Petition to Oppose Parks and Recreation Service Tax District

This information was available at the public meeting, which I attended, which was not "very well" attended, at the fire station on Cleveland Rd, I saw maybe 50-60 people that night who weren't directly involved in some way.

I don't think this measure will pass as is. There are two many holes and unanswered questions, and our commissioner board tends to shy away from blanket taxes without great explanation.

 

The other meeting at C3 had a steady stream of people over the course of the 2 hours it was open. It was a casual, stop in and inform yourself type of event. I was pleased to find a handful of community leaders with name badges answering questions.

 

I don't have a dog in the fight but are we now telling people what they should be spending their own money on? You have no idea what kind of financial situation one is in based on the value of their home.

Maybe he is bank rolling his parents? Maybe he has medical bills to pay? Maybe he/she has lost his/her job?

 

• No details are provided on the specific use of requested funds
  • JPQ: There's no budget posted anywhere online. There's also no clear timeline, scope, revenue plan or projection of future expenses. If you have a copy, post it.
  • Harvey: That's not where we are right now. We are at the approval to create the body and allow it to be voted on. The funds have been earmarked for purchase, maintenance, etc. Budget comes after approval to create the district. Still needs to be voted on.
  • JPQ: The notion of voting to fund a public park for $0.9M per year with no idea clear of how the money will spent doesn’t seem like a sound approach to managing public finances. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.

• No forecast of future expense to support the park is provided
  • JPQ: I haven't seen a tax or fee structure posted anywhere and I've not received a response from GCCC or the Facebook "volunteers" on this question. Again, post it if you have it.
  • Harvey: Again, not where we are right now. The proposed plan shows an example park. Residents will have their say in ultimate plans, and those plans will likely dictate what it will take to build, maintain, etc. Future expense to support the park are for once the park is built, maybe even service debt.
  • JPQ: The Board of Commissioners should setup a special tax district, vote to spend $0.9M per year on an “example” park and afterwards figure out what a real park will cost? Again, agree to disagree.

• There are several public parks located less than 10 miles away
  • Harvey: Why do we need more elementary schools when we have three within 3 miles of each other?
  • JPQ: I would argue that it's "dumb" to build another park facility when there are 9 other underutilized parks within a reasonable driving distance in Garner, Clayton, and Smithfield.
  • Harvey: Market driven need. Same concept as a need for a gas station on every corner. Per Census the population of Clayton was roughly 13,000 in 2000. The same as McLemore. Per 2010 census Clayton has 21,500. Clayton has 7 parks and 2green way trails. Why? Because they are an incorporated town with a population that requires it. Clayton has additional $0.55 tax on top of the county tax, McLemore has $0.0725 on top of county tax of $0.78. You're talking about a rate in Clayton of 0.0133 and a McLemore rate of 0.0085. On a $200,000 house the tax paid inside Clayton limits is $2,660 and one in Mclemore is $1,700 for a difference of $960. The 4forparks proposal would have this same house pay $80 more a year. This is far from $960.
  • JPQ: As you’ve indicated, the 4forparks proposal is for an “example” park. We don’t know the true scope, budget, timeline, or cost forecast. The actual cost for the park will likely be significantly higher than the initial $0.9M estimate given unrealistic expectations set by the Cleveland Parks & Rec crowd.

• Master planned communities in Cleveland already provide recreation facilities
  • JPQ: As one example, Broadmoor offers a pool, tennis courts, clubhouse, and play equipment for children. For reference, visit http://www.broadmoorrecreationclub.net/
  • Harvey: It is exclusive to members of the HOA with limited outside memberships at HOA discretion. It costs $500 per year for outsiders to join. NOT THE SAME, NOT economically feasible, and cannot even begin to service an entire community nor was it ever intended to. You got yours, so I suppose we should deny the entire community from having anything?
  • JPQ: I am not a member of the Broadmoor Recreation Club and I never actually suggested that the Club can or should service the entire community. My point is that residents already paying for the Broadmoor Recreation Club face an additional tax for services they already receive from the Club.

• Due to a recent county property revaluation, many Cleveland area residents face double digit property tax increases for 2019.
  • JPQ: The average tax increase in Johnston County as a consequence of revaluation was 24%.
  • Harvey: NOPE. The average appraised value of properties may have gone up by 24%, but I'd like a source for the average because the revaluation is not even done yet. They don't set the rate until June, so your taxes haven't changed yet. http://www.johnstonnc.com/tax2/tcontent.cfm?pid=rates http://www.johnstonnc.com/tax2/tcontent.cfm?pid=Estimate Your taxes might go up to some degree, but not 24%. They could adjust the rate down to even out the taxes due to increased property values. Watch this video to see how this works:http://www.johnstonnc.com/tax2/tcontent.cfm?pid=reval2017
  • JPQ: Reference https://jocoreport.com/commissioners-accelerate-future-property-revaluations/

• The added expense is an unwelcome tax increase for seniors living on a fixed income and residents who are already paying HOA fees for local park facilities.
  • JPQ: You seem to be reading a lot into the statement above that isn't actually there. Many seniors on a fixed income who are already struggling because of revaluation cannot afford a property tax increase. Folks paying HOA dues for local facilities do not appreciate an additional tax for services that they already receive through their HOA.
  • Harvey: You've talked to all of these seniors or are you extrapolating that just because they are seniors, they are poor. There are just as many out there that throw $5 at their grand kids every time they see them. Not everyone has the benefit of an HOA, because planning practices around here do not require their implementation or the services they may provide. Hence the need for a park for all.
  • JPQ: My comments regarding the financial impact of the tax increase on seniors are based upon feedback I’ve received from seniors via change.org and NextDoor.

• The Cleveland Parks & Recreation proposal opens to the door to more tax increases- the “special use tax district” created by the proposal establishes a legal mechanism to assess new taxes on Cleveland area residents separately from the rest of the county.
  • JPQ: The stated purpose of the special use tax district is to assess charges for Cleveland parks & residents exclusively to Cleveland residents. The county won't pay for Cleveland residents to play, so the special tax district establishes a mechanism for Cleveland to pay for its own parks. The scope of the park proposal is an ever-changing thing. Depending on the day of the week and the marketer in charge, the park includes walking trails, ball fields, an aquatic center, a community center, picnic tables, play equipment, an amphitheater, or only some of those things. Without a clear scope and budget, tax increases created through the special use tax district are inevitable.
  • Harvey: The marketing you have seen has been conceptual to give people an idea of what to expect. You are getting way ahead of yourself and fighting the wind. Nothing has changed. It is a discussion to create the body that can levy this tax if so approved by a vote of the constituents. How are you going to explain this without a conceptual plan? If they didn't have one, you'd probably complain that they don't even have a concept yet!
  • JPQ: The plan stopped being conceptual when the Parks & Rec crowd asked for $0.9M per year and requested the formation of a special tax district to assess taxes on Cleveland residents separately from the rest of the county.

• The Cleveland Parks & Recreation proposal is a handout to the Greater Cleveland Athletic Association.
  • JPQ: The park proposal provides facilities to GCAA free of charge. Other local sports associations pay field rental and facilities fees for utilization of park space. GCAA members need to pay the freight for athletics programs they sponsor, just like everyone else.
  • Harvey: I haven't seen this anywhere, but so what? Doesn't GCAA provide all of the services to run the sports programs? Why wouldn't you want them to use it free of charge? If this was the arrangement, then registration fees might come down. GCAA pays to use fields at C3, Westview, etc. Basically, this is an opportunity because you already have the sports management infrastructure in the form of a proven non-profit that runs things well despite HUGE challenges.
  • JPQ: If we subsidize GCAA, why not Pop Warner? If we subsidize GCAA and Pop Warner, why not the School of Dance, or the Academy of Music? Where in the state constitution does it say that taxpayers should pay for any of these things? IMO, parents with children can and should bare the expense associated with these extracurricular programs. Probably an agree to disagree moment here too.

 

Oh damn! There you go talking common sense again! How dare you.

Personally I’m just plain sick of the me me me generation. For those of you that don’t understand what I’m referring to, this is not all about you. Period! Think about what you can do to make this a better place before you leave, one way or another.

 

The issue boils down to one thing ... money.... some do not want to pay for anything they do not see a personal positive impact and others will not pay for it then if they can get someone else to pay for it. Those who do not have children will not benefit, is not a valid claim as the access to recreation increases the value of property for resale ... which is why the planned communities add whatever it will take to bump up their profit be it lakes, pools, playgrounds, or gates.

 

I don't pay any fee to go to the Johnston County Library in Smithfield and it's a lot larger and better than the Clayton Library.
How busy are the Parks nearby? Are they even used very often by those have to that pay taxes for them?
If we were to get a Park in our area, I think that it should have a Recreation Center that includes a Senior Center and a meeting place for local groups to meet. But this would raise taxes even higher.
Do the people requesting the Park expect to be paid to oversee the Park? Will this be a permanent job supported by our taxes?

 

And supported by the taxes of the whole county, not just the locality, but some have stated in the past that both should have equal access for everyone.

I imagine that would be one of the areas of uncertainty that really cannot be determined until there is a mechanism to do so.

 

This is like the old days on this site. Aa 2 page thread and people yelling at each other. Ahh nostalgia

 

That is exactly it...we live in a society where "what's in it for me" comes before greater good. I love the fact that my property has skyrocketed and will continue to do so. This initiative will certainly not detract from the growth we are seeing!

 

Couldn't agree more. Plus once I-40 widening is completed, NC540 is built, I-42 is upgraded further out in JoCo, and the new interchanges at 40/42 and Cleveland Road are completed, I would fully expect to see growth spike in our area. When it become just 30 minutes from RTP and prices are some of the cheapest in the Triangle, it looks ripe for growth.

 

• No details are provided on the specific use of requested funds
  • JPQ: The notion of voting to fund a public park for $0.9M per year with no idea clear of how the money will spent doesn’t seem like a sound approach to managing public finances. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.
  • Harvey: The tax creates a budget. Any construction project will likely need a loan. It is up to them to design a project they can afford. I appreciate this sort of oversight, but you're missing the point. Do you know how much resource material is out there to create a firm understanding of what a typical park would cost to complete? What they are trying to do at this point is set up the mechanism to allow, enable, etc. If the public is okay with this first step, then you get the public's input on the design of the park. City of Raleigh is doing this with Dix Park right now. It is how any public project works.

• No forecast of future expense to support the park is provided
  
  • JPQ: The Board of Commissioners should setup a special tax district, vote to spend $0.9M per year on an “example” park and afterwards figure out what a real park will cost? Again, agree to disagree.
  • Harvey: *sigh* See above.

• There are several public parks located less than 10 miles away
  
  • JPQ: As you’ve indicated, the 4forparks proposal is for an “example” park. We don’t know the true scope, budget, timeline, or cost forecast. The actual cost for the park will likely be significantly higher than the initial $0.9M estimate given unrealistic expectations set by the Cleveland Parks & Rec crowd.
  • Harvey: *sigh* see above and above. Do you really think the exact moment they collect the tax, they are going to take their $0.9 million and break ground immediately? No. Of course, the park is going to cost more than $880,000. It is likley going to be a construction loan which is repaid with the ongoing collection of taxes (similar to municipal bonds), or they take a few years and build up a reserve. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither will this park.

• Master planned communities in Cleveland already provide recreation facilities
  
  • JPQ: I am not a member of the Broadmoor Recreation Club and I never actually suggested that the Club can or should service the entire community. My point is that residents already paying for the Broadmoor Recreation Club face an additional tax for services they already receive from the Club.
  • Harvey: If you live in Broadmoor you pay HOA dues. It is part of the agreement when you move in. Those dues are not taxes and they cover a lot more than the recreation club. This is a false equivalency and a firm choice, I might add, when selecting a $400,000+ home to live in. So you're saying people who can afford to have nice things should be the only ones to have them?

• Due to a recent county property revaluation, many Cleveland area residents face double digit property tax increases for 2019.
  
  • JPQ: Reference https://jocoreport.com/commissioners-accelerate-future-property-revaluations/
  • Harvey: Thanks for this, but it only shows the average home value increase. This DOES NOT MEAN YOUR TAXES WENT UP. They HAVEN'T. While they may, the whole point of the revaluation is to even the burden among property owners given the changing landscape and economy. The fact that they are going to do it more frequently just illustatrates the point that growth here is at a breakneck pace.

• The added expense is an unwelcome tax increase for seniors living on a fixed income and residents who are already paying HOA fees for local park facilities.
  • Harvey: You've talked to all of these seniors or are you extrapolating that just because they are seniors, they are poor. There are just as many out there that throw $5 at their grand kids every time they see them. Not everyone has the benefit of an HOA, because planning practices around here do not require their implementation or the services they may provide. Hence the need for a park for all.
  • JPQ: My comments regarding the financial impact of the tax increase on seniors are based upon feedback I’ve received from seniors via change.org and NextDoor.
  • Harvey: How scientific. Don't base your views on who barks the loudest. Find data. I'l like to see what the median income for McLemore is, but don't know if that is available.

• The Cleveland Parks & Recreation proposal opens to the door to more tax increases- the “special use tax district” created by the proposal establishes a legal mechanism to assess new taxes on Cleveland area residents separately from the rest of the county.
  
  • JPQ: The plan stopped being conceptual when the Parks & Rec crowd asked for $0.9M per year and requested the formation of a special tax district to assess taxes on Cleveland residents separately from the rest of the county.
  • Harvey: *sigh* see all of the above.

• The Cleveland Parks & Recreation proposal is a handout to the Greater Cleveland Athletic Association.
  
  • JPQ: If we subsidize GCAA, why not Pop Warner? If we subsidize GCAA and Pop Warner, why not the School of Dance, or the Academy of Music? Where in the state constitution does it say that taxpayers should pay for any of these things? IMO, parents with children can and should bare the expense associated with these extracurricular programs. Probably an agree to disagree moment here too.
  • Harvey: Dear lord, how big of a crank are you? Sorry I can't contain the snark any longer. You don't subsidize either right now. They are largely receipts based and 100% volunteer run. Do you have an issue with paying for Johnston Community College as well since you don't have students enrolled there? Essentially, what your statement above indicates is that you are unwilling to pay, period. It comes down to selfishness versus selflessness in some sort of twisted Tea Party / Libertarian thing. Are the school of dance or academy of music a non-profit organization? No. They are private enterprise. NOT THE SAME! Parents with children already do bare the cost of the programs. GCAA pays for the fields they use. They will likely have a similar arrangement at the new park, albeit it will be new, better, and have greater capacity so GCAA will likely thrive. Same for Pop Warner. The area is growing. It has grown. Keep your head in the sand and bury your yourself in your master planned community with your STATE MAINTAINED ROADS where no one can hear your scream, "NO NEW TAXES".

 

The www.4forparks.com website has updated their FAQs based on a lot of the questions people have had over the past few weeks. Be sure to check them out.

 

Harvey for President.

This.... "Dear lord, how big of a crank are you? Sorry I can't contain the snark any longer. You don't subsidize either right now. They are largely receipts based and 100% volunteer run. Do you have an issue with paying for Johnston Community College as well since you don't have students enrolled there? Essentially, what your statement above indicates is that you are unwilling to pay, period. It comes down to selfishness versus selflessness in some sort of twisted Tea Party / Libertarian thing. Are the school of dance or academy of music a non-profit organization? No. They are private enterprise. NOT THE SAME! Parents with children already do bare the cost of the programs. GCAA pays for the fields they use. They will likely have a similar arrangement at the new park, albeit it will be new, better, and have greater capacity so GCAA will likely thrive. Same for Pop Warner. The area is growing. It has grown. Keep your head in the sand and bury your yourself in your master planned community with your STATE MAINTAINED ROADS where no one can hear your scream, "NO NEW TAXES"."

AMEN!

 

Upon the park's completion, I will GLADLY stop paying my $500 annual dues at Broadmoor Recreation Club, which basically covers a pool that I use maybe 10 times during the 5 months it's open, on top of our HOA dues, in favor of paying A QUARTER of that amount for an 82-acre park with year--round facilities. What a bargain! So many more amenities at a fraction of the cost!

 

Please oppose this Cleveland Parks and Recreation District. I love the Cleveland Community; however, we're not even a town (and I'm opposed to that). My opposition for many reasons:

1-There are plenty of nearby parks and facilities, just get off your butt and go to them. Within 10-15 minutes there is the SRAC, Clayton Rec. Center, Neuse River Trail, Clayton Greenway Trail, pools (to which you can become a member), gyms, even dog parks, and so on...

• Clayton Community Park ~9 miles away

• East Clayton Community Park -12 miles away

• All Star Park ~10 miles away

• Legend Park ~10 miles away

• Municipal Park ~10 miles away

• Centennial Park ~10 miles away

• Lake Benson Park ~11 miles way

• Thompson Road Park ~13 miles away

• Clemmons State Forest ~11 miles away

• Smithfield Community Park ~14 miles away

2-Property taxes are soaring...40-50%, why add an additional tax.

3-Some local/youth athletic organizations can't manage their own money, why should they manage taxpayers money. There are athletic fields in the area, plenty of them; however, they are monopolized, not shared...and if some groups can go find places, fields, etc. to practice and play games, then if the fields we do have are properly managed, shared and utilized by ALL groups, then we should be good.

4-In reality, read between the lines, this is a big handout to the GCAA...there ARE other youth athletic groups in the community.

5-Many people in the community will NEVER use the parks/facilities, they should not have to pay for it.

6-People will come from outside the Cleveland community (district) to use the facilities, why should we pay for them to use it...just as I suggest, go to SRAC, Clayton, etc...to use theirs/the facilities which already exist nearby.

7-This is purely "political"

I could go on and on...I don't live in a $400,000 home, not even close. This community is growing by leaps and bounds, for the better or worse (depends on whom you ask), like it or not, but money, tax money, could be better spent on other needs in our community. Cleveland is an awesome community, a community I love, and love everyone in it; however, I, and others, do NOT support this proposed parks/recs tax district.

I wish I could attend the public meetings; however, my work schedule will not allow it, so I have emailed AND written (yes, old fashioned letter in the mail) to the JOCO Board of Commissioners expressing my opposition.

PLEASE make your voice heard as well.

 

I asked the same question DWK on another forum and got the same response, nothing! Most if not all of them are just so dead set against raising any kind of taxes that they are blind to the advantages of taking action to secure this land now.

I don’t like paying taxes either but I do understand their need. I don’t enjoy paying taxes for roads I don’t drive on or for school bonds so families with children can send their children to new and larger schools. Why can’t they send them to private schools so I don’t have to pay for something I will never use? I don’t see the need for my tax dollars to pay for a police force! I’ve got old faithful sitting next to my chair n case anyone is stupid enough to break into my home. Besides, we could always pull our Army troops off the border and put them n our schools and neighborhoods instead of police officers! You get the drift. I could go on and on why I shouldn’t be paying for items only other people will use, not me.

Fact of life. The area is growing. There’s going to be more traffic because ALL the open land will be built on. I see absolutely no reason why I should have to drive to another city to use their facilities that were paid for by their citizens taxes. That’s pretty pathetic IMO.

Here’s the irony. The people advocating for no park are more than likely the same ones that advocate for no more growth in our area! That is just too damn funny to me. They would rather have 200+ more new homes put on the land than a park! Duh. Whether one likes it or not, this is no longer the old redneck Johnston County. Welcome to the real world.

 

You realize you are saying that people should use facilities for which they do not pay instead of building more facilities for which they can have a say as part of their payment for said facilities because others, who do not pay for them, will come in and use the new facilities. Do you not see the problem with this stance?

Why should the citizens who are paying for the parks you propose to use, accept freeloaders when opposing freeloaders is one of your main points against building new facilities?

 

Just build the damn parks, add a dog park to it, let GCAA and all others use it, and ya know what, host a tournament for baseball, softball, soccer, etc that invites outside communities to participate, bringing revenue to our area at local restaurants and facilities (gas stations, convenience stores). Just make sure people can get into and out of the park safely and quickly. Include a skateboard park or something also.

Stop bitching that it's not needed because it effing is needed in the area. I don't use fields to play any sports..but I'd rather see that built than more densely populated communities.

 

“a working-class white person, especially a politically reactionary one from a rural area.” Now this is what a google search comes up with as the first choice for the definition of “redneck”. Now, we can agree to disagree but this is exactly what I’ve been seeing here and on Facebook and nextdoor or anyplace else this subject has been brought up lately. While the definition is definitely out of date when it comes to including only whites, I think the rest of it is spot on, at least when it comes to this park.