The Senate Local Government Committee met on April 12 to discuss a number of bills. This report covers SB 1429 (Bettencourt), SB 1434 (Bettencourt), and SB 2185 (Hinojosa). A video of the hearing can be found here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
SB 1429 (Bettencourt) – Relating to the alternate provisions for ad valorem tax rate notices when the de minimis rate of a taxing unit exceeds the voter-approval tax rate.
- Concerns have been raised regarding the existing notice of public hearings on property tax increases that were part of SB 2 last session
- These notices do not adequately address a situation in which a taxing unit exceeds the voter approved tax rate but does not exceed either the de minimis rate of the rate calculated as if the tax unit were a special unit
- Companion bill to Chairman Burrows
- Bill seeks to ensure taxing units provide accurate property notices by creating an alternate taxing notice provision
SB 1429 left pending
SB 1434 (Bettencourt) (CS) – Relating to public notice of the availability on the Internet of property-tax-related information.
- As part of SB 2 last session, a property tax database website was established for larger counties and smaller counties will be implementing their websites this year
- Websites present information on proposed tax rates for coming year and gives ability to email your elected officials to voice your concerns
- Bill seeks to improve the accessibility and awareness of website by creating statewide website listing all the truth and taxation websites and including the website information on other public notices throughout the year
- CS changes the website address and moves the creation and maintenance of the statewide website from the comptroller’s office to the Department of Information Resources
Trey Larry, Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP – For
- Transparency is important
- Website was designed to be accessible to the individual property owners, but it is difficult to navigate to that website
Marya Crigler, Travis Central Appraisal District – For
- We pioneered the original website and are firm believers in transparency
- There was a fiscal note attached under the comptroller’s office; as it is transferred to DIR, we are funding the development
- One recommendation, relating to August 7 postcard; we get a lot of traffic after the postcard, but most of the data is not available on the website and it becomes frustrating to the property owners
- We like the bill as it is written, that each taxing entity, as they do their publications, have to put notice of the website
- Not a good use of public funds to send a postcard if their information is not published online
- Bettencourt – What if we had the postcard for one more year and then stopped?
- That would be acceptable, but we have mailed those cards for multiple years
- We will receiver 50,000 site visits after we mail the postcard and then no one comes back because they do not see their information; do not see the value in the website
- Bettencourt – We could move the August date. I am commending you for plowing the road on this and creating the website
- Unsure – What about October 1?
- We want the taxpayers to get information in time for them to be engaged in the process and October 1 is after all the rates have been set
- We think having a notification as each tax entity has published their info is a valuable solution
- We are working with Texas.gov, hoping to have the website up this year
- Bettencourt – It will be a cool website, thank you for showing the way
SB 1344 left pending
SB 2185 (Hinojosa) – Relating to procedures for the dissolution of the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3.
- Transfer assets and liabilities to city accountant
- Water district has outgrown its purpose, created in 1921
- McAllen and Hidalgo have transitioned from rural to urban area
- Costing taxpayers of McAllen $1 million every year
- All residents have increased water rates and taxation
- City of McAllen provides over 90% of the district’s revenue, must meet their needs
- District uses $900,000 of taxpayer money of McAllen to hire lobbyists
- This district is mismanaged, and board hides their activities through public information requests even though it was due last week
- Audits have identified contracts entered into by the districts with private businesses owned by the general manager and president of the board
- In violation of local government code as well
- This water district was created by the legislature, no argument for bad precedent
- Contains protections for farmers by eliminating flat taxes for landowners in the district
- Ensures all individual users are entitled to the continuation of use and access they were entitled to before the dissolution of the district
- Requires the city to perform all the functions of the district, including the provision of services, and ensure the delivery of water to land owners at or below the lowest comparable delivery charge imposed by other water districts in the county
- Bettencourt – This is a dissolution bill giving the district to Hidalgo?
- Correct; the water district has outlived its purpose
Marco Vega, General Manager McAllen Public Utility – For
- Will take South Texas water infrastructure to the 21st century and provide economic growth
- Many rate payers and residents are adversely effected by the outdated framework of water rights in the Rio Grande Valley, one of the fastest growing areas in Texas
- McAllen is forced to pay 29 cents per thousand gallons to treat the raw water, 80% more than the city’s other water resources
- District also charges excessive crossing fees when a new improvement or development crosses county lines: $500 per inch of diameter of the crossing pipe, plus an application fee if $750
- Only a handful of local farmers and residential lots use the raw water for irrigation
- City of McAllen is ready and able to provide water throughout the district’s territory, frequently audited by the Texas Water Development Board and other rating agencies; double A+ rating
- The McAllen Public Utility Board is elected by the public; any local decisions will be scrutinized by citizen, answering directly to the residents they serve
Chris Almand, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality– Resource
- Bettencourt – Is there any issue with the dissolution of this MUD district in the middle of the city?
- No, it is a water improvement district as well
Eddie Zamora, Self – Against
- Hidalgo water improvement district number three protected McAllen’s water supply during Hurricane Dolly in 2008; “new” pump station was elevated to height over the levy, safe from flooding
- It takes farmers with experience and preparedness to know what to do with the water supply; most of the board members in all the water districts are farmers
- Water District 3 also installed natural gas backup engine generators, helped with the freeze and was able to resell to four other cities
- In 17 years, the General Manager has saved the citizens of McAllen $1.4 million by not taking a salary
- In votes taken by citizens of the water district, public is overwhelmingly in favor of the farmers in district three controlling their water supply
- There are 18 farmers and 100 other civilian irrigation users in the district
Tito Nieto, Cameron County Water District #6 – Against
- Our water district was created in 1922, we still serve in the same capacity as #3
- Sets a precedent of taking away water rights
Tim McDaniel, Farmer in Hidalgo District – Against
- If bill passes, he will have no representation on board because he lives outside of the city
Al Martinez, General Manager La Feria Water District – Against
- Pointless to do away with district still in use
- No problems with water district, especially after hurricanes and the freeze
- Water right has been perfected with time and effort
Lance Neuhaus, Farmer – Against
- Voices concerns of earlier farmers
- Cost is lowered by pumping agricultural water and using systems currently in place, pure power takeover
SB 2185 left pending