Watauga Waves

The budget for Watauga did not pass through the council as it always has before.

Three new council members are being blamed by the old council members.  Three new council members are being thanked by the citizens.  Be sure and read the comment.  It gives you a side the "news" forgot to.  The side of the people that the council is elected to represent.

Read about it in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Wednesday night's vote was 4-3 in favor of the budget, but a two-thirds majority was required for passage.

It was the first time a proposed budget has been rejected in Watauga, city officials said.

"I wish we could have reached a better level of consensus in the previous [budget] workshops," Clements said.

"My only objection was to the tax increase. Overall, I agreed with the budget, except for hiring new people."

Mayor Harry Jeffries said he was disappointed in the council.

"We've had enough work sessions for people to ask questions, and they weren't asked," he said. "I have three people who don't want to raise taxes. I don't want to raise taxes, and the other councilmen don't want to raise taxes. But you come to a point where you look at the loss in [total] property valuation and something has to happen to make that up.

"Either you cut services or you raise taxes."

Watauga has lost considerable taxable property value in the last several years. Between 2010 and 2011, the total property value in Watauga dropped about $10.2 million.

Keep your eye on the ball

Actually LaGrave field.

We've mentioned before how certain entities are eyeing the stadium.

Now a city commission has designated LaGrave Field historic designation by a city panel.  (WHO is on the panel?)  Now LaGrave can get tax breaks.

The story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram points out a few of the things that make you go hmmm...

A city commission granted its highest historic designation to LaGrave Field on Monday, which will allow for property tax breaks if the minor-league ballpark is ever improved.

Bell, who has struggled financially in recent years and has been seeking a buyer for the stadium, said he wanted the designation to make the tax break available, but that he also wants the field to be "preserved forever." The stadium, he said, "is a vital and integral part of the community."

Bell has wanted the city to take over ownership of LaGrave and said Monday he still hopes that can happen. He is still working on permanent financing for the stadium.

Bell bought a tract of land around LaGrave from the city of Fort Worth in 2007 and once planned a multimillion-dollar residential and retail development. But by last summer he faced foreclosure on the 38-acre property. Bell renegotiated bank notes to keep the stadium, and was released from other notes after the property was sold to the Tarrant Regional Water District.

Bell owes more than $195,000 in property taxes and penalties for 2010, according to county tax records.
 
Just another day in the Wild West.

Play ball.

Money and Education

Good letters to the editor in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram this week. 

Our guess is the politicians think if we spend less on education, it will be easier to take the citizens for a ride, while picking their pockets.  Educate yourself.  Someone has to protect our kids. Otherwise they are going to grow up broke, uneducated with no air to breathe and no water to drink.

We the people have disappointed God and our children. We build billion-dollar stadiums, and now we cannot pay for our schools. We worship rock stars and athletes and allow politicians and the media to demonize our educators.

We give tax breaks to the wealthy, and yet we begrudge our educators wanting an income level decent enough to house our families and provide a college education for our children.

Republicans promised us jobs, but they never told us they were going to do away with our jobs. Instead of talking cuts and what we are going to do without, can't we figure out a way to save our jobs, our education system and our middle class?

-- Joyce A. Powell, Bedford

A fee is a tax

I would like to see a law that says whenever anyone in government announces that the government is "investing" in anything, they will be subject to a $1,000 fine.

The government never invests our money; it spends it. Investing requires a return above the investment. The government never has a return on money spent.

Same goes with fees. When the government requires you to pay a fee, it's a tax, plain and simple.

I wonder if people would finally realize how much they actually pay in taxes if they saw the word "tax" instead of "fee." Same thing, but "fee" sounds so much nicer.

-- Brent Beal, Keller

Tea Anyone?

If you missed the Fort Worth 912 Project Tea Party Saturday, you missed a great event.  WHO all was there?  Check out the picture on Politex.  Who is that speaking?  Adrian Murray.  His speech was so stirring, someone asked Lone Star why he ran for the Tarrant Regional Water District instead of a State/National seat.  The answer?  He cares about people and he cares about Fort Worth.

Congratulations to Adrian and his group for putting on a well run show.

The Whited Sepulchre kept up with the party, check out his blog here.  Lots of posts on it so scroll down to Tea Party posts.

Here is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article.

Here's a picture we were sent of the "small disturbance in front of the stage".  This jerk was throwing flags on the ground.  Not to worry though, we saw Adrian Murray and the Flood Queen of Haltom City, as Durango says, take care of him until the cops got to him.  There were many that wanted to take care of him.  The show went off without a hitch.  Congrats!

You've got mail...

Word on the street is that while Fort Worth has a $73 million dollar budget issue, they are still stashing money for the pipe dream of moving City Hall to the old post office.  This has come up before and it was determined that it was too costly and it didn't make much sense.

It still doesn't.

Fort Worth Money...WHO does it belong to?

Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods
Update: September 9, 2010

FWLNA City of Fort Worth Proposed Budget Review

In order to better understand the City of Fort Worth 2010-2011 proposed budget and the projected $73 million budget deficit, several members of the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods' Board of Directors volunteered to read, analyze, and ask questions about the City's budget documents.  These documents include a 208 page proposed budget and a 437 page decision package document as well as budget priorities and other documents posted on the City's budget webpage.

Click here for the FWLNA budget review.

We noted that, unlike last year's proposed budget document, there is no detail of general fund revenue accounts in the proposed 2010-11 budget.  We asked for departmental budget detail and were told we would have to submit an open records act request to get it.

We approached the budget review as regular citizens, albeit ones who because of our neighborhood involvement may be more knowledgeable than most about certain City programs, services and practices.

We have not claimed to be City of Fort Worth budget experts nor have we thought that should be necessary.  It seemed to us that average citizens ought to be able to read,  understand, and get a reasonably complete, detailed picture of the proposed budget from the City's website.  We have watched many of the budget hearings and City Council workshops on the budget; however we are not privy to behind the scenes changes in the budget.

The public budget buzz since August 10 when the city manager released his proposed version has mostly been about 3 things:  1) the projected $73 million budget deficit; 2) the proposed closure of the Ridglea, North Side, and Meadowbrook branch libraries; and 3) the merging of the Parks and Community Services Department under the Library Department.

One observer noted that no one has challenged the assumptions of the $73 million budget deficit.  Various news outlets have cited the real problems as cost issues surrounding City employee pensions and City commitments to already in place police and fire contracts.  Those are the real issues they have said.

Other observers have noted the theory of the proposed budget -- that cutting services, maintenance and amenities in response to lower property valuations and tax revenue will balance the budget - will also only further lower property values over the long-term, creating a cycle of lower tax revenue and higher deficits.  They contend the proposed solution is illogical and averse to reversing the deficit issue, digging a deeper hole for
future budget years.

While acknowledging the big picture items, we took another approach as well.  Knowing that closing the 3 branch libraries (a service much demanded by neighborhood residents) will "save" the City between $516,000. and $1.2 million, we set about to find other information which might illuminate the budget priorities and choices inherent in the proposed budget document.

Our review set up a whole list of priorities and choices which are proposed.  If you read the document, you can find priorities which are funded, choices which are made.  So the question is, what is most important to the citizens?  What are they willing to live without and what are they not willing to live without?   When compared to stated citizen priorities, where do business development, the Super Bowl, funding for programming for the homeless, gas drilling, etc. land?  Are citizens aware of how much will be spent on big priority items such as these?  How do they feel about that when they compare those expenditures to basic services such as libraries and parks?

We also discovered a cash excess in the general fund of over $23 million, that according to the City's budget manager, will not be spent on general fund expenditures in
FY 2010- 11.  Why not?  What is it being reserved for?  If a community service such as libraries is so important to the citizens, would the citizens prefer that some of the $23 million in excess general fund revenues be spent to keep the 3 branch libraries (and a host of other services) open?

In addition to reviewing the budget and asking questions of city staff (for the presentation at the League's general membership meeting on September 2), we also compiled an initial list of budget revenue generators suggested by a variety of sources.  We did not include the idea of increasing the ad valorem tax although we are aware of at least one citizens group advocating that measure.

Click here for Disaster Recovery Deposit Concept
Click here for Economics Teacher Barbara Ellis' idea on investing in the city
Click here for opinion piece on voluntary taxes idea

 Our review of the City's proposed budget raised more questions than it answered.  Budget priorities were approved by the City Council in January 2010.  They set the stage for the drafting of the City Manager's proposed 2010-11 budget. What, exactly, are core City services?  Do the elected officials see these the same way the citizens see them?

Fundamentally, our review raised the question - what kind of city can Fort Worth residents expect Fort Worth to be next year and in the near term?  A city which can pay for fire and police (as valuable as they are) and nothing else? Is that the Fort Worth citizens - neighborhood residents -- want?

We hope our review encourages more citizens to review the City's proposed budget (at http://www.fortworthgov.org/) and make their priorities and choices known to the elected officials.  A list of their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses follows.

The City will hold a budget hearing on Tuesday evening, September 14 at 7:00 p.m. at Fort Worth City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton.  Residents are encouraged to attend and express their opinions on the proposed budget.

Contacts:

Mayor Mike Moncrief
Telephone:  817-392-6118
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  Mike.Moncrief@fortworthgov.org

Sal Espino, District 2
Telephone:  817-392-8802
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District2@fortworthgov.org

Zim Zimmerman, District 3
Telephone:  817-392-8803
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District3@fortworthgov.org

Danny Scarth, District 4
Telephone: 817-392-8804
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District4@fortworthgov.org

Frank Moss, District 5
Telephone:  817-392-8805
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District5@fortworthgov.org

Jungus Jordan, District 6
Telephone:  817-392-8806
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District6@fortworthgov.org

Carter Burdette, District 7
Telephone:  817-392-8807
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District7@fortworthgov.org

Kathleen Hicks, District 8
Telephone:  817-392-8808
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District8@fortworthgov.org

Joel Burns, District 9
Telephone:  817-392-8809
Fax:  817-392-6187
E-mail:  District9@fortworthgov.org

About the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods

The Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods was founded in 1985 by four neighbors: Chris Goetz, Dr. Glenn Kroh, Mary Palko and Ben Ann Tomayko who believed in the importance of neighborhood involvement in the civic decision-making process, especially when it directly impacted the quality of life in our communities.  17 charter member neighborhood organizations signed up to join in the pursuit of forming a citywide coalition to create a strong and coordinated voice at city hall.

Today, the League of Neighborhoods still promotes the same philosophy. Drawing on the collective experience of its 25-year long history as an institution, the League is recognized throughout the region as an umbrella organization advocating for neighborhoods at various levels of government and other nonprofits.  Our membership is made up of neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, property owner associations and neighborhood alliances. The League continues to provide education and guidance to its member organizations and the community at large.

The Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods believes that neighborhoods are the most basic organizational units in a city and is committed to ensuring that neighborhoods remain the strong and viable contributors they have historically been to the quality of life and identity of Fort Worth

The goals of Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods is to unite neighborhoods and to give them an effective voice in the critical issues facing them, from zoning and crime, to city parks and urban gas drilling. Our challenge is to support the diversity and stability of neighborhoods throughout the city.

Bigger in Texas

Imagine that...Fort Worth's budget is worse than the other major Texas cities.  Says the Star-Telegram.

WHY is that?  Could it be THEY are spending too much of OUR money on other things?  While they continue to cut services to the community and ignore their constituents (those who are listening and voting).

Instead, Fort Worth vows to spend millions on things like keeping Radio Shack here and the Trinity River Boondoggle.  Did YOU get a vote on either of those things? What about the millions of breaks they give to certain downtown companies?

And did the Federal government just give Fort Worth millions of dollars to do a study?  This is the same city that still can't find money they lost years ago.  They weren't looking until the citizens kept making noise.

So, keep making noise.

Pay up

We took bets back in  December when JD Granger said "Trinity River Vision has no desire to own LaGrave or the entire 58-acre tract."   We asked again in February.

Why then did they purchase it?  Note "at their price". 

TCEQ and TRWD working together to clean up the environmental issues, that should go well. 

And someone please tell us, is Bill Hanna on the TRWD payroll too?  Read his latest about the Tarrant Regional Water District buying out Bell in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The $17.5 million will paid from the water district's mineral revenues.

It isn't the first time the water district has chosen to go that route. The water has already pledged to loan Trinity River Vision's tax increment financing district up to $226 million from its mineral revenue until the TIF can start generating money. The TIF was extended to 40 years late last year, far longer than most tax increment financing districts.

What he said...

WHO?  Durango, that's who.

Going Twice

Tonight on the local news (WFAA.com) they discussed the failed Trans-Texas Corridor again.

A citizen they interviewed stated "It's been ten years, at least, and nothing has been done." Sound familiar?

Guess which group is involved? The North Central Texas Council of Governments. Mike Morris, from the COG, says there was "an irrational, emotional initiative with regard to the Trans-Texas Corridor..."

The citizen then states, "Get off their butts and do something, make a decision and correct the problem."

They did do something, they spent $60 million dollars. And they are about to start all over again.

It's your money

And they want it. All.

Read the entire article "Despite cost concerns, Fort Worth council signals Trinity Uptown support" from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram daily newspaper.

City Council members are concerned about some aspects of the $909 million plan to pay for the Trinity Uptown project. But it appears a majority of them will ultimately vote to approve the plan.

Wait, they are concerned, but going to do it anyway? Ask them why.

The Fort Worth City Council is one of several government agencies involved in funding the Trinity River project.

The price of the project jumped from $576 million in March to $909 million in July. The City Council is only funding $26.6 million of the project directly.

Where did we get $26.6 million? Aren't we $50 million short? How much does the TRV department/staff cost?

The Tarrant Regional Water District is expected to pay about $226 million to the independent Trinity River Vision Authority get the project started.

The Water District was created to reduce flooding and provide clean water supply.

The city is paying $765,000 this week to move its auto pound out of the way of the project, and it might have to pay to relocate the police and fire academy.

More things "in the way" of TRV.

"There are other costs to the taxpayers; it’s not $26.6 million," Zimmerman said. Moncrief said the city would likely have to pay those costs even if the Trinity River project weren’t built.

WHAT? WHY?

The Trinity River Vision is expected to cost $909 million. Here’s a breakdown of who pays what: $26.6 million: City of Fort Worth $11 million: Tarrant County $64.4 million: Tarrant Regional Water District $320 million: Tax increment finance district $487.8 million: Federal sources.

Do you pay Fort Worth taxes? Tarrant County taxes? Water District taxes? Federal taxes? Then you will be paying for TRV. All of it. What benefit will you receive?

Moncreif says it will take "political courage to move project forward". We think it would take it not to. Well, that and common sense.

WHO's Paying?

All of us.

We are all paying a board of elected officials (that some of YOU can't vote for) to NOT do their job.

Why are the citizens the ones that have to keep pointing this out? Why is nothing ever done, and it just gets worse? Where are our "leaders"? Where is the media?
Oh right, they are all at the bank. Laughing.

You can't afford to miss Clyde's take on the Water Board. None of us can afford to.

Tarrant Regional Water District is raising wholesale water rates for its customers. Its number one customer is Fort Worth and Fort Worth, in turn, sells water to other communities. So other cities that might not even be in the taxing jurisdiction of TRWD must pay higher rates and don't have the where-with-all to vote for district board members and approve or disapprove of water board policies.

True, the district is not raising taxes for the 13th consecutive year, but they can make more by raising rates than by increasing taxes in that the water users far outnumber the tax payers.

They have a responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness and flood control of the Trinity River and for providing raw water for Fort Worth and other communities within their district.

Except - TRWD is helping finance the Trinity Uptown project, that 17 acre town lake with other amenities that altogether have escalated from $360 million in 2004 to $920 million today, and has a 100% likelihood of increasing by much more.

Where are they?

Don't miss the articles in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram daily newspaper concerning Sister Cities.

The decisions by Joel Burns, Kathleen Hicks and Frank Moss to participate in Fort Worth Sister Cities exchanges this summer reflect a disconnect between their world and the real one where taxpayers live.

When Fort Worth residents are coping with their own difficult finances triggered by the same sluggish economy that pinched city coffers, it borders on arrogance for elected officials to think that spending public money on unnecessary travel is appropriate.

Two days before Hicks embarked on her trip, she was the lone "no" vote on the fiscal 2010 budget because it was, she said, "balanced on the backs" of laid-off workers and the city’s vulnerable residents.

"We say we don’t have any money, yet we find money for pet projects all around the city," she said. She wondered what kind of message that sends to the taxpayers.

Hicks’ actions, in such a contradiction to her words, sent a message she probably didn’t intend.

Weekly Praise

They've done it again, real reporting. Looks like reporters from other organizations cooperated this time. Good work team! Read the Weekly's latest scoop here.

But in at least one area, the city staff recommended expanding services - a recommendation that might surprise many of the activists, reporters, and ordinary citizens who have asked for access to the city's public records through the years.

"I believe the [city's] legal department is violating the intent of the open-records law by constantly asking for AG opinions for the same type of documents which they know, or should know, are public records," wrote a local TV news reporter.

A Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter wrote, "I am forced to file way too many open-records requests ... then consider myself blessed if I actually get what I've requested by the 10th day [as required by law]. More often, [the] city legal [department] is asking for an AG opinion, coming up with all kinds of excuses why the information shouldn't be released ... . This is the only city where I feel like I'm constantly fighting this battle."

Keith Elkins, executive director of FOIFT, said it's not clear whether such increased delays and bureaucracy are happening in other states. "But it is clear this overuse of the attorney general's office is costing taxpayers a lot of money," he said. "Cities like Fort Worth are adding to the workload of the AG's office. When you see how the number of ruling the AG's office has to make has spiked, the abuse here is clear."

The increasing insistence on formal treatment of open-records requests has been a major factor in Fort Worth's workload in the past decade. But more requests are also coming from private citizens.

More Whoa's

From Mr. Woodard in the Fort Worth Business Press.

Whoa to taxpayer woes

The last time I saw the confluence from now shuttered, bare, ruined Heritage Park, I visualized camp fires of American Indians and cavalry dragoons, the roaming buffalo and the deer and the antelope at play.

When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see the confluence shining on a constipated and contaminated mercury and chemical laden 33-acre, silted-in pond awash with dross, flotsam and floating dead fish where once there joined in glorious confluence two free-flowing rivers that hailed from out of the west. The Clear Fork and the West Fork! Union! Both now and forever!

$909 million! Whoa! Taxpayers! Pull up the drawbridge!

– Don Woodard, Fort Worth

Tell it like it is

And as usual, he does it with style.

Thanks to Don for another gem of a letter in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram daily newspaper.

Cut, cut, no cut

The Fort Worth city budget is $59 million in the red. Council members are probing into every nook and cranny in an effort to stanch the hemorrhaging.

Sister Cities? Stay home. See you later!

City employees? No pay raises, but your health premiums will be raised.

City jobs? Cut 200. Your income tax will be lower.

Swimming pools? Water is money. Cool off in 100-degree summer breezes.

Nonmowing of street medians? Green is in.

Parks and the Botanic Garden? We never promised you a rose garden.

Graffiti abatement? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Closing the city day labor center? Get a job.

Raise taxes? No way. Heaven forbid! I want to be re-elected!

But all is not lost. There seems to be one area that no council member is willing to touch — no, not one: the billion-dollar Trinity Uptown boondoggle to which they cling like a drunk to a lamp post.

I am reminded of Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem about the brook:

For men may come and men may go

But I go on forever.

— Don Woodard Sr., Fort Worth

She's back...

We recently posted about Guelma Hopkins and a letter she wrote to the editor last year that is still relevant today.

Well, she's back. And we are glad.

Here's to Ms. Hopkins!

The City Council is closing the Wedgwood library because it’s little and it’s old. Well, so am I! But we oldies aren’t alone this time. We have a high school hero collecting signatures to save our little old branch. When I’m gone, I hope he’ll still be around to vote against any incumbent rash enough to run.

An Aug. 26 article telling us how sorry the City Council was to be closing the library was adjacent to a brief detailing the council’s vote to give $250,000 to an unnamed affiliate of Downtown Fort Worth Inc., presumably a nonpublic outfit.

That’s a quarter-million dollars taken from the public and given to one more downtown boondoggle. What promises to be the mother of all money-down-a-rat-hole projects is the Trinity River Vision, whose motto seems to be, "If it ain’t broke, break it." The Trinity River has not flooded since the 1950s. Leave the Trinity alone that the Father of Waters may flow unvexed to the sea (Robert Stone).

Burnett Park is being ripped up and re-landscaped — the second time that I can recall — and yet community park swimming pools are being closed. Before the next election, council members need to compare the number of voters in their districts to the number of voters downtown.
— Guelma B. Hopkins, Fort Worth

Blowing Smoke

We hear Kay Granger spoke at TCU earlier this week. When asked about Fort Worth's budget deficit, she stated local government needs to control their spending, federal government won't be bailing Fort Worth out.

She then went on and on about her Trinity River Vision.

Maybe this is where Fort Worth should start controlling their spending. By not spending money they don't have on a project they don't need.

Here's a thought,let's use the "local" TRV money to keep the after school programs and library's open. What do you say kids?

Vacant

Earlier this week it was reported that office space vacancy in downtown Fort Worth is at a 25 year high. All hope this will change, however they agree it could get a lot worse before it gets better.

On the national news it was reported in Fort Meyers, FL, one couple are the lone occupants of a brand new thirty-two story condo. They say it's like living in a ghost town.

Aside from the fact building anything in the middle of the river is a bad idea, why do we need more empty offices and high rise condos no one can afford?

If the Homeless program can hold out until then, maybe they can use the condos at Trinity Uptown.

Trinity River Swells...

We don't agree with everything stated in the Trinity River Vision editorial in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram today. Though we do agree all should read it.