Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
Search This Blog
29.11.16
Disgust at Shreveport garbage fee should go further
Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler will
have to reassess old spending priorities to shore up a leaky 2017 city budget
buffeted by property tax and garbage fee subtractions.
During quadrennial periods coinciding with presidential
election years, Louisiana assessors perform a mandatory reassessment on all
property in their parishes, reflected in that year’s billing. In Caddo, as with
some other parishes in the wake of flooding during the year and a general economic
slowdown in the oil patch, its assessor Charles Henington reduced
marginally property values parishwide.
In typical years where assessments rise – either because
of the reassessment or because property sales occur at values higher than the
property’s previously-assessed values – governing authorities on their own may
roll forward millages in order to capture more tax revenue. Even if they do
nothing, rates automatically roll back to produce a constant stream of dollars.
But in a situation where property tax proceeds actually will go down because of
changed assessments, they cannot do anything unilaterally to prevent that.
As a result, Shreveport will lose roughly over a
half a million dollars in revenue from that source. That corresponds to the
amount Tyler and the city threw away with the Kafkaesque “living minimum wage”
hike enacted earlier this year that redistributes taxpayer resources into
above-market salaries for around 400 jobs in city government.
However, that small budget hole pale in comparison
to that the City Council, perhaps not enthusiastically, perpetrated when it removed
from the budget a $12 per water connection monthly fee for garbage pickup. Ratepayers
descended upon their representatives, a majority of whom bent to the will of
their constituents and stripped the fee, even as they voiced misgivings about
whether people really understood the issue.
Currently, the general fund, where sales and
property taxes go, provides around $8 million a year in subsidization to run
the city’s solid waste operations. With an estimated more than $9 million
annually that would have flowed into a separately created enterprise fund to
back garbage handling, the subsidies could go for other purposes, which the
budget document identifies as whittling down a roads backlog. Without the fee,
the city implies that won’t happen.
The hue and cry showed an amazing populist
response to the fee’s imposition, remarkable in that not only do most mid-size
and above cities have such a mechanism but also right across the river Bossier
City residents without much in the way of complaints essentially pay twice as much monthly as
what Tyler proposed. Even more amazingly, Shreveport residents cough up without
any visible protest $2.50 a month for the privilege of sorting through their own
trash and separating out for pickup recyclable items, subsidizing
that cost-inefficient policy.
Such passion has better places for direction for
the city to save money instead of increasing fees. And the leading target remains
the same, the city-owned Hilton Hotel that will cost taxpayers needlessly
tens of millions of dollars over the decades. The 2017 budget acknowledges
that, in operational terms, it now makes only around a half million dollars a
year, less than a fifth of the debt service for which taxpayers must
compensate. Assuming Shreveport could sell it for half of the $65 million
in debt and future interest, it would save an average of $1.5 million a
year through 2035.
If the hotel would not serve as the top priority
to shed, its allied Convention Center would. It loses money merely by
operating, a predicted over $1.5 million next year. On top of it, its debt
service – not separated in the city’s reporting of general obligation bond
indebtedness – must run several million dollars a year. Again, a sale of it at
half of its debt load would save half of these figures on a yearly basis.
Add it up, and these retained dollars likely could
pay for solid waste handling. But city politicians seem to give no thought to
sloughing off these wastefully expensive baubles and think first to hit up the
citizenry instead. That’s what truly ought to enrage the people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment