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.