and should be treated equally. We are not second-class citizens and we expect equal treatment.
Henderson will start its growth when the city and county finally realize that it is going to take GOOD SCHOOLS AND A LOWER TAX RATE TO ATTRACT INDUSTRY. Our leaders are doing nothing to bring this about. Until they do, all we can do is dream and VOTE.
As members of the Henderson City Council you are representatives of over 16,000 people, are you doing your best by allowing the current taxes to stand?
Question 1: Why have you not met with the county commissioners to negotiate the needed changes?
Question 2: Why don’t you insist on a fair share of the ABC revenues?
By the population changes since the initial agreement, the city should have received $120,000 for the current year, but it only received $45,000. A shortfall of $75,000.
Question 3: But the main question I have for you is why do we as residents of the city pay 4 times what those in the county pay for exactly the same benefits by way of the joint ventures?
Please don’t remind me there is a contract; all of the contracts have an out clause, most with an anniversary date of April first.
Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns, I look forward to you written response as promised.