I have three things to say about this.
Commissioner Steve Radack
Harris county’s four commissioners said Wednesday they could support either a property tax increase or reallocation of funds in the county budget to better fund flood control projects after a series of storms and floods this spring destroyed property and claimed the lives of more than a dozen people.
[…]
Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack said he would support a tax increase if there was a concrete plan on what to do with the extra revenue, and Gene Locke of Precinct 1 said through a spokeswoman he could likely get behind such a measurebut also would want the federal government to help pay more for flood control projects.
The two other commissioners – Jack Cagle in Precinct 4 and Jack Morman in Precinct 2 – said they would not support increasing the tax rate but could support reallocating funds to tackle flooding problems.
County Judge Ed Emmett declined to comment, but said through a spokesman he would not weigh in before a specific proposal was on the table.
The discussion about a possible property tax rate increase was sparked by recent comments Radack made at a meeting with a civic group in Cypress, which was recently hard-hit by flooding.
“I will tell you right now, I will vote for a tax increase for the Harris County Flood Control District,” Radack said to dozens in the audience last week, noting that he’s the only commissioner on court who has ever voted for a property tax increase. “But I’m one person. I’m not criticizing my colleagues. I’m just telling you this. That’s the way it is.”
On Wednesday, Radack reiterated his support for a tax increase, but qualified his position somewhat saying he would want to see a list of projects vetted by the public and by county government and would want to involve the city of Houston and the federal government in helping fund the projects.
He said he would want to have county voters weigh in on a potential bond issue that outlined that list of projects.
“I would support a tax increase for flood control, I would support it,” he said. “Now bear in mind, you don’t just have a tax increase without a plan.”
[…]
The tax rate for the flood control district is currently about 4 cents per $100 of assessed property value, [county budget officer Bill] Jackson said. That includes the amount designated directly for the flood control district – 2.7 cents per $100 – as well as a chunk that’s being used by the county to pay down debt.
The flood control district’s property tax rate can be raised by commissioners to no more than 30 cents per $100, Jackson said.
Morman was adamant, however, that he would not support an overall tax increase to solve the problem.
“I’m a homeowner, most of my constituents are homeowners, we already pay enough property taxes,” Morman said. “It’s kind of like enough is enough at some point.”
Morman said he could also support reallocation of funds, but did not know exactly where that money would come from.
Locke could in theory support a tax rate increase, though he would need to see the final plans and would want the federal government to help pay for more flood control projects, spokeswoman Mary Benton said.
Cagle said he would not support an overall tax increase, but would support reallocating funds toward flood control from the county’s public hospital district. In the past, they had been reallocated toward the hospital district and away from flood control, he said.
“I believe the taxpayers are interested in a reallocation of the tax base back to making flood control the priority that it once was,” Cagle said.
1. This was what Radack was talking about when he made his infamous “some people enjoy flooding” remarks. The Press had a story that ran after I published that included his thoughts on the tax rate, and I think there’s a lot to what he’s saying here. He definitely put his foot in his mouth on this point – I get what he was trying to say, but you’d think a guy who’s been in office for as long as he has might have a better grasp of how not to say things in the worst possible way – and he deserves the heat he’s getting, but the rest of what he said should not be lost.
2. Morman and Cagle’s insistence that we don’t need to raise any more revenue, we just need to shuffle things around in the budget is a load of bollocks. How much should we be spending on flood mitigation? What specific budget items would you cut to make up the difference between what we now spend and what you think we should spend? Give me details and then maybe I’ll believe that you’re not just dodging the question.
3. All that said, the single best thing we could do going forward to not make our flooding problem worse is to stop paving over the undeveloped land that currently serves as the best flood mitigation we’ll ever have. People have been saying for years that the Grand Parkway would be a disaster from a flooding perspective, but that didn’t stop the County from building a massive road in the middle of what used to be nowhere to serve the needs of people who didn’t live there yet. If we ever got serious about encouraging denser development and transportation solutions that support it, we’d have less mitigation to worry about having to pay for.
Commissioner Cagle has a controversial project in his precinct which could be killed and its proposed funds re-allocated, the Memorial Park Demonstration Project.
Getting someone else to pay for it is fine except the feds and the city already have plenty to deal with financially. Using the existing tax rate for one entity is okay but only if the context of total taxes are factored in right beside it; the flood control district is only one small portion of existing taxes so increases in all the other taxing groups (as well as constantly higher property valuations) add up. And as Charles says, reallocation is fine but let the taxpayer know what will be cut to spend on such projects.
As long as massive development is taking place, and many portions of the county are being developed at this writing, any amount of spending on flood control will be lucky to keep up with existing problems. Make changes to lower the impact of current construction to stop “digging deeper” in making the problem worse before asking for the billions needed to address the situation.
I agree with Steve. At some point entities making decisions at the city, county and state levels have to take responsibility for the decisions made to allow development and inadequate mitigation in floodplain areas. They cannot keep going to the federal government for money to cover their bad bets expecting to be able to do business as usual for the benefit of developers and contractors.