|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Montrose business owners aired their grievances with the reappearance of the long-defunct Montrose Management District on Thursday during the district’s first public meeting of 2024.
The district has been dormant for nearly six years after the board voted in 2018 to shutter itself, following a lengthy legal battle with business owners who objected to the taxes the district levied upon their properties.
During Thursday’s hourlong meeting, local entrepreneurs expressed shock at the district’s reappearance. They said the district’s lack of transparency poisoned the well a decade ago – and is bound to continue.
“Here we are again, déjà vu,” said Daphne Scarbrough, the owner of a custom metal fabrication shop called the Brass Maiden, as she addressed the board.
She noted that she has been contacted by a slew of business owners, many of whom were unable to make the mid-day Thursday meeting.
“It’s nice to see these people take time out of their workday to show up,” Scarbrough continued. “You could care less about them, you don’t have the meetings at a time that’s good for everyone. Nothing’s changed, you’re still unwanted. You have nothing to offer a businessperson in this district. Thank you.”
Her comments were met with a round of applause from the couple dozen people in attendance. Members of the board did not respond to public comments.
The meeting was originally scheduled for Feb. 8, but was canceled at the last minute due to the board’s inability to meet a quorum. With only four members of the 10-seat board currently in place, a meeting requires at least three board members to be present.
The agenda included one notable change from the original meeting: An action item to set a tax rate for some properties within the district was removed.
Its absence does not mean the levying of such assessments will be delayed. Alan Bernstein, a spokesman for the management district, said Wednesday the district’s legal counsel advised that “no additional action was needed” after the board approved a levy plan at a December meeting, long before much of the Montrose business community had learned about the district’s resurgence.
As a result, Bernstein said, the tax assessments will be rolled out “next week indeed.”
‘Never ceased to exist'
The assessment in question is a major sticking point for many business owners. The district’s current charge is 9 cents per $100 of assessed value.
Reid Springmeyer, a Montrose businessman, raised his voice about those assessments, calling out from the audience: “You have our address to send us a bill for our tax assessment. Why don’t you send us an agenda for a meeting?”
It was one of several instances during the meeting in which the district’s legal counsel, Clark Lord, had to remind those in attendance that according to state rules, the board is not allowed to field questions from the crowd. Lord’s reminder resulted in palpable frustration from those assembled in the neat-as-a-pin rows of folding chairs set out for the meeting, as well as those who stood around the perimeter once the chairs were full.
The levies coming down the pike are 25 percent lower than they were when the district charged 12 cents per $100 in assessed value during its last iteration. Still, it doesn’t exactly spell savings for business owners, who’ve seen huge increases in their property values during that time.
Judy Adams, the owner of Foelber Pottery, would actually pay more under this new rate than in years past, thanks to a 45 percent hike in her Richmond Avenue property’s assessed value.
Adams was one of a couple of speakers who questioned how the district could reopen at all after the 2019 passage of House Bill 304, which notes that management districts can only be created if their petitions are signed by the owners of a majority of the assessed value of the property within the district.
With only about 60 petitioners affirming the resuscitation of the Montrose Management District, Adams contended Thursday, the bar for HB 304 has likely not been met.
“No. 1,” Adams said at the conclusion of her three-minutes of allotted time, “You do not have the right to legally come back on board. No. 2, you do not have a legal right to implement a new service and assessment plan. I guess we’ll be taking this to the Capitol.”
The complaints about HB 304, according to Bernstein, are moot.
“The district was created more than 20 years ago, under a different state law, and as you know it has never ceased to exist,” Bernstein said. “Therefore, it was created legally.”
No value?
Legal or not, Michelle Guzman, who has owned a business on Westheimer since 1983, said she sees no value in the district.
“I’ve lived through this once before, where apparently what I was paying for was a website, a lot of attorney fees and somebody wanted me to sign something to come on to my property to abate my graffiti, and I was like, ‘No that’s OK, I can do it myself,’” Guzman said.
“I feel like it’s kind of shady,” she continued. “There’s no transparency whatsoever.”
The calls for greater transparency continued throughout the meeting, as the three members of the board who were present reviewed a stack of resumés from which they made nominations for additions to the board.
At several points, business owners in the crowd called out questions or concerns, only to be reined in by the attorney, Lord, and Josh Hawes, of Hawes Hill & Associates, the local consulting firm that serves as the district’s contract administrator.
In the end, the board nominated six new members to its ranks: Mark Davis; Richard Hinojosa; Mark Kariel; Christina Zimmerman; Jason Pennington; and Dan Fergus. The slate of candidates will be sent to city council, which has the authority to approve their appointment to the board.
The time, date and location of the next meeting, likely in March, has not yet been posted publicly.
Correction: This story has been updated to accurately describe the number of board members needed for a quorum for the four-member board, and the correct spelling of Richard Hinojosa‘s name.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
