 |
| Photo by Erasmo Castro |
Now, before a packed Cameron County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 Commissioner Joey Lopez, the author of the agenda item to grant exorbitant raises to 22 county officials totaling over $400,000, withdrew the item, claiming that now the county had "no money," was actually $2,000,000 in the hole, citing a shortfall in bridge collections.
"Even without the raises(presumably for officials, but also including the 3-phase raise for staff), we are $500,000 short," added Lopez.
So, the taxpayers score a knockout on this one with Trevino not getting a penny of his proposed $48,657 annual raise nor County Treasurer David Betancourt getting his additional $39,968 in annual salary.
The County Commissioners, on the verge of voting themselves $32,684 in additional earnings, wilted like marigolds in the hot Brownsville sun, retracting their requests under the harsh glare of an angry Brownsville blogosphere-reading public.
County Judge Eddie Trevino, Jr. did push back on this blog's description of his county judge work ethic, saying his office was "not a part-time job," that he was "on call 24/7." He stopped short of claiming he goes to his county office on any kind of regular basis.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Sofia Benavides rambled a bit, seemingly justifying pay increases, stating "I work hard," then pushing back against those who want to "get rid of the County Treasurer's office," saying "no matter what this county needs a treasurer," and that there's "no valid reason" to abolish the position.
Most in the audience attended to voice opposition to granting Annova LNG a huge tax abatement in the hundreds of millions of dollars, holding up black cardboard "thumbs down" arms that they lifted in unison at every appropriate juncture.
The agenda item to consider the huge tax abatement for Annova LNG was tabled in response to a request by the company's representative.
 |
| Photo by Sara Stapleton Barrera |
.jpg)
There is a good, reasonable reason to abolish the County Treasurer position.....it is not needed, as seen by other counties in Texas eliminating the position. David Betancourt continues to suck at the public tit without doing anything productive. The Betancourt family has a history of being on the public tit...and its time to end that dynasty of greed. Mrs. Benavides supports the position because she is also a part of a family that has thrived on the public tit.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Tad Hasse.
DeleteNot a done deal at all. Tabling the proposal merely means it will come up again, later.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bigger deal than it looks because if it comes up again on or after 09-01-2019, some Texas Tax Code changes will require that the County Commissioners' Court will have to post a public notice regarding the proposed tax abatement 30 days before a Public Hearings is held on the proposed abatement.
DeleteSee "Legal Alert: Texas extends Chapter 312 Property Tax Abatement Program," Eversheds Southerland, 06-25-2019, https://us.eversheds-sutherland.com/mobile/NewsCommentary/Legal-Alerts/222040/Legal-Alert-Texas-extends-Chapter-312-Property-Tax-Abatement-Program. Quote:
Background: Chapter 312 Property Tax Abatement Program Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code permits local taxing units to enter into agreements with property owners providing for the abatement of ad valorem property taxes, provided that the property owner makes specified improvements or repairs to the property. These agreements are entered into between a property owner and a local county, city, special taxing district or other authority such as a water district or a hospital district. The state law authorizes and establishes certain guidelines for the abatement agreements, with the precise terms of the abatements negotiated and agreed to by the local taxing authority and the taxpayer. Any agreement must be approved by a vote of the members of the governing body of the local taxing unit.
Changes Effected by HB 3143
First, and most importantly, HB 3143 extends the life of the Chapter 312 abatement program until September 1, 2029. The term of an abatement agreement is limited to a maximum of 10 years by the statute, so even if the program is not extended again, property owners who execute agreements before the potential expiration of the program could potentially still benefit from the abatement program for a number of years past this expiration date.
Second, HB 3143 adds requirements regarding public hearing and notice periods. Specifically, the bill provides that notice of a public meeting where approval of an abatement agreement will be considered must be published at least 30 days before the scheduled meeting date. Additionally, the bill adds a requirement that the public notice must contain the following information: the name of the property owner and the applicant for the agreement, the name and location of the reinvestment zone in which the property is located, a description of the nature of the improvements or repairs covered by the proposed agreement, and the estimated cost of the improvements or repairs. These requirements apply to tax abatement agreements entered into on or after September 1, 2019.
Third, the bill adds a requirement for a public hearing at which members of the public are given the opportunity to be heard—before the adoption, amendment, repeal, or reauthorization of the guidelines—and criteria regarding abatement agreements of a taxing unit. This requirement applies only to the adoption, amendment, repeal, or reauthorization of guidelines and criteria on or after September 1, 2019. In addition, a requirement is added for each taxing unit that maintains a website to post a current version of the guidelines and criteria to its website.
Finally, the bill imposes a requirement for the chief appraiser of a taxing district to deliver a report to the comptroller for each of the three years immediately following the expiration of an abatement agreement, showing the appraised value of the property that was subject to the agreement. These reports will provide verification as to the benefits of the program arising from increased property values resulting from the developments that have been granted an abatement. This requirement is effective only for those agreements that expire on or after September 1, 2019.
I think the link to the finally agreed to bill wording is available at https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB03143F.pdf#navpanes=0
Well with Sylvia on the ballot it is time to make it an issue in the race and find someone who can run against her using the useless county treasure position as an issue. As the one person said she was smug when listnening. Sofie is too smug to see the writing on the wall.
ReplyDeleteFirst I meant Sofie not Sylvia - this paranoia about it being placed on the agenda againt relects the voters understanding of the process, Did he or she believe when Joey Lopez clearly said there will be no pay raises this year he meant untl the end of humanity. County the numbers. There was not before Joey Lopez's statement so it was discussed by the commissioners before the meeting. David Garza said on the record he would have voted no. Joey Lopez is a smart businessman he knows when he said no raises this year because of a budget shortfall that signaled he would never vote for it this year, Sofie was sitting there scared which is why she was called out as smug.
ReplyDeleteThere is no law anywhere which bars the commission from putting the pay raises in next years budget when there is no election. But really, people actually believed Joey meant never until he end of time will the issue be reintroduced? It will not happen this year with the election. The budget is set with a short fall. People actuall believe going into an election Sofie Benavides is going to vote for a budget amendment to get a pay raise thereby increasing the deficit? It is so easy to play the people with dishonest paranoia. During next years budget discussions you end it now by in March or November of 2020 voting anyone on the ballot out. The message is sent. Stupid would be the Republicans not putting people up for the November 2020 election. That will insure next year they do not aadd in the pay raise. Strategize people and stop with the paranoia.
Wow Bobby and here I thought Joey Lopez meant no payraises until the end of humanity. Since the tax rate is staying the same is it also until the end of humanity? You are truly brilliant. It must have been the rigorous studies at UTEP.
DeleteSophie is a self centered non productive county commissioner. She needs to go and I agree Sophie and David both suck tit
ReplyDeleteEvery politician in the county knew the salary schedule before they filed. If it wasn't enough then they should not have run. In any case, there should be an ordinance that no salary raise takes effect until after the next election cycle.
ReplyDelete