City government may not be cheap, but it’s less expensive than the alternative

Listening to the voices coming from the citizens who attended last Wednesday’s special called meeting to discuss the proposed property tax rate, they have four major concerns. What they are demanding is, perhaps not in this order of importance:

• Better roads
• A recreational center with an indoor pool and gymnasium
• Some form of mass transit, especially something for the elderly and the infirmed
• A lower property tax rate

Anyone else spot the incongruity there? It’s like walking into the H-E-B, picking up some eggs, butter, a package of chicken breasts, some fruits and vegetables and a flat-screen TV and then trying to tell the person at the checkout line you have no problem paying for the food, but you really don’t want to pay for the TV.

Yes, there are certain services your local government should be obligated to provide its citizens, but it can’t be obligated to provide them for free. There are costs involved and the government has the right to charge you for those costs. And, just like what happens at H-E-B, the more items you decide you want and throw into your municipal shopping cart, the higher the tab is going to be at checkout.

This phenomenon is not peculiar to Kyle. In fact, I have yet to attend a budget town hall meeting any where at any time when citizens didn’t demand more and better services and lower tax rates. And as many times as I have witnessed this, it never fails to boggle my mind.

There are two items I believe all municipal governments should be required to provide to its residents: public safety and a clean, healthy environment. Everything else is gravy. But those two required services do not come cheaply; in fact, most cities will devote more than 60 percent of its General Fund budget to public safety alone, primarily police and fire protection. I also include good roads under public safety. But just as sure as the city should make you feel safe and secure in your own homes as well as out in public, so should you be able to enjoy clean, safe, good tasting water whenever you turn on the faucet in your homes. Your garbage should be collected and disposed effectively. Wastewater and stormwater should not pollute our streams and rivers. Properties with dilapidated structures, overgrown weeds, abandoned automobiles or tires or illegal waste dumps should not be tolerated. But it cost money to make all those things happen.

And, of course, just like the possessor of a credit card, the city is required to pay its debts, the money it borrowed to build major (capital) projects, usually defined as something that will last at least 20 years.

Here’s an idea. Let these citizens who want all these rec centers, transit options and other items along with a lower tax rate build their own budgets. Here’s how the city can facilitate this, using both workshops where residents can do it jointly or setting up a process where it can be done through the city’s web site. First the city establishes a baseline: the amount required to maintain public safety, a clean, healthy environment and to pay off on the debt. Then establish the property tax rate needed to pay for those "must-haves." After that, you create a menu and you list all the other items citizens might want and/or need together with the amount the property tax rate would have to be raised to pay for it. At the end, ask them to total their menu choices and, if then submit it if they really are willing to pay that rate for those services. I would recommend the city initiate this right at the start of the next calendar year.

Such an exercise could accomplish two objectives. First, it might go a long way to illustrate the cost of services the city provides to its citizens. But, on the other side of the coin, it might send a message to the city that a significant number of citizens are willing to pay extra to receive these services so perhaps the city manager might want to include them in his upcoming budget.

Just a thought.