Editorial: City needs to raise level of its debate

Clarendon residents will get their chance to sound off on a proposal to raise property taxes in the city during two public hearings over the next few days. The first hearing will be held today (September 13), and another next Tuesday, September 18. Both meetings will be held at City Hall and will start at 7 p.m.

A divided Board of Aldermen has proposed raising the city property tax rate four cents to $0.69 per $100 valuation, which if your home is worth $50,000, will cost you about $20.

Of course the average home in Clarendon is not worth $50,000. The average home is worth much less than that.

Last month, City Administrator Lambert Little asked the board to propose a tax rate of $0.72, which would have cost the average taxpayer $26 per year and added about $30,000 to city coffers. But two aldermen balked at that idea. And in fact, Alderman Tommy Hill in particular objected, saying he did not want to raise the city tax rate at all and moved to keep the rate at 65 cents, but Aldermen Abby Patten, Terry Noble, and Will Thompson voted against Hill and Alderman Jesus Hernandez.

Sadly, City Hall politics has begun to closely resemble Washington, DC, with two unflinching sides. Votes frequently are 3-2 with Hill and Hernandez voting together, Noble and Thompson voting together, and Patten filling the role of a wildcard. Healthy debate is good for the city, but closed mindedness is not.

With the tax rate division we see history repeating itself at City Hall. For many years, the city did not raise taxes even to keep up with the fluctuations of property valuations, and then they found themselves far behind the curve in terms of the cost of services and were forced to raise rates on everything to catch up.

Last year, the city did not raise its tax rate even though property values had dropped, and in so doing they gave up about $10,000 in revenue. The drought restrictions then kicked in and dealt the city a double whammy by cutting the throat of the city’s cash cow – water revenue. Now the city has lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue; and although they hope that revenue returns if cooler, wetter weather comes back, they can’t count on it.

One bright hope is that the city may garner as much as $100,000 in groundwater sales to Greenbelt Water Authority in the next fiscal year, and Little’s early budget tapped that potential revenue. But then in a 3-2 vote, the aldermen directed that money strictly to debt repayment for waterlines under the streets that are scheduled for paving; and at the same time, they accepted more than $100,000 in cuts to the proposed budget.

To be sure there were some things the city can do without in those cuts, but it also slashed $25,000 from the street department – because Lord knows we don’t need to spend any extra money there – and more than $20,000 to begin replacing fire hydrants that are known to be broken – a definite public safety issue.

A subsequent meeting reportedly tried to resurrect funding for some of these things by looking elsewhere for cuts. The Enterprise was unable to send a representative to that meeting, but we understand from both sides that yelling was involved. It depends on who you talk to who did the yelling, but part of the disagreement apparently centered on Little’s travel to state meetings and conferences.

Yelling over an expense that, according to one source, amounts to $3,000 in a million dollar budget is ridiculous. Frankly, this column thinks that is probably some of the best money the city spends. Professional development is important, and that’s why the aldermen had the foresight to put in Little’s employment agreement that these expenses would be paid for. Networking with other cities and learning more about how others deal with the same municipal issues is a way for Clarendon to move forward. If it comes down to it and that one item means we have to raise the tax rate half a cent, then so be it.

As we go to press this week, the board is meeting again, and hopefully we will be able to report next week that it was a cordial meeting even if there were disagreements. We don’t want any alderman to be a “rubber stamp,” but we do expect our city leaders to be fair-minded, forward thinking, and reasonable. Regardless, the debate needs to be toned down and kept civil.

The whole debate can really be distilled down to these questions: Should the City of Clarendon provide more or less services to its citizens? Do we want to be more or less professional? Do we want to move forward or not?

This city has many needs, and none of them are going to be met cheaply. This column hates taxes as much as anyone, but we also recognize that the city has only a few ways to get money and we are tired of Clarendon always trying to “poor boy” its way along when it doesn’t have to. We should all urge the city to adopt a budget and set priorities that would reflect a community on the move.