The Senate Local Government Committee met on March 29 to take up a number of bills. This report covers votes on pending business and discussions on SB 916 (Seliger), SB 659 (Buckingham), SB 725 (Schwertner), and SB 1338 (Zaffirini). The hearing notice can be found here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions 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.
Vote Outs
- SB 186 (Perry) 7-0 to Local
- CSSB 230 (Seliger) 7-0 to Local
- SB 479 (Hughes) 7-0 to Local
- SB 709 (Hall) 7-0 to Local
- CSSB 646 (Schwertner) 4-3
- CSSB 796 (Schwertner) 4-3
SB 916 (Seliger) Relating to information regarding certain noncompliance by an appraisal district in the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation records of a professional property tax appraiser serving as chief appraiser for the district.
- CS laid out
- Provides for notation on license via TDLR
- CS eliminates flag for noncompliance when noncompliance was out of Chief Appraiser’s control, provides link on TDLR/Comptroller website for audit results
- Bettencourt – Intent is that if someone fails audit then there is a notice that travels with them
- Seliger – Exactly
Corey Korn, Comptroller’s Office
- Bettencourt – Do you see any operational issues?
- No, already provide this data to TDLR under MOU, no issues under CS
- CS was put up to take care of issues with actions taken by Board of Directors
- Springer – Are they able to appeal violation for noncompliance
- Preliminary report is issues in the Fall, 3 month period where they can address before January, full year after to address further with TDLR
- Springer – What if they disagree with the findings?
- There is a legal review, if related to values findings then there is a process
Marya Crigler, Chief Appraiser Travis Central Appraisal District, Texas Association of Appraisal Districts – On
- Bettencourt – Have you read the CS and are you happy with it?
- Yes, worked with Sen. Seliger’s office over the weekend
- Bettencourt – I think that takes care of most of the arguments
SB 659 (Buckingham) Relating to disannexation of certain areas that do not receive full municipal services.
- Property by petition for property owners to dis-annex if not receiving full municipal services
- While most municipalities are operating in good faith, some have not been providing services & EMS response times have been increasing
- CS will be coming to alleviate some concerns, working with Lege Council
- Eckhardt – Why is this bill bracketed to those previously exempted from taxes
- Trying to update citizens to new code provisions
- Eckhardt – But there are other neighbors who were not part of the 504 feet mean exception
- Trying to get people equal access to de-annexation
- Eckhardt – Affects 400 residents? Many more within .25 miles that have been paying taxes all along; wasn’t it a citizen paying taxes who alerted the city council and wanted to be under the exemption?
- Looking at this group whose annexation status changed without notification
- Eckhardt – What is definition of full municipal services?
- Defined in Local Gov Cod
- Eckhardt – Local Gov Code does provide a remedy? Remedy in civil court?
- Local Gov Code only for newer property owners, fall below population for
- Eckhardt – Isn’t there a lawsuit pending? Not aware of the case?
- No
- Eckhardt – While they’re concerned about fire protection, etc., they have not paid any taxes to support these services?
- They do not get water, trash, electricity
- Eckhardt – Water, trash, and electricity are all fee for service, do not fall under taxes
- My understanding is that Chapter 43 Local Gov Code incl. some of these
- Eckhardt – All other citizens in Austin pay fee for service
- Other Austin citizens receive services they expect
- Eckhardt – These citizens are getting police and fire and haven’t paid for any of that so far?
- Would need to double check
- Eckhardt – How long did these owners receive total exemption from property tax
- Very long time
- Eckhardt – Exemption went into place before there was a dam, before Mopac or 360
- Eckhardt – Do you know the median home value?
- I know it ranges widely, some live on limited incomes
- Eckhardt – Median income is 2 million
- I’m advocating for those with difficulty paying taxes
- Eckhardt – But not those similarly situated neighbors; just looking to preserve tax exemption status
- Bill is about
- Eckhardt – Why do you have an irrefutable presumption re: allegations of lack of services?
- According to Austin info only a fraction receive some services
- Eckhardt – These are fee for service issues that residents and
- Residents feel like they’re being treated unfairly
- Eckhardt – How is it they are treated differently than other residents
- Feel like there is a difference across the state based on when code is passed
- Eckhardt – They have to pay a fee for these services, correct?
- Will have to disagree
Spotlight on Public Testimony for SB 659
Del Waters, Self – For
- Lives in area in question, have a very expensive septic system, would be much cheaper to pay for city services
Christopher Bugge, Self – For
- Had to put in septic field and water when house was built, but pay city taxes
Julie Wheeler, Travis County – On
- Eckhardt – How usual or unusual is it for a property on septic to move within
- Will get info
Jim Upshaw, Self – For
- Long-time resident, had to put in own septic, fire services is difficult
Joel Baker, City of Austin Fire Chief – Against
- Planned new fire & EMS on Loop 360 would be negatively impacted, would server the area included in the bill; preliminary work has already been completed and construction scheduled after lease negotiation
- Bill passage would force Austin residents to subsidize this station
- Eckhardt – Highlights extent of fire services in the area, 11 hydrants, ability to pull water from the lake; residents have paid no taxes to Austin or any emergency services district
Shawn Breedlove, Homeowners for Fair Taxes and Services, Self – For
- Over 1k properties on Lake Austin without basic services, haven’t been taxed historically because city does not provide services; fire service is inadequate
Carry Anne Finch, Self – For
- Lives in area directly impacted by bill, haven’t received services for 30 years
- Annexed into Austin, but hasn’t received water services
SB 725 (Schwertner) Relating to the qualification of land for appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes as agricultural land and the liability for the additional tax imposed on such land if the use of the land changes as a result of a condemnation.
- Springer lays out bill
- Refile of SB 555 from 86th
- Ensures entities with eminent domain power are responsible for rollback taxes on interest due on land that is converted from ag use to condemnation
- Corrects injustice by having person taking land pay rollback taxes rather than landowner
- Bettencourt – We’ve passed this once before
SB 725 left pending
SB 1338 (Zaffirini) Relating to disclosure requirements for agreements consenting to municipal annexation.
- Requested by mayor of Kingsbury in Guadalupe County
- HB 347 was passed last session ending forced annexation, some communities in ETJs are still subject to annexation agreements
- SB 1338 would require municipalities when making offers for annexation to provide additional notice, incl. stating that owner is not required to enter into agreement, legal authority, and whether consent is required
SB 1338 left pending