Municipal Drainage Utility Fee

Argued against funding infrastructure through taxpayer utility fee increases.

Strongly opposed the 145% drainage fee hike as an illegal tax hike that unfairly subsidizes school bonds.

Expressed concern that citizens are being overtaxed and struggling with living costs.

Strongly opposed the fee as an illegal rain tax, criticizing council priorities and tax abatements for corporations.

Questioned why the city is taxing residents when plenty of oil wealth exists, suggesting businesses should pay instead.

Voiced strong opposition to the drainage fee, citing poor planning by MISD and the city regarding infrastructure costs.

Asked why rainy day funds aren't being used instead of tacking permanent fees onto residents' water bills.

Argued that the drainage fee lacks legal standards for fees, lacks proportionality, and acts as an unvoted tax.

Argued that the drainage fee deprives citizens of voting on tax increases and hurts working families.

Criticized city leadership and spending, urging the council to reject the fee and protect fixed-income seniors.

Argued the fee unfairly penalizes small business owners who already manage stormwater on-site and lacks mitigation exemptions.

Stated that calling a property tax a water bill is illegal and urged fiscal transparency and using existing reserves.

Argued that mandatory fees are dishonest money grabs that never end and disproportionately burden taxpayers.

Challenged the city's budgeting, tax burdens, and corporate tax abatements.

Suggested utilizing city reserves, MDC funds, or surplus land to cover costs instead of taxing residents.

Argued the fee is a dishonest tax that avoids voter approval and urged the council to vote no.

Questioned city staff salaries and outsourcing costs, asking for financial accountability before passing new fees.

A letter read by proxy stated she is an 86-year-old retired teacher on a fixed income who cannot afford further tax increases.

Criticized city leadership and geographic drainage challenges, urging accountability rather than new fees.

Argued the council prioritizes corporate subsidies over basic infrastructure, penalizing everyday residents.

Expressed frustration as a retired fixed-income resident over continuous fee increases.