I've always had trouble reconciling this: UTMB took a huge chunk of "behind the seawall" property off of the tax rolls. Schools and the city both took big losses as a result.

City services are provided UTMB at no cost to them, thus shared by the remaining members of the city's tax base.

If memory services me, the only compensation UTMB chips into the pot is that they pay for city water and sewage.

Stuff like this doesn't make much difference when the loss of tax revenue is spread over a place as big as Houston. It's a different story when it's shared by a much smaller tax base like the City Galveston's.

I don't know the solution. Maybe there isn't one. But it seems somewhat unfair to attempt to equally spread the cost of the proposed "hospital district" among all property owners in Galveston County.

If I had my way, I'd exempt the property in the City of Galveston and attach the majority of new tax to the remaining property owners in the county. That could be calculated so as to be equitable.

— By Bill Cherry on Aug. 12 at 10:08 PM

Well Bill I have good hospitals new League City so I guess I could say the equitable thing to do is let you build yours on the island instead of expecting the state to maintain you one.

— By John Tabor on Aug. 12 at 11:10 PM

Mr. Cherry - Your concept about the loss of Tax revenue to taxing entities due to UTMB not being on the tax rolls should be moderated by this:

Because UTMB is in Galveston, much of the residential real estate tax paid is paid by individuals employed by UTMB. It has been demonstrated that the tax revenues generated by the individuals and businesses that rely on UTMB, exceeds the tax revenue not collected on UTMB properties.

The other large segment comes from second home owners on the island. Take either of these groups’ of tax payers out of the equation these taxing entities would definitely be strapped!

— By Richard Moore on Aug. 13 at 8:05 AM

I do understand the Sealy Smith Foundation charter does not consider funding a Hospital District or county indigent care and I never suggested that. I did say that because of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the foundation has poured onto UTMB, the Texas legislature should give the city of Galveston and by extension the county some slack. My supporting evidence is the fact that the state is mandating that Galveston County increase its budget for indigent hospitalization to 100 percent of the poverty level while at the same time take no action about the 168 counties in Texas that send their indigent patients to Galveston UTMB. Most of these counties have no contract with UTMB and are funding indigent care at a lower level that Galveston County. While this may not be unconstitutional, it certainly is hypocritical and not fair to the taxpayers of Galveston County. Bill Cherry is right, although UTMB is an economic engine that deserves protecting, it is a cost to the city of Galveston with loss of tax revenue and most of the employees live off the Island. I might add an observation to John Tabor’s comment; The Sealy Smith Foundation, not the state, built almost every building at UTMB; it seems to me that those Texas legislators that are taking a hard line accusing Galveston County taxpayers of not carrying their share are showing no gratitude for the many years of support to this state facility. Sealy Smith has probably put more money into UTMB than all the private donations combined statewide, including the hospital districts from which those legislators who are complaining reside. The losses experienced at UTMB is not the fault of Galveston County, it is the leadership and management from all the way from the state level down to UTMB itself. Every single leader I talked to had praise for the Sealy Smith Foundation but was troubled at the self – importance attitude at UTMB and the difficulty in reaching agreements with them. Even right now as the county is taking steps to increase the tax rate to comply with the state mandate, there is no assurance from the U.T. reagents of a long term commitment of a pre Ike status of UTMB. The signals coming out of Austin are just the opposite. We see the UTMB building large building in League City to house clinics staffed with doctors. The purpose is to draw in for pay customers to offset the losses of UTMB. I don’t have a problem with that except that this is a part of the UTMB system that will operate at a profit and the books should reflect that and not place all of the loss on the main Galveston campus. UTMB is a needed school for training doctors, but there is some cost to the local communities. These new facilities on the mainland don’t pay taxes and they compete with other taxpaying doctors and clinics. I am not saying that UTMB and its auxiliary campuses is not a good thing, but we should lay all our cards on the table with full disclosure. This is something the UTMB system has not done. After 87 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of contribution over this long span by the Galveston based Sealy Smith Foundation, the mixed signals coming out of Austin about the future of a island based UTMB and the egotism of both the UTMB system and the Texas legislature toward Galveston County taxpayers seems somewhat superfluous and unappreciative for what all this county has done for UTMB

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 13 at 8:52 AM

No easy answer on this one... but if UT wants us to commit to taxes - then I want to see their DETAILED commitment to UTMB in writing.

— By Norman Pappous on Aug. 13 at 9:29 AM

Mr. Tabor, you reasoning is flawed. If UTMB were a private institution, it would be accessed at over a billion dollars. What the UTMB home owners pay in taxes is a in the bucket. As to the Out of town home owners, yes they help the Galveston and county tax base, but they hurt GISD, the extra money goes to Robin Hood and vacation home owners who either have grown children or their permanent residence is in another city. This contributes nothing adding middle class children in school. Galveston or any school district cannot be a high rated school district if the schools are comprised of a majority of poor students, that’s just facts. Successful school districts have a balance of poor and middle income people. Galveston city governments places priorities on tourism and beach sand. Galveston rejects industry and business that other cities welcome. Galveston welcomes homes build in a flood plane on the west end of the island while rejecting more suitable high rise that can be built to withstand any hurricane. All over the world, high rise building are built on beaches, not houses. Being over balanced with tourist type jobs causes families looking for better paying jobs off the island. This hurts GISD and leads to a school district over loaded with poor people. A school district over populated with poor people in turn hurts the city’s drive to encourage middle class families to locate here. The problem is leadership and an absence of goals and priorities. Good leaders understand that what one does effects the other. It is all tied together. Texas City is a city that understands this and partners with TCISD and shares facilities when requested. Good schools was a top priority of Mayor C.T. Doyle’s goals 2000 and Good schools and the ability to attract middle income was one of the main selling points in promoting the successful $122 million dollar school bond election. Texas City in 2011 will celebrate its 100th anniversary. They will be able to boast good schools, good paying jobs, good streets an all new infrastructure of new water and sewer lines. Galveston has a hands on city council and that’s what the problem is, too many hands on the steering wheel. Its causing the car to wobble all over the road.

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 13 at 11:55 AM

Sorry, my last post should have been Richard Moore not Tabor

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 13 at 11:57 AM

Mr. Moore, you've brought up points that don't seem to counter propose my thoughts.

Nevertheless, let me address one of your assertions.

Unless something has dramatically changed since I've been away from Galveston, UTMB has never shared any unbiased, empirical evidence that quantifies this business about the economic net affect of UTMB and its employees and suppliers being of great benefit to the island.

And everyone under the sun has asked for that information at least since I was a little boy.

Perhaps it is, but I'm an old debater, so unless I can see the evidence and evaluate the source, it's hearsay at best.

I certainly want UTMB to remain in Galveston forever. But I can't help but think the Island will be getting a raw deal when it comes to the subsidies if Galveston taxable property owners are put on an equal basis with every other Galveston County property owner.

(Forgive me, Lord, for I have sinned. I had promised I wouldn't comment on GDN blogs any more. Maybe I can stop this time....let's hope. Amen.)

— By Bill Cherry on Aug. 13 at 7:04 PM

Mr. Cherry;
UTMB has had economists from the University of Houston - Clear Lake perform an economic analysis of UTMB's impact upon the community on several occasions since the 1990's. The studies utilized the only nationally accepted methodology for this purpose, known as the Caffery & Issacs Model and actual financial data from UTMB’s financial reports and data bases were used. One of the areas of focus is a calculation of the impact on taxing entities, and it has always demonstrated that, on net, the benefits to the taxing entities are greater than any loss [sic] of tax revenues.
The reports were fascinating in their thoroughness and repeatability – I believe at least 3 were performed over the years. If you would be interested in finding out more about this, I would be happy to assist. My e-mail is richard@richardsmoore.com (note the S).

— By Richard Moore on Aug. 13 at 9:56 PM

Heber, the answer to your original question is - you are probably right, there is really no wiggle room.
The Sealy Foundation, like other benefactors, stipulate that the dollars are for capital improvements, for adding incremental value, and not intended to just save current residents a few tax bucks so they can buy a few more lattes.

— By Jackie Friedman on Aug. 14 at 12:10 AM

Although this comment falls outside the boundry of Heber Taylors original story. I have talked to many officials and consultants whose job at some time requires working with UTMB and sadly all of them express the exact sentement that Bill Cherry talks about. UTMB is absorbed in self -interest and if you want to get any information in certain areas of their operations and finances, forget it. I have personally been there and came hoe empty handed.
This newspaper and everyone else who deals wirh them knows that. Its a fact, take it to the bank.

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 14 at 8:06 AM

In 10 years, John Sealy will be a dead-end hospital and only the first two years of basic courses at the medical school will be offered at here on the Island.

The hospital district / increase funding plan is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Eiland knew that when he forged the plan, and that it was delaying the inevitable: In this day in age, a small town like Galveston can never have the means to adequately support what is required for a growing and expanding medical institution. Competition for state tax dollars from much larger and important schools in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas will eventually win out. This past session was a temporary reprieve, partially based upon sympathy for "Ike" destruction.

Once Eiland moves on to bigger and better things (and he already has started; he bought a house in Austin and his kids are enrolled in Austin schools for the fall-another Kyle Janek maybe?), without a senior and respected hometown "boy" to go fight for it, the legislature will quickly return to its previous formula of feeding UTMB left overs scraps while the UT Houston, UT Dallas etc. the the prime cut of the state's budget.

At that point, it wont matter how much the county is willing to help fund UTMB, nor will it matter how it goes about doing it.

If the people of Galveston County seriously believe that the $15 million or so the State wants us to chip in will make all the difference and lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in the future (beyond the new tower), then maybe they need to have their heads examined. But, they will need to go to Houston for that; the regents, deciding that mental health care is a money loser, are not planning on reopening psych beds here. Instead students will do their psych rotations in Austin and Houston and Dallas - where the state continues to fund mental health care (even if it acknowledges its a money loser)

— By J. Garcia on Aug. 14 at 8:18 PM

I'm wondering if anyone remembers that the Sealy and Smith Foundation ALREADY has pledged $200 million to redevelopment of UT's hospital at Galveston. That pledge was a key component of winning legislative support to fund the redevelopment in its entirety.

And, that pledged gift is on top of the $600 million or so the Foundation already has given to UTMB and, indirectly, to the people of Galveston County.

The pledge of $200 million is the equivalent of roughly 20 years worthing of hospital district funding. Come on, folks, there are lots of villains in the tortured tale of UTMB's hoped-for comeback. But the Sealy and Smith Foundation is not one of them.

— By Dolph Tillotson on Aug. 15 at 8:17 AM

Dolph is 100 percent correct. The Sealy Smith Foundation should receive the highest praise for what they do. They have spent hundreds of millions, I think since 1923 and built most of the building at UTMB with very little strings attached.
How UTMB is managed has nothing to do with the Sealy Smith Foundation.

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 15 at 8:48 AM

Dolph, I went back and read every post on this subject and although I don't agree with some of them, I don't understand what you are talking about. I could not find a single post that was critical of the Sealy Smith Foundation, in fact your post backs up my statement that the Sealy Smith Foundation has done so much that the Texas Leglislators, instead of criticizing Galveston County,should appreciate the advantage of UTMB being located here. UTMB own managememt is their problem, not Glaveston, Sealy Smith or the county.

— By Jack Cross on Aug. 15 at 9:03 AM

I agree that UTMB's own management is part of the problem, but so is the demographics that citizens and city leaders have allowed Galveston to succumb to.

In the 1970s we had almost 70,000 people, and last year before Ike we had 57,000 people. Not only did the city lose 12,000 people, but I'd bet even more than that left the city - especially affluent people. However the growth of low income and "generational welfare" populations helped to temper the actual population loss.

In any event, I'm all for helping to grow UTMB back to its former glory, but unless Galveston's socio-economic population *drastically* changes in the next few years (and I do not see that happening), UTMBs future will be in League City, not Galveston.

Eiland just helped to delay the inevitable. And now that he's pulling a Kyle Janek (his family is now living full time Austin), I'm willing to bet it won't be long until he leaves the House and Galveston loses a formidable amount of clout in the legislature.

— By J. Garcia on Aug. 18 at 5:13 AM