Some facts to clear the distortions from one Mr Portnoy

Sometimes things get very personal. Take the personal grudge (hate fest?) that Sim Portnoy has with me. His hate of me consumes him, driving him to find every way to torture facts to fit his desired perception and outcome, it simply drives him crazy. And it all goes back to when, I, as the new guy on the council, just sworn in, would not cave to his demand that the city not approve the contract to rebuild church drive. His desire was to maintain church as a very dangerous narrow crumbling road (perhaps road is an overstatement, more like a backwoods trail). The city council had approved the plan to reconstruct church drive (as it is today) prior to my even running for office, let alone being elected. This was just the vote to award the construction contract to get the job done, and it was a unanimous vote. But sim does love to hate on me. I actually find it amusing that a person could be so ill informed.

To add insult to injury (this being yet another thing that drives Sim to distraction), I also voted to approve the contract for the reconstruction of Lake Sharon, a road that most people in town really enjoy being able to use. Another dangerous narrow crumbling road, that the city reconstructed into a safe and convenient 4 lane thoroughfare. All with funds approved for that use two years before I even ran for the council. The road itself had been approved (appropriated) by a previous council.

Now to his present distortions - he's hoping you are uncurious and easily confused by our taxes. In 2009, my first year in office, I voted to keep the tax rate the same as in 2008, the net result being a 104,000 DECREASE in taxes collected on existing properties. In 2010, I voted for tax rate whose net result was a 16,178 increase (0.2% of the over 6 million dollars collected); 2011, 47,724 increase (0.8%), and finally in 2012, a 10,190 increase (0.16%). All these numbers are right out of the adopted budgets for 2009, 10, 11, and 12. You can find the adopted budgets at the city of Corinth website (www.cityofcorinth.com)

-104000
+ 16178
+ 47724
+ 10190
========
  -29908         
So property taxes on existing properties were almost 30000 dollars less at the end of my four years on the council than when I started. So, yes, I stand by my statements that I kept taxes flat. And if my statement is wrong, then how come when I said the same thing in 2011 I beat Sim handily in the election for city council? Answer, it wasn't wrong then, and isn't now.

What of the last two years (2013, and 2014), years that I have been off the council? It's a very different story: 2013 - a 160,349 INCREASE on existing property (2.4% ! ), and oh by the way, the council kept the tax rate the same as 2012. 2014 should be great, right? the council reduced our tax rate by one cent, to 0.59489. Huzzah! Wait a minute, our taxes went up 454,000 (that's right, UP almost a half a MILLION dollars) - a whopping 6.9% in one year. Talk about a beating. (And yes, these numbers are directly from the Corinth adopted budgets for 2013 and 2014 - right on the title page as required by State law).

So, you can see that Mr sim's math is at best confused and misleading, and at worst just a plain lie. I think we should do it my way, and focus on the TAX AMOUNT and not the tax rate.

And don't forget, that while keeping our taxes down, I voted to add two police officers to our police force in 2012 - but of course by Sim's logic in his distorted word view, I don't support our public safety personnel. 

The same "tax rate" doesn't necessarily mean the same "taxes"

It's been a mainstay of local politicians forever: "I will keep the tax rate flat" we're told. Great; too bad our property valuations went up 7%. So if the tax rate remains "flat", then our taxes go up 7%. That's just what happened this year. So, hey, they cut us a break - a one cent reduction in property tax rate (about 1.7% reduction), so we only had our taxes increase by a little less than 6% this year. Yay. By the way, our taxes went up last year too, nearly 2%. You know, when they told us (wonderfully) that the tax rate would remain the same.

Ok, so when I was on the council, in 2009, we LOWERED taxes by leaving the tax rate the same. Each of the next three years the tax rate was raised, but the same taxes came in. Instead of a one cent tax rate reduction, we should have received a four cent tax rate reduction - Our taxes would have remained the same. Keep in mind, I am talking about existing property. When new property comes on to the tax rolls, the city get's more tax money, but without raising the taxes on existing property owners.

That happened in 2012, when I voted to spend 160,000 on two additional police officers to enhance our public safety. That additional money came from the 32 million dollars in development that happened that year, not from already existing tax payers.

What's going to happen in the future - a strategic plan that has a goal of maintaining a flat tax rate... so as our property increases in value due to strong demand in North Texas, and because people want to live in Corinth, 4%, 5%, 10% increases in value could be the norm. So that "goal" of a flat tax rate guarantees tax increases ad nauseum. My goal is to keep the actual taxes paid by a homeowner flat, or at least below inflation. That means when property values go up tax rates by default should be coming down. And not just by a penny. By the way, inflation is on pace this year to, well, deflate. Last year it was 1.4%; so why a 6% increase in the taxes?

Help me put a stop to this!

Filling Station SUP on Monday April 13 P&Z Meeting

There is a public hearing for public input on the Specific use permit application for the 7-Eleven. The application for a specific use permit is in this case, fairly routine. The 7-Eleven wants to have gas pumps (that is, operate as a gas station) at the proposed store on the south west corner of 2181 and 2499. The lot in question is already zoned C-2, commercial 2. Commercial 2 parcels allow the gas station use with a specific use permit. A commercial 3 or industrial zoning allows a gas station use by right.

There are some additional differences between the C-2 and C-3 zoning classifications. The building setbacks are larger for the side yard on a C-3 lot. The minimum lot area, width, and depth dimensions are also larger for the C-3 Zone. Generally, the idea here is that more intense usage needs more space and a larger setback from other uses.

The gasoline station component of the uses is the most intense: flammable liquids are stored and dispensed on the premises. The rest of the store's usage is essentially as a grocery. Groceries are permitted in any commercial zone, so there is nothing out of the ordinary in locating such a store in a C-2 zone. The requirement for a specific use permit for the gasoline filling station is about the hazards of that use. The C-3 dimensions and sizes help alleviate those hazards somewhat, though certainly not entirely. Rather than allowing a filling station by right in the C-2 zone, having a specific use permit process allows the P&Z commission and the city council to review each such request in light of the surrounding zones and uses, ultimately providing greater flexibility to land owners, developers, and the city, while ensuring the health, safety, and well being of the city's residents.

Individuals at the public hearing could bring up issues with having a gas station here - that's the reason for the hearing. Absent those currently unknown issues, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to not allow the SUP - the lot is ideally situated for such a use, and is well away from any residential uses.

The applicant is asking for some regulation changes, specifically that they have an ice machine and the storage for portable propane tanks outside the building on the west side. It seems to be reasonable to keep the propane tanks on the outside of the building for fire safety - any leaks are much less dangerous outside. Having the ice machine outside, away from the two major roads isn't unreasonable, and would allow customers to load the ice they've bought more easily. The main reason for not allowing out side storage is to avoid the clutter that can easily attend a convenience store/filling station. This follows the vision of our comprehensive plan, keeping the city and its businesses aesthetically pleasant and clean. However, safety trumps aesthetics for the propane storage, at least in my opinion. An ice machine is a classic outdoor appliance at this type of store, and hidden from easy view on the west side of the store, it doesn't violate the spirit of the comprehensive plan and the UDC.

I am, of course, very interested in anyone's thoughts on this subject. Anyone interested in this development and the requested SUP should come to the meeting tonight and consider speaking during the public hearing.