Topic: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park (Read 3311 times)

luvcassie · « **Reply #45 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:47:36 pm »

Quote

and now in order to finish it out they want to create a park district so that those who did not vote for the park can finish paying for the park?

I probably know OS's answer to this, but this is aimed toward others...

Do you use the park? If you use it, why not vote yes to make it bigger and better, AND to hire more people to pick up the trash ect. The Parks Dept. gets money from the tax payers in Forney but yet people outside the city limits that do not pay taxes use the park. Hence, more people using the park than the Parks Dept gets funds from tax payers to pay for up keep ect...doesn't seem fair to me. I know some of you will say, well people from Terrell visit the park ect, but the amount of people from other cities that come to the park no way compare to people that live just outside the city limits, but within Forney.

OS, I didn't move here to pay for a park either, but I am glad our city is growing and making Forney a nice place to raise children(when I have them). I don't mind paying extra for this. Like you said, if you don't want to pay then vote No.

outspoken · « **Reply #46 on:** July 31, 2009, 08:28:28 pm »

Quote from: luvcassie on July 31, 2009, 07:47:36 pm

I probably know OS's answer to this, but this is aimed toward others...

I have been to the park twice. . . the first time was to drive through it when it was completed and the second time was to go watch JG's dd play a softball game.

Quote from: luvcassie on July 31, 2009, 07:47:36 pm

Do you use the park? If you use it, why not vote yes to make it bigger and better, AND to hire more people to pick up the trash ect. The Parks Dept. gets money from the tax payers in Forney but yet people outside the city limits that do not pay taxes use the park. Hence, more people using the park than the Parks Dept gets funds from tax payers to pay for up keep ect...doesn't seem fair to me. I know some of you will say, well people from Terrell visit the park ect, but the amount of people from other cities that come to the park no way compare to people that live just outside the city limits, but within Forney.

Bigger and better is not always the best. . . especially during the current economic times. As far as the trash . . . it is a shame that people litter and will not be responsible for their trash . . . not sure what the answer is to that problem. . . . but I'm not interested in being taxed because people refuse to clean up after themselves. . . believe me I know the frustration . . . I live in WMF and people litter here too and don't even bother to clean up their own dog's poop either.

Quote from: luvcassie on July 31, 2009, 07:47:36 pm

OS, I didn't move here to pay for a park either, but I am glad our city is growing and making Forney a nice place to raise children(when I have them). I don't mind paying extra for this. Like you said, if you don't want to pay then vote No.

But did you vote for it?

I'm not against having a nice place for families . . . . I just cannot afford any more taxes. . . especially when my HOA dues can be increased (and probably will be here soon) and when I am already in two special districts, one of which (if I understood Josh correctly) could be looking at raising my current tax that I pay to them.

Entities really need to taking a hard look at the financial landscape. . . people are not paying their taxes currently . . . and they are proposing an additional tax . . . . and a tax for what . . . a non-necessity.

At this household things fall into two categories:

The "need" category (got to have this to survive. . . food, electricity, roof over my head, gas, health insurance, etc.)

or

The "want" category (TV, eating at restaurants, going to the movies, digital camera/mine is currently broke and I "want" one really bad . . . but the "want" category does not have enough money in it)

luvcassie · « **Reply #47 on:** July 31, 2009, 10:10:55 pm »

Fair enough...

I guess I have a different point of view because I live in a neighborhood that does not have a HOA so that is not something I ever think about. I still like having a nice city with nice amenities, it will draw more people to our city which will bring more people to tax....

But I understand about the economy and I am looking into the future, I doubt the economy will always be this way....at least I hope not.

Josh · « **Reply #48 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:33:08 am »

Quote from: outspoken on July 31, 2009, 08:28:28 pm

Entities really need to taking a hard look at the financial landscape. . . people are not paying their taxes currently . . . and they are proposing an additional tax . . . . and a tax for what . . . a non-necessity.

You've really hit the nail on the head there, OS. This is one of the things I'm very, very worried about. KCFWSD 1-C just broke through the 90% collected mark for our property taxes for this year - these are the property taxes that were considered past-due/ate in January of this year. That's way, way, way behind a SPD would normally be for this time of the year and is not a good sign at all. That means that we're having to turn over about 10% of the homeowners to the delinquent tax collection attorney and threaten them with liens, etc.

And you can't pay one part of your property tax bill and not pay another, so that means that around 10% of the 700+ homes within the boundaries of KCFWSD 1-C aren't paying any of the property taxes - the county, the school district, the emergency services district, none of them are receiving any money from these homeowners. That represents about $100,000 in uncollected revenue for KCFWSD 1-C if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.

KCFWSD 1-C is the largest (by # of homes, so I'm assuming, by population as well) utility district within the boundaries of the proposed parks district. So if we're having these sort of problems, it doesn't bode well for any of the utility districts within the proposed parks district.

Nate Dogg · « **Reply #49 on:** August 01, 2009, 08:34:57 am »

Ya'll please keep in mind, this isn't JUST for finishing phase 2 of the park. It is for having a larger budget to properly staff and maintain the park(s) that is desperately needed, and much more. I've heard talk that the parks department would like to move further into the area outside of the city because there is a definite need for it. Go to community park any given good weather day, its PACKED. With the parks district it will allow them the staff to run it better, and the money to look for additional things that our community wants (yes OS, I said wants, not needs).

Katie, I know its not perfect, but unfortunately you always have those that ruin it for the rest of us, and the best thing we can do is "police" it ourselves. Blaming the parks department really isn't the answer. If you knew the stuff they've had to keep up with and clean up after, its just sickening. The bad folks out there will always do things they shouldn't and concerned citizens can always call the police department to have them removed, ticketed, etc. I can personally account for the Forney PD responding immediately to park issues, so if you see something, call them! The FPD has done an incredible job of keeping many of these issues to a minimum and I commend them for it!

As far as the tax rate goes, if we (city peeps) were voting on this and it was going to raise my rate the percentage we are talking about, I'd do it in a heart beat. I realize it would mean another $20-30 maybe on my taxes next year, but the usage we (my wife and I) have already gotten out of the park this year alone are worth that (and I'm not including softball in that statement). I realize that's based on my property tax value, and it will be a little more/less for others. Its not just for the youth sports organizations, yes there is a lot planned such as baseball getting the fields they desperately need. But there are others, such as additional walking trails which if you've been out there in the evening, you've seen how many people use what little trails we have already and why its a great investment for our city. The basketball courts are always full, the playground and splash pad are packed everytime I've gone by them. I know the concern of spending the money in this economic time, but this is money investing in our community and bringing more people to our town. I know this sounds a little silly but "build it and they will come". Remember that park effects more than just happy people using it. It brings people from other towns who typically would spend some money either at the gas stations or food establishments. It is also an attraction for moving to Forney as well, which means more homes to sell and build which employs many people in that process. Yes, it means a little bit more each year for you, but look what it does during our economic crisis, it helps create more work! And the economy isn't going to be this dull forever, and when it comes back, I promise you it won't be such an issue. Please look at the future of Forney and not just the here and now, think of what this provides for your kids in the future and much much more.

Josh, I know there is a plan to get the literature and the stats out to the voters. They want everyone to know exactly what they are basing this on and why they've asked for this parks district. I realize its short notice, but there are many people working on this to try and have educated voters so people know what they are voting for (or against). I know this information should be coming soon, and that's what I'm waiting on to put out there.

outspoken · « **Reply #50 on:** August 01, 2009, 09:24:34 am »

What part of

I don't have any more money in my budget

do taxing entities not understand?

I don't care what it is for. . . . if people don't have the money, they don't have the money. People are not paying their taxes now. . . what makes you think they are going to start paying taxes for a "good cause".

And I have been hearing "the economy will not always be this way" for SO LONG that I'm sick and tired of hearing it.

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 01, 2009, 10:34:47 am

As some of ya'll can tell . . . . I am a little heated about this topic.

Nate, I'm not sure how you are coming up with $20 - 30 annually. . . when I read HB 4789 it gives the board the power to determine the tax rate and the tax rate may not exceed 35 cents per $100 valuation. So that means I could pay $421.75 per year to the parks district.

I'm currently paying $955.57 to the Kaufman County Fresh Water District 1C. . . . . this district makes sure I get water to my house (in a nutshell). Josh could do a much better job explaining the purpose of this district . . . but this district currently owes on bonds and they must be paid . . .in addition to maintaining the equipment that gets water to my house. Josh if I misstate anything about the district, please correct me, but that is my basic understanding of the water district.

So an entity wants the power to be able to charge me $421.75 for a "want". . . . that is almost HALF of what my water district is currently charging for a "need".

One thing that I have learned living in WMF . . . you better look at the amount they have the authority to levy . . . . and HB 4789 gives them the authority to not exceed 35 cents per $100 valuation. If they were only wanting $20 - $30 annually they should have written HB 4789 differently.

These are very tough times right now. . . . and I am of the opinion that taxing for non-necessity items should not be done. . . . . if they were needing more taxes for fire, police, water, etc. . . . that would be a totally different story for me.

katiev · « **Reply #51 on:** August 02, 2009, 01:41:58 pm »

In my opinion, the Parks Dept. was not prepared for taking care of the Community Park. Maintenance and proper staffing should have been taken into consideration in the budget all along. How much was spent on that new building they just put up? Isn't that for meetings? Couldn't that money have been spent on more staff, security, clean up, etc?

Now they want my vote to raise taxes to make it even bigger. I am not convinced yet. I still have an open mind for discussion on it, but I am definitely leaning toward no.

yesitsme · « **Reply #52 on:** August 02, 2009, 01:48:58 pm »

But as the title of this thread indicates...... it's ALREADY gonna be bigger now.
We're at 170 acres w this addition.

outspoken · « **Reply #53 on:** August 02, 2009, 01:57:28 pm »

One question. . . just exactly how many cents per $100 value did the citizens of Forney end up paying for the community park?

When I checked the tax rolls it just shows it as the City of Forney. . . but I did find out the following increases over the years

2006 .494801
2007 .493500
2008 .680535
2009 .680535

So from 2006 to 2009 it was an .187035 increase and I'm assuming that increase is because of the bond package that was approved Nov. of 2006 for the three propositions, which were

1) Road Improvement
2) Police and Court Facility
3) 127 Acre Regional Park

So my guess is that the .187035 is somehow divided among the three propositions that were passed.

And now there is a bill wanting to create a Kaufman County Parks Improvement District (by the way the City of Forney hired a lobbyist to get this billed passed). . . that will ONLY tax the homeowners living within the FISD boundaries, but outside the city limits of Forney . . . and that board would determine the tax rate. . . . and the tax rate cannot exceed 35 cents per $100 valuation.

To me that seems very unequalable. . . the board could end up taxing non-citizens at a higher rate than citizens of Forney. . . . . for a park that Forney voters agreed to.

It would be interesting to know what part of that .187035 goes toward the park. . . even if they .187035 was totally toward the park (which I highly doubt) . . . . 35 cents is almost DOUBLE that.

And I'm not buying the line that this is because of maintenance. Forney needs more money to finish the other phases. . . . and I am not into paying a disportionate share for a park I did not vote for.

I have a HUGE problem with this.

katiev · « **Reply #54 on:** August 02, 2009, 02:27:58 pm »

Wow, outspoken, you have done a lot of research and it looks like you are absolutely right. I hope word gets out about this!

If someone knows about the division of that increase in money, I would love to know.

outspoken · « **Reply #55 on:** August 02, 2009, 02:37:44 pm »

Anything over a $100 gets my interest . . . lol. . . not to mention living in WMF we have been screwed over so many times that I have learned from experience. Never, ever believe what they say they are going to do . . . . see what is written that they can do.

Gonzo · « **Reply #56 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:27:08 am »

Outspoken is right in some areas. (Gosh, I can't believe I am going to get into this, but I can't help myself.)

While I understand that what COULD happen versus what will happen involves alot of trust, things are getting out of hand on this discussion. Many, many folks involved in the creation of this bill were not for the .35 cent limit. They said all along it could be way lower than that. However, once things get to Austin, you know how it changes because more people get involved. Having said that, if you distrust your local government, then nothing can convince you the tax will be nowhere near 35 cents.

If the Parks District isn't passed, I can almost guarantee the next thing you will see is a non-Forney player usage fee. For all the kids that participate in organized activities at Community Park, the City has the right to tack on user fees. Lots of other cities do this in order to get the folks that benefit from the park on a consistent basis to be able to pay for park maintenance, upgrades, etc. This thread will need to be saved to bring up and remind folks at a later date if this doesn't pass. They will wonder why playing softball, baseball, soccer, etc is so expensive just because you live outside Forney City Limits and the answer will be here in this thread and in the vote to come.

The other phases will be finished. It is just a matter of when. If the Parks District passes, it can happen sooner because Bonds can be sold. If it doesn't pass, it will just have to happen down the road. The baseball folks are screaming constantly for a facility comparable to the Softball complex. Football folks are struggling to accomodate all the different orgs that are popping up. Soccer is growing like never before. I hope all the folks with kids involved in those sports that don't get behind the Parks District will remember this process in a couple of years when they still don't have a facility as comparable as softball.

I am leaving a ton out because so much has been discussed already. I really didn't want to get into it, but this thread isn't going to die, so I at least wanted to throw some counterpoints out that would slow down the already snowballing NO vote. There are a ton of facts that need to get out and a ton of things that need to be decided. I don't disagree with your concern over the .35 cent ceiling, but that one is going to come down to trust in the end, I believe.

Outspoken, I do believe your question regarding the .187 etc. is a good one. I will see if I can get that one answered.

outspoken · « **Reply #57 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:58:29 am »

Here are a few more questions for you Gonzo

Has the election notice/form . . . whatever the title is . . . been finalized?

Who finalizes it. . . the commissioners court or some entity in the City of Forney or both?

Will there be a tax rate in the election form? This question is a real BIG ONE for me. . . . I am not voting for something that has an "open tax rate". Maybe once I see a reasonable rate I could feel better . . . but that .35 is just way too high for me.

Now all that being said. . . . I'm not opposed to paying $20 - 30 a year for a park district. . . . but I have yet to see anything that guarantees me that is all that I'm paying. . . . all I can see is .35 . . . . and yes I'm very excited about that.

I will only bore you with one of my WMF experiences and that is the stinking homeowners dues. I questioned the builder about the homeowner's dues . . . because I saw that they could raise the dues 10% every single year without a vote (they basically can raise it how they want because they hold the votes). . .and I was verbally assured . . . oh no, that won't happen . . . they set the dues really high . . . so that is no worry. WRONG!

I'm not getting in another situation like that one.

katiev · « **Reply #58 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:58:49 am »

Gonzo, I would much rather pay a usage fee in that scenario. That is something that I am used to when it comes to youth sports. I know our football teams have to pay rental fees at stadiums. We cover that cost with fundraisers, gate fees, concession stand sales, etc.

I would support the idea of a pay-for-use fee rather than raising taxes across the board for people that might never step foot in the park.

Nate Dogg · « **Reply #59 on:** August 03, 2009, 10:06:45 am »

I could be totally wrong, but isn't the tax rate based on the $1000 mark, not $100? If the rate were say set at $0.06, my house which is roughly worth $100,000 would make my parks district rate per year $60? I could be totally wrong, I'm not real familiar with this area of taxes.

OS, I can answer 1 of your questions somewhat... I was specifically told the number that is estimated being used will be in the single digits. That is why I'm looking for the information to become available to have an exact number, but the rate is expected (the last I heard) to be in single digits. Roughly someone mentioned to me 0.03-0.06 range, but that is only a guestimate, not solid yet. And thus why I used my analogy above to ask my question with the $0.06 rate.

The biggest thing is the shared amount that would divided among all those houses in the parks district. If it is not passed and a non-Forney usage fee is brought in, you are looking at substantial increase per house that plays sports to cover what those who aren't paying for the park usage. Keep in mind there are many who use the park for themselves and kids, but don't play sports, therefore they won't be "chipping in" on the cost(s) either, which is something you will be leaving up to the families that do. And again, this is not just about community park, its about the parks department as a whole which includes Mulberry park, and many other areas.

But Katie, would you want to pay $150-200 per kid per sport to allow them to play? That would be added on top of the normal sporting programs fees. That's just a number thrown out, but remember, covering say $100 from every home in the parks district vs. covering that same amount with ONLY the kids playing sports, you might be looking at something that high.

Twenty Peaceful Minutes

Author Topic: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park (Read 3311 times)

luvcassie

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

luvcassie

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Josh

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Nate Dogg

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

katiev

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

yesitsme

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

katiev

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Gonzo

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

katiev

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Nate Dogg

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park