House Elections met on April 17 to take up a full agenda. The report below covers testimony on HB 3335 relating to notice of certain debt obligations.
HB 3335 (Murphy) Relating to the notice required before the issuance of certain debt obligations by political subdivisions.
- Committee substitute laid out
- Makes changes to ballot language to simplify requirements
- Adds voter document – so they have adequate information, understand proposed debt and current debt; posted in same manner as in election order
- General description of what funds are being used for
- Estimated maximum tax increase for home at $100k
- Worked on bill with number of stakeholders
- Laubenberg – have heard some school districts say they already put details on website, but then find out not every district is putting up on site; what about districts that don’t have website?
- Murphy – even 9 year old has facebook page, not a criminal act just trying to get information out
- Not trying to make ballot more complicated
Bryan Mathew, Texas Public Policy Foundation – support for the bill
- Has not seen sub yet but from what he is hearing, does not sound like sub would change his support
- Bill will help taxpayers check local rising debt
- Like language on ballot to tell taxpayer estimated impact on home at 100k
- Like that rate of interest will be included
- Thinks the bill can be improved if it would include the total amount for payoff including interest
- Like lengthening notification period on COs and notifications
George Hammerlein, Harris County Clerk's Office – on bill
- Reminder they are limited in characters they can put on ballot and must also translate bill language into several languages
- Israel – what do adjustments mean to length of ballot?
- Each initiative has to be to 5k characters
- Israel – with electronic screens, is there a way to make it easier on the eye? She believes when people going in to vote on bond package they know what they are voting on. Can voter easily see information so they can identify background information and location to vote?
- Don’t know how to do drop down box, language would be in static environment
- If language is standard across the board voters will get faster and faster each time
Trey Lary, Allen Boot Humphries Robinson – for the bill
- Support sub
- Don’t believe or presume there is too much local debt
- Support need for local infrastructure to support state which means sometimes we may need to borrow money to support
- Murphy has worked on this subject for several sessions
- Ballot language has been big concern and a few sessions ago saw the movement to put so much information on the ballot, information that was available and felt like maybe that approach was to scare people away from bonds
- Stakeholders have come together
- Bill only adds one thing to the ballot – how much does the bond cost on new taxes
- Concept is per 100k value on home so they know how much the bond cost them
- Excellent approach at providing more information and key information without overwhelming voters
- Laubenberg – if voter has “easy” access to information on website and then can go into vote – likes this- and then they see ballot information with rounded numbers
- Israel – did you hear testimony on other bills in a similar vein? Seems like this one gets at essence of simplicity while getting at meat of what people want shared?
- Agree, this lets information be available in advance on those who want to do homework and puts key information front and center on the ballot
Roger Falk, Travis County Taxpayers Union – for the bill
- Fully support but it needs a couple of fixes
- Constantly encounter bonding jurisdiction using subterfuge and using smoke and mirrors
- Hays and RR are examples are egregious examples, they are going to borrow funds but not being honest on amount of taxes it will raise
- Working on how much cost of bonds will be and get it out in the face of the public, need to get information on sound footing
- Need prognostication out of bill language – term/maturity date or interest rate but those are things they will not know until later; need something based on today’s rate so not guessing
- Homestead with exemption of 100k is ambiguous language; before or after exemption questions come up so suggest saying homestead with “net taxable value of 100k homestead” – need a good honest number
- Laubenberg – encourages them to work with bill author
- Have and will continue to do so
David Green, City of Austin – on the bill
- Accidently said they were in opposition when registered, they need to be “on” the bill
Murphy – closes
- Have worked on this issue on for a number of sessions
- Reviews there is information in the voter information document, but limited key details on the ballot
- Senate companion is moving along well so if voted on this bill it should catch up
- The bill does not make anyone get a website
- Language is balance between reasonable ballot and taxpayers seeing impact to them
- Laubenberg – but I want everyone to have a website
- Israel – can you tell us who were the stakeholders?
- Not everyone adored but they worked on language – people from counties, special purpose districts, etc
Bill left pending