Civic Coalition councillor Urszula Magryś described how, during a City Council session, she proposed removing from the agenda a resolution concerning property taxes. Her only intention was to ensure that, given the high cost of living in Bolesławiec, residents—especially small business owners—would not receive another “increase” from the city.

The councillors nevertheless voted in favour of the increase. In favour were Law and Justice councillors, councillors elected from Piotr Roman’s lists, and Łukasz Molak (Impuls).

Against the property tax increase voted Civic Coalition councillors: Urszula Magryś, Magdalena Mucha, Katarzyna Rola, Grzegorz Przybylski and Sylwester  Łasocha.

Below is councillor Urszula Magryś’s full post from a social media platform:

I took part in the 20th session of the Bolesławiec City Council on 29 October 2025.

Two resolutions were among the items on the agenda:

👉 concerning changes to taxes on means of transport,

👉 and the second—concerning the change and increase of property taxes for 2026.

To everyone’s surprise (or perhaps not 😉), the Mayor suddenly proposed removing the resolution concerning taxes on means of transport from the agenda.

So I decided to follow up and proposed also removing the second resolution—the one concerning increases in property taxes—from the agenda.

Why?

Because, given the high cost of living in our city, I did not want residents, especially small business owners, to receive another “increase” from the city.

And that’s when it began…

The Chair asked me why I wanted to remove the resolution from the agenda.

I answered clearly: the difference in revenue to the budget after introducing the increases is approximately PLN 244,524 per year. That is how much more will flow into the city’s coffers if the resolution takes effect. This is not a huge amount; it could be found elsewhere instead of reaching into residents’ pockets.

But saying “PLN 3,267,184” sounds better to the public… while I was speaking not in accounting terms 🤔

In response, I heard that I was “telling lies”. The Treasurer stated that tax revenue would amount to PLN 3,267,184.

But I was talking precisely about the difference—that after the increases, revenue would rise by only PLN 244,524 compared with the current year.

If taxes remained at their current level, PLN 3,022,660 would flow into the budget.
Instead of a substantive discussion, I heard emotional arguments that “roads and investments have to be built” and that “social welfare is financed through taxes”.

Of course! But not everything can be explained by imposing further burdens on residents.

After persistent questioning, I said that perhaps it would be worth looking for savings elsewhere, for example by collecting overdue rents and local taxes more effectively, or by limiting the costs of certain promotional events, such as Bolesławiec Days 🤔
(..) And the Mayor added sarcastically: “So perhaps we should give up the Ceramics Festival?”

That was not the point! It would have been enough to discuss the matter substantively instead of responding with irony.

After all, drop by drop, it adds up, as the Mayor himself stated.

PLN 244,000 is less than one-tenth of what the city is already planning to collect from taxes.

Instead of burdening people, it would be worth checking whether we are making full use of what we already have.

  • Does the city effectively collect the fees it is owed?
  • Do all investments genuinely serve residents, or are some of them standing empty and generating costs?

These are only suggestions 😉, but sometimes it is worth starting there so that residents do not feel like an ATM.
At the end, someone said that “councillors should remember that at the next election, residents will judge how each of them voted”.

I will answer briefly: I do remember the residents. 😊

I do not want anyone to think that we do not care about the city’s revenue.

We do, but I want decisions about increases to be considered carefully, based on analysis and a sense of responsibility, rather than on automatically reaching for the “upper limits” set by the finance minister, regardless of who that minister is or which party they belong to 😉 (...)