Sugar Land Council To Consider Fleet Vehicle Purchases For River Park Annexation
November 3rd, 2009 | by Jamie Mock | Published in News | 14 Comments
In preparation for the Dec. 1 annexation of River Park, Sugar Land City Council will consider tonight approving the purchase of five new vehicles at a cost of $135,085, along with a new Chevrolet Tahoe for the Fire Department for $43,847.
The annexation will add about 3,600 new residents, and the vehicle purchases include a Ford ½ Ton Truck Extended Cab for the Parks Department, one Ford 3/4 Ton Truck Crew Cab for the Public Works Department and two Ford 1/2 Ton Trucks and one Ford 1 Ton Truck for the Water Utilities Department.
The city’s 2010 budget includes the $135,085 for the fleet vehicles, and the Fire Department will fund $ 43,847 for a total budget appropriation of $178,932.
Council will meet tonight, Nov. 3, at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 2700 Town Center Blvd. North.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm (#)
Don’t forget to buy a few new police cars. I’ve seen some of the people who live there. I’ll put it this way, they value rim size on their car over their rental homes.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm (#)
Where is River Park anyway? Not familiar w/ it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm (#)
RiverPark is at 59&99 and CST is too dense to realize the value of the annexation or he wouldn’t have disparaged the residents by his comment. Actually, Sugar Land gains a lot of tax revenue and additional park land. And yes CST new police vehicles will be needed to catch people like you speeding through the development.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm (#)
Ahh OK, over behind the hospital
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm (#)
three letters, HEB ….the store does a lot of business and the shopping center is in the $80,000,000 range. Sugar Land is chomping at the bit to get some additional tax revenue so they can lower your residential taxes and keep playing those movies once a month at city hall. We benefit because Sugar Land seems to be a value added. The illusion has become real.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:47 am (#)
I’m not sure more retail fills that promise cons1. During sour economies it is considered the most unstable form of taxation (sales tax) and the city has to expand services to cover the annexation area. We’ve seen first hand the impact of falling sales taxes locally and at the county level has on the budgets. At best it is a zero sum game. When have you ever seen our taxes fall in these ever expanding areas? In order for that to happen you need a stable source like single family homes and an end to the abatements that SL is steeped in for the select large corporate landlords.
They do have a good bond rating though, but quite a bit of debt to go with it. The only other option is to reduce services to the public, but what do you take from, fire, police, public works? Carrying large amounts of debt and giving away so many abatements limit your options. In the end the public usually comes out on the short end as well as paying more either through the rate increases or appraisal increases. I’m really not sure why other areas too, that have been in the ETJ longer, should have to wait in line behind a newer subdivision like this? I have many questions about it.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 am (#)
1true, I really think its the sales tax. Retail is down but even being down, I bet that HEB pulls more sales tax than 3 stores in older parts of Sugar Land. SL was already providing fire and the water and sewer are not a financial issue with the health of the MUD. Police and Parks are the only thing I can think that will cost the city. Sales Tax and home values are very good, even in this down economy.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:08 am (#)
I was looking at it less from the cities perspective and more from a homeowner, taxpayers perspective. High property tax appraisals drive up our payments. I’ve also read that cities that maintain MUDs within their boundaries further harms taxpayers (sort of a double tax). I’ve seen that reflected in bond rating reports too. One other concern I have is with how fast areas are becoming vacant, like the older areas of SL you mention as growth pushes past it. This cycle seems to be accelerating. SL is almost entirely built out and won’t have the advantage of vast open areas to develop anymore. It then takes on the problem of other aging communities around Houston with high bond debt and an eroding tax base, which then creates more flight of homeowners and retail. For the long-term an unhealthy mix for the area. More thought and independence must be exerted in the planning stages and I’ve never really been convinced our local councils and governments have done this. I think it’s why our property taxes are so high and we carry such debt.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am (#)
I believe I read on these threads that our property tax appraisals went up over last years by 10+% and believe there is a number of articles on this news site stating that places us among some of the highest property taxes per value in the state.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am (#)
Mine didn’t. Try again.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am (#)
There you go poo pooing again.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am (#)
I swear, some of you peoples’ glasses are eternally half empty.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:07 am (#)
As a resident, I see no downside. The problem with our taxes is the rate at which we pay as our values go up. SL has made committments to keep it in check ( with increasing homestead exception ) where as the the county and school district have not. Yes, the county reduced the rate $.01 which is less than 2% but my assessment went up 5.8% ( foreclosures, short sales and other “unconfirmed” sales excluded ) while the neighborhood had a 5% decrease in actual values this last year. SL will give us a break while the county and school district will continue to take what they can get in conjuction with the appraisal districts continued fleecing. I don’t have info on the LID to argue but they did spend money last couple years to meet fed guidelines. Bottom line is, I feel SL is more in line with my tax expectations than the county or other taxing districts.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am (#)
I believe the county budget, after double digit growth over the last two years and 3.5% this year saw our taxes raised via appraisals quite a bit. If you happen to be one of the thousands laid off over the last year that puts you behind the proverbial 8 ball with 10+% increases in a supposedly flat market.
I agree it would be nice if the school district wouldn’t raise our rates either, but appraisal increases are artificial and meant to satisfy the entities budgets while making the public believe their actual taxes have not been effected. I believe the title of the report on this new site does a better job explaining what the Tax Foundation research said, ‘Tax Foundation Study Again Hits Fort Bend County Hard For High Property Taxes’.