REBUTTING FALSE STATEMENTS RELATING TO HOSPITAL DISTRICT
By the time you read this letter, early voting will have already started on the constitutional propositions and the proposed hospital district. This letter is simply a rebuttal to some of the inaccurate statements made in a letter published in the October 13 edition of the Madisonville Meteor.
The first issue relates to comments regarding whether or not this process was “rushed”. While things may have been happening behind the scenes for quite some time with “Friends of Madison Hospital”, a lot of people feel that the “public” portion of this process hasn’t been handled properly… from the relatively unadvertised petition process, all the way to the last-minute filing for election approval. Had that filing been done 56 minutes later, this issue wouldn’t have been on the November 2 ballot.
Another, although minor, issue has to do with the number of petition signatures that were collected. While only 100 signatures were required, claims continue to be made that “approximately 350” were collected. To set the record straight, by my count, the total was 339…but if you take off the 22 signatures that were on two duplicated pages, 3 that signed the petition twice, 5 that had either no address or the wrong address, 6 that listed a PO Box as their residence, 2 with no date of birth or voter ID number, 25 that aren’t on the voter roll, 10 that only provided a first name and 1 that didn’t provide a signature, the total is really approximately 265. Technically, I guess approximately 350 were “collected” but closer to 250 were valid.
As far as the “due diligence” of County officials goes, I believe that there were some mistakes made along the way with the approval process. I don’t blame the County officials because it is my understanding that a lot of the information and wording of the notices were provided by folks associated with the hospital, at the final hour before the posting deadline. Notice of a “hearing” was never posted, as specified in the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 286.023(c). Instead, notice of a “supplemental notice of a public meeting” was posted. Also, the text in that notice, along with the text of the actual agenda item doesn’t match the text that is set forth in 286.023(e). There is no mention of the tax rate in the notice, in the agenda item or in the subsequently approved minutes of that meeting, as outlined in the statute. Yet, on the day of that “meeting”, the signed order had the correct wording, even though it differs from the actual agenda item that was voted on and approved.
When it comes to the Sales and Use tax issue, several points were made that either don’t accurately address the proposed alternative or are simply false. During the last month, I have heard several people involved with the petition claim that it was “illegal” to use a sales tax to finance a hospital district. That claim was even made in the first townhall meeting. Sec. 286.023(d) clearly states that a hospital district could use a sales tax, in counties with a population of 75,000 of less.
Their next argument was that a sales tax couldn’t be used since it wasn’t specified in the petition. Well…they are the ones that wrote the petition! Why didn’t they just say that they made a conscious decision to not seek alternative funding methods to a property tax? And, since the petition states, in Item 7, that the Hospital district “shall not impose a sales and use tax”, I’m not sure that would ever be an option. Since the Commissioner’s Court approved this petition and ordered the election based on its specifications, I suspect Item 7 would tie the hands of future hospital boards, so that they could never utilize a sales tax. It would surely require another election, if it was even possible. I think it would’ve been a better idea to include it now, rather than later, to show the property taxpayers that we were aware of and trying to lessen their burden.
Last week’s letter also makes the absurd claim that we would have to “save up enough to build a new facility” and that it would be more than a year before we saw any of that money. Are we going to wait until we have enough of the property taxes saved up? It’ll also be more than a year before they see any of the property tax money too!
The statement that “A sales tax is permanent” is blatantly FALSE. A Sales and Use tax can be repealed by the EXACT same mechanism that makes it possible… an election.
Another claim was made that a “bond”, unlike sales tax, was not permanent… that once it was repaid, those fees go away. Comparing a bond to a sales tax makes no sense. I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that we try to get a bank loan, based on sales tax, to pay for a hospital. I have always suggested using a sales tax as a way to accelerate the payoff of a bond, not as a replacement for the bond. Some have argued that a bond couldn’t be issued, based on a sales tax, because of the perceived volatility. That may be true. Even if the bond has to be issued based of a property tax, the amount of sales tax collected could definitely be used for debt service, to retire the bond early, years ahead of time.
In a nutshell, this doesn’t have to be a choice between using a sales tax INSTEAD of a property tax. Instead, the choice could’ve been made to use a Sales tax IN ADDITION to a property tax, thereby easing the burden on property owners.
My suggestion is to attend the final townhall meeting on October 25, 6-8pm at the Kimbro Center and get the answers to any questions that you have so that you can cast an informed vote, early or on November 2.
And I’m not afraid to sign my name to this letter, unlike some.
Sincerely,
Clark Osborne.
