The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-22-04 Regular Meeting e e 2 . . . e e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA PORTE AUDIT COMMITTEE MARCH 22, 2004 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Chuck Engelken at 6:00 p.m. Members of Committee Present: Chairperson Chuck Engelken, Councilmembers Howard Ebow and Peter Griffiths Members of Committee Absent: None Members of City Council Present: Councilmember Barry Beasley Members of City Executive Staff and City Emplovees Present: City Manager Debra Feazelle, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Director of Finance Cynthia Alexander, Assistant Director of Finance Michael Dolby, Assistant City Manager John Joems and Assistant City Secretary Sharon Harris Others Present: Tim O'Connor, Bruce Koenig, Sue Gale Mock Kooken, Wade M. Allen, A.J. France, Dottie Kaminski, Ryan Harrison, Bill White, Dottie White and Tim Bush 2. Consideration of approval ofthe Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City of La Porte Audit Committee held on January 20, 2004. Motion was made by Howard Ebow to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Peter Griffiths. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Discussion Items A. Proposition 13 Chairperson Engelken postponed discussion on Proposition 13 until the next Audit Committee Meeting. B. City Council Travel Chairperson Engelken postponed discussion on City Council Travel until the next Audit Committee Meeting. C. 9/30/03 Annual Financial Report Assistant Finance Director Michael Dolby reviewed the Annual Report. Mr. Peterson provided Committee with an overview of highest rating available, noting Staff did a great job. 4. Management Comments · Controls will be more important in future audits · Segregation of duties over payroll, employee had control over both screens . . . e e Audit Committee Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2004 - Page 2 · Segregation of duties over Utility Billing, collect money and make adjustments to receivables · Account for revenues with external restrictions · Computer passwords are not being changed at regular intervals · Closing procedures need to be updated for new accounts, plus reconcile in a timely manner · Monitoring accumulative purchases of similar commodities. If an amount exceeds $25,000, the City would be required to go out for bids · Department using check requisitions where other methods should used, need policy · Segregation of duties over cash receipts · Grant accounting needs to be centralized · Audit Company provided Committee with handout on disclosures Assistant City Manager Cynthia Alexander noted a request will be made to add a Chief Accountant to accomplish the Management Comments. In addition, this may need to be done before the next budget year. 5. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1fj ()):1ittL {J p/.d/I MartHa A. Gillett, TRMC City Secretary Passed and approved on this the 21st day of April 2004. ~~ Chuck Engelken e e 3 e e . . PROPOSTION 13 . e . . . CITY COUNCIL TRAVEL . ;.. t e . ORDINANCE NO. 20QU- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR TRAVEL BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS; OUTSIDC IIARRIS AND GAL-/CSTON COUNTICS, PROVIDING AUTOMOBILE EXPENSE ALLOWANCES: FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The City Council establishes the following guidelines, which shall apply to attendance by members of City Council at educational meetings for elected officials; outside Ilarris and Galveston Counties: and for automobile expense allowances 1. A commitment for attendance should be given to the City Secretary at the earliest possible date so that the lowest possible air fare and other discounts can be obtained. This will normally be thirty (30) days prior to the event wh.en air travel is involved. The City Secretary shall aggressively solicit attendance information if deadlines are approaching and a timely decision is needed. 2. If arrangements are made later, the difference in cost will be the responsibility of the Councilperson. When notification is given and attendance does not occur, the expenses already paid will be reimbursed to the City by adjusting the monthly check. If there is a good reason for the lack of travel coordination, the City Council may waive the penalty. 3. The City of La Porte will not payor reimburse expenses for City Council member's spouses or other family members. Any exception to this policy shall require prior approval by City Council. No travel or other arrangements will be made for spouses or other family members unless that cost has been prepaid. A Councilperson shall reimburse to the City, any charges made by the hotel, for additional room guests. 4. Prior to departure each Councilperson will be given a stipend of $75.00 based on their selection as outlined below per day, or more, if authorized by City Council, to cover meals and incidental expenses. Depending on tra'y'el arrangements the p,er diem __',i11 be prorated to mateh the departure and retum dates. Airport Parking is not considered an incidental expense, and must be accounted for with a receipt on the request for reimbursement. City Council members must elect one. of the following methods for travel a. IRS per diem b. 9;75 00 daily stipend c. Actual receipts This election will be signed by each council member annually Once the election is made it is not revocable for the entire year The year begins JanuaJY 1 of each year and ends on December 31 '; 8. 9. 10. 11. e e 5. Hotel stay and airport parking will be reimbursed only for the interval from the first night before the opening general session to the day following the closing meeting. Additional time will be approved for attendance at meetings where the Council person serves on a committee or is on the program. 6. Taxis may be used between the hotel and the airport if no hotel transportation is ava)lable. Mass transit should be used for intracity travel when avaiJable unless there are time constraints. Car rental is the responsibility of the ~fy~cilperson and 'b'e. 1~~~~~s~~~~~~~;>~ee~~~R~ I.1Al. rt~popJ61 Expense accounts must be submitted within ten (10) days after returning from a meeting. If the expense report is not received by the City within ten (10) days after completing travel, the City Manager shall refer the matter to the City Council Auqit Committee for handling. Receipts are mandatory for reimbursement except when otherwise exempted by this policy. Subsequent trips will not be allowed until a request for reimbursement has been submitted for all previous trips. The City Council Audit Committee, or other committee appointed by City Cou,ncil, shall review any questionable expenses not complying with established ordinances, policies, or guidelines to authorize reimbursement, at the request of the Director of Finance. 7. City Councilpersons traveling on City business to a destination outside Harris 8fld Calveston Count1es~, by personal automobile, shall be reimbursed for their mileage in accordance with IRS mileage guidelines. City Council members who receive $100 00 car allowance will receive mileage reimbursement after the first 50 ;;~r:;;l:;~i=~~II-:~~I:';=~~~~ ~~o~1~ Nl " ItviM . The Mayor shall receiv~r an automobile expense allowance of $400 00 each month, and each City Councilperson shall receive an automobile expense allowance of $100 00 each month 8S feimBurseme"t fur 8utflmoBile p8Fki"g, 8utemoBile 8"8 tell expenses incuff'e8 in connection with the performance of their duties Any exceptions to this policy shall be approved by City Council at a regular meeting. City Council members may at their discretion stay at local hotels (ie Galveston, Conme, Houston) Section 2. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law, 2 '. e e Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public . . as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting. thereof.' Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective for the fisr.al year beginning October 1, 2003, and thereafter, unless amended or repealed by City Qauncil, from and after its passage and appre)"v'8I, and it is so ordered. Ordinance No 2002-2597, passed and appmved on November 18, 2002 Ordinance No. 2000~2434, passed and appro'i'ed on September 25, 2000, is repealed as.m Oft the effective date hereof. PASSED AND APPROVED, this _ day of January, 2004. CITY OF LA PORTE By: Norman L. Malone Mayor ATTEST: Martha A. Gillett City Secretary APPROVED: Knox W. Askins City Attorney 3 - - ". ...'t.... . . . HCAD Account # Taxes + Costs . Adjudged Value. Offer Name: Bid Amount: " e Recommendation to Audit Committee 024-080-089-0029 Resale P030 $8,349.31 $4,690 Robert Jackson $4,300.00 . Recommendation: Approve' Reason: Reviewed By: Reject Reason: xl. With Condition that he raises his bid to adjudged value - $4,690 I . . At any time any jurisdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell the property being held in trust for the lesser of: the taxes + costs or the adj~dged value set out in the tax suit. Kathy Powell 4/16/2004 It . SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: , PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 024-080-089-0029 Property Struck off for: 1998-42223 City of La Porte & La Porte Independent School District Eiland, A.P. February 15,1999 STRUCK OFF DATE: May 4,1999 March 24, 1999 May 25,1999 STRUCK OFF TO: City of La Porte . Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 229 N Sixteenth Street Lots' 29,30 & 31 Block 689 La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $ 4,690.00 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Robert Jackson AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 2120 Rocky Creek Lane $4,300.00 $430.00 $3,870.00 BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-9Q7-2604 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT " COUNTY, ET , . JUDGMENT TO AL. % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,058.02 16.06% $2,511.99 38.13% $3,017.22 ,45.80% $6,587.23 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES CONSTABLE! . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF ' COURT PUBLICATION FEE AD LITEM RESEARCH. FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $4,300.00 $433.00 $454.08 $625.00 ' $250.00 $2,537.92 ,. PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION . , OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL %. CITY % ' TOTAL PRORATED " AMOUNT $407.63 16.06% ' $967.82 38.13% $1,162.47 45.80% $2,537.92 Amount 'of Bid: CostS: -District Clerk -Tax Master ' -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee '. Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCD State of Texas Costs + Taxes $8,349.31 Adjudged Value $ 4,690.00 $4,300.00. Total:' $383.00 $50.QO $279.08 $175.00 $250.00 . $0.00 $625.00 Gordon Dees $2,537.92 Amount in Judgment: $3,017.22 $2,511.99 $911.53 $146.26 $0.23 $6,587.23 %. 45.80% .' 38.13% 13.84% 2.22% 0.00% 100.00% ' Amount Received ' . $1,162.47 $967.82 $3~ 1.19 $56.35 $0.09 $2,537.92 P030 . - - Harris County Appr,aisa,l District -- Scale 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: April 30, 1889 .----- ~~---- ~~ - - -- ~9____ '~7 __ ~~ ="= _7.3 ~!J____ ~1.0__ _ _ ~~)- - - - ~lL__ ~l5_ _0__ ~14 _ _ _ ~t~ __ ~16 125 a30 ... ~g~~ = = = ~I ~ 28~ ~ ~~i.~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ gE! _ _ _ - ; ~ I!L _ _ _ !l! !lg'!. ~~'L!ll ~ 23 ~ ~I~ = = = = =~: ~I!!!_---- ~J~_ _ _ - = ~1Q._____ ~17 la.5 ~ .... ~3 ~ ~ =~ ::'1 ~~_~___~I ~~====J ~7 _ 6 ~ ~ ~---~ ;:6_q___~ ~S_q---; ~Q - ~-~ - ~ ,~L~:ll ll: '~l2 S-~ - i 011 - - -~ - - "'L3 III ~;=====~ =,l5_ _ _ - - ~ ~6 i26 ~ ~~~ - - - - - ~30 .\l: ~29----i' -~2~ = = = = ~I ~2't\l___~ ~2IL'_ - -:: ~2~ __ -- ~ ~24 683 ll: U~~~~] ~2Q.____~ ~~== ~ = = ~ -"ll 125 = . ~ N" N 5'___1\.__ :3. :.\.. ~ l~====_; lp__ _'_ _; Hi____._~ ~7 _ _ _ _ _ ~i ~B 5 = ~-9-~- - - i, ___flJ____ ~l.O_~-~- ;: ~1 ~ CD = .--q-lll-;; ~t2_ ;$;'_ ~ _ ~ ~t3_ '? _ _ _ ~ ~14..____~ a 15 = ~ 16 ~2; - - i _a'fF"_ ~.31 ---~ ~.30~--~ ~_2~ ---= ::.26 - :- - .- ~ ~n :OOOi- AI 011 ----- ~~fl ll: ~~~ - - - - =1 ~ 24 - .;5- - - ll:23.()()23 ~~~--- = ~ jJ - ~ ~.2D = ~ - - ~ .=J a _ - = - ~ 10 18 --:. ."'- -..c....3. I'll ~ 17 12; - ~ _1 __l.~ =2 = =3 ~ -------- ~_4..____~ = 5 ~ -------- .:!: 6 ~ ~-7-.- - --~ -'(8-.oooi - ~ .------- ~_9_____; ~JQI'_8,L _ ~ ~lL____~ ~J2__:.._~ ~J~____~ ~ 14 125 I'll ~ lfi.. ~_ s.:-!l ~l6:,l7s = f:~3.?_~ _ _ _ ~ ~~.l____~ ~_3Q____~ ~.2.9__.__~ ::~B~03~ _ ~ ::_2J!!8L _ ~ ::,g1L _ - - ~ =25 126 = ~~4.____~ ~~::},----~ ~ 22 = ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; = 20 = ~(1~ = = = = ~ ;;;<:l' ~ ~_16____~ 10 17 125 In ll:I' ll: ~=~'====~ ~_4.. .31.8- - ~ = 5 -0001 ~ ~=~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ =8125 _= ~ 9 ~ ~lti ~5l = ~ ~!l_M-~ '112 '&ir: = ~13~"'::ii - - ,-"'1::- ~ :> - ~!4_ ~_ __~ ~.!~.s...--~ ~ l~ 1')~ = . ~ N I -- ~~ -'-- :11____ .;)g ,- -- 29 -~-- 28. _ - - 27 :~6= = = = igQ.'_ __ 24.li85 _" ~ 23. _ - - II g~ - - - n___ gL_ IL~_= LB_ _ _ _ 7 12~ :~ - - - - lQ _ _ _ _ Ie _ _ _ _ 'f.:7 _ -R - ~~ - -~~ ~9 _ _q.~ tJJQ ~~ _ iilu__~"i _ ~~_ _3. - !J1.3_ _ _ _ ~jL -- ~lli_ _ - - - ~ J R 11" 32 ... 31- _ _'_ ;JO _ - ~ 29 -N-- 211____ n__ 26 ,- ~==== 24?!ili _ ~ g:J.. ~ __ 22 ~~1~ ~ ~ ~ 101 :~L-- ~ 19 ~1=8= = = = _ ~! ::i7 125 = L__ :1____ ~ L___ ~---- 5 - - - 10 i=-&-- B_~~ \1-~:ll- "'''' UL q~ u~~- l2:.. _0_ _ 1:1-___ ;;'1 14 _ _ _ ':1 15 _ _,_ _ ... 16- ". - ~_:}.2_ 1~6. = !l_3)_ - ~ ;;1 ~ _a.o . - ;; ~_2.9 - - - ~ !'l_2B- - - - ll:_21'S-L = !'lJ!6 _ _ !l~5--= ::_21187 ~_2~ = = ll:_2L- ~_2J _ _ ll:2Q , ~J 9 - - - ll:j8_ - - - ~ 17-1;5- ll:1 ~~2= == ~ ~3 .~ - -- ll:4 " Jt5_ _ ~ _ = 8 .. 'i 7- ',-'- - .=-a-'" ';"-, ~'I:- 9 -.- ilo-~- ,- --q =ll ~CD ~=lg ~~: =13 ,.... ,---~- ~14. N . _ _ -CiJ - ::115 rjla 12'i .= ~ N ADAMS STREET ~J_ _1~6~ =2 = .------- = 3.()O16 f: ~-4- - - - - iQ ~-5- -126- - ~ ~ 6 . = ~=7= ~~= =; 1'118 125 = ~JI_ _' _ !\. ~ 'I: 10 '1Q =-I.poof-~ ~-lil~;-= ~!3_ _.w. ~ ~ ~Ji .2Q2.... - ~ ~J2~: - ~ 1:Ui 126 ~ "., =2 1: ~ _2~2:t _ !:! = 23 126 = = 22-0021 :Ie ~2--125--= ~D____.~ ~.J.P_ _ --~ ~J~____~ =17 126 = ~ N ... N ~ 1_ -i - -';1 --.... -~~ ~ !lL~ ~- -~ .010_ ~ ~ ~=1 125 1: - N w+. FACET 6254C - 4 3 s 2 1 12 ~~1 ~! - ~g- ~~- ~~,- ~?- ~~- ~]- ~!S_ ;1;9 ~ 11:1 ~, ~ ' , I 2.' ~ ~Q ~-- ~_2L_-~ ~ _211-p<<!3!! _ ~ 27 125 ~ _2~ '()031 _ r;: 25 126 ~.zt .0023- :e 23 125 ~~.oH~ - -~I 'it:21 1~_ =1 ~'2~ 126 1 2512~] 2' I I I I I I I 1 ,12,13 ,14)5 6117 l6,IIS .20 A I I 1 1.111 oD I I 1 1 111 ,..: I 10"J I ~ !::! I ~CQ 1 1 ... :: 1 I~ I'" I 61 I I I....q I I q' I ,,125, ~I 26.25 25: 25:26~ 25~ 33 :fJ 1 115 :c ~-2-----:~ ~~====~ ~ _4_ _ _ _ _ ~ =5-0001'= ~=6~~~~~~ ~3_~2!l- _ ~ ~_8_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~_9_ _ _ _ _ ~ :e,n 126 :e ~~Q ~ - - ~ }q29 lQ il-28 :0027 - ~ ~-27 ~2; - -~' ~~e -OQ2fi- ~ -. :e 25 126 lQ ~ N 1 II! 1111 "" I I'll ::: . I~ '~ 25.'')1;. 2.5 ~ ,..1 :e l:oB61 :e ~_~~2~--::! lQ 3 :Q ~~~-~~~ ~~ !ll_5_7J!l _ _ ~ =8 125 ~ ~_7_ _ _ _ _ ~ :fJ B :e ~~~= ~oE~ =; :eIO lt6 = ~30.~ _._ ~ - - - - 1'\1 ~'?Q.----i: lQ2Q.____Iq ~~ gl _ _ ~ ~ _2~ - - -:-. - i;: ~ 2~._ _ _ _ ~I i:-24 - G- ~ - - - 1 I'll ~_2~__ _~ =22____;. =-21 125 1'\1 33 '26 '2~1)5126I25T2512& 1m 33 11';12 \3:14,15)6 ~7:161S :20 ;: ~: ~15~4.: :. :' ~ ~I I I I ()01'3 I , I I r I I I I 1 1 I I 33~ 25 :25: 2512&~25~ 25~25 ~ 25 ~ 33 :Q 1 iK = ~~i==~0 ~_3.<_.q_':: \'" 4 . N 1'\1 in - 5- - g~ - ~ ~- -.-cAli) - ~ ~_6__~~_~ :c 7 ~~ ~ ~=~]~ = ; ~10' 1~5 ~ STREET ~'Q 125 ~ ~~9===== ~_28 _ _ ~ _ -= 1: 27 i ~ =2D =1~~.= ~ ~ _25 ~~2: _ ~ ~g4 = ll: 23 - - - - ~! ~~~~~~=~ ~ 21 . 126 = :13 12112512512&\2&125125' 2i~ 11 J2 :13 :14'>5 16 h :16 ~9 : 20 I , I I 'I 1 I ,. 'I I I I = ~1Rh 1 ,lQ ~ I.()Otl I I po ~2 1 I po I I I I I ,6 I I , I"" I I I I I I 1.:! .2!i. ,25, 25,26 2512&.25126.33 POLK ~ _L ~2~ _ _ ~ ~ -~ - - - - ~I ~ _:1. _ _ _ - ~ :e 4 =1 ;,-5----11 ~- 6 ~8i - -111 ~-_____:'I ~7717 ~I ~-8----~ .------- 9_9_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ 10 \U ~ WEST ~~q~~--; ~29. -'-21 - ~ ~ _2!Loo26_ ~ ~~'Z____~ ~ 26 125 = ~~____!l lE: 24. ~I ~~~ =~~1= ~ ,~g~----~' ~2L 125 = 25 I 2512iT2i \26' 251251 25 I 33 I ) 115 I I I 2 13 4. 6 .1716119 ,20 I I I [J I ., I 1 0 -0011 I I.. I 111 I I'- .~I : ~ i ,oDl6 I .1 i --.2..- po Ib2.JI>>IClI I..; 1}& - - - -~ = = = =ll:! ll:' ~~= =~ ''--6_ __~ - ~2; = = ~ F1'~ 7 8 - - 26'2-61331 ~251~5 11 I 12 '" I - J..E N STREET 'C .H~ 77011 WEST MA Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number, Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Additional Data Account Number: 0240800890029 Location: 0 16TH Tax Year: 2004 View M,ain Screen [2j Parcel ID : 20 - 00920.2 - 07.0 - 014.2 - 0/ 000 - 001 3 Land Use: Exempt -" Vacant Land Land Area: 9,375 sq. ft. Map facet : 625~C Key Map : 540W Neighborhood : C207.2, Building Class : E CAMA Class: Exempt, Vacant Total l,iving Units : 0 Total Units : 0 Parking Type / Qtyl Prox : Off Street / Abundant / On Site For any problems or questio'ns with any account, please email us with the account' number (if you have it) ~nd the nature of the problem or question. . . . Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News e Appraised Value History for 0240800890029 . Value information prior to 1998 is not available on. the web. . Land: 'Tax Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 4,6~0 ' 4,690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,690 4,690 0 0 0 Improvement: AgjTmbrjSpc : 'Total Value: (The appraised value shown on this screen may be less than the property's January 1 market value if the property is a residence homestead and is subject to a cap on annual inc:;:reases in appraised value.) , . . e. HCAD .Account # Taxes' + Costs Adjudged Value . Offer Name: Bid Amount: e e Recommendation to Audit,Committee 024-080-089-0032 Resale P166 , $2,563.40 $1,561 Robert Jackson $1,000.00 Recommendation: Approve Reason: . , Reviewed By: Reject Reason: x 'I, , With Condition that he raises his bid to 'adjudged value - $1',561 I ' I At any time any jurisdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell the property bei'1g held in trust for the le~ser of: the taxes + costs or the 'adjudged value set out in the tax suit. . Kathy Powell 4/16/2004 e e SUMMARY 'OF FORCLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): . JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 024-080-089-0032 1999-37587 , City of La Porte & La Porte Independent School District, La Porte - Houston Realty Co August 14, 2001 STRUCK OFF DATE: March 22, 2002 July 2, 2002 STRUCK OFF TO: CitY of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 North Sixteenth Street Lot 32 Block 689 La Porte , ,ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $1,561.00 3,125 , SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Robert Jackson AMOUNT.oF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE:' ' BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 2120 Rocky Creek Lane $1,000.00 $100.00 $900.00 BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 713-822-9035 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT COUNTY, ET JI,JDGMENT TO AL. % SCHOOL % ' CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE , $242.97 11.36% $1,153.20 53.93% $742.23 34.71 % $2,138.40 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA AD LITEM . RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST TION FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $1,000.00 $0.00 $175.00 , $0.00 $250'.00 $575.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL , % CITY % . TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT $65.33 11.36% ,$310.09' 53.93% $199.58 34.71% $575:00 Amount of Bid: CO,sts: $1,000.00 Total: " $0.:00 $0.00. $0.00 " $175.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $575.00 ' -District Clerk -Tax Master -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCD . State of Texas Amount in Judgment: $742.23 $1,153.20 $167.12, $75.85 $0.00 $2,138.40 %, 34.71% 53.93% 7.82% 3.55% 0.00% 100.00% , Amollnt Received $199.58 $310.09 $44.94 $20.40 $0.00 $575.00 Costs + Taxes $2,563.40 Adjudged Value $ 1,561.00 P166 ",rt.c-d \ Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced ,Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0240800890032 Tax Year: )2003..;$f Owner Name: LA PORT lAND CO Ownership History... Owner Address: PO BOX 1514 LA PORTE TX 77572-1514 Property Address: 0 N 16THST LA PORTE'TX 77571 . Legal Description : l T 32 BlK 689 LA PORTE State Class Code: C2 -- Real, Vacant Commercial Homestead Exemption: -- Special Exel)1ption : ..:- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD : No' Capped Account: No Notice Date : , ARB Approved : Value Status: Value Unchanged Notice Not Required. . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The'appraised value l?elow will reflect the homestead cap if applicable. Valuation: TY2002 Land: Improvement: Ag/Tmbr/Spc : Total Va1ue : Previous 1,560 o o .1,56J' Change o o " o '0 Aopraised Value 1,560 o o . 1,560' ' Market Value 5-Year Value Histo.ry... Note: Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News . , , For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. ' " , Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced P,ersonal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Add.itional Data Account Number: 0240800890032 Location: 0 N 16TH ST Tax Year: 2002 View Main Screen .,fHl l!JJ Parcel ID : ,20 - 00920.2 - 07.0 - 015,0 - 0/ 000 - 001 2 Land Use : Commercial Vacant Land Land Area: 3,125 sq. ft. Map Facet : 6254C Key Map : 540W . Neighborhood : C207.2 Building Class ': E CAMA Class: Commercial, Vacant Total Living 'Units : 0 Total Units : 0 Parking Type / Qty / Prox : None / None / Far' For any problelT)s or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. '. Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News, .' I . Harris County Appraisa O,istrict - __I 125 '30 N 129-- - - - i! 128'1- - - ~ ~gi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~26 = .------- "'.,~' "" ~.....~--.!'I ~g~ll6'- - - !!~ ~~~~~~~ ~gQ.--~-~ ~lg _ _ _ - - ~I ~l6_ _ _ _ - !,I ~1'l 126 - N~._ _ _ _ _ _ 30___ = ~9_ _ _ = = ~' 28 Ill, i7~ - - - ~ gll_===~' 25 "' 2L'.h- - - ;: g~=~~~ ~2_ _ _ = ~---==~ 2.0_____~ \ll_____~ UL__ = 7. . 126 - - i . "' N" N ~= = = ~ ~ j-----~ I?_____~ 6 Ill' IZ=====,~! 16 s = __61---- ~ 9 q = --1')---- ~1.9_ q _ ~_ ;'1 '1 ~ ~ = ~2-q-~-~ ~3 -S-<<i- ~ ~L4='= = = = ~ 15 = 16 - ~2; - - i 6254C6 , "' ~3L""I - - ~ ~.3Q - - - - ; =29 _ ~ =2ii~~=-~ ~.n~~-~ ~~Q. - - - - ~ ~25 ~ =-24 - 1;5- - = =g3 ~23 : ~~~ ~.= =. = ~ ~~Q. - - - . ~ ~'9 N ~----.-;. ~I!.<~__~I IfI.t'Z 2' N =1 .=32 N ~~====~ ~~===] ~_4...~__1 =~____;:; ~_a..._----, =~B____~ ~_6__----1 1Il.?Z_~!! = 7 I =2 . fa. = --------1 -Q.-- -- ~!L..JB__' "'g!i.____~ ~ _9_ _ _ _ _ ~ = ~4 _ :. - - ~ = 10 . 1: 23 PI U = ~ll-----= 2i-t=i ~- - - - - - ~ lC21 ~-lift;' i ~ 12.. _ _ _ _ _ - - J!I-,?-:: - ~13 \"....= 20"'" = ~'i4---1.-i =-19-i?-~ ~ 15 - - -.- ~ =q- - -s- - = ._______ '_16_____ = 16 = = 17 125 '!D" . = 32 = ~~:U ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~ ~ - ~ 11_211 - f.i ~~==~=i ~.2b --= !=_2~ - - - - -= ~_23~e= ~ ~ ~L _ - -'~ ~ _2l _ 1Il ~ _29 _ - - - = lQ1!i ---= '8_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N1?' 125 :;: "' N = ~ N ~ N "' N _1Il. l!: ~ N III "' N "' N "' N "' N -~ "' N 1Il - SGala 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: January 17,2002 L~~ 2_.yg> r. I ~ ..000 ~~--1.~! 6 1=1& 8 " 32 f ii~~~~~~ 3l!.___ 29 -01- - 28-___ 'l3____ ,g6_ _ _ _ Ig5_ _ _ _ 1~5- j 123..:: - --t\-! ;~- - - - "7'~=1 ~~1_ _ _ _ ~~o_ _ '_ _ 1:111-___ 111-___ 2~ 12"6 Nl_ L L ; ~ ~ ~ ~,7~.I~~ !!---- - 7 15 - - "'0"" - .n 8_ q~ N ll_l:Rli: Q "'''' - ........... qrl "'I l_~__ .eI'1 19 _ _0_ _ 7" ~', 1:3-___ 14 _ _ _ "' - - ~I 15 _ _ _ _ ,. la - 126 ~ ~I ~j -- =_2_ _ ,lL3_ _ =_4_' _ )Et5_ _ ~t6_ _ ~ 7 _ ~(I[=~' "'9 ~o-l li1= =! ~.!~ -1 ~!3_ _~ ~14_ _: 1Il15_ _ =16 ~ 32 121 =: ~=3!====~ tl_3D......._._ - ~ l!l29.... l!l !~-I;S--~ ~ 21 ~ -------- l!l 28.()()18 l!l ~-2~~~ - -~ "' a. :- ~L -'e'~ !l..?L___~ II 22 1\\ ~-2i. ~- - - i (i(=,== ~ 1\\ 19 . l!l ~-IB - - -- 1:' .------- Ie 17 121 = ADAMS STREET ~j__'~-_~ ;:_2_____~ ~ _3_ ~f!. _ ~ ~_4__ _ __= ":5:..~i . 6 -;;;- ~- - - "212- ~ ~3_:!lQlL ~ ... 8 12& 1: "iill'-~I =-io----i ~-ii--,:;-= ~ - i2A.~~ iii - - -if;, ~ ~ 13 :! - ~ ~1.L .,.-"'- - "i: ~15!---;.iii ;.g-_:!r-_ =1 12& =:, e E F A,C E T 6254C - - - - 1 2 3 4 - - - - 5 6 7 8 - - - 9 11 12 N , w+ s IQ 1 ns- = ~=~====~ ~-3-" - ~ - - ~ lQ 4 . lQ -------- ~ 5 -0001 lQ ~Ji===="=~ "'-0 ~ N N . - -0--- "' "' ~_8___.:._~ !3_9_ __ _ ~ ~ :e 126 :;: ~--~'I ~_~~2:-..~ ll: 3 ~ ~-4-Oo02-~ ~-~-~===~ "' "' I'! --.llL-~. ~7 . ~ ~=:~ ~~i = ~ IQIO 12~ :f3 ~_3Q ~ _ _ !J lQ29 lQ ::2S----i ~~ ~i = = ~ l'\I 26' . ~ ~~====~ :f3 24 :Q ----...,.-- ~-~-~-~ lQ22 :Q ~-21 ~2-;- - i 126 '2$:'"251 25 126126125 f2S r 33 :1213: 14,15 ~6 ),7 :1819 :20 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I In I I 1 11514 I I I I:::!I I I I .()Q1I3 I I I I I I I I ' I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 25,25,25.26,25, 25.t25 . 25,33 ~)_~2~__;: ~_2.___~ ~_3.._~__1I N '" N = ~-5-~~-i: . - - -ale - - ~t6_ _ Zi~ _ ~ :e 7 :~ ~ ..- - -q~ - - ~_Il_~- - ~ ~ _9_ _ ~ _ _ ~ IQtU 1~ = 3~ 11 "' N WEST POLK STREET ~ ~Q. 125 ~' ~.?&====~ ~_28_'_ _ _ ~ :Q 27 = ~=2fi=,~~ = ~ ~_25~2~-~ ~g4.__--~ ~.?~ - - - - ~I ~~~----~ ~ 126 t..: N 33 12&" III _1_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~_a-_--_=1 ~_:t _ _ _ _.!1 = 4 =1 ~=~=~~=~ ~_6_ ~O!. _ ~I lIlp 1Il __ 2___ "' "' N N -------- III _9_ _ _ _ _ ~ 10 125 Ie 33 20 ~ ~ :l =30 = ~2ii =,~; = ~ ~.?Q Jo28_ ~ ~n _ _ - -.!' ~ 26~!!.~ ~.?q----~ ~ 24 =1 ~=2~ =-alU,= ~ :::.?L___~ =21 126 = 2&: 25i 2"S~ 25126; 25; 2&~ 26 2 13 )4 15 \6 ,17 a8,19 1 I 10 I I I ..odn I l;f I 111 I I I I:; I rOOl6 I 9IfCJ I I:::! I 1b2.,ItICJ1 = = = =~ ~Q1= =llil ! N ----~ ~2; - - =1 21 u n 6253A2 33 WEST MAIN . . . HCAD Account # Taxes + Costs Adjudged Value Offer Name: Bid Amount: e e Recommendation to Audit Committee 023-207-086-0019 Resale P199 $13,299.43 $10,000 Bayou Housing Partners : $10~000.bO . Recomme'ndation: Approve Reason: ' I...x I Bid is equal to the adjudged value. Reviewed By: ' ',Reject Reason: Kathy Powell At any time any jurisdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell the property being held in trust for the lesser of: the taxes + costs or the adjudged value set out in the tax suit. 4/16/2004 ' . ..' . e e SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: " PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS:. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 023-207-086-0019 Property Struck off for: Value 1999-50350 City of La Porte &,La Porte Independent School District Speith, Bunis V April 14, 2000 STRUCK OFF DATE: October 3,2000 June 22, 2000 October 17,2000 STRUCK OFF TO: City of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 North First Street Lots 19, 20, 21 & 22 Block 86 La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE ( IN JUDGMEN!): SQUARE FOOTAGE: ' $10,000.00 12,500 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY -BIDDER: Bayou Housing Partners AMOUNT OF BID: '$10,000.00 AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: $1,000.00 AMOUNT DUE: $9,000.00 BIDDER'S ADDRESS: PO Box 955 Friendswood, TX 77549 BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-648-2425 PRORATED" PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT COUNTY, ET JUDGMENT TO AL. % ' SCHOOL % CITY- " % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $2,739.50 24.42% $5,4 72.98 " 48.79% $3,003.95 26.78% "$11,216.43 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF ' COURT CONSTABLElPUBLICATI AD LITEM RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST ON FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $10,000.00 $878.00 $175.00 $780.00 '$250.00 $7,917.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION OWED TO" COUNTY % 'SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL , PRORATED AMOUNT $1,933.65 24.42% $3,863.05 48.79% $2,120.31 26.78% $7,917.00 Amount of Bid: Costs: $10,000.00 -District Clerk -Tax Master -Conl;itable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee ~Cost -Ad Litem Fee ,$828.00 $50.00 Mike Landrum '$0.00 : $175.00 $250.00 $o.ob. $780.00 Melissa Dennis $7,917.00 Total: Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCD , State of Texas Amount in Judgment: $3,003.95 $5,472.98 $2,356.79 ,$382.71 ' $0.00, , $11,216.43 % " " 26.78% 48.79% , 21:01% ." 3.41% 0.00% 100.00% Amount Received $2,120.31 $3,863.05 ~1 ,663.52 ' , $270.13 $0.00 $7,917.00, Costs + Ta~es $13,299.43 Adjudged Value $ 10,000.00 P199 Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0232070860019 Tax Year: ~ Owner Name : SPEITH B V Ownership History... Owner Address.: ' INVALID ZIP' 00000-0000 Property Address : 0 N 1ST A V LA PORTE TX '77571 Legal Description: L TS 19 20 21& 22 BLK 86 LA PORTE' State Class Code : C1 -- Real, Vacant Lots/~racts Homestead Exemption : -- , Special Exemption : C -- Prorated ,Exemption Disabled Veteran Exemption(s) : -- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD : No Capped Account: No Notice Date : ARB Approved: 8/4/2000 Value Status: All Values Certified . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The appraised value below will reflect the home~tead cap if applicable. . , Valuation: TY2000Pre Land: .Il1.lprovement : Ag/Tmbr/Spc : Total Value : 1 Chanae Appraised Value vious 10,000 0 ,10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 , Market Value 10,000 S-Year Value History... Note: Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News For any problems or questions with any account, please emaii' us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. . -i '. Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced' Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name ,Vacant Residential ,Property Data Account Number: 0232070860019 Location : 0 N 1ST A V Tax Year: 2000 View Main Screen [BJl Parcel 10 : 20 - 00921.3 - 06.0 - 002.0 - 0/_000 - 001 9, Land Use: 100 -- Residential Vacant Land Land Area. : 12,500 sq. ft. - - , CAMA Class: RVO -- Residential Vacant Map Facet: 62540 Key Map: 540X Neighborhood: 2164.1 For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the proqlem or question. '. . Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News - I ... ~ Harris County, Appraisa District . '2 -",-<:!.._~I "-.,.;; ~ 3 ~.. __ L_ _ ..:- = 14 _ __ - - N = 15 _Q. _ _ -;. 16- 12$ N 21 ra~ =1 - - -Ill ... - - 20 ;I lfl ~~ =~.= = ~ t8___'__~ 17 12!i = - - - T 10- - !! ~_:~- - ~'I l~_~___~ L4 S .lfl t5-----i 16 - ~2~ - - -= . g~ -g~- ~ 21 ~ =' ---0---1 ~o_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~.1I_____!I lB_ _ _ _ _ !' 17 121 :: 6251QL ~i - - - = li?= = = = = ~1 l~_____!l 14 . "= i~-----i i6-~;;--;: ~9-.1zL N N~.J': _ _ _ __ !l! _ - - - - ~ w_____~ =16 125 = N~ ~23 - - - - il ------- ~----~ 21 - _ _.QQ13. _ !:' i~ - ~---_!I 19_ __ __ !l la_____~ 17. 175 = ~ .!l_-OOO!l. _ !:" ~lO 12& ;(: II.! _..E'Jl- _!l ~\2 12& = ~13 = ~~====~I ~!.D _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~16 12~ = '., - -- ~: ~i _ N - -- -~ - - - _!:! ~ =: ~L ~z~ __!ll ~ 2 =, .------- ~_ _~ ~_ _01 i~ _ _~.ca_ ~I ~!I- _\? ~_!\I U ~N lfl 1l2==~==~ ~__'?__!l ~L _ _ _ '_ !l :n?_____!S 12' = ~ I?il > < :I: < E- :=> ~- ~~ - - ~ ,~l_ _.. _ _; ~o_ ...: _ _ _ !l ,g9_ _ _ _ _ !ll ig8_@ ~ _ !I' :gL___!l Ig8_ _ _ __ ~ ~~5_____~ ~~4_ _ _ _ _ !l ~~3_ _ ~~ _ !l ~22 q ::: .121~ - :::-~ ill ----q--- 20 ....;t:3 -- - ~--- 1.11_ _ it.?- '!I !.8_ _ ~__!l 17 116 = L~__!l 2 ~ ------- ~_.:._--; ~-----~' ~----_! g-----~ :?_---~! "-____.!l 9 . - __..o...__~ \!! 5.. ~ l1' = --..(")-Q-- l2_ .::L! _ .!l '3 .....: .. "'--s---!:' l4 N. = ---0---- Ip____~!l 16 126 = L t _ _':_'_!l .?_--~-; ~--'""--~ ~ _-QllDl- _ .!l ~-----~ .o_____~ 7-@_~!l 8 . 1J!j rJ ~-----~ 1.9_____!l 11 ~ It2=!ii = = :J il13 is -I ' - -~~ - - !' :a.L~lD.__!l oII.15~!.:t = --",r:--- 16 'il2i Ill' .....- N o ,....., E- W W ll:: E- Ul -< ~ o - 'E STREET I ~ 32m- lfl -C--,-i: '31----;: -3-"%-= ..30----= ,-4--CCf& - 'iI -29.0026 --= :-5".oozT - i: ' "26 - - - - i: '-8-.c&W--;., -27-----;. ; -,': -td'f - i -26 - - - - i :-6- -,;. - - i: -25.-,;.- - i: ~ 9 ' lfl ~ 24-0024 lI: ~ 10 - 0 - =. 23 lei ----~-- ------- ~11 = 22 ::= ~}~~oB=~ ~[~i=~1 ~~~__: _~ N~f!____~1 lQ 14 = 19 = = 15 - - - - ~ 16 - - - - =! = -uJ ~2~ - - i 17- ~2~ - - =1 NORTH 11132 ,25 IA! ~31- :0031 - i 1:30 12r = ~29 wa- i: ~~8_ ~~~ ~Z7 - ~ga: ~1~= ~ =25 .:a. III iR~'::1 ~~3_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~~2_ _ _ _ _ !I ~~1_ _ j1];_ !II ~~_~~_!11 !l1Jl_ _ _ __!II ~L8_ _ _ _ _ !II 11117 l~fi =1 ~k =2= = = ~I =3 = ~4-----=1 =5- -.Q"am.- ='1 illl- - - ~ - ill = i- - - - - =' -----~ ~ 8 '21 ~= = 9 ::= ~ro-:0009- i'l -IC-----;. = 125 NI \!l12 ~2 lfl! ~t},-'~--~ ;;. 15- :ollI"3 - -;. ~______~1 = 18 lZ1_ =1 3"ii25 ~I :iii1Rii - :i1 lIfJoo35- ~ ~ ~2B lfl j!oz. '~._ _ !li _~O~~ !l .,.;- - ~ - - ~ -093& .: :!22 .go31 ~ 21 -QP33 ~ 2O-GP20 .. ~':i !.8_c8&\ _lfl i7 '15 ~ :I: E- MAD I~ON :z - Scale 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: J~nUilr' 10.2003 N W E S STREE~ In 119 ~9=l=== ~L~--- "l2_ .g~ _ ~~- ~-- ---N--- 16 0 16 m EAST ~2...~2~__~ ~I_ _ _ _ _ !l ~O_~~L !I 1?9_ _ _ _ _ .!ll 1~8_ _ _ _ _ ~ 127 126 = -gL___~1 ?-i_.gon - ~' g'L___~ 23 ,..' lfl 22 -0021 ~ 21- -,; - - =1 2000190031 ~I 1!l:lo3:10033 ~ QL8_.ooi'1.. _ !II =17 ~':I6 = L~'~__!ll ?_____.!l 3 ~ jQ===~1 ~--_.:_~ !S_____~ 7 l'l ------- ~-----~' 116 = ~ 1001 l_~__;', 2 ~ -----~- ~-----; I~_~___~ i6 ~ ------- 16 = ------- 17 . III 26 ;~=l~=~ ?-i__L-!l1 ~il_ ~~ _!l gL _ _ _!l 19_ ~~ _!l ~3_ _ _ __!II IL -S- ~ _ !l g~- - 2l.1 ~-~--~ ~----~~ ~_____~ 1IlI~~____~ l~_____~ ~_____~ Ip _ _ _ _ _!l -l8_ _ _ _ _!l 18 m. .17 125 _ lfl :I: E- ll:: o :z --- E- I?il W ll:: E- Ul <' :I: E- ll:: o 2- ~ ;!2_ ~'~ _ _ !l ~~--_!I ~o_ _ _ _ _ ~ 29 =1 2i--~= ----~'- g~ - - - -- ;: gf!.____~ ~5_____!l g....._ - - - !II ~3_ _ __ _ !l g2- - - - - ~ ,~l_ _ _ _ _.!I I~O_ _ _ _ _ ~ :19 ~ ---r - -,- - l!.8_ _ _ _ _ ~ :11 121 = ~1Il ~~~ = = =~~I ~3 t: :"4-----il ~5 - - - - - i' ~ ~ = = = = .: ~. ~ N q 6 15 l!: ~9--~.~-i ----Gl,....-- ~.9_ _~ llL!l 11 ~ N lfl - --q "'-- ~_ _~ -' _ !II ~__~__!l L4 . . lfl - - - - ..<--:: lE_____!l 16 121 = c.:l ::> z c.:l > <( STREET co U: ~ ISON C\I <0 3~ ~Z:,_ _ ~I 3'- _ _ _ _ ;: 3C!____~' 2L___.!l1 211ilCP;J _ _lfll 27 _ _ __ !II 2~ _ _ _ _ _Ill. .~ - - -; .~~~- - -_"! _:,~- ~.- ~ - :~ ?al_.Q_OL9 _ _ ~ ~~O_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ui 12& = ~UI~2Jj_ _ ~ H7 125 = - nl FACET ~!.----- ~~----- ~~----- 6254D ,~~----- "6 ~- - ~~~ 1 2 3 4 117N _ - ~~:'8r 6 7 8 ~9 ....:_ _ - ~.:~ 9 10 11 12 i!I!,. _,,,.p,-P. -'"2"1 !._~2~__~ ~-----~ ~_____~I ~-----;: i2_.____~ STREET 32121__!l 3P~=__!I 30-- __!I' g~==--~i 28..Ei.__!' 21 _~_~ _ !l ~~~:;;_!l 25 .;~' ~ ~' g4= ~_~ _!I 23 p_ _ _ ~I 6254D9 TYLER ~1 _ ~2~ ~~ ~=====~ ,4 ___!'I ~--- = lti _ __ : ~Q= _ _ !l ~7~ .:. _!3 ~t=====~ "n N EAST >- -< ~ o <( o 0:: III :I: E-o '0:: a 32 12. = ~l======= ,30 lfl ,~~~~ =~: :g8_____~ ~~7_____=;j ~26 12& I: :25-avk~ :1 ~g4_ .3\3- _ ~ STREET i'l"' = ------- 12 =: ------- :3 = ------- 14 =1 . _ -.QQllL - - ~5 = .------- ~ 8 ~ .------- ~7 . .= .------- ~8 -!~~ =9_~_!1 TYLER :32 12& = ~~I::.l~~ = ~ =30 = ~29~9 ; "'128 11 = :n~~ = ~ :26 '25 = '25 ,'''' "lfll l2.L ~ - i: . . . e e Recommendation to Audit Committee HeAD Account # '024-080-089-0026 Taxes + Costs , Adjudged Value Offer Name: Bid Amount: $2,591.58 $1,561 Robert Jackson , $1,5.61'.'00 Recommendation: Approve' , Reason: Reviewed By: , Reject Reason: Kathy Powell Resale P167 x I Bid is equal to the ,adjudged value. At any time any jurisdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell the property being held in trust for the lesser.of: the taxes + costs or the adjudgedviil1ue set out in the tax suit. 4/16/2004 e e SUMMARY OF FORCLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: -JUDGMENT" DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 024-080-089-0026 1999-37587 City of La Porte & La Porte Independent School District La Porte - Houston Realty Co August 14, 2001 STRUCK OFF DATE: March 22, 2002 July 2, 2002 STRUCK OFF TO: City of La Porte Bill B~i1ey, Constable Precint No 8 North Sixteenth Street Lot 26 Block 689 La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $1,561.00 3,125 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Robert Jackson AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 2120 Rocky Creek Lane $1,561.00 $156.10 $1,404.90 - BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-997-2604 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT COUNTY, ET JUDGMENT TO AL. % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $242.67 11.20% $1,161.78 53.62% $762.13 35.18% $2,166.58 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES . ,ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA AD LITEM .' RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST TION FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $1,561.00 $0.00 $175.00 $0.00 $250.00 $1,136.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION ,"' OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % CITY % ' TOTAL' PRORATED AMOUNT $127.24 11.20% $609.15 53.62% $399.61 35.18%' $1,136.00 Amount of Bid: Costs: ' -District Clerk -Tax Master -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee Taxing' Jurisdictions: City of La Porte , La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCO . State of Texas Costs + Taxes $2,591.58 Adjudged Value $ 1,561.00 $1,561.00 Total: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $175.00 ' $250.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 $1,136.00 Amount in Judgment: $762.13 ' . $1,161.78 $166.82 $75.85 $0,00 $2,166.58 % 35.18% 53.62% 7.70% 3.50% 0.00% 100.00% Amou'nt Received $399.61 $609.15 $87.47 $39.77 $0.00 $1,136.00 P167 -_or- \Z.O-C--+ lD Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Re'al Property Account HCAD Account # : 0240800890026 Tax Year: ~02 ~ : ,~"~, Owner Name: LA PORT LAND CO Ownership, History... Owner Address: PO BOX 1514 . LA PORTE TX 77572-1514 Property Address: 0 N 16TH ST, LA PORTE TX 77571 Legal Descriptic;m : L T 26 BLK 689 LA PORTe State Class Code. ; C2 -- Real, Vacant Commercial HOl1')estead Exemption : -- Special Exemption: '-- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD: No Capped Account: No Notice Date : ARB Approved : Value Status :.Value Unchanged Notice Not Required . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. , Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. , The appraised value belo.w will reflect the homestead cap if applicabie. Valuation : TY2002 Land: 'Improvement: Ag/Tmbr/Spc : Total Value: Previous 1,560 o O. ..~,560 Change o o q O. Appraised Value 1,560 o . Market Value .,0 1,560 '5-Year Value History... Note: HO,me Reco~ds Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News . For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. . Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property, Additional 'Data . ~ \~~ .., Account Number: 0240800890026 Location: 0 N 16TH ST Tax Year: 2002 View Main Screen IT] Parcel ID : 20 : 00920.2 - 07.0 - 012.0 - 0/ 000 - 001 9 ,Land Use: Commercial Vacant Land Land Area : ~~125Sq. CAMA . . Class: Commercial, Va,cant Total Living' Units: 0 Total Units' : 0 P k' T / Qt / P . On arid Off Street / Abundant / On ar mg ype y, rox . Site ' , ' Map Facet: 6254C Key Map : 540W Neighborhood : C207.2 Building Class: E For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if.you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. . Home Records , Maps , Forms HeAD Info Links News . - . - - Harris County Appraisal Di,strict &oale 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: Jahuilrr 17~ 2002 - ~ ~--_... ~3 \...... III ~~~====:!:I ~5 = ~8-----l: ~7 = r = = ~ ~6_..,- --~ "9 d:I . III ~ -q-Ll-~ _9-l!-~-~ ~L~~;_!l l2_9_~ _ ~ IL _ _ _ _ !! I; '- _ _ _ _ !I ,D_____~ A 12& ~ ,~I_____- iaO_____~ 129 =, 1~8- - - - -'=', !~7~ - - - i ~g6.. . = = = ~ ;llgfL____!1 i~~~' __!l 12~ If: ~~ = = = =,; ~~O_ _ :._-~ ~Ut_ _ - - - ~ ~LB_ _ - - - ~ r.7 '2. Il . ,6254C6 tI1I - - - - ;n ..' - -.-.-. N"L' N NO) N .... ""'"1;--- .~---I\-- ~~Q._..___~ ~li___._\.~ lli29 II 114 'Il ~2a~~~ ;.~=~~~~~ :n----~' ,L____!l'. ~.5!1l _ _ _ _ ~ 17 - - - - - ~: ~~L _ _ _!l ig - ~- - -; =24 I 113 ~jJ_~___~'1 1l23~~~ ~1.!l._~_~_!1 jll.l!L_'__~' ~L~-~-!! ~gL___!I' ;L~,_~_!! !l2L _ _ _ !I ~L - - - - !I .=i!l_ _ _ _ ~ . ~l!I_ - - - - ~ 1U1l.~_~~' ~1~__'___~ ~t7 .--.126 = H8 ut ~ ::-1--~ ~l.UI,-'---~, ~ _3_ _ _' _ _ !I ~_Il.__--!l !I_5_ '__ _ _!I' I!: 6 Il (7~ ~ = =.= ~ :=_8_ ~.9~ _ ~ ~ 9 n ~!~ = ~@ ~ ~1I_ _ _ - -'~ ~R _ _ _ _ !l ~.1:1.- _ - - ~ lQ 14 i16 ;: 1:.15.. ~_ s::-!l "16 '" 14 IllJ__"=---1 \il_aL-~-!' !l_2_ _ _ _ _ ~ Il~L _ __!l ~_3______. =_3Q____; ~ '~,O)" '" ~-...:o~lI-- :...u____; ,_ft._____, NJ!IL___~ ~A _ _ _ _ _ I ll.l!1 _ ~];\ ~ ~_7______~ =j~--~~ ~~!L__' ~g~----~ ~ 9 'l!: l!: 24 II il 10 - ~ - - i 2'; - -",- .:; ~ _ _ - - - - - -'<- - -e-. - 1!1_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~-q-~ ~ ~ l~ _ _ _ _ @ gL ~~:t ; n3_ _ _ t'",~ .?q _ .f::..:-- !:l ~ ~4_ _ _ _ :.. ~ \il_I~ _ ~~ _ ~ ~J~____! ~_B_P__; 1Q 16 m lQ ~ 17 125 ~ I ~_3.?_~ v: !ll_:ll___ -~ ~_30_ _ _ = ~ ~_21I____!:l ~_2j\ = ~ _21 :-:1 - - "i: =28 ---i iJ!5~~~~~ ~ 2.4. = (2;:e~~ ~_22____~ ~ J!L - = ~20----= ~:iQ:====~ ~18_ _ ___~ lQI7 12& ~ III = F III ~, ~ N '" N '" N -:1 =~I II Il -ji '" N J L~2~ -i:-~ I ~ ..000 ~~---12& 'a '- -fo- IL-OllO ;,!L....l . ~9 ~g 18 O"l in ,12N -- (J1 ~~Q :14A-- ..... ~14- - ~.L&, ~16 , ~2_ _ _ _ 3L___ ;)(L__ l' 29 -;"J-- 2a-___ lU_.__ g6_ _ _ _ 25 i(.is~ ~ ~ ea:~- ~ ~ -,- -.,. ~ ~I- - - - . ~O_ _ _ _ II!- _ _' _ I!I_ _ _ _ _ nl I? 12!i ~! IlL _ _ _ 17 ...s._ ~8 ~ _au '~, . - ",4 "I A fA.- ~9 - -~a !l: 10.. ~"" ~ ilu__~rJ. ,_ i12_ Jl -... r ~~.-:--, L4_ _ ~ - Iii_____., 18 1215 ~( _f,,! _ 31- _ _ _ all _ -- 29 2a""l - - [[1- ':" - - 7 n 213---- 25- - - - ~~= ~~~~~ ~..: - - - '"I gQ.. - - - '7 '" 19 . =, il==== 7m o ~~----7 ~5____ lL--- ~ 7 5 ~ --1f: 8 _......~ !!- ~$7' III llL~ ~ ll'_ j-~ ~ ~.l!- JL' .l< ~1~____ : !IL___ ~15 ;l lie - -,;. - - .. 12& - '" ~ ,Ill m _=_sg _1~ _ _ ~ ~..3!____~ ;t3D "'_ - - ~' =29 -...j = ~-,;.--il ~ ?:1 ~, -=-26:0018 - = =-25 -,; - - = ~~; ~ -9-; ~~----~ ~ _2~ _ _ _ _ ~ !l_2!.?'- _- ~ ~-@_._--~ III 19 "Ill -11-18 - - - -1:1 ~-17 -,~ - - = ADAMS STR~ET '" 6 ~ ~-7 - - -212- ~ ~ _ _ :lJl1IL - = 8 121 = ~~___~I II 10 III i:- II - - .; - = ~ -12~"'~;; ~J3-~.If-i =1- ~tl..... - i. ~ l~~- - ;'= , lB--"-- =18 121 = ~ ,~-,o'fa2._.!., ~.ill_'~5_ _ ~ #lao -0029 II =-29 -;; - =. !l_2Ll-D022 - ~ !Z1 12& 1: ~ZIL~1 ll25_:~5......! ~ ~1-QIlR - ~ lll23 12. Il = 22 .Q021 = ~2i - ;;.- - i ~--=~I jiJL__-~ =18 ~ =ii" - 1~'- - = e N '+ W E 12 , .. 5 FACET 6254C - 1 2 ;J 4 - 5 6 7 8 .' - 9 11 12 !'l~'l ~1 ~~- ;ll3 ~1~ !ilfi_ !l!l_ ~J_ -;!I- ~9 r.rr 11 'I;" , , ; I I I ,., ~30nr = ~=~====~ ~ _211 ~1!3L !l #l 27 .2. ~ ~_2~~;;_ ~I ~-!!!--! ~.lH .0023 _ !l ill 2:L~~..!. ~ g~ .o~1 _ 11, ;ll~1 in III 20 ~ 32 ~ 1 i'fi' = lQ-i----i1 ~=:L==~=~ = 4 " 1Q ~=~=~~= ~ ie-,n,,- - - ~ ~y~ = = ~ ;q_9_ _ _ _ _ ; lQl~"o lQ U:U:2. : B '26\-' , . 1", I , ~2 ,13,14)6 6,1718,18" I I 1 I ,I 1 I ~ I IO...&. I~!l 3"" , - 1 I~ ,'" 1 6' I I ,:::q I I ql 1 311:11, ul 2'i2!i! ;I~~ 20: 21~ 2&1 ~13Q. ~ - - ~ ~~!L__-!! lQ 28 -0027' = !.n~; - - ~ ~.l!II-oQ21i- ~ =25121 If.: ~li.:OQ2L~ ~_2a ~2~ _ _ ~ =_2g.:09~L !! =21 111 :: ~~."lfT'2I"2. ~ J ~2 :13 ~4 p5 ~a ~7 ~8118 :20 IA I I I I I I \ ' ,..: I I_I:!= I I 1= I is ;::1151K:rl~~I- I~ I ,q I I 1 ~ I I nJ25' :l:tlDj I .,.e, I~ I 11")111 2& 133 III 1-:olIl)I III iM-ni-il .-~----- Il 3 III =-~.ooo2-~ ~~---=~=~ III ' '" ...!B-,.-!!, Ie 7 = if: -0- - - - - ~ ~=9=~!=; llllO J3L II: :!l30 ffi' III ~~~:~=~ lll2A II ~~ 27 - - = ~-28----"iI (20====~ ill 24 = (~ ~ 0= ~ =22 = ~ -21 -;2~ - - i iBi 23 ~9 :20 I 11:' , ,- I , , , 12I~ 33 12& 12112" Z5 12512511& :12 13: 14,15 )a )? :18 I I I I I I 1 I I I 11514 1 I I I I ..clOP3 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I , 1 I I 21,21. 25. 2Ii,:ZS,2~2& ~ 1 ,'H = ~=i===~ ~_a. _"'_ _ J!l = 4 N ~ =-5" -~~- ~ =-o--..~-= ____li...__ ~ 7 =~ = - - - -q- - - ~JL~- _!l ~_9_ _ c: _ _ ~ 1110 !li- III j1 11 n N WEST POLK STREET !ll~o. 12& II ~J!9====~ #l 2Ll ,II f: -27 - - - ~ -= ~=2D='~ - i ~ ~Q -0021 - ~ ~ji::==~ ~_2~ _ _ =1 ll22 - -;: ~2L -1;& - - i nT'B'l \9 :201 , , I 1 Il , , - I , , , ~. 33 ~L ~2~ _ _ ! '" ~I ~_l_ _ - -~, . _:t _ _ - - ::' ~ 4 = ~-5-----Ya !"- - :-JABi - ~ ~ _6_ _ _ _ _ ~I !ll_p1n.--~ n n . N .------- ~ _9_ _ _ _ _ !I IUQ ItS 1Q "D""'I 211211 251 25\-2""1IS--. 2j l\ ~2 ~3:14)5 18 h :18 I I I, 'I . I,' '"Il "6h2 ::! lo0OI1 I I'" ~6 I I I I I ' , I I 1'1 1.1 ~t . 'JA. ,~61 1.S.25 2& 1215, ali 111"'" II ~3q____= ~29. -n1- -= ~ _2g .0028_ ~ !l.l!1 - " - - i III 261!!_--;;1 ;2Q.____~1 - N ~Jt - 1""- =1 II 2;! _.Qll21_ :. ~~L---i =21 12& 2, 5IZ'j-2iT"i& \25' 2&TTil 21 I 33 2 13 )4)5 B :17 ~8 :19 : 20 , I 10 1 , I I D -om1' 'I I_UJ' 'I I I I ,DU16 I 1 Ii! ~~ I! 1b2.,iI'Cl1 I 3; '===~ Ill' ~~= =.;;, .. n jJ----: ~ N ~2;--~! r1. · a' , , ~ ~' ~20 2. 3. I I a d' I H ~ ". 6253A2 32 nrnn.. N S'I'REET .... ,B',L- WES'I' MA e e '. Recommendation to Audit Committee HCAD Account # 024-195-025-0013 Resale Pi58 Taxes + Costs , $3,38~.s3 $2;200 Adjudged Value , Offer Name: . Bid Amount: Nettie Colleen Warren $2,600.00 . Recommendation: Approve Reason: ,I X I ,. , Bid is higher than the adjudged vall:le. . Reject ' Reason: . Reviewed By: Kathy Powell , , At any time any jurisdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell.the property being held in trust for the lesser of: the taxes +' costs or the adjudged value set out in the-tax suit. . 4/16/2004 e e SUMMARY OF FORCLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): . JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS:' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 024-195-025-0013 1999-37587 City of La Porte & La Porte Independent School District La Porte - Houston Realty Co August 14, 2001 STRUCK QFF DATE: March 22, 2002 July 2, 2002 STRUCK OFF TO: City of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 North Third Street Lots 13 thru 16 Block 1125 La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $ 2,200.00 12,500 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Nettie ColI.een Warren AMOUNT OF BID: ' $2,600.00 ,AMOUNT'OF DEPOSIT: $260.00 AMOUNT DUE: $2,340.00 ,BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 212 North 3rd Street La Porte, TX 77571 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES OUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-867-1068. COUNTY,ET JUD.GMENT TO AL. % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $651.70 21.99% $1 ,588.80 53.61% $723.03 24.40% $2,963.53 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA AD LITEM RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID, COST TION FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $2,600.00 . $0.00 $175.00 $0.00 $250.00 $2,175.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % CITY _ % TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT $478.30 21.99% $1,166.06 53.61 % $530.65 24.40% $2,175.00 Amount of Bid: Costs: -District Clerk -Tax Master -Const~bie Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee . Taxing ,Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County , San Jacinto CCD State of Texas Costs + Taxes $3,388.53 Adjudged Value $ 2,200.00 $2,600.00 Total: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $175.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00, $2,175.00 Amount in Judgment: , $723.03 $1,588.80 $561.20 $90.50 $0.00 $2,963.53 % 24.40% . 53.61% 1'8.94% '3.05% 0.00% 100.00% Amount Received $530.65 $1,166.06 $411.88" $66.42 $0.00 $2,175.00 P158 Real Property Account ,~I\ ~l~/O Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number' Address Owner Name Advanced HCAD Account # : 0241950250013 Tax Year: J2002 :If Owner Name: LAPORTE lAND CO Ownership History... Owner Address: PO BOX 1514 LA PORTE TX 11512-1514 Property Address: 0 N 3RD ST INVALID ZIP 00000 Legal Description: 'l TS 13 14 15 & 16 BlK 1125 , LA PORTE State Class Code: 01 ;,,- Inventory Homestead Exemption: -- . .Special Exemption' : -- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 040 041 011 Overlapping/Shared CAD : No Capped Account: No Notice Date : ARB Approved : Value Status: V;,1lue Unchanged Notice Not, Required . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. . Use market value for comparison with your,neighbors. The appraised value below will reflect the homest~ad cap if applicable. Valuation :' TY2002 Land: , Improvement: , . Ag/Tmbr/Spc : Total Value: Previous 2,200 o o '.2,2.00 Change o o o '0 Appraised Value 2,200 o o 2,200 Market Value 2,~00 '5-Year Value History..~ Note: Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News . For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. , , ;, Real: Account Number Address, Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanc~d .Vacant Residential Property Data Account Number: 0241950250013 Location: 0 N 3RD ST Tax Year: 2002 View Main Screen r!j Parcel 10 : 20 - 00921.4 - 12.0 - 004.0 - 0/000 - 001 ,1 Land Use: 100 -- Residential Vacant Land Land Area: 12,500 sq. ft. CAMA Class : RVO -- Residential Vacant Map Facet : 6253C Key Map: 540X Neighborhood: 2164 . ".,. . . Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News . '. "" . ".:~. R~llA~ . LA_ ~~ _ t ,~~~' ~~~~ -~~ ---- 8l ,~=:1\.4~ ~--~-- 9 .' iCr: !1_~_ J~r@.;. J3_~ I {H--~ -li~l~- . Rb . ~~====~ ~ ilil---- 25 i: ;;~:==' F: i4===: -~ ;l=h=~: ~ = =='-= ~@J~. -=_ ~I_ - - .Il: NJla- e ~--- :: ~~-i-- r 111___ :: tn~ 0 ' . 18 = 18 111. 1'= 17 121 -:I!: -- 1&58 n. ~_3L---- ~,;lQ 'lXl21- _ R1!9. - - - - 't "PPlt"l.l;:"l =2~ r.:~'\: <1'., -~' ---- ~ ('d~ ;. -- 0 .... N___, (J '" ~~:~2_=- (~. ~ ;j -J!3..Q022 - ,~, ~ r1' =22 n. ~ * ~ ~ * 1'l!X,,"S - Harris 'county: Appraisa District l1- - g- -'ill L--,"'1",: <19____ I..'L':""\ \ [ {:a'~',~ 5> . _ t I I ~ .,~ .LAa..i" .28, I, --' i8---- "i, ~"'!l. -, EAST€;~'1R Q~'l'ARKwAY I I I 12I,lSlll ,Il, I --la~a:J5:.:2I 1'2:314:518:718:9~oll :2.3:4:5, ~: ~ ~ : ~ : : : I :! :::~: I 5' , :1\,1 1.1 I 1.1 l~~ I :q,: ~~:.:a'l~i~~U)I.-1~ SID.21IZStalil ElST K STREET l'jj -21 ~~f~l, ,iB.ll~ -"'7. ii"L.- :.: -I' ;12"'"--- ioi3-- - u .!II . - - . ,!=~4_ ~ i ~\b_ _ Jlll. .61~ -.' = = =J '- '-1- - ~l ~~- =' "= t~ 1 = 5 ~ ':_:=~I ~ -i - - - - ;. r- P ~---<' 00 I' -~ "I x @ ~*:.~ .... 3~" = ... ~_ ': -=;1 x ,~-- _!l f-o Ie IJ!I II' => -- o 00 e w+ 5 5.81. 1" - 200' PUBLICATION DATE.: O.,.b.r '., 2002 il., tal I- .. .. '" .... 00 00 < >< .. ':' N !.~_:_-' ;. --_.- - (. ~---- - - - u. i: ..... ~'!I---- ~ M '~===-17 ~ ,p---- . :r--F ; l2= =s .. ~__:.~e ..1_ .1 _ E l}__~_ ~ ttl 121- --~ : WEST ~1 ...... iJ.!! ,=~: - - -.:': tit)--- - Ii, - - -- R le---- R ~;---- ... ;~==~~, ~==~ 1l.1 .. - - - - ~ ~. " ~i\ ':11;': 20 ~~:1 ~:~~:t Q~ P~lLv 023-1~9. EST I- .. .. '" I- Ul t ~ lC;J2_~__ .., N~C== 29 .~::: J "28 R ~=== :E ,~'- - -- " ~- --- ~--- ~I_ - u ~O_ _ __ 1lI____ t8_ _ _ _ 17 111 :ZSG --- gL__ ~I- - __ ~- - -- \~~- - - ~b~ _ _ _ 17 .121. ).-~ __!l "~2.. ~I~_ ~I- - __ 30 :: 20--- ;;=~ i8=::: = 21 ===~ ~=== '21- - = i.t : :: !J lIo.. uS=: 23 PI . II IOI~-:~ ii =h .!l !!L2 21. _~= ~ ~I "1: ib_ _= ~ ~ ~~-~ :{--i- :' In --= i7.~J;-;:' ~I ~I ~I ~ . ,. .....~O;!..'; FACET 62530 ~ ~ ~ 5 6 7 8 12 11 10 9 '" .. , ElST L STREET I 'I 32 'l1r !"2--cllIOI--t r3i----l ;~.I!.-~!.o:- ~~Q~JI=: CL__t-.. ..?!L---= . 5 28"- ~-f----------~ .--~------=~" ::i -Ii:!: - -~~-------j ;~iiX%-i: ~....-~ ~-j~-l;:l____~ -_~_-_-___-_~ 'J_ I~.it _ _ _ = "'_ ~'- - - - _:: l!l,130 = 20 i!:i4"-----te -IU---:--:C ~-1~-_-_-_-_-_ --:~--------~I R32 -nr _~ ~3!_________= ~~_ _ _ _ _!l q~-----" ~~~---Jl ~~-----~ =25 = ~i'- -- -- -- -- ~ =25 ::I ~2a.___~~ '!.21_____= ~~----~ l!IQ _ _ - - .=. . =1 ( ~---l ~~I..co~!l. _ !' ~~- -- - - !' lQ29 111 :a ~;~~~ ~t~.; - "~- ~B_-2!!.~i!L.! JL___!l ~I_____!J STREET L ~~~-~~.-~ ,--:!lQ~-- 1:.30 J: ~g: -,;'- - =l ~~IL___!l ~~_~l-!l au = ~25 -Ig- - ;:1 a~L___!l ~~- -oaZll. _ !II ~g2_ _ ___!l a21 '" _ =,1 ~ ,_32 'H""1= :.:- L: -:-- ~~I= = = ~ ~ ~ ~- : - - ;~- - -1' ,!l ':fll) --- ~~:: ~~ t~::~:.-~~----- =26 = 7. -I 26 ~~~::. tl --tt==== : ~~===- .=23- - -. i ~ ~ - -If - 1'- ~- - -, - - ---- I';' I-It-~~"; ~~::~ ~ ==:'111 ===1~1 - - ,*'= =8j~1 -~!i1\= -~:;:t;. _B~~ . HCAD Account # Taxes + Costs Adjudged Value Offer Name: Bid Amount: tit e Recommendation to Audit Committee 006-178-088-0021 $6,710.63 $5,000 Jose Medina , $5,200.00 'Recommendation:. Approve Reason: . . . Reviewed By: ~eJect Reasor:'! : , Kathy Powell . Resale P192 x I Bid is higher than the adjudged value. I' At any, time any jurisdiction that was party to the origina', tax suit can sell the property being held in trust for the lesser of: the taxes + costs or the adjudged value set out in the tax suit. . 4/16/2004 e e SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 006-178~088-0021 Property Struck off for: Value 1998-33889 City of La Porte & La Port~ Independent School District A.O. Blackwell , June 17,,1999 STRUCK OFF DATE: September 7,1999 April 12, 1999 ' September 21, 1999 STRUCK OFF TO: City of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 E Main Street " Lots 22 & 23 Block 88 Bayfront to La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE ( IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $ 5,000.00 6,875 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Jose Medina AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: r $5,200.00 $520.00 ' $4,680.00 BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 302 S 15th'Street La Porte, TX 77571 ' BIDDER'S PHOI'lE NO: 281-471-3909 , PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT COUNTY: ET : JUDGMENTTO 'AL. % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,285.14 20.45% $2,927.23 46.57% $2,073.26 32.98% $6,285.63 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON'ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID S'ALES . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA TI AD LITEM RESEARCH FEE & . TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST ON FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $5,200.00 $0.00 $175.00 $0.00 $250.00 $4,775.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % . CITY % TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT ,$976.28 20.45% . $2,223.73 46.57% $1,574.99 32.98% $4,775.00 Amount of Bid: Costs: -District Clerk -Tax Master -C,onstable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee . Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto 'CCD State, of Texas Costs + Taxes $6,710.63 Adjudged Value $ 5,000.00 $5,200.00 Total: $0.00 $0.00 $O.oq $175.00 $250.00, $0.00 $0.00 $4,775.00 Amount in Judgment: $2,073.26 $2,927.23 $1,099.93 $185.21 $0.00 $6,285.63 % 32.98% 46.57% 17.50% 2.95% 0.00% 100.00% Amount Received $1,574.99 $2,223.73 , $835.58 $140.70 $0.00 $4,775.00 P192 Real: Account. Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account. Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0061780880021 Tax Year: 1.?g,~~.....r;I Owner Name : CITY OF LA PORTE Ownership History... Owner Address: CAUSE #98-33889 . PO BOX 1115 LA PORTE TX 77572-1115 Property Address' :, 0 E MAIN ST LA PORTE TX 77571 Legal Description : L TS 22 & 23 BLK 88 . BAY FRONT TO LA PORTE State Class Code: Xl -- Governmental Exempt Homestead. Exemption : E -- Total Exemption , Special, Exemption : -- . Disabled, Veteran Exemption(s) : -- , Jurisdiction Codes : 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD : No Capped Account: No . Notice Date : ARB Approved: 8/10/2001 Value Status: All Values Certified Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exe.mptions, if,any. , Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The appraised value below will reflect the homestead cap if applicable: Valuation Land: Improvement: , Ag/Tml;:>r/Sp,c : Total Value: 2001 Market Value 2000 Appraised 5,200 O. '.' 0 5,20~ Change :-5,200 o , '.0. -5,200' 2001 Appraised o '0 O. o 5-Year Value History.~. Note: . For any. problem,s or questions with any account" please email. us with the account number (if you have it). and the nature of the problem or question., Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info links News o . .. Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Vacant Residential 'Property Data Account Number: 0061780880021 Location; 0 E'MAIN ST Tax Y,ear : 2001 View Main Screen Bj Parcel 10 : 20 - 00921.5 - 11.0 - 075.0 - 0/000,:, 001 0 . Land Use: 100 -- Residential Vacant Land Land Area: 6,875 sq. ft. CAMA' Class: RVO -- Residential Vacant Map Facet: 62540 .Key Map: Neighborhood : 2164 For any problems or questions with any, account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature 'of the problem or question. . Home Forms News Records Maps HeAD Info Links - - e . - - . rrls unty prai~al ;trict Scale 1" = 200'. PUBLICATION DATE: AUgU51 2&, 2003 N w+. 5 F AC E T, 62540 - 1 - 5 - 9 2. 18 r.J ~ r.J :> < ~ - III o ,..J :x: ~ ~ o :z. ~ N t_____; ~-----~ ~-----; .L~~2_ _ ~ ~--~--~ i!J_____.~ In = r.J ;) :z r.J :> < ....I ....I o 0:: 0:: < U :x: ~ 0:: o :z . N _----1 ~ l N . . . HCAD Account # Taxes +.Costs Adjudged Value' . .offer Name: Bid Amount: e . Recommendation to Audit Committee 006- ~78-088-0001 $16,148.07 '$12,500 Michael Guerra' $12,500,00 Recommendation: ,Approve Reason: Reviewed By: Reject . Reason:-, Kathy Powelr ' Resale P191 ' x I ' , Bid is equal to the adjudged value. I " I At any time i:my jurisdiction that ';"as party to'the original tax suit can ~ell the property being held in trust for the lesser of: the taxes + costs or the act judged v.alye set ,out io the tax suit. 4/16/2004 e . SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY .. HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: . PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 006-178-088-0001 Property Struck off for: 1998-33889 City of La Porte & La Porte Independent School District A.O. Blackwell June 17, 1999 STRUCK OFF DATE: April 12, ~ 999 September 21, 1999 , STRUCK OFF to: Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 E Main Street Lots 1 - 5 Block 88 Bayfront to ~a Porte Value September 7, 1999 City of La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: '$12,500.00 16,625 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Michael Guerra AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: $12,500.00 $1,250.00 $11,250.00 BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 714 Bayridge Rd La Porte, TX 77571 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-842-8778 COUNTY, ET JUDGMENT TO .AL. ' % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $4,570.59 . 29.07% $7,065.55 44.94% $4,086.93 25.99% $15,723.07 , , ASSOCIATED COSTS'ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES -. ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF ' COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA TI AD, LITEM RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST ON FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $12,500.00 $0.00 $175.00 $0.00 $250.00 ' $12,075.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION - OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT $3,510.12' 29.07% ' $5,426.20 44.94% $3,138.68 25.99% $12,075.00 Amount of Bid:' Costs: -District Clerk -Tax Master -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee .. Taxing , ' Jurisdictions: City'of La Porte La'Porte ISD Harris County San Jacinto CCO State of Texas Costs + Taxes $16,148.07 Adjudged Value $ 12,500.00 $12,500.00 " Total: , $0.00,' $0.00 $0.00 $175.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00, . $12,075.00 Amount in Judgment: % $4,086..93 ' ' , 25.99%' $7,065.55 44.94% $3,939.47 25.06% $618.49 3.93% $12.63 ' , 0.08% $15,723.07 100.00% Amount Received $3,138.68" $5,426.20 $3,025.43 $474.99 $9.70 , $12,075.00 P191 Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0061780880001 ' Tax Year: Owner Name : CITY OF LA PORTE Ownership History... . Owner Address: CAUSE #98-33889 PO BOX 1115 LA PORTE TX 77572-1115 Property Address: 0 E MAIN ST LA PORTE TX 77571 Legal Description : L TS 1 TtiRU 5 BLK 88 'BAY FRONT TO LA PORTE State Class Code: Xl "":'" Governmen,tal Exempt Homestead Exemption : E -- Total Exemption Special Exemptic;m : -- Disabled Veteran' Exemption(s) : -- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 ,040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD: No Capped Account: No ' Notice Date : ARB Approved: 8/4/2000 Value Status: All Values Certified . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions,.if any. Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The appraised value below will reflect the homestead cap if applicable. Valuation : TY2000Pre Land: Improvement : ~g/Tm.br/Sp.c' : Total Value : .vious 12,500 . o o 12,500 Change o o o o Appraised Value 12,500 o o 12,500 . Market Value 12;500 5-Year Value History... Home Records Maps Forms HeAD 'Info Links, News Note: . For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you' have it) and the nature ~f the problem,or question.' . Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced 'Vaca'nt Residential Property D~ta Account Number: 0061780880001 Location : 0 E MAIN ST Tax Year: 2000 View Main Screen OJ. Parcel ID : 20 - 00921.5 - 11.0 -'073.0 - 0/000 - 001 5 Land Use: 100 -- Res.idential Vacant land Land Area: 16,625 sq. ft. CAMA Class: RVO -- Residential Vacant Map Facet: 62540 Key Map : Neighborhood : 2164 For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the 'nature of the problem or question. ' . . Home Records 'Maps Forms' HeAD Info Links News e e - . - - Harris County , .Apprais'al District Scale 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: August 3D. 2002 N __w+, s FACET 62540 - 1 - 5 - 9 2' 16 lfl' 2' N ~ 1:'i .... . . .. HCAD Account # . Taxes + Costs . Adjudged Value Offer Name: Bid Amount: e, e. Recommendation to Audit Committee 006-164-074-0033 ' Resale P190 (A) $7,521.69 ' $5,000 Jose Medina $5,000.00 Recomniendatic;>n: Approve Reason: Reviewed By: Reject Reason: Kathy Powell At ,any time any juriSdiction that was party to the original tax suit can sell the property being held in trust ,for the lesser of: the taxes + c9sts or the adjudg~d value set out in the tax suit. 4/16/2004 . . HCAD Account # Taxes + Costs Adjudged Value Offer Name: Bid Amount: e e Recommendation to Audit Com'mittee 006-164-074-0038 Resale P190 (B) At any time any jurisdiction that was party fo the original tax suit can sell the property bein-g helcf in trust - for the lesser of: the taxes-+ co'sts-.or the adjudged-vah.ie,set out in the tax suit.... . $5,236.97 $5,000 - Jose Medina - $5,000.00 x I Bid is equal to the adjudged value. Recommendation: Approve Reason: Reviewed By: Reject Reason: I ' Kathy Powell 4/16/2004 / e e SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY . HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 006-164-074-0033 Property Struck off for: Value 1998-33889 City of La Porte & La Porte Independerit School District ' A.O. Blackwell June 17, 1999 STRUCK OFF DATE: September 7, 1999 April 12, 1999 September 21, 1999 STRUCK OFF TO:, City of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 S Lobit Lots 33 & 34 Block 74 Bayfront to La Porte ADJUDGED VALUE (IN'JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $ 5,000.00 6,250 SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Jose G .Medina AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: $5,000.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 302 S 15th Street La Porte, TX 77571 . BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-471-3909 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT COUNTY; ET JUDGMENT TO AL % SCHOOL ' % CITY % TOTAL, AMOUNT DUE $1,589.22 28.11 % $2,507.47 44.3,5% $1,557.00 27.54% $5,653.69 . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA TI AD LITEM ' 'RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO BID COST ON FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $5,000.00 $993.00 $175.00 ' $450.00 $250.00 " $3,132.00 ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % ' CITY % TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT $880.39 28.11 % $1,389.07 44.35% $862:54 27.54% $3,132.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION Amount of Bid: Costs: $5,000.00 -District Clerk -Tax Master -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee . -Cost -Ad Litem Fee Total: ' $943.00 $50.00 $0.00 $F5.00 $250.00 $0.00 , $450.00 James Foster $3,132.00 Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCD State of Texas Amount in Judgment: $1,557.00 ' $2,507.47 ' $1,371.45 $213.51 - , $4.26 '$5,653.69 % 27.54% 44.35% ' , 24.26% , 3.78% 0.08% 100.00% Amount Received $862.54 $1,389.07 $759.75 , ' $118.28 $2.36 $3,132.00 . Costs + Taxes $7,521.69 Adjudged Value $ 5,000.00 ' P190(A) / e e SUMMARY OF FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY ,. HCAD ACCOUNT NO: CAUSE NO: PLAINTIFF(S): JUDGMENT AGAINST: JUDGMENT DATE: ORDER OF SALE: DEED RECORDED DATE: CONSTABLE: , PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 006-164-074-0038 Property Struck off for: Value 1998-33889 City of La Porte & La Porte, Independent,School District A.O. Blackwell June 17, 1999 . STRUCK OFF DATE: September 7,1999 April 12, 1999 September 21, 1999 STRUCK OFF TO:' City of La Porte Bill Bailey, Constable Precint No 8 S Lobit Lots 35 & 36 Block 74 Bayfront to La Porte' ADJUDGED VALUE (IN JUDGMENT): SQUARE FOOTAGE: $ . 5,000.00 6,250 ' SUMMARY OF SALE ACTIVITY BIDDER: Jose G Medina AMOUNT OF BID: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT: AMOUNT DUE: $5,000.00 $500.00 '. $4,500.00 BIDDER'S ADDRESS: 302 S 15th Street La Porte, TX 77571 PRORATED PERCENTAGED OF TAXES DUE TO EACH JURISDICTION BASED UPON JUDGMENT BIDDER'S PHONE NO: 281-47,1-3909 COUNTY, ET JUDGMENT TO AL. % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,095.52 22.77% $2,507.47 52.11 % $1,208.98 25.12% $4,811.97 'ASSOCIATED COSTS ON ORIGINAL AND SEALED BID SALES . ESTIMATED AMOUNT AMOUNT OF COURT CONSTABLE/PUBLICA TI AD LITEM RESEARCH FEE & TO BE PRORATED TO . BID COST ON FEE (TISD) FEE DEED RECORDING FEE TAXES $5,000.00 $0.00- $175.00 $0.00 $250.00 $4,575.00 PRORATED TAX AMOUNTS TO EACH JURISDICTION OWED TO COUNTY % SCHOOL % CITY % TOTAL PRORATED AMOUNT $1,041.57 22.77% $2,.383:99 52.11 % $1,149.44 25.12% $4,575.00 Amount of Bid: CostS: -District Clerk -Tax Master -Constable Fee -Publication -Abstract Fee -Cost -Ad Litem Fee . Taxing Jurisdictions: City of La Porte - La Porte ISO Harris County San Jacinto CCD State of Texas Costs + Taxes $5,236.97 Adjudged Value $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 Total: , $0.00 $0.00 .' $0.00 . $175.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,575.00 Amount in Judgment: $1,208.98 $2,507.47 $940.62 $154.90 . $0.00 $4,811.97 % 25.12% 52.11 % . 19.55% 3.22% 0.00% 100.00% Amount Received $1,149.44 $2,383.99 $894.30 '$147.27 $0.00 ' $4,575.00 P190 (B) , ',:;:; ":"1 ',' }.i'.\ 1 ( :;r~, i~1 l~i:": d':~ ..' : !~(~( . . ; J Address Owner Name Advanced Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0061640740033 Tax Year: t?_~~~d Owner Name: CITY OF LA PORTE Ownership History... Owner Address: CAUSE #98-33889 PO BOX 1115 LA PORTE TX 77572-1115 Property Address: 0 S LOBIT AV LA PORTE TX 77571 Legal Description: L TS 33 & 34 BLK 74 BAY FRONT TO LA PORTE State Class Code: Xl -- Governmental Exempt Homestead Exemption: E -- Total Exemption Special Exemption: -- Disabled Veteran Exemption(s) : -- Jurisdiction Codes: 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared CAD: No Capped Account: No Notice Date : ARB Approved: 8/4/2000 Value Status: All Values Certified Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The appraised value below will reflect the homestead cap if applicable, Valuation: TY2000Pre Land: Improvement: Ag/Tmbr/Spc : Total Value : vious Change Appraised Value 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 Market Value 5,000 5-Year Value History... [~"-.'Si~~1~9'~B~tt[~~~;~:-ir,';'.I[~?~\~~~;~;:~dd~~~-~~:-~:':~:]F~;':j8.'~'~t~~;'~.~'~~' ." .'..,1 r~~:;;;';'i!:i'P{~~fd~dti;I':V~'~'~t,ib~t~., '. ',' --),.~.~I ~,~:::.~:;j!.:~!~~r~i~;:~oci,hW:TC3~ 'e i'il,,',"'. ,',,'. ,.,/ Note: For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number , (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. Home 'Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News . Ti;~:~'~~ "': + 2f:.J' I ! ,Xii- . \..-J, I'. ,,'...' t""."'M' , ~' .i~. :~ .. '. Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Personal: Account Number Address Vacant Residential Property Data Account Number: 0061640740033 Location: 0 S LOBIT AV. Tax Year: 2000 View Main Screen ..IT] Parcel ID : 20 - 00921.5 - 11.0 - 051.0 --0 1000 - 001 1 Land Use: 100 -- Residential Vacant Land Land Area: 6,250 sq. ft. CAMA Class: RVO -- Residential Vacant Map Facet: 62540 Key Map : 540Y Neighborhooq : 2160 . , . For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the account number (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. ' Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News Real: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Real Property Account HCAD Account # : 0061640740038 Tax Year: l.~~~~,J!f Owner Name : CITY OF LA PORTE Ownership History... Owner Address: CAUSE #98-33889 PO BOX 1115 LA PORTE TX 77572-1115 Property Address: 0 S lOBlT A'!J LA PORTE TX 77571 Legal Description : l TS 35, & 36 BlK 74 BAY FRONT TO lA PORTE State Class Code': Xl -- Governmental Exem.pt Homestead Exemption: E -- Total Exemption .special Exemption : -- Disabled Vetera,n Exemption(s) : -- .Jurisdiction Codes': 020 040 047 071 Overlapping/Shared c;A,D ': No Capped Account: No Notice Date : ARB,Approved : 8/4/2000 Value Status: All Values Certified . . Your taxes will be based on Appraised Value, less applicable exemptions, if any. Use market value for comparison with your neighbors. The appraised value below wilfreflect the homestead ,cap if applicable., Valuation : TY2000Pre Land: Improvem.ent : Ag!Tmbr/Spc : Total Value : vious 5,000 o o 5,000 Ch.ange. o .0 o o Appraised Value 5,000 ' o o 5,000 Market Value 5,000 .. 5-Year Value History.... Home Records Maps Forms HeAD Info Links News Note: '.. For any problems or questions with any' account, please email us with the account number' (if you have it) and the nature of the problem or question. . . -) Real: Account Number Address ,Owner Name Advanced Personal: Account Number Address Owner Name Advanced Vacant Residential Property Data Account Number: 0061640740038 Location: 0 S LOBiT AV . Tax Year: 2000 View Main Screen Dj Parcel ID : 20 - 00921.5 - 11.0 - 052.0 - 0/000 - 001 9 Land Use: 100 -- Residential.vacant Land Land Area: 6,250 sq. ft. . - . CAMA Class: RVO -- Residential Vacan~ Map Facet: 62540 Key Map: 540Y Neighborhood : 2160 . . For any problems or questions with any account, please email us with the accoun~ number (if you have it) and the ,nature of the problem or question. Home Records Maps Forms HCAD.lnfo Links News . - - . rrls unty praisal itrict It Scale 1" = 200' PUBLICATION DATE: AUgU5t 30, 2002 N w+. - 5 FACET 62540 . 36-vur<o-' '1Q ~~5_~~ _ _ !III ill34 'O\lA4 .illl ~~3 --0032- _ ; ~~ ~:!1_.Q03Q. _ ; ~30 125 le' ~?L _ - - ~I ~ ~8_ .qOll _ ~, ~~7_ _ ..: _ _ ~I 26 125' ~'I 25 16 r.:I ::J :z. r.:I > < E- l!:l o ,..J :I: E- o::: o :z. ill 125 ~1 12~ 1': :~=====~ ~3 = ------- ~ ~ _-Q.O!t _ ~I =5 = ------- \p_____!l ~H;;4..--!l ~J!.r~ ~ ~ _-O.9Q9_ _ ~I ~O .-!!!.-"';i ~---; ~~-----~ @-----~ L~_'_ _ _ ~I l!i_____~ 16 1~!i ~ . r.:I ::> :z r.:I > < ,..J ,..J ~ 0::: < u :I: E- o::: o :z .. 1:1i = e e 5 . . . e e CITY OF LA PORTE Interoffice Memorandum TO: Barry Beasley, Councilman Howard Ebow, Councilman Chuck Engelken, Councilman Peter Griffiths, Councilman Debra Brooks Feazelle, City Manager ^ A/ Cynthia Alexander, DIrector ofFm~~\(!.f\ Shelley Wolny, Investment Officer ~lJ' FROM: DATE: April 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report For the second quarter of the 2004 fiscal year, the City's investment portfolio yield has been between 1.16% and 1.27%. The average return on the portfolio for the second quarter of the fiscal year was 1.21 %, which is 51 basis points below the average yield of our benchmark, which was 1.72% (see graph below). The current year to date interest earned for the 2004 fiscal year is $232,533. City vs. Benchmark 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% ~"> ~"> ro."> ~"> ~"> 10ft:::!"> ..,~"> .~"> ro."> .~ .~ _bo tr-~C: ..~.:~~ \# ....~ tr-~~ ~'lJ"" otJ~ .~.:.'i' "ti" .....,.~ ~ffJ ~~. -Portfolio Yield -2 Year Yield At March 31st the City's portfolio consisted of 10% in Agency Notes, 72%, in Texpool, 8% in TexSTAR and 10% in Logic (see pie chart below). By Investment Type 10% 8% I CTexpool [JTexSTAR CLogic CAgencyNotes I With yields remaining in the 2.00% range for securities with maturities of approximately 2 years, our main focus continues to be the laddering of our portfolio. At this time, the majority of the portfolio still remains in the pools. I At the end of the second q!r, the City's portfolio consisted of 89% 'the portfolio maturing overnight due to the heavy investment in the pools (see graph below). A total of 96% of the City's portfolio matures in less than 2 years. . By Investment Maturity 8% 3% 89% [J Overnight . 1-12 Months [J 12-24 Months [J Over 24 Months Currently, the 3-month T-Bill is a 0.95%; 2 year, a 1.58%; 5 year, a 2.79%; and, the 20-year is a 4.72% (see yield curve below). Yield Curve 5.50% 4.50% 3.50% . 2.50% 1.50% 0.50% 0 5 10 15 20 -3 Months Ago -Current The overnight rate remains unchanged at 1.00%, and economists are divided on when the Federal Reserve will increase the target rate. Current economic data suggests that a tightening could be possible as early as June, but the Fed will need more signs of growth before deciding to raise rates. With that in mind, we will continue to focus on laddering the portfolio to maintain a constant cash flow and a liquid position. 2 Year T-Note . 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% , .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"It' ~'Ii ~'Ii ~'Ii ~'Ii ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2 . . . . e In summary, we will continue to invest the City's funds in conservative investments, as authorized by the Public Funds Investment Act, always keeping in mind Safety first, and then Liquidity and lastly Yield. 3 . . . e e Portfolio Composition and Value as of March 31, 2004 100.00% Par Book Market Oa)'51O Value Valu. Valu. Maturity Inveslmellt Pools 34.822,631 34.822.631 34.822,631 I Agencies 4,000.000 4,000,000 4,010.310 591 Total 38.822.631 38.822.631 38.832.941 62 Book Valu. Pen:ent 0-3 months 34,822,631 89,70% 9-12 mouths 0.00% 1-2 yeaJll 3.090,000 7.73% 2 or mon: ~ars 1.000.000 2.58% Total 38.822.631 100.00% Pooled Funds Bond Funds Portfulio Yi.ld 1.16% 1,03% Benchmark Yield' 1.58% 0.95% Total 1.09% Investment Maturity Schedule as of March 31, 2004 Portfolio Performance for the month of March 2004 Weighted Average Maturity 2.00 months I day 1.27% 1.93 months .The ponIed funds benchmark is based nn the average monthly yield of a 2.year Treasury. The bond funds benchmark yield is based nn the average mouthly yield nf a 3-mnnth Treasury, The total is based nn weighted average monthly benchmark yields. Portfolio Earnings for months ended March 31, 2004 BudRe! Actual Percent General 226.770 95.018 41.90% Enterprise 61.400 17.735 28.88% Inll:mal Service 56.950 25,658 45.05% Total 345,120 138.411 40.11% Yield Curve 3.50'll0 3.00'll0 2.5O'llo 2.llO'll. 1.50% 1.00'll0 0,50% 0.00'Il0 3mo 8mo 1 yr 2yr 5yr I__Jan-04 -o-Fel>04 -a-Mar-D41 WAM . Pooled Funds B 7 B 5 4 3 2 1 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-D4 4 80,00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Investment Pools 89.70% _Mar-04 _Sep-03 Agencies 10.30% -A-Mar-03 2-3 yr Pooled Funds Bond Funds ToIaI CPllI1fb1io Yield . Benchmark Yield. 200.000 250,000 150,000 100.000 50,000 General I!ntaprise CBudpt Internal Service . Actual % offunds invested in: Securities & Pools Bank OeposilOry Total % of funds invested Average for March 2004 2003 98.12% 97.90% 1.88% 2,10% 100.00% 100,00% Operating Accounl Balance S 743.326 S 867,717 . . . e. e RESULTS OF CASH MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY FOR MARCH 2004 . . Monthly Summary Report of Cash Management for March 2004 . 2. Calculation 0/ Pure/lasing Effectivelless Pure/lases alld AssociJIted lllterest Rates I 1. INVESTMENT COST ADJ T-BILL 0.042% 0.042% 0.008% 0.042% 0.042% 2 YEAR T -BILL 1.670% 1.670% 1.670% 1.670% 1.670"10 ADJ RATE 0.060% 0.059% 0.011% 0.057% 0,055% RATE 2.400% 2.350% 2.300% 2.300% 2.200% RATIO OF TOTAL 2.489% 2.489% 0.482% 2.489% 2.489% DAYS * COST 31,000,000.00 31,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 31,000,000.00 31,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 ,000,000.00 DAYS HELD 31 31 6 3 3 RATE 2.400% 2.350% 2.300% 2.300% 2.200"10 INVESTMENT COST 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 04 04 04 04 04 END DATE 31 31 6 31 31 3 3 3 3 3 04 04 04 04 04 S~ DATE 3 3 3 3 3 TYPE AGY* AGY* AGY* AGY* AGY* e 0.121% 0.004% 1.670% 1.600% 0.075% 0.003% .036% .063% 7.239% 0.242% 90,141,084.00 3,007,349.35 3,004,702.80 3,007,349.35 30 .036% .063% 3,004,702.80 3,007,349.35 04 04 31 31 3 3 04 04 1 31 3 3 TEXST AR TEXST AR 0.439% 0.181% 0.494% 0.036% 0.154~ 0.005~W' 1.670% .540% 1.530% 1.600% 1.670% 1.600% 0,269% 0.121% 0.332% 0.024% 0.093% 0.003% .024% .028% .029% 1.051 % .009% .023% 26.305% 11.730% 32.283% 2.248% 9.207% 0.307% 327,561,216.84 146,073,477.30 402,005,736.44 27,990,143.30 114,656,060.10 , 3,825,138.60 29,778,292.44 29,214,695.46 28,714,695.46 27,990,143.30 3,821,868.67 3,825,138.60 11 5 14 30 .024% 1.028% 1.029% 1.051% 1.009% 1.023% 29,778,292.44 29,214,695.46 28,714,695.46 27,990,143.30 3,821,868.67 3,825,138.60 04 04 04 04 04 04 12 17 31 31 31 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 04 04 04 04 04 04 1 12 17 31 1 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 TEXPOOL TEXPOOL TEXPOOL TEXPOOL LOGIC LOGIC .61% T-BILL = U.S. TREASURY BILL; T-NOTE = U.s. TREASURY NOTE; T-BOND" U.S. TREASURY BOND; CMO = COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATION; TEXPOOL = TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL; AGY = U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY; LOGIC = LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT COOPERATIVE. INVESTMENTS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) REPRESENT LONG TERM INVESTMENTS AND ARE BROKEN INTO ONE MONTH SEGMENTS FOR CALCULATION OF PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS. 1 \.16% 100.00% 1,245,260,205.93 134,356,886.08 TOTALS 134,356,88~.08 TOTALS e - . . . Monthly Summary Report of Cash Management, Continued 7 Comptlrison to Performllnce Indictltor - - 7. Diversijictltion of Investments 2 Year T -Bill This Months Adjusted Rate 1.16% - Measurement Rate 1.61% A. By Investment Type +/- Adjustment for Past Perfonnance History 0.03% = Perfonnance Rate for the Month (Basis Points) -0.48% This Months Performance Rate Applied Agency Notes Logic to Interest Earned Formula to arrive TexST AR 10% 10% at Impact for the Month (15,802.77) 8% I ~~l" \ - I "'.r..... '. 4. Effectil1tmess to DIlte (Since October I, 2002) Interest: Summation Through Beginning of Month (79,357.12) +/- impact of Investment Purchases (15,802.77) Texpool Sununation Through End of Month (95,159.89) 72% Gain (Loss) on Investments: Summation Through Beginning of Month 0.00 B. By Stated Maturity +/- impact of Investment Purchases 0.00 Summation Through End of Month 0.00 2-24 Mbnths Total Impact Through End of Month (95,159.89) 8% 0 ~ 5. Interest Ellrnings to DIlte Interest Earned this Month plus Gain or (Loss) 39,580 III Total budgeted 581,160 Interest Earned Year to Date 232,533 Yet to be earned 348,627 Overnight 89% Percentage Earned 40.01% 6. Mllrket Vlllue Ilnd Weighted Avel'llge Mllturity Summll'7 - - Beginning Book Value 40,604,863.91 Beginning Weighted Average Maturity (Mths) 2.4 Beginning Market Value 40,618,303.91 Ending Weighted Average Maturity (Mths) 2.0 Change in Market Value from Prior Month (3,130.00) Ending Book Value 38,822,631,25 Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Portfolio 10,310.00 Ending Market Value 38,832,941.25 Net Asset Value 100.0% - 2 . - DAYS COST 31,000,000.00 31,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 e, 31,000,000.00 31,000,000.00 90,141,084.00 3,007,349.35 327,561,216.84 146,073,477.30 402,005,736.44 27,990,143.30 114,656,060.10 e 3,825,138.60 1,245,260,205.93 466,024.67 40,169,684.06 . '. TOTAL RETURN CALCULATION REPORT FOR MARCH, A 31 DAY MONTH INTEREST EARNED INTEREST RATE INVESTMENT COST DAYS HELD MATURITY DATE PURCHASE DATE 2,038.36 1,995.89 378.08 1,953.42 1,868.49 2.400% 2.350% 2.300% 2.300% 2.200% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 ,000,000.00 31 31 6 31 31 04/13/06 10/07/05 09/06/05 01/20/06 05/10/05 10/14/03 04/07/03 03/06/03 01/20/04 02110/03 2,559.02 87.58 1.036% .063% 3,004,702.80 3,007,349.35 30 03/31/04 03/31/04 03/01/04 03/31/04 9,187.87 4,111.27 11 3,155.71 107.16 39,580.18 0.00 39,580.18 ,331.05 806.27 .024% .027% .029% .051% .005% .023% 29,778,292.44 29,214,695.46 28,714,695.46 27,990,143.30 3,821,868.67 3,825,138.60 11 5 14 30 INTEREST EARNED GAIN (LOSS) ON INVESTMENT ACTIVITY TOTAL RETURN 03/12104 03/17/04 03/31/04 03/31/04 03/31/04 03/31/04 TOTALS: 03/01/04 03/12/04 03/01/04 03/31/04, 03/17/04 03/31/04 1.16% TOTAL RETURN ON AVERAGE DAILY INVESTED BALANCE 3 INVENT' REPORT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AT MARCH 31 FUND ACCRUED INTEREST INVESTMENT PAR/FACE MONTHS TO MATURITY CHANGE IN MARKET VALUE 2004 BEGINNING ENDING ENDING MARKET VALUE BOOK VALUE MARKET VALUE BEGINNING BOOK VALUE INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE PURCHASE DATE POOLED POOLED POOLED POOLED 2,011.17 1,958.33 1,916.67 1,833.33 7.719.50 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 24 18 22 13 (940.00) (940.00) (310.00) (940.00) 1,000,310.00 1,000,310.00 1,008,750.00 1,000,940.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,001,250.00 1,001,250.00 1,009,060.00 1,001,880.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2.400% 2.350% 2.300"A. 2.200% 04/13/06 10107/05 01120/06 05/10105 TYPE AGENCIES FHLB 10/14/03 FNMA 04/07/03 FNMA 01/20104 FHLB 02110/03 POOLED POOLED _ POOLED .. 4.000.000.00 27,990,143.30 3,007,349.35 3,825,138.60 o o o 30.00) 0.00 0.00 0,00 (3 4.010.310.00 27,990,143.30 3,007,349.35 3,825,138.60 4.000.000.00 27,990,143.30 3,007,349.35 3,825,138.60 4.013.440.00 29,778,292.44 3,004,702.80 3,821,868.67 4.000.000.00 29,778,292.44 3,004,702.80 3,821,868.67 .028% .037% .010% 03131/04 03/31/04 03/31/04 POOLS TEXPOOL TEXSTAR , LOGIC - 0.00 7,719.50 .25 38,822,631.25 34.822.63 2 0.00 (3,130.00) 34.822.631.25 38,832,941.25 34,822.631.25 38,822,631.25 4 36.604.863.91 40,618,303.9 36.604.863.91 40,604,863.91 TOTAL: e, - . . PORTFOLIO DETAIL TRANSACTION REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31,2004 PURCHASES TYPE PAR COUPON YIELD MATURITY PRICE PRINCIPAL PREM/(DISC) ACCRUED TOTAL FUND SALES TYPE PAR COUPON YIELD MATURITY PRICE PRINCIPAL PREM/(DISC) ACCRUED TOTAL FUND CALLED TYPE PAR COUPON YIELD MATURITY PRICE PRINCIPAL PREM/(DISC) ACCRUED TOTAL FUND FNMA 1,000,000.00 2.300% 2.300% 09/06105 100.0000 1,000,000.00 - 11,500.00 1,011,500.00 POOLED l MATURED TYPE PAR COUPON YIELD MATURITY PRICE PRINCIPAL PREM/(DISC) ACCRUED TOTAL FUND " 5 . e, - . .\ . Portfolio Yield vs 2 Year T -Bill - - - - - 4.50% - - - - - 4.00% - - - - - 3.50% - - - - - 3.00% - - - - - 2.50% - - - - - 2.00% I I - - 1.50% ~ - I - I '" , ..1" ~ 1.00% - , - - Qet-03 I Nov-03 I Dee-03 I Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 I Jun-04 I Jul-04 I Aug-04 I Sep-04 - - - - - - [J Portfolio Yield 1.41 % .37% 1.32% .27% .21% 1.16% - - - - - - 02 YearT-BiII .63% .85% 2.01% .78% .78% .61% - 6 e, - . . Investment Maturity & Cashflow (excluding Texpool & Logic) e, - - - , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , . 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~<< ~ ~ ..: ~ ~.<< ~ ~ ..: ~ ~.<< ~ ~_~ ~ ~~<< ~ ~..l.0 ~~ \~ ~~ 0" <;f ~'lj ~~ \~ ~~ 0" '<;f ~'lj ~ \~ ~~ OU v- ~'lj ~ \~ ~~ OU ~") 8 . . Market Gain (Loss) by Month . 25,000 e. e :~;,~ ,'.{~ j;~A ~.~ ;!;! ;S. ~,~?if'~ rft;~ 1""1,,;-1 1~."<,"',I".",;'.~,j;,', l;t , ':~'<~~ ~ ;~ ~ ~'.,'"": ~" " ~~-" .;t.? i }<'i ~/;!r Rtlr\",.~"r.' ,\ ,,',k,$i' , t;.;it~ ,"-:;: ' '~ " f,"1 ~:, :~:~.:' '1 ",}':., ~ p. , "; :UJ ~ ti i r 'i . ~' :,t:~~;'l OCT 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 SEP AUG JUL NOV DEC FEB MAR ~ APR I MAY I ]UN - - - 12,800 I 15,160 I 13,130 I 13,440 I 10,310 9 21,848 AGENCIES e - . . - Monthly Portfolio Division &50% 050% 10 Coastal Securities . Duncan Williams I Average Return on Investments 3.00% :'r::':;};i:'~:~':~;;:~~;j~~~"';" .::(J ':~:..~~~~V" 2.00% ,.:" 1.00o/c O.OOo/c /." ,:', '." . :",.,' , ILJ , "., _I, .,. 6- Coastal Securities Duncan Williams o Average Yields 2.35% 2.28% - - 10 . - . . . 2004 This report is in full compliance with the investment strategy as established for the pooled investment fund and the P~blic Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256). March 31 - [JIJJ;t~ 11 e e 6 - . Cardholder Name/Position Amount Norman Malone, Mayor 129.60 Debra Feazelle, City Manager 1,525.27 John Joems, Assistant City Manager 522.37 Cynthia Alexander, Assistant City Manager 1,973.74 Martha Gillett, City Secretary 9,062.93 Richard Reff, Police Chief 92.25 Total Expenditures $ 13,306.16 . Amount 7,754.78 4,754.11 797.27 City o. Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Credit Card Expenditures Second Quarter FY 2004 Repo"rt of Credit Card Expenditures Quarter' Ending March 31, 2004 Check Payee Date Number " Elan Financial Services 01/09/04 205495 205496 205497 Elan Financial Services 02/06/04 206354 206355 Elan Financial Services 03/05/04 207174 - $ 3,306.16 NOTE: This report reflects all PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) e - City otW Porte, Texas . . Quarterly Report of Credit Card Expenditures Second Quarter FY 2004 Cardholder Position: Mayor. Expense Payee Date Amount Type Purpose Digital Recorder. 12/15/03 129.60 CD ROM TML Conference - Tape .Mayor Malone - San Antonio. Texas Total Quarterly Charges $ 129.60 NOTE: This report ref/ects all PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) . . itures Card Expend it City o~' Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Cred Second Quarter FY 2004 Expense Tv(!e City Manager Cardholder Position Purpose TML Conference - Group Meal Debra Feazelle, San Antonio, Texas Dinner Amount 432.91 Date 11/21/03 Payee Boudro's Restaurant - TML Conference Debra Feazelle - San Antonio, Texas Airport Parking 48.00 11/22/03 Hobby Airport Reading Material 25.37 12/03/03 Educational Achievement Educational Materials Debra Feazelle Employee of the Quarter Debra Feazelle, AI Freeman.& Kendra Williams Lunch 16 49 12/08/03 Kemah-Landry's EOC Regional Meeting Debra Feazelle & Joe Sease Lunch 29.00 12/09/03 Kemah-Landry's Card Incorrectly charged to the City's Credit Debra Feazelle Credit (130.24 ) 12/11/03 Hotel Menger Jan Lawler - Acknowledge from City Debra Feazelle - l:..a Porte Flower Arrangement 57.50 01/02/04 Compton's Florist - NLC Conference Debra Feazelle - Washington. DC Registration 385.00 01115/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference Debra Feazelle - Washington. DC Airfare 263.51 01/16/04 Southwest Airlines nformation on La Porte D. Feazelle Book 24.00 01/28/04 1 stBooks y.Jeb Economice Development ProspecUSEED D. Feazelle, J. Joerns, J. Coody & S. Vassallo Lunch 55.68 02/03/04 Ernies Restaurant . . Card Expenditures it City o~ Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Cred Second Quarter FY 2004 Expense TV2e City Manager Cardholder Position Purpose HIPAA Workshop D. Feazelle - Dallas, TX Airfare Amount 83.70 Date 02/06/04 Payee Continental Airlines HIPAA Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Airfare 83.70 02/06/04 Continental Airlines - Dallas, TX Texas Reception at NLC Debra Feazelle - Washington. DC ReceptionlTicket 35.00 02/17/04 Texas Municipal League - Employee of the Quarter D. Feazelle, R. Reft, C. Rise & T. McBeth Check # 205497 206355 207174 Lunch 82.98 525.27 1 $ 02/18/04 Monument Inn Restaurant Total Quarterly Charges PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) This report reflects all NOTE: . . Card Expenditures it City Oft Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Cred Second Quarter FY 2004 Expense T e John Joerns City Manager, Assistant Cardholder Position Pur20se TML Conference John Joerns - San Antonio, Texas Lodging Amount 490.32 Date 11/23/03 Payee Hilton Palacio del Rio Hotel - - Discuss Harris County Projects J. Joerns, D,.' Feazelle & O. Rodriguez Lunch 32.05 02/09/04 Italian Gri Antiono's Check # 205497 207174 522.37 $ Total Quarterly Charges , , PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) This report reflects all NOTE: . Pur~ose TML Conference Crystal Scott, San Antonio. Texas -- GFOAT Board Meeting Cynthia Alexander - Corpus Christi GFOAT Board Meeting Cynthia Alexander - Corpus Christ ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, TX GFOA-2004 Winter Standing Committees Mtg Cynthia Alexander - Washington, DC ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, TX 2004 Winter Standing Committees Meeting Cynthia Alexander - Washington. DC - Office Operations Gay Collins, Crystal Scott & Cynthia Alexander PFIA Training Cynthia Alexander - Midland. TX HR Issues (EEO) Cynthia Alexander & John Wright ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, Texas City Oft Porte, Texas . Quarterly Report of Credit Card Expenditures Second Quarter FY 2004 Cardholder Position: Assistant City Manager, Cynthia Alexander Expense Payee Date Amount Type Hilton Palacio del Rio Hotel 11/23/03 56,00 Lodging Southwest Airlines 12/01/03 209.50 Airfare Dollar Rent-A-Car (HOU) 12/03/03 5.73 Airport Parking ICMA Internet 12/19/03 75.00 Registration Southwest Airlines 01/08/04 319.70 Airfare Southwest Airlines 01/14/04 94.20 Airfare Park Hyatt Washington 01/23/04 348.50 Lodging Seabrook Classic Cafe 01/26/04 34.49 Lunch Texas Municipal League 01/27/04 149.00 Registration Antonio's Italian Grill 01/27/04 17.13 Lunch Advantage Rent-A-Car 01/28/04 160.52 Rent-A-Car e . Card Expenditures it City o~ Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Cred Second Quarter FY 2004 ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, TX Airfare Ticket Change 48.00 01/29/04 Southwest Airlines ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, TX Airport Parking 7.18 01/30/04 Rent-A-Car (HOU) Dollar ICMA Executive Technology Workshop Cynthia Alexander - Denton, TX Lodging 179.39 01/30/04 Radisson Hotel - Discuss 2003 Annual Report Tom. Angela, Jennifer, Michael. & Cynthia Lunch 80.00 02/06/04 Ernie's Restaurant Dallas to Austin Cynthia Alexader - incorrect flight (rescheduled) Airfare 97.20 02/11/04 Southwest Airlines e GFOAT Region 8 & 13 Meeting (Workshop) Cynthia Alexander - Austin, Texas Check # 205496 205497 206354 207174 Airfare 82.20 ,973.74 $ 02/11/04 Southwest, Airlines Total Quarterly Charges PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) This report ref/ects all NOTE: . . Expense T e Purpose TML Conference Michael Mosteit - San Antonio, TX Lodging e TML Conference Barry Beasley - San Antonio, TX Lodging TML Conference Cynthia Alexander - Lodging San Antonio, TX TML Conference Martha Gillet San Antonio, Texas Exhibition Booth Rental TML Conference Michael Mosteit - San Antonio, TX Lodging TML Conference Martha ,& Steve Gillett - Lodging e San Antonio, TX TML Conference Chuck Engelken Lodging San Antonio, TX TML Conference James Warren - San Antonio, TX Lodging TML Conferen~e Charlie Young - San Antonio. Texas Lodging TML Conference Mayor Malone - San Antonio. Texas Lodging TML Conference Peter Griffiths, San Antonio, Texas Lodging . Purpose NLC Cancellation Barry Beasley, Washington. DC - NLC Cancellation Howard Ebow, Washington. DC NLC Cancellation Peter Griffiths, Washington. DC NLC Conference Bruce Meismer, San Antonio, Texas] NLC Conference Bruce Meismer, Nashville, TN NLC Conference Mayor Malone, Nashville, TN NLC Conference Chuck Engelken, Nashville, TN - NLC Conference James Warren. Nashville. TN NLC Conference Charlie Young, N'ashville, TN Reception/Award Cermony Malone - Dallas, Texas Summeral Mayor NLC Conference Mayor Malone - Washington. DC . .. Card Expenditures CityO~ Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Credit Second Quarter FY 2004 Expense T e City Secretary Cardholder Position Payee Purl!ose NLC Conference Chuck Engelken - NLC Registration Amount 385.00 Date 01/13/04 National League of Cities - DC Washington NLC Conference Barry Beasley - Washington NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities DC NLC Conference Peter Griffiths - Washington. DC NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference Bruce Meismer - Washington NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities DC NLC Conference Michael Mosteit - Washington NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities DC NLC Conference James Warren - Washington. DC NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference Charlie Young - Washington NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities - DC NLC Conference Howard Ebow - Washington. DC NLC Registration 385.00 01/13/04 National League of Cities AMCC Conference Mike Mosteit - Galveston. TX Registration fee 295.00 01/23/04 Texas Municipal League AMCC Conference Peter Griffiths - Galveston. TX Registration fee 295.00 01123/04 Texas Municipal League AMCC Conference Mayor Malone - Galveston. TX Registration fee 295.00 01/23/04 Texas Municipal League . . Card Expenditures City oM Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Credit Second Quarter FY 2004 Expense T' e City Secretary Cardholder Position Purpo~e AMCC Conference Peter Griffiths - Galveston. TX Lodging Amount 342.70 Date 01/26/04 Payee Galveston. TX Hilton Hotels AMCC Conference Mike Mosteit - Galveston. TX Lodging 342.70 01/26/04 Galveston. TX Hilton Hotels -- AMCC Conference Mayor Malone - Galveston. TX Lodging 342.70 01/26/04 Galveston. TX Hilton Hotels AMCC Conference - 'Cancellation Mayor Malone - Galveston. TX Credit (250.00) 02/09/04 Texas Municipal League NLC Conference - Cancellation ,Peter Griffiths - Washington. DC Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 Cities National League of Cancellation Washington, DC NLC Conference Chuck Engelken Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference - Cancellation Howard Ebow - Washington. DC Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities - NLC Conference - Cancellation Charlie Young - Washington. DC Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference - Cancellation James Warren - Washington. DC Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities - Cancellation Washington. DC NLC Conference Mike Mosteit - Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities NLC Conference - Cancellation Bruce Meismer - Washington. DC Credit (335.00) 02/12/04 National League of Cities . . City 0_ Porte, Texas Quarterly Report of Credit Card Expenditures Second Quarter FY 2004 Purpose NLC Conference - Cancellation Barry Beasley - Washington, DC Expense T e Credit Amount (335.00) City Secretary Date 02/12/04 Cardholder Position Payee National League of Cities NLC Conference Mayor Malone - Washington Airfare 106.70 02/13/04 Southwest Airlines e DC DC Texas Reception at NLC Mayor Malone - Washington Receptionfficket 35.00 02/17/04 Texas Municipal League e Check # 205496 2Q5497 206354 207174 9,062.93 ,$ Total Quarterly Charges PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter ,of FY 2004 (~anuary, Febraury, March 2004) This report reflects all NOTE: e - City o~ Porte, Texas . . Quarterly Report of Credit Card Expenditures Second Quarter FY 2004 Cardholder Position: Police Chief Expense Payee Date Amount Type Purpose Harris County Toll Road 12/13/03 30.50 EZ Tag, Task Force & SOP Vehicles Harris County Toll Road 01/29/04 61.75 EZ Tag Task Force & SOP Vehicles [~'k' Total Quarterly Charges $ 92.25 205497 207174 NOTE: This report reflects all PA YMENTS made during the Second Quarter of FY 2004 (January, Febraury, March 2004) - . . . 2004 This.report is in full compliance with the credit card policy as established by the City of La Porte's Audit Committee. March 31 - e .e 7 e e 8 e " , I rn~di~ . ~u~ - ----- ~--------- -~ ~~-- . . . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: '" Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Friday, March 19,20047:19 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Fort Worth: paper says Governor needs to cap the tax nonsense Posted on Fri, Mar. 19, 2004 Let's cap the tax nonsense By Jack Z. Smith Star-Telegram Staff Writer There are several reasons why Gov. Rick' Perry's proposed 3 percent annual cap on residential property valuations should .quickly' find a home in the nearest cheap trash can: . It is an in-equitable distortion of a. basic principle of Texas property tax re- form adopted a quart,er century ago that homes should be appraised at fair' market value for taxing purposes. . Although its stated goal is to limit Texans' property taxes, the cap's primary effect would be to shift the tax burden from one set of taxpayers to others. . It -- along with a local tax revenue cap proposed by Perry -- smacks of Proposition 13. That is the ill-conceived 1978 California law that created gross inequities in tax~s levied on homeowners and a government revenue crunch that. contributed to the decline of the state's education system. . The cap proposal is cheap political gi~ickry that appeals most strongly to people who simply don't want to pay their full and fair share of taxes. Fortunately, the cap scheme -- which might appropriately be dubbed the Crazy Cap Concept -- already is drawing criticism from local elected officials and experts on the property taxation and appraisal system. That's not just because it could limit needed local government revenu~s but also because it distorts the.basic concept of ~niformly ~ppraj.sing 'and tax~ng.homes based on fair market value -- the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for a property,. The Peveto bill approved in 1979 ushered in badly needed property tax reforms in Texas, creating a system that made property appraisals more fair and accurate. It created central appraisal districts for ,each county, which eliminated the duplication of effort and confusion created by multiple governmental unit~ (cities, counties and school districts) each conducting. separate property appraisals. Under Perry's proposal, however, Texas would be taking an illogical step backward from the principle of appraisal and taxation based on fair market value, just as we already have done by granting a slew of special tax breaks ranging from corporate abatements to lower rates for senior citizens. I'm not saying'that all these exemptions are bad. But every time we carve out a special tax break for one group, we increase, the burden for everyone else. 1 e . Granting an exemption doesn't reduce the cost of cost of educating a child or paving a street. It situation in which those taxpayers who don't get those who do. government. It doesn't lower the merely creates an inequitable special breaks pay more than Her~'s an example of the unfairness and inequity that would be fostered if Perry's Crazy Cap Concept were adopted. Homeowner A who lived for, say, 10 years in a highly desirable neighborhood with property values rising an average of 10 percent annually would have his appraisal capped at 3 percent each year. Over those 10 years, his tax bill would have been greatly reduced by the cap. Let's say Homeowner B then buys a home next door to Homeowner A, paying a price that is virtually identical to what Homeowner A'.s dwelling would fetch if he s6ld it. But B, having just purchased the home next to A, does.n' t enjoy the cumulative benefit of 10 years of 3 percent appraisal caps. B has to pay considerably higher taxes on her home than A, eve~ though his abode would sell for essentially the same price. The 3 percent cap would apply only to single-family ~omesteads. In areas where average annual appraisal increases were significantly above .that level! those homeowners benefiting from the cap would see part of their tax burden shifted to other taxpayers, . such as owners of businesses and apartment complexes. The relatively higher taxes paid by owners of businesses and apartments then would be shifted, at least in part, to consumers of the businesses' products .and services and to apartment tenants, whose monthly rental payments would be increased to reflect the higher taxes paid by their landlords. The 3 percent cap "distorts the system" of' appraisal and taxation at fair market value and shifts tax burdens, said Bill Allaway, president Qf the Texas Taxpayers Research Association, a business-financed organization that analyzes state fiscal policy. John Marshall, executive director of the Tarrant Appraisal" District, said the 3 percent' cap would make hi,s job easie.r by reducing homeowners' complaints. about rising appraisals. . But he shares Allaway's concerns about a cap warping the system. "I think it wo'uld m'ake for an unfair and inequitable property tax system," Marshall said. Property owners concerned about spiraling appraisals and tax bills can appeal to an appraisal district,. lobby elected officials to cut tax rates or even petition . fellow taxpayers to support a tax rollback election. But no fair-minded, t~inking taxpayer should back Perry's Crazy Cap Concept. 2 Message e e Page 1 0[2 Alexander, Cynthia From: Scott, Crystal Sent: Friday, March 19,2004 9:ofAM To: Feazelle, , Debra; Alexander, Cynthia; Joerns, John Subject: Tax Freeze for Seniors - City of Sugar Land Sugar land won't put tax freeze on ballot By Barbara Fulenwid'er After multiple questions and comments at the March 2 Sugar Land city council meeting on a tax freeze for seniors and again at the specially called March 8 meeting, where it again was considered, council approved an ordinance to repeal the city's homestead exemption for those 65 and over and the disabled should the tax freeze ever be approved by voters. Even though council members appeared to favor putting an ordinance on the May 15 ballot, that if approved would establish a permanent and irrevocable tax freeze, when it came time to make a motion, all were silent. What that means is 10 percent of all registered voters in Sugar Land will need to sign a petition for such and that petition will have to be turned into the city secretary in early summer in order for it to be voted on in a special called election in September. At the March 2 meeting, Mayor David Wallace introduced the agenda item by saying that a tax freeze for seniors and the disabled came about when Texas voters approved Proposition 13, which relinquished some areas of tax authority to municipalities. He pointed out that if the ordinance is not on the May 1 ~ ballot there would be "significant cost associated with putting a special September election together, between $25,000 and $30,000, and voter turnout would arguably be lC?w and not necessarily a fair representat!on of voter thoughts in our city, . I want us to hear the options available to us, including putting this on the May 15 ballot, and I want the public to understand the issues, hence this conversation." After a lengthy conversation by council at that meeting they asked Claire Manthei, Sugar Land director of finance and administration, to put some figures together to show them what the impact would be on city coffers and the elderly and disabled for five-year and 1 O-year periods. Currently, the city has a $62,754 exemption in place for the over-age and a $10,000 exemption for disabled homeowners and wanted to see how thi;lt would impact their tax bill with the freeze at the 2004 tax level and no exemption, with the current exemption and no freeze and with the freeze and the exemption set at $40,000. . With the current exemption of $62,754 plus the freeze, homeowners 65 years old and over would pay $419 in taxes for the rest of their lives. With the current exemption and no tax freeze their tax bill will go up a total of $184 over the 10-year period from 2004 to 2013, With the exemption repealed and the tax freeze in place, senior homeowners would pay $625 in ad valorem taxes to the city in 2004 and that would forever stay the same but it is $22 more dollars than the $603 they would owe with no freeze and the current exemption in place, 3/22/2004 Message e e Page 20[2 If the exemption were reduced to $40,000 and the tax freeze approved by voters, seniors would pay $109 less in 2013 than they will pay with the current exemption and no freeze in place. The five-year cumulative home owner impact, Manthei said, for those 65 and over with no exemption and the freeze in place would be a tax bill of $849 more over the next five years and $1,187 more over the next 10 years and the break even year, the year they would get the same tax break they are now receiving, is 2014. The break even year for disabled homeowners is 2006. With the exemptions repealed and the tax freeze implemented,' the city would gain $1,762,404 in revenues from the over-age homeowners over five years and lose $14,679 from the disabled for total gain of $1,747,725. The city break even. for both groups is a $42,000 exemption. The 1 O-year cumulative impact to the city with exemptions repealed and the tax freeze implemented is seniors would pay $1,374,704 in taxes and the disabled would save a total of $184,823 for a total of $1,189,884 to the city. What concerns' some seniors is city council annually determines what the exemption will be according to the tax rate proposed, and what council can give they can take away. What concerns council members is if they 'give a larger break to two groups of taxpayers, who makes up that revenue loss, and the lack of in treating two groups differently than all other ad valorem taxpayers. Manthei said, "The current financial policy statement adqpted by council says we should annually increase the over-age exemption based on the average annual residential evaluation increase, if the city is in the situation to do so. We don't ha~e the same policy for the disabled exemption." Wallace said, "The exemptions can be set by council annually and changed. They are not permanent. . They can be repealed one day and' council by ordinance can come back the next day and set exemptions. The only thing we have to do is set the .exemptions prior to setting the tax rate. That's the only requirement for the CAD (Central Appraisal District.) The tax freeze is irreversible unless we go to the legislature and get the law changed. Once it is implemented, it cannot be revoked." Councilman Cyril Hosley pointed to examples Sugar Land resident Leon Anhaiser gave at council's March 2 meeting. "The examples Mr. Anhaiser gave last week give a pretty good 'indication of how council has kept up with everybody." ' Hosley said that Anhaiser's figures showed that the evaluation on a house at 719 Burney went up to $46,150 from 1998 to 20.03 "but in relation to that, their tax bill only went up $65.65 cumulatively. The -- value of ,a, hbU~~ at 147 Lakeview went up to $34,950 over five years and their total tax bill werit up, $36.39 over that 'same five-year period," she said. ' ' . Councilman Russell Jones asked Manthei if the exemption Sugar Land gives seniors is more or less than what other Texas cities give, and she said, "We are higher than most cities around here." She said the average tax bill fo'r the over-age in Sugar Land is $395 compared to $756 for other cities surveyed. ' Council ended that. discussion qy approving an ordinance that repeals the exemption if a tax freeze for seniors and the disabled is ever put in place and moved on to two other ordinances. .One was the actual ordinance that if approved by voters would go into effect and the other provided for the ballot proposition. Neither saw the light of day and the meeting ended. 3/22/2004 . . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: ' Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:19 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Property tax freeze for seniors turning into a hot-button issue Property tax freeze for seniors turning into a hot-button issue Frustrated residents want relief now; cities wary of long-term costs 10:58 PM' CST on Sat~rday, March 20, 2004 By LEE POWELL / The Dallas Morning News PLANO - On ,the surface, the proposal seems like a political no-brainer: a property tax freeze for the ~lderly and disabled. An overwhelming majority of Texas voters - about 80 percent - last fall approved amending the state constitution to. give counties, cities and community college districts the power to consider such an option. If officials passed the option, tax amounts for homeowners 65 and older, along with the disabled, would be capped, not to rise even if property values should. But what seemed like a sure way to please voters has been anything but for many officials across the state. They're crunching numbers, trying to divine whether financial losses loom. Seniors are frustrated, asking why some ele~ted officials are dallying and not ,enacting the freeze. Some bodies - the Collin County Commissioners Court, for one - voted for a freeze. The law became effective Jan. 1. In other places, such as Plano, the issue has ,brought exhaustive deliberations. Dallas has yet to consider the' issue. Other cities, including Bedford, have rejected it. In Corpus Christi, the city and community college district never warmed to a tax freeze, so a petition drive is under way to get the issue on a ballot, as the legislation allows. . , ,The issue' for many officials is the diffictilty.in predictipg how much the free~e would cost other taxpayers. How many people will get the exemption this year? In five years? Twenty-five years? How many people will move? Stay? Die? "It has a superficial appeal that doesn't really stand up to any close examination," said Dick Lavine, i senior fiscal analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin research group. "One is, just because you're over 65 does not necessarily mean that you need help paying taxes. And just because you're under 65 doesn't neces,sarily mean you don't need help." the issue cuts across two things held dear by government: revenue and residents. Permanently freezing taxes almost certainly means less money for,ci~y or county coffers - if not now, then in coming decades. Not acting on' a measure with seemingly overwhelming popular support risks antagonizing voters, especially older voters who tend to turn out at the polls in greater numbers. 1 . . Writing legislation State Rep. Fred Brown, R-College Station, authored the tax freeze legislation. Several other legislators joined as co-authors; support was universal. He said it is meant to help seniors who face ever-rising taxes on their homesteads while costs for goods such as pharmaceuticals increase, too. "We just didn't want the taxing entities to change the game every year on the seniors," Mr. Brown said. "We need to give the seniors some stability." More than 80 percent of Texas voters agreed, adopting the amendment along with a passel of others in September. Such tax freezes are not that common, according to the National Conference of State Le~islatures. A 2002 report by the group found that a dozen states offer them. Eligibility in Texas begins at 65; whatever homeowners are paying in property taxes then is what they owe in the future. The freeze is transferable to a spouse, and it is portable, provided certain provisions are met. Number crunching The worry for those in government is what happens when large segments of the population reach'retirement age at about the same time, like baby boomers. Consider Plano. Those 65 or older constitute almost 5 percent of the population, more than 10,000 people, 2000 census figures show. By 2020, the number of residents 65 and older is likely to exceed 40,000, the city,estimates. If the City Council does' not freeze taxes, voters could consider the issue at the ballot box if an election is called. A little more, than 5,700 signatures would be, needed. "To me, the' voters have already spoken and said, 'We want this,' " said council" member Ken Lambert, 64, who is seeking re-election. Other council members say more study is needed. Council member Shep Sta~el, 66, said that knowing when the elderly, on average, sell their homes is important, as is whether they use fewer Gity services. This would better help the city prepare f~r, the future. "It's an unfunded encouragement. It's certainly an encouragement to the cities, counties, community colleges to gran~ the freeze," he said. "But I don't know if there was any consideration given to how to replace that lost revenue going forward." The city had run several projections on what a tax freeze might cost in revenue, given several growth scenarios. 'Figures swelled as the years went by. However, since presenting these estimates to the council, officials have backed away from further projections. 2 "Really, there's so McGrane, the city's e. bl " many varla es, lt s finance director. . almost impossible to tell," said John petition drive In Corpus Christi, county officials signed off on a tax ,freeze in February. But the city and community college district did not, prompting a petition drive to get the issue on a ballot in September. Supporters are collecting signatures five days a week at a table inside the Nueces County Courthouse. They are about halfway there, said Joe O'Brien, 80, of the Corpus Christi Taxpaye~'s 'Association, which is leading the drive. Signees range ~n age from 18 to 93, he said. "All the young people signing it have relatives who are elderly," said the retiree. "The attitude is widespread in this community that the tax situation is out of control." An opposing group - Reconsider Proposition 13 - says this is one decision that should not be hurried. The political action committee is an amalgam of small-business owners and professionals, said Monica McLeod, 29, creative director at an ad company. A majority of the breaks will go to wealthy homeowners, who may not need,the help, she said. "That'money is going to have to be made up somewhere," Ms. McLeod said. "Perhaps the next generation is going to have to be taxed to make up that difference." This is a trying time for taxes in Texas. Some cities are wa~ting to take action on any tax freeze because the property tax system may be overhauled as the state changes how it funds public education. As a result, the Texas Municipal League, representing cities around the state, is recommending its membership consider with care any tax freeze. So what are elected officials to do when confronted with calls for a tax freeze? "It really is a situation where you have ~o be a statesman rather than a politician," said Mr. Lavine. "Say, 'I understand why you would want a limit on your property taxes. But on behalf of all the citizens of my jurisdiction, I can't do it. It would be a long~term detriment to the city or the county.' " 3 tit . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21, 20044:49 PM alexanderc@ci.la-porte.tx.us . Piano: seniors, disabled plan large-scale presence during tax vote Seniors, disabled plan large-scale presence during tax vote BY BRENT FLYNN , STAFF WRITER 03/20/2004 Piano Star Courier Senior citizen ahd disabled homeowners are planning to flood Tuesday's City Council meeting to lobby council members to vote in favor of a freeze on their property taxes. An amendment to the Texas Constitution, approved by 83 percent of Texans in September"allows cities, counties and junior colleges the option of freezing the taxes imposed on the homes of people 65 years of age and older as well disabled homeowners. The measure is meant to ease the financial burden of people on fixed incomes'and has already been adopted by the County and the Collin County Community College District. PIano Independent School District has had a mandatory freeze for years. However, Plano City Council members have been cautious, some say overly so, in considering the freeze. The council first took up the issue at its Feb. 9 meeting and called the first public hearing on the subject Feb. 23. Mayor Pat Evans said there is no hard deadline to pass the tax freeze and that because of the possible repercuss~ons of such a measure, the council is taking its time and hearing all sides. "We have time. to get a good, thorough, full-city debate. Hope a lot of people come out and we get a lot of points of view on it," she said. "It affecti not only seniors but all citizens of ,PIano. When the council thinks tpere has been sufficient debate we will act." PLarto' resident Annette Vineyards and other planning to attend Nonday's' rneeting, said it's time for .action. "The voters have already approved this," she said, "It was approved by 85 percent of voters statewid~. It won 79 percent approval in the city of Plano and was approved unanimou'sly by the state Legislature, yet our city council is dragging its feet. They've had two meetings to discuss this and they're still dragging their feet." Evans noted that the vote in September was a referendum to allow cities and other taxing entities to enact a tax freeze, not a vote to institute the measure. Place 3 Councilman Phil Dyer said one of his big concerns is 'that once the tax freeze is approved, it can't be taken back. "I have some serious reservations about it. My primary reservation is the permanency of the freeze. It can neve~ be withdrawn, except with another constitutional amendment. We have to lqok at it as a permanent deal." 1 The fear is that while tjltimmediate impact of the the future growth of the senior citizen population cutback in services offered by the city. - freeze would be manageable, in PIano could result in a While a freeze would only translate into a revenue loss of less than $700,000 for the city in 2005, officials say Plano's increasing over-65 population could result in millions of dollars in revenue losses as the Years go by. However, Place 8 Councilman Ken Lambert said some corrections to the estimates on the impact of the. tax freeze will be presented to the council Monday that will show what little effect they will have on the city's tax revenue. He said he stands by his earlier statements in support of the tax' freeze. Vineyards said she.doesn't have an exact headcount on how many seniors and disab~ed homeowners will come out for the meeting, but there would be enough to "fill the chamber." Dyer said he welcomes input from Plano citizens and expects that the issue will be resolved at the meeting. "I expect somebody will put a motion on the floor ~nd I think we will take action," he said. "It should be a lively session." 2 - e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21,20042:14 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Corpus Christi: mayor blasts tax cap proposal by governor Mayor blasts governor's tax proposal . Perry's spokesmen say his plan will help homeowners By Monica Wolfson Scripps Howard Austin Bureau ' March 20, 2004 AUSTIN - City officials Friday accused Gov,' Rick Perry of meddling in local affairs with his plan to limit homestead property tax valuations and restrict the ability of cities and counties to.raise tax revenue. The governor's office says it's just trying to protect taxpayers from rising tax bills if the Legislature significantly reduce~ local school property taxes. Corpus Chris,ti Mayor Loyd 'Neal, one of several mayors who spoke at' a news conference, said Perry's proposal would ,dramatically affect cities' ability to govern. "If it isn't broken, then leave it alone," Neal said. Perry announced his property tax relief proposal last week as part of his plan to overhaul the way the state'pays for public schools. Perry's property tax'relief plan limits increases in homestead property appraisals to 3 percent a year from the current 10 percent threshold. It restricts cities and counties from raising property tax revenue beyond the amount raised' the previous year plus inflation and, population growth factors. It requires a disclosure of property sale prices and man~ates that five existing' elected officials sit on appraisal district boards. Perry is proposing lawmakers cap homestead appraisals and limit t~e ability of cities and counties to raise property tax revenue because he doesn't want cities and counties to raise property taxes after the Legislature significantly reduces school property taxes. City Manager Skip Noe said Friday that the proposed cap could have a "substantial effect" on the city's ability to pay for its $10.5 million share of the Packery Channel dredging project. A large part of the project is financed through federal money, but the local share is covered by bond debt. Those bonds are backed by a special taxing district which sets aside money from increased property values on Padre Island. City budget writers assumed that property values on the island would outpace the typical 3 percent growth seen throughout the rest of the city, and that has held true so far. If the state capped the growth of the land value, it would in turn cut the amount of money flowing into the taxing district. It's still unclear ~xactly what kind of impact the cap would have because there are no details as to how it would be implemented. 1 -- . Kathy Walt, Perry's press secretary, said special taxing districts such as the one used by Corpus Christi are rare. While the tax cap proposal only applies to homesteads, Walt said the governor would be willing to work with individual communities that have bond obligations to come up with a compromise. But she also said it would be difficult to exclude homesteads from the tax cap. "We are not against public school reform," Neal said. "We aren't against the children of Texas. But at the same time since 9-11, cities and towns in particular have a number of unfunded mandates. While we've had some federal aid, the general fund is paying for Homeland Security." Neal admitted that past bond election proposals to fix Corpus Christi's roads failed. "We aren't afraid to go to the public, but traditionally when you have a tax election you go for a specific project that has a quality of life appeal," Neal said. "If you go for general fund issues like employee salary increases, or doing more street maintenance, or adding police officers, then you are asking the public to vote on a quality of life issue they are already paying for." Perry was in,Italy Friday, so his chief of staff Mike Toomey defended the governor's plan. If cities want to spend more than the cap,_ then they just have to do it honestly by going to the voters, Toomey said. While city taxes are already capped at $1.50 per $100 evaluated property for cities under 5,000 and $2.50 per $100 evaluated property for cities larger than 5,000, the average municipal property tax rate was 57 cents in 2002, according to the Texas Municipal League. Currently, counties and cities can raise taxes by 3' percent without holding a public hearing. If the tax increase falls between 3 percent and 8 percent, they must seek public input. If the tax increase is more than 8 percent, it's supject to a rollback election. Toomey also argued that cities still have access to sales tax revenue, sewer and water fees and other revenue sources. A city's portion of the sales tax is also 'capped at two cents. 2 . . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21, 20042:00 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us City leaders fear quality of life at risk with governdrtax cap proposal; state officials say homeowners would see relief Cities' criticize Perry's plan to cap taxes City leaders fear quality of life at risk; state officials say homeowners would see relief By Michelle M. 'Martinez AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Saturday, March 20, 2004 Gov. Rick Perry's staff, moving quickly to defend a tax overhaul plan that could become a major factor in his re-election campaign, scrambled Friday to offset criticism from the influential Texas Municipal League. . Officials of the league, which represents more than 1,000 cities, urged state officials to meet with them again to discuss a' proposal to cap home appraisal increases and how much revenue cities, school districts and other taxing entities could raise through property taxes. The group met with officials before the proposal was unveiled on March 11. Mike Toomey, Perry's chief of staff, in a rare meeting with reporters, defende~ the governor's plan in a news conference hurriedly arranged to respond to the league's concerns. Perry, who has been in ltaly this week courting business prospects for Texas, was back in the country Friday afternoon. City officials and others are debating Perry',s proposal and anticipating that he . will call a special legislative session in coming weeks to consider, changes in the way the state pays for schools. ~ow Perry handles the issue -- one that affects Texans' children and pocketbooks -- is sure to bea major issue in his antic1pated 2006 campaign. League officials say Perry's plan to limit tax revenue and apprai~al increases could damage Texans' quality of life. The governor should give.city officials more credit for being fiscally responsible, said ,Loyd Neal, Corpus Christi mayor and past league president. "We're not against public school reform," Neal said. "But at the same time, cities and towns ,across Texas, particularly'since September 11, have had a number of unfunded mandates, and while we've gotten some help from our federal government, many of our cities and towns are still paying out of the general fund for the cost associated with homeland security and police and fire protection." A,city's general fund is made up of property and sales tax revenue and is dedicated to paving city streets, paying police and firefighters, and building and maintaining parks, among other expenses. League officials said school district taxes -- hot city'property taxe~ -- are the problem. They .said cities collect 15 percent to 20 percent of the state's property taxes while school districts take in more than 60 percent. 'League officials said they are encouraging member cities to let lawmakers know 1 how their cities would be~ffected by the plan. . Perry wants to cap home property appraisal increases at 3 percent each year and to limit the amount of revenue a taxing entity can raise to the amount it raised the year before, though the plan would allow for inflation and population growth. Officials who want to exce~d those limits would have to get voter approval. Toomey said city taxes, along with those of other taxing entities, must be included in the changes if taxpayers are going to have true relief. "School taxes a~e half the issue," he said. "The other half are all the other ,local taxes, and when citizens are Gomplaining about high property taxes, I don't think they're dissecting their bill. You have roughly a $3 combined tax rate from all sources, and schools are $1.50. There's another whole half of the pie that the governor is saying the Legislature should look at if you're going to provide real sustained tax relief." ' 2 MySA.com: Metro I State . e Page 1 of2 MAIN SECTIONS News Columnists Metro Texas Nation I World Education Medical Mexico Military Neighbors _....~:I~~!~,'-_.._.._,--_.._"-,-- Weather Sports Spurs H.S. Sports Business Enterta inment SA Life Travel & City Guide Obituaries News Wires MULTIMEDIA . ......- KENS 5 Video Slide Shows Web Cams OPINION Editorials I Op Ed E-N COlumni,sts SPECIAL SECTIONS .".. -~ - .- -.. . .-.. 'The Alamo' Movie NCAA Basketball . Iraq: After The War Great Day SA DIVERSIONS Comics & Games Contests & Promotions Horoscope SPECIAL INTEREST Lottery Celebrations Crimebase Personals What's Happening " Classifieds Real Estate Drive Jobs Shopping Yellow Pages ''\. '1 ~tfX.~( u.h.~ Atl3A Register Email Ne,^ MySpecial Make Us ~ Help IU~:-EDt ~ilU~ Ii ~~ ...."'f : PI ~ N ., .'. I AI AI AI CI C. C. 01 Oi El Er Fl G, HI HI Li, M- R. SI SI Tr W S4 II M P- M Po ~ E http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA23 .01 B .kerr _ tax_freeze _ 0323.1... 3/23/2004 , Me.:tr-Q Sptn3sore-dby Story Tools: ~ Ig] Kerr caps property tax Web Posted: 03/23/2004 12:00 AM CST Zeke MacCormack San Antonio Express-News KERRVILLE - Taking advantage of a 2003 state constitutional amendment, Kerr ' County has become the latest area countY to permanently cap its property tax levy for seniors and people with disabilities. "I know it's going to create some difficulty for us, but we'll deal with it," County Judge Pat Tinley said before Monday's 4-0 vote, referring to the projected loss of $7.3 million in tax revenue over the next decade. ' .,., Local seniors lobbied hard for the tax cap that became optional for counties and cities when voters approved the amendment last fall. Appearing at Monday's meeting, senior citizen Charlie Eller predicted the freeze would "surely" pass if residents forced the issue to a referendum, as allowed under Proposition 13. And he said any revenue IO$s could be recouped if county leader$ quit their attempts at "social engineering" and focused instead on citizens' health, safety and welfare. Seniors in Kendall and Bandera counties have been eligible since January to apply to have their county tax levy fixed at the 2004 dollar amount. As in Kerr County, officials there backed the freeze to avoid a costly and potentially divisive petition drive and referendum. ' "No.1, it's a good thing," said Kendall Commissioner Rusty Busby, "and No.2, it was going to happen anyway." Bandera County Judge Richard Evans said the cap is a needed safeguard for elderly residents' investments. "There's always a concern for a loss of revenue, but property values are going up and up, and the property tax doesn't take into account people on fixed incomes," he said. ' Most cities and counties in the San Antonio area. are taking a cautious approach to MySA.com: Metro I State MARKETPLACE Classifieds Yellow Pages Newspaper Ads Video Ads Coupons Shopping E-N Subscriptions E-N Archives E-N Store 'ABOUT US Express-News KENS 5 MySanAntoni6.com e . Page 2 of2 enacting the tax shelter for those age 65 and over, similar to a mandatory tax freeze in effect for Texas school districts. "Look before you leap," said Texas Association of Counties spokeswoman Elna Christopher. "Once you do this, remember it is permanent." The Texas Municipal League has urged its members to study the financial implications before acceding to seniors' demands for quick action. "Many cities are beginning to feel the pressure brought by advocates of the freeze, including organizatio,ns representing the elderly and certain newspaper columnists," said TML's newsletter on the issue. Rather than eliminating a tax burden, TML Director Frank Sturzl said the freeze merely shifts the onus to younger homeowners "without regard for ability to pay." In Bexar County, Selma offiCials have adopted the freeze for seniors, but declined to extend it to people with disabilities due to concerns about the vagueness of the Soci~1 Security Administratio,n's definition of disability. City Manager Ken Roberts said the council felt compelled to take action on behalf of seniors. "A lot of folks work their whole life and are now on a fixed income, and if we don't act now to freeze their property taxes we're going to put them in harm's way to maintain their homesteads," he said. z.~,~~e>pCl!..~~,:'!!!..~~!lf!.L......................_.._..__......,.....,__..........,_.........,..,..,_...._.__..,_,..__..._,..__......_,....,...__.............,__..,................._....,....,.._,..,.._..._,__......,....,.._...... Adverti,sing Ads by Google Lifewatch medical alarms Safety for seniors living alone Metro New York and South Florida lifewatch.net Seniors - Photos Galore Older Singles - Browse Personals Romance, Dating & Relationships www.seniordatefinder.com r I Feedback I Site Map I Privacy Policy Terms Of Service I, Advertising,lnformation About Us: MySanAntonio.com I Express-News I KENS 5 Portions I.e 2004 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. All rights rese,rved. ' http://www.mysanantonio.comlnews/metro/stories/MYSA23.0 1 B.kerr_ tax_freeze _0323.1... 3/23/2004 . e Alexander, Cynthia From:' Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21, 20041:58 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Texas mayors, TML oppose tax plan proposed by governor Mayors oppose Gov. Perry's tax plan V~ctoria Advocate March 20, 2004 APRIL CASTRO Associated Press AUSTIN - Several Texas mayors say a property-tax savings plan by Gov. Rick Perry will severely cripple their ability to protect the public. The mayors, representing the Texas Municipal League, are opposed to the plan Perry proposed last week as part of the state's effort to overhaul the state's system of paying for public education. The group objects to a part of Perry's proposal that would cap yearly property, tax appraisal increases at 3 percent. Cities, counties, community colleges, hospitals and other taxing districts also would be affected because they garner revenue based on the appraised value of homes. The appraisal cap, the mayors'argued, would limit their ability to generate revenue for the growing costs of services such as police prote~tion and health care. "Robin Hood lives in the school house, not City Hall," the mayors said in a statement Friday of the current share-the-wealth method of paying for pUblic. education, sometimes called Robin Hood. "Plans being discussed to cap or freeze city property taxes as a part of the discussions on public school financing, we believe, are misplaced." But, Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey ar'gued that app'raisal 'ini:;'reases on ' ' homesteads 'are the reason that a 1997 property-tax reduction plan by then-Gov. George W. Bush f~iled. By increasing the homestead exemption, Bush's plan was intended to decrease the total amount of 'property taxes that residents pay on their homes. But sharper hikes in the appraised value of homes offset expected decreases. The municipal league, which represents more than 1,000 Texas cities, as well as the Texas Association of Counties sayan appraisal cap would negatively impact the quality of life in their cities. "When your trash isn't picked up, you don't call the governor., When the pot hole isn't fixed, it's not the gove~nor you call and when your water comes out yellow, you don't call the president," said Corpus Christi Mayor Loyd Neal Jr. "You call my listed number in the Corpus Christi phone book at 3 in the morning." Neal was joined by Mayor Patrick Heath of Boerne and Mayor Bill Lindsey of Denison. 1 . . Perry, who was traveling in Italy, announced his proposal last week as the Legislature looks to overhaul Texas method of paying for public education. About 60 percent of the money spent on Texas schools comes from local property taxes and many lawmakers have promised to lower the burden on homeowners. Perry is expected to call a special legislative session In the coming weeks, but has said he won't do so until the leadership has reached an agreement on a replacement plan. 2 . . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 21, 2004 1 :40 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us' Longview: paper says school finance issue needs real champion, not governor pandering Longview News Journal Editorial... 03-21-04 School finance issue needs real champion, not Perry's pandering It's hard to tell what Gov. Rick Perry thinks of the report released Tuesday by the Joint Select Committee on Public School, Finance which has been laboring over a plan to resolve the state's biggest headache. After all, he's all the way over in Italy on a trip reportedly intended to drum up new business for Texas. Although we don't begrudge the governor a chance to hit the road and take a break from the Austin zaniness once in a while, we get a real sense that the issue of funding Texas schools is beginning to drift 'because nobody is willing to take firm grasp of the tiller. On occasion in recent months the governor has tried to make it seem as though he wants the helm. But in reality, his proposals to impose state controls on local government and create incentive programs for tea~hers and schools tend to dance around the periphery of the state's crisis and ignore the heart of the problem. The bottom line in Texas is that over the last several decades the state's fiscal support of public schools has steadily eroded" shifting the burden onto local school districts. And in an effort to avoid court intervention over inequitable funding of Texas schools, the state a decade ago adopted its "Robin Hood" funding scheme that takes local funds from "rich" school districts and shifts them to "poor" school districts. That plan was supposed to be temporary. But with Texas politicians unwilling to tackle serious reforms in school funding, "Robin Hood" has lingered until nqw it creates fiscal strains for both wealthy and, poor districts. Most Texan~ assumed that ~he Legislature was going to tackle the school funding issue during its regular session last year. But that was before an economic slump put the entire budget in a crisis and Republican leade~s decided that congressional redistricting was the state!s top priority. So school finance slipped to the back burner, even though Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and the Texas Sena~e did take a stab at solving the problem.. As he prepared to call the Legislature back for the first of the three special sessions it took to hammer out a redistricting map, the governor said that the school finance reform-could wait until this spring and, in the meantime the Joint Select Committee on School Finance was appointed to study.the matter and make recommendations for changing the way the state funds public schools. Now the report is out, but the governor is in Italy. And the committee members - even though a majority has signed off on the report - have been relatively quiet about their final product. 1 . . Rather than firm, comprehensive recommendations, the report really offers lawmakers a series of options. And while it ident'ifies a wide array of new or expanded statewide taxes to help fund publiq schools and reduce school property taxes, the plan makes no attempt to define how state ,funds would be allocated to local schools. The governor has not set a date for a special session and, given his call for a consensus among lawmakers before he calls them back to Austin, we're not sure how he could call one any time soon. Although the committee's report is a step fOFward, we have yet to see anyone in leadership or in the ranks willing to stand up and champion a concrete plan to address, school funding. Perry, once he returns from his junket to Italy, needs to get serious about this issue. Last week he was talking about putting strictures on the way cities and counties can conduct their business. Talking about such limits might.play well with some voters, but it 'does little to address the school funding crisis. It's time for the governor, who at one tim~ said public schools needed no additional revenues, to get back to the basic problem and that is finding an ample; equitaple manner to fund the education of young Texans. He needs to quit posturing and begin reviewing the shortfalls and inequities in our current school finance system and then addressing them with a new system. As much as he might not like the sound of "new taxes," that's exactly what the governor must address if he wants to reduce .school property taxes by up to half statewide. For all of its shortcomings, the Joint Select Committee's report is at least a starting point. What Texas needs now iS'a leader to step up and take the lead in this matter. After his recent Caribbean fishing trip with key voucher supporters and anti-tax dilettantes, the governor might not have the stomach for addressing the needed solutions. If. that's the case, Dewhurst has shown the willingness to bring forth a plan. Maybe we need him to take the helm now and guide lawmakers toward the consensus that Perry says he wants before actually calling a special session. 2 . . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:48 PM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Piano: council turns a cold shoulder to tax freeze Council turns a cold shoulder tq tax freeze Older and disabled homeowners', eager for cap, circulate petition 01:54 AM CST on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 By LEE POWELL / The Dallas Morning News PLANO - The Plano City Council declined to grant homeowners who are 65 years and older or disabled a freeze on their property taxes. But that does' not mean the 'issue will melt away. Indeed, minutes after the council made its decision, petitions begin circulating in the council chamber to put the issue on the ballot before the year is out. About 200 attended the meeting., The notion of a tax freeze for thes~ two groups surfaced in Plano, as it has for ' local governments around the state, after voters approved the idea last year in a state constitutional election. If local entities do not grant a tax cap, the law allows the issue to be put on the ballot with signatures from 5 percent of registered voters. In. PIano, this amounts to more than 5,700 names; if this number were reached, a vote would be held later this year. An overwhelming majority of voters in September approved giving cities, counties and community college districts the'option of granting a tax freeze for the disabled and those older than 65. Such a freeze would cap th~ ambunt eligible homeowners would pay in property taxes, even if ta,x rates or values r.ise. Seniors, who say they are being squeezed by rising assessments and high health care costs, welcome the option. , , However, local governments worry what a 'tax cap might cost as the population ages. Adding to the concern: once granted, the tax freeze is irreversible. The Plano City Council held its second public hearing on the, issue Monday in a packed council chamber. Almost 20 residents pleaded with council members to follow the already-spoken wish of voters and enact a tax freeze; about 100 more did not speak but had their names read into the record to show support. Warner Richeson, 68 and a former council member, likened the situation to one'in which too much analysis leads to paralysis. "The time for action is now," he said. Already, Collin County Commissioners have approved a freeze for taxpayers 1 countywide. Other cities tit deliberating the idea or h~e rejected it outright. Plano City Council rejected the cap freeze by a 5-2 vote. Council members Ken Lambert and Shep Stahel voted for the motion; Jean Callison was absent.. PIano officials had tried to estimate what the cap might cost the city; the city later backed away from hard numbers, determining that such projections are nearly impossible to calculate. About 5 percent of the city's population is 65 or older, according to census figures,. The city projects that this segment of the population will swell in coming years - as baby boomers age, and as parents move to live closer to their grown children. Council members said the tax freeze passed by the Legislature and OK'd by voters is fraught with problems. For one, ,it is likely that the property tax system in Texas could be remade as the state overhauls its public education fi~ance system. "The tax situation in Texas right now is highly unstable," Mayor Pat Evans said. "If you're woridering why we're hesitant to act quickly, it's because all these things are up in the ,air. " , , Council member Phil Dyer said a larger principle is at stake as well. "I don't like things that take control away from local government," he said. "And this is one of those things that takes it away." Several council members offered to work with senior citizens to adjust the over- 65 tax exemption PIano already offers, as a way to offer, more immediate relief. The city grants several exemptions to homeowners - 20 percent off the top for all homesteads along with a $40,000 exemption for those 65 and older and the disabled. Tweaking exemptions offered little comfort for Jack Lagos. "If you can give today, you can take away tomorrow," the '61-year-old said. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject,: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [cityba'se@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:42 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us " ,Collin County: tax plan proposed by governor draws ire from city, county officials , Governor's tax plan draws ire from city, county officials BY BRENDA BERNET , Plano Star Courier STAFF WRITER 03/24/2004 Collin County Commissioners have sent a resolution to the Gov. Rick Perry, opposing his proposal to cap property appraisals and property tax revenues for local governments, At their meeting Tuesday,' commissioners discussed the potential special spring legislative session on school finance, when Perry's proposal could go before the' Legislature. Plano of~icials also oppose .the governor's plan. The Plano City Council adopted a resolution opposing the plan on Monday. "It's all about local control," PIano City Councilman Phil Dyer said. "I think the governor seems to be convinced that we, county commissioners, community colleges are going, to try to jack up the taxes for our citizens." However, PIano city officia~s have a no history of gauging residents, and the voters have kept their elected officials accountable, Dyer said. "We wouldn't try to sneak anything by, but even if we did, I guarantee you there would be an outcry from citizens," he said. '"We and our citizens know how to manage our own business. We don't need the state to,tel1 us how to run our own taxes. Please leave us alone. We've been doing a good job of running the city." Frank Turner,' a city of Plano executive director, said PIano officials believe the governor's plan goes too far in restraining city and other local governments from raising enough money for services. The resolution the City Council adopted applies to the governor's plan, as well as any other similar proposal that might come out, of a spring legislative session on changing school finance laws. "We think he goes way beyond being typ~ of reasonable constraint," Turner said. "Essentially, citizens elect city councils to look out for the needs of the community. They hold them accountable. That~s where the responsibility should rest." Current taxation laws require full disclosure of expenses' and revenues and provide adequate, appropriate protections for taxpayers, he said., In recent years, some cities have struggled with declining values on existing property and sales taxes. "The governor's plan is directed at a fear that cities' and counties would rush in and raise their taxes if school taxes were lowered," Turner said. "Councils are very conservative. We've actually had a declining tax rate." 1 . e If the Legislature cuts school property taxes in a possible spring legislative session, Perry said city, county and other special tax districts should not be able to make up the difference. Perry proposes to lower property appraisal increases for homesteads to 3 percent per year from 10 percent per year, according to the governor's office. His plan would put a cap on spending growth by limiting the amount local governments can increase property tax revenues and would require voter approval for increases 'above a certain amount.' Perry's plan would limit the amount of property tax increases based' on the previous year, inflation and population growth. The Republican governor, whose proposal has drawn opposition from numerous governing bodies across the state, was not immediately available for comment Tuesday. I State Sen. Florence Shapiro, ~-Plano, who chairs the Joint Selected Committee on Public School Finance, said in a phone interview that she agrees with most of the governor's proposal, including capping rising appraisal values of houses. However, Shapiro said she agrees with local officials that the state government should not limit the increases in tax revenues. "There's a law on the books, since 1982, that sa~s if 'you increase the effective tax rate by more than 3 percent, you must publish notices in the newspapers and hold public hearings," she said. Additionally, increases above 8 percent are subject to referendums by residents, she said. The law is known as truth in taxation. "My preference would be to take that law, restructure it and make sure it would be palatable," Shapiro said. "I believe government is best at the local level:" The commissioners court resolution states Collin County will oppose changes to school finance or taxing laws that limit the ability of the county to collect taxes for basic services, economic development and public safety. The county -resolution begins by stating, "Governor Perry'has proposed a plan that is nearly identical to Calif6rnia'sProposition 13, ~hich h~s been attacked after it cut property taxes and placed a future cap on the rat~ of increase of property taxes." According to the re'solution, commissioners contend that the governor's proposal will reduce revenues for services by 24 percent; that they rely on property tax revenue to build and improve transportation, provide law enforcement, jails and a justice system; and that ,those revenues allow the county to meet, unfunded mandates ,for homeland security, jails, courts and public safety. "We realize there is no free ride. O~r citizens, like all,citi~ens of Texas, pay for these programs," the resolution states. County commissioners said the governor has said other states, such as Colorado, also cap appraisals and property tax revenues. However, . commissioners said that in Colorado, property taxes make up only 15 percent of a county's tax base. In Texas, counties' only source of revenue is the property tax, they said. 2 C t J d R H . ed h t 'd' e h I oun y u ge on arr~s sa~ e suppor s prov~ ~ng more money to sc 00 . districts. "We, the citizens are going to pay the money," he said. "Y'all know how frugal this court is when it comes to budgets." Harris has also said the court stands behind local control and is concerned about the potential financial impact Perry's plan might have. "We feel, the vast number of Texas cities have been very prudent," said Harris, who chairs the court. "We have to face citizens for re-election. They've got the last say anyway." Commissioner Phyllis Cole, who is the vice chairwoman of policy for the organization Texas Conference of Urban Counties, said Tuesday that other counties across the state are upset with the proposal. "It would limit our ability to participate in a lot of the programs we. do," Cole said. The county may have to stop the partnerships it makes with cities to provide half of the funding ,for various road projects and park proj~cts, Cole said. Additionally, provisions for indigent healthcare could also be affected, she said. "We handle our indigent healthcare through a trust," Cole said, adding that the trust will only provide funding for seven or eight more years. "If they cap are ability, I don't know what we'll do when that runs out." And, ,Collin County is not alone in its opposition. Officials in other counties and cities are also voicing opposition. Carey Boethel, who oversees the legislative department for the Texas Association of Counties, said his association has sent packets of information to 4,700 county officials, including a sample resolution for opposing Perry's proposal to cap appraisals and tax revenues. "It affects all of them," Boethel said, including county commissioners, county treasurers, constables and sheriffs. Plano adopted a resolution similar to the one the Texas Municipal League has provided to city officials across the state. The resolution states: ~Whereas, during'~hese,deliberations by, the Texas Legislature, proposals to limit the ability of cities to collect property taxes' and sales taxes are likely to be offered by some members of the Legislature; and whereas, additional restrictions on city taxes 'fly in the face of a history of frugal tax administration by Texas cities ..." The resolution also states that Tex,as cities combined collect just 15.3 percent of all property taxes while schools collect more than 60 percent and that the municipal share of all property tax revenue fell from 20.3 percent to 15.3 percent' between 1985 and 2002. Cities also rely on tax revenue to build roads, provide water and sewer service, and ensure public safety. "The governing body of the city of Plano wiil oppose all school or tax reform efforts by the Texas Legislature that negatively impact th~ ability of the City to provide basic essential services, conduct economic development. activities, and ensure public safety by limiting our ability, beyond the provisions of current . law, to collect property tax or sales tax revenues," the resolution state~. 3 Henry Wilson, who is repr~nts Region 8 on the Texas M~iciPal League board of directors, said cities across the state oppose the governor's plan because it could limit their ability to provide services. "I think it was extremely presumptuous of the governor to think that we would automatically raise the tax rate because the school tax rate is going down," said Wilson, who is a City Council representative in Hurst. Wilson said that state officials should expect locally elected officials to be responsible and that officials of city, county and other taxing districts see the people they represent on a daily basis. City Councils are expected to balance the budget and watch the tax rates, otherwise they may get voted out of office, he said. "We're responsible to the citizens to deliver services they expect," Wilson said. 4 . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:52 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Waxahachie: Perry plan concerns city officials; governor would cap property value increases, restrict tax revenues Perry plan concerns city officials Governor would cap property value increases, restrict tax revenues By PATRICK M. WALKER Waxahachie Daily Light News Editor Like a large number of their counterparts statewide, Waxahachie officials are worried that when lawmakers overhaul the school funding system, they also will we~ken cities' ability to collect property taxes. Specifically, city officials across the state point to a plan unveiled by Gov. Rick Perry on,March 11 that would not only cap appraised property value increases at 3 percent a year, but would also restrict the amount of property tax revenues a city can collect without voter approval. Perry 'w,ants tax revenue raised by. ,local entities subj ect' to an inflation- and population-based cap, mandatory 'sale price disclosures for real property, and elected appraisal boards. Counties, community colleges, hospitals and other taxing districts also would be affec~ed because they garner revenue base~ on the appraised value of homes. "It is time to end this rate-gaming, appraisal creep and the 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' property tax doublespeak," Perry told a crowd in Houston upon announcing his proposal. "It is time to provid~ real property tax re~ief with real reforms that control both appraisals and rates." The notion that cities have somehow acted in an underhanded fashion has municipal officials seething. "If they try to do this, they'll have every city and county camped out down there in Austin," City Manager Bob Sokoll said. "There'll be hell to pay." , City finance director Carl Wessels was among several hundred officials to attend a daylong briefing in A,ustin in which Texas Municipal League representatives warned of the possible changes. Ironically, the meeting took place the day'after Perry announced his proposal, though it had already been scheduled for that date. "TML believes ~t's inappropriate to blame cities for ~appraisal creep' when the state has been forcing appraisal districts to move toward appraising property at nothing less ~han full market value," Wessels said. He pointed out that the state contribution to education has decreased from 54 percent in 1980 to 38 percent today, forcing many school districts to hike property taxes to their statutory limit. School dist~ict property taxes account for about 60 percent of Texas school funding statewide. Wessels said that while he doesn't know "if it's good news or bad news," a potential revamping of the property tax collection system as envisioned by Perry would likely have a lesser impact on Waxahachie than most other m~nicipalities. 1 . e "I perceive that this won't hurt us as much as the average Texas city because the sales tax is our largest source of revenue, not the property tax,H he said. "But I am concerned about it.H Mayor Joe Jenkins said he doesn't understand why the governor or Legislature would want to tinker with property taxes in general just io fix the school finance mess. "I'm not aware of cities being out of control on raising taxes,H he said. "I think cities have been very careful in raising taxes.H The numbers support his belief. Under state law, cities with more than~5,000 residents generally have the authority to set tax rates of up to $2.50 per $lOO of assessed value. Smaller cities have the power to tax at a rate of $1.50 per $100. Yet in 2002, according to the municipal league, the average city tax rate was 57 cents per $100. On top of that, cities actually provide more funding to the state than the state provides the cities. Municipal court 'fines, for example, pay for numerous state programs. Meanwhile, Texas reportedly trails only California in the amount of aid that states pay to cities. , "I don't quite understand why the governor feels the need to place limiting factors on cities' ability to set property taxes,H Jenkins added. "It seems to be a lack of trust.in cities.H Under the current system, cities and counties face voter-called rollback elections if the tax rate is raised by 8 percent or more, ,and elected officials catch political fallout when they raise taxes higher than what the electorate deems necessary. According to numbers Wessels provided to the City Council, 75 percent of Waxahachie's increased tax levy since 1997 is the result of the value created by new buildings and the expansion of existing ones, not "appraisal creep.H Wessels said the municipal league understands the need to generate additional revenues for school funding. ,However, the league suggests that other tax code changes, such as the addition of a services. tax, could be more, appropriate. "The state needs to move away from this archaic'policy of just taxing' manufacturing and raw materials toward taxing those services that people use every day,H he said. "When y6u get your hair cut, you don't pay a tax. When'you visit the massage therapist, you don't pay a tax. Our economy has shifted from being centered on manufacturing to being a service economy, but the tax code hasn't changed.'~ Last week, a group of mayors representing the municipal league, of whicQ Waxahachie is a member, said they are opposed tO,the Perry plan. The appraisal cap, the mayors argued, would limit their ability to generate revenue for' the growing costs of services such as police protection and health care. "Robin Hood lives in the schoolhouse, not. City Hall,H ~he mayor~ said in a statement Friday of the current share-the-wealth method of paying for public education. "Plans being discussed to cap or freeze city property taxes as a part of the discus~ions on public school financing, we believe, are misplaced.H Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey argued that appraisal increases on homesteads are the reason that a 1997 property tax reduction plan by then-Gov. George W. 2 ' Bush f~iled. By increasintlthe homestead exemption, BUS~S plan was intended to decrease the total amount of property taxes that residents pay on their homes. But sharper hikes in the appraised value of ,homes offset expected decreases. The current cap on appraisal increases is 10 percent a year; the Texas House last year approved a measure that would have limited annual appraisal increases to 5 percent, but that bill, opposed by cities and counties, died in the Senate. The municipal league, which represents more than 1,000 texas cities, as well as the Texas Association of Counties sayan appraisal cap would negatively impact ,the quality of life in their cities. "When your trash isn't picked up, you don't call the governor. When the pothole isn't fixed, it's not the governor you call, and when your water comes out yellow, you don't call the president," said Corpus Christi Mayor Loyd Neal Jr. "You call my listed number in the Corpus Christi phone book at 3 in the morning." Neal was joined by Mayor Patrick Heath of Boerne and Mayor Bill Lindsey of Denison. Perry, who was traveling in Italy last week, announced his proposal March 11 as the Legislature looks to overhaul Texas method of paying for public education. Many lawmakers have promised to lower the burden on homeowners. Perry is expected to call a special legislative session in the coming ~eeks, but has said he won't do so until the leadership has reached an agreement on a replacement plan. Jenkins said he expects Waxahachie officials to voice their concerns to state Rep. Jim Pitts and state Sen. Kip Averitt. Neither lawmaker could immediately be reached for comment. The Associated Press contributed to this report. 3 . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 1 :00 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Plana: paper says city should consider senior tax freeze issue on future voter referendum Editorial: Senio~ Tax. Freeze Plano should consider issue on future voter referendum Dallas Morning News 02:18 AM CST on Wednesday,' March 24, 2004 These are tough 'times for cities, which face the same financial pressures as senior citizens on fixed incomes. At the end of the money, there's still more month left. Nonetheless, it's regrettable the Plano City Council opted not to fre~ze property taxes of the city's senior citizens. Now that the council has said no, ~e ,would urge that the issue be taken to a vote of PIano residents. We're not trying to instigate an intergenerational tax war that pits young against old, but we think that freezing property' taxes ~or residents 65 or older is the right thing to do. Freezing the tax rate for seniors, would guarantee that senior citizens, who often are unable to afford property' tax hikes, would not be greeted with ,sticker sh9Ck each tax year. Today's senior citizens have paid the property taxes that have allowed Plano to grow. They deserve property tax relief in their golden years. But we are also mindful that rejecting a freeze was a tough decision for a City Council that is trying to balance Plano's present and future. PIano now allows a homestead exemption to all homeowners, and the city's senior citizens and disabled r~side~ts enjoy addit~onal tax breaks. City officials' wo~ry is that demographics will eventually take a deeper bite into the city treasury. About 10,000 Planoresidents are 65 years or older. By 2020, however, the number of PIano residents' over 65 could reach 40,000, the city predicts. From the city's perch, that means millions in potential tax revenue , would be exempt from t~x collectors. Anyone who has gone a few years without a pay raise can empathize with the plight of some PIano senior citizens and certainly with the worries of PIano official~. State law allows voters to gather signatures to put the issue on a ballot. We would urge this' campaign to give all residents a voice in the city's future. It's the fairest way to resolve this difficult issue. 1 . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 1 :20 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Beaumont: area cities worried about school finance reform Cities worried about school finance reform By: VANESSA EVERETT , The Beaumont Enterprise 03/24/2004 School districts may be happily anticipating a special session on school finance, but cities are wary of the possible reforms. Local municipalities, including Port Arthur, Port Neches, Groves and Nederland, have passed resolutions opposing any school finance reforms that could negatively impact cities. ' Several reform ideas proposed by Gov. Rick Perry and other state officials include capping property appraisal growth, cutting property taxes and adding business taxes. The changes are supposed to fix the existing system, dubbed Robin Hood by critics, which takes funds from property-rich school districts and gives it ,to poorer districts. The',problem is that many districts have reached the cap of $1.50 per $100 valuation for operating expenses and cannot raise more r~venue. Officials in local city governments f~ar that the state might trade one financial jam for another. Randy Kimler, city manager for Port Neches, said, "The bottom .line is" while you're fixing one problem you don't want to create another one." Capping property taxes and reducing the amount appraisal values can go up could r:nean less revenue for ci t'ies, . which in tur,n could mean less services.-, he said. . Frank Sturzl, executive director of the Texas Municipal League, said in a phone interview from Austin that when cities experience a revenue crunch, capital improvements like streets and drainage are the first to get cut. "If it's going to make it more difficult for cities to raise r~venues 'and carry out the duties expected by taxpayers we oppose it," Sturzl said. Max Duplant, finance officer for the city of Beaumont, said while the city has not passed a resolution, it opposes reforms that harm ,the city's ability to raise revenue. "We definitely do support, the Texas Municipal League's stance in.the fact that any reform should not be harmful to the cities and their budgeting," Duplant said. 1 . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 1 :22 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Brenham: TML urges caution with tax freeze; city manager concurs Municipal League urges caution with tax freeze--City Manager concurs with recommendation to wait until after special legislative session to decide By ARTHUR HAHN/Managing Editor Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:37 PM CST Cities considering implementation of a tax freeze for senior citizens -- which Brenham's city council will discuss Thursday are being urged to use caution. The Texas Municipal League, of which Brenham is a member, is recommending that cities wait to see what comes out an expected special legislative session on school finance. Gov. Rick Perry has said he will call lawmakers for a special session on school funding. Some proposals being tossed out ,include capping property appraisal increases at 3 percent a year, which could potentially impact all taxing entities. The Brenham Louise Giddings Retired Teachers organization has been pressing city officials to consider the freeze, pointing out that it has already been passed by Blinn College trustees and Washington County commissioners. But Brenham City Manager Terry Roberts said he concurs with the TML's recommendation to at least wait until after the special legislative session. "It is irrevocable," Robert said of the freeze. "And if you make the decision now or in September or October, it has literally, the same effect." In,effect, senior citizens and disabled persons would have their tax bill "frozen" at the 2004 level. They would hot be affected by rising appraisals or debt issuance on their homesteads., Roberts said calculations from the Washington County Tax Appraisal District show, that if enacted, some $93 million in property on Brenham's current tax rolls would be eligible for the freeze, or just over 13 percent of its total tax base. Many cities are already opting to proceed cautiously in implementing the tax freeze because of the impact it would have on other taxpayers. Even if Perry opts not to call a special session, "clearly the school finance issue is not going to go away, even if it waits until the regular session of the Legislature in 2005," said Roberts. In what Roberts called a "companion issue," the council Thursday will consider a resolution opposing any school finance or tax system reforms that would .. negatively affect cities. That would include capping appraisal increases at 3 percent annually. Roberts said TML research shows that Texas cities "have had the smallest 1 . e increased growth of property taxes of all local government entities." In 1985, Texas cities collected 20.3 percent of all local property taxes; that figure was 15.3 percent in 2002. During that same period, school taxes have more than doubled -- even accounting for inflation -- as local districts were having to pay a larger share of costs. 2 . e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 1 :46 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us La Porte: city goes on record against future attempts to limit property tax revenues March 24, 2004, 11:40AM La Porte goes on the record against plan to give schools its tax money By JOSEF MOLNAR Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle La Porte City Council this week passed a resolution condemning future attempts to make the city choose between its economic welfare and the welfare of its school children. The city resolution is an up~front resistance to changes in the school finance system which would place a burden o~ the city's revenues and economic development efforts. With a special legislative session looming, one of the education funding options being proposed would require cities 'to restructure their tax collection to divert a portion for local school finance. District 6 Councilman Bruce Meimer said the resolution would communicate the city's solidarity against this kind of funding plan. "I think it is absolutely essential not only that we do that, but that we are all ' represented in one document," he said. "And I think it carries more weight.-" The council unanimouslY,approved the resolution. Earlier this month, La Porte Assistant City Manager Cynthia,Alexander told council that she had heard a number of municipalities fear school funds will come from either property tax or sales tax revenue generated by cities. Alexander serves on a statewide task force that conducted a March seminar on the issue in Austin. La Porte is especially vulnerable to such a school funding plan because the percentage of its revenue that comes from property taxes -- or fees charged to petrochemical'plants in lieu of property taxes -- is larger than in most Texas cities, she said. For example, when the' revenue for all Jexas 'cities is combined, 28 percent comes from property taxes and 28 percent from sales taxes. Thus, at the statewide level, ,~6 percent of all municipal rev~nue comes from property or sales taxes. In La Porte, however, property taxes represent 35 percent of revenue, "in-lieu of "'taxes (fees paid by petrochemical plants and related industries in place of property taxes) account for 28 percent of revenue, and sales taxes represent 8 percent, or a total of 71 percent of total revenue. In other action Monday, council rejected a plan to commercialize a portion of residential land in the southern portion of the city. The ordinance would have allowed a combination service station and convenience store to be built on the site. t e _ Opponents of the ordinance said the three-acre tract, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Wharton Weems Boulevard and Texas 146, would have paved the way for future development of commercial businesses there. The city's Property and Zoning Committee recommended the city not approve the plan. "The project is aimed at transient traffic and brings nothing beneficial to local residents," said resident Dean Snyder. "Thete is nothing in it for the local people." He said the facility was unnecessary, and cited three nearby convenience stores and a gas station as reason why it was unnecessary. The tract is located south of land which was set aside for residential use, and runs adjacent to the Bay Forest Country Club. Nick Finan, interim planning director for the city, said the original grant given by its previous owner allows for small-scale development of the residential land, with the approval of City Council. He noted that restdential development has not yet reached that immediate area. Plans for the area stop development at the north side of Wharton Weems Boulevard. Resident Peggy Antone said the convenience store at that corner would take away from the community development. ' "That is a very dangerous intersection already," she said, "and I don't think that adding traffic going in and out of the convenience store is a good idea." Councilman Charlie Young said he liked League City's approach to maintaining community integrity by restricting commercial development, and supported decisions ,which would allow the same thing in La Porte. "I think that we could have the same thing in oui development," Young said. "If we're using taxpayers' money, we. probably ought to do it right." 2 .e . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:28 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte. tx. us Sugar Land explains rationale for repealing current senior and disabled exemptions if voters approve tax freeze FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2004 Contact: Doug Adolph 281-275-2724 Tax Freeze and Exemptions for the Over-65 and.Disabled Persons SUGAR LAND, Texas -- In order to minimize the fiscal impact to the City as well as to other taxpayers, on March 16, 2004, the City of Sugar Land City Council voted to repeal the exemptions for the over-65 and disabled persons, if the City's voters approve at an election, the tax freeze as authorized by the Texas Constitution. The tax freeze can either be implemented by City Councilor through a petition and election by the voters.' City Council has chosen not to implement the tax freeze but is aware that if elected upon by the voters, can be implemented at any time. The City ,currently offers exemptions when homeowners reach the age of 65 and if disabled at any age. The current exemptions are $62,754 for over-65 and $10,000 for disabled persons. If the exemptions are kept in place'at the current rates, the impac~ to the 'City would be a property tax revenue loss of approximately $705,000 over 5 years and $3.7 million over 10 years. This revenue loss would either need to be shifted to others, either through taxes, user fees, or by a reduction in services. "The City recognizes the financial burdens on the over-65 and as such, as one of its policies, reviews the over-65 exemption annually as part of the budget process," said Claire Manthei, director of finance and administration. "If financially feasible, the City adjusts the exemption upward to reflect the average percentage increase in the residential re-valuation. This is an attempt to minimize the impact of ever increasing val]..lations." The exemption has increased from $40,000 to $62,754 in two years. To give these qualifying homeowners both the benefit of the exemption and the tax freeze, while continuing to provide the same services can 'be considered unfair and inequitable to other taxpayers, according to Manthei. "We cannot favor one group of taxpayers over another group.", Manth~i believes that the City'has been fiscally responsible in ensuring that the City remains in a strong financial position with the least impact to the taxpayers now and in the future. The tax bill for the City of Sugar Land is approximately 14% of a taxpayers total tax burden with the remaining going to the school district and county. "We believe taxpayers receive quality service for a low price. The City provides for police and fire protecfion, is first responder for emergency service calls. We light the streets; spray for mosquitoes, fix potholes, provide for parks, to name a few, .all for the good and to the benefit of the public." If the tax freeze is not implement~d, the City will continue to follow current 1 policy as it relates to a~usting the over-age exemPtio~annUallY, Council also voted to increase the disabled persons exemption from the current $10,000 to the same as over-65, $62,754. While the City has financial strategies in place in order to lower the tax rate, fund debt for new and rehabilitation of infrastructure, the City also faces new challenges, such as drainage, school finance reform, unfunded federal and state mandates, and aging infrastructure. As a result the City must base decisions not solely on current conditions but on the long-term welfare of the community. 2 . .. Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:02 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Denton: area local officials oppose Perry tax plan Local officials oppose Perry tax plan Proposal would cap appraisal increases at 3 percent 07:31 AM CST on Thursday, March 25, 2004 By Cliff Despres / Staff Writer Denton Record Chronicle Gov. Rick Perry's ~ducatiDn reform plan is under fire in Denton County. Local officials are plotting countywide opposition to Perry's proposal to cap yearly property tax appraisal increases at.3 percent - a move they say would severely stifle the ability of the county and its cities to generate revenue. Denton Mayor Euline Brock is worried that, with the cap, property tax revenues would drop and cripple city services ~nd economic development. "The governor has decided to turn a school finance crisis into a local government crisis," said Brock, who is leading the local protest. Brock helped organize a breakfast meeting Wedne~day of more than 20 officials from the county, Denton, Flower Mound, Lewisville, Highland Village, Corinth, Lake Dallas, Ponder, Oak Point, The Colony and the Denton school district. The group decided to, form a task force to coordinate opposition to Perry's plan. "His plan is not going to benefit schools," said Corinth Mayor Vie Burgess. "It moves money around, but the net result is nothing." Perry, who unveiled his plan March 11 in anticipation of calling a special session on school funding' this spring, has said he hopes to dimin~sh reliance'on property taxes to pay for' schools. GOVERNOR'S TAX PLAN Gov. Rick Perry's plan to cap property appraisal increases has drawn the ire of county and city officials across Denton County. The plan would: * Limit appraisal increases for homesteads to 3 percent, per-year. The current cap is 10 percent. * Limit the amount of revenue local entities can raise from property taxes to the amount raised the previous year' plus an inflation and population growth factor. *, Require mandatory sales price disclosure for. real property. * Establish appraisal district boards of five elected offrcials who would be accountable to taxpayers. 1 . . SOURCE: www.governor.state.tx.us The state currently funds schools by taking money from property-rich school districts and redistributing it to property-poor schools. The state funds about 40 percent of public schools and the rest falls to taxpayers - leaving many school districts to tax at the current $1.50 per $100 valuation tax cap. "The governor is aware that there is opposition from the people who use the money, but he's listening to those who pay the' bills," said Robert Black, a spokesman in Perry's office. "Those people who pay the bills want property tax reform and property tax relief." But local officials maintain that Perry's proposal comes at the cost of cities and counties, ~nd may not aid in the school finance crisis, either. Perry's plan would limit property appraisal increases to 3 percent per year for homesteads, inste~d of the current 10 percent limit. It would also limit the amount of revenue that local entities can raise from property taxes to the amount raised the previou~ year, plus inflation and a population-growth factor. Local entities would have to ask its residents to v9te'on any additional tax increases. "The one thing that's being lost in this debate is that the governor's proposal isn't trying to tie the hands of local entities, he's just giving taxpayers a seat at the table by limiting the amount of money a local entity can raise without asking residents," Black said. Black said Perry's plan also aids taxpayers by turbing "appraisal creep." That's where the annual tax bill on the $129,000 sales price of the average Texas home is $3,500 but, even without a tax increase, homeowners could see their tax bills increase if their property appraisal rises. . But local oftl~ials see Perry's plan in a different light. Cities, counties, community colleges and other taxing districts generate much of their revenue from property tax revenues, along with sales taxes, fees and other taxes. And because th~ governor's plan would' lImit property tax collections by those entities, officials say, it could force them to seek less desirable avenues to raise a~equate revenue to pay for police, parks and other services. "Restrictions on property taxes mean restrictions on public safety,~ said Lewisville City Manag~r Claude King. A tax cap's impact may have more negative effects in other areas, some say. Randy Robinson, chairman of the board of directors at the Denton Chamber of Commerce, said attracting new commercial developm~nt would be difficult to do in a capped situation. "For a city like Denton that's heavily reliant on property taxes, the burden would fall to industrial and commercial users, whether it be in the form,of impact fees or no incentives or abatements," Robinson said.' But Black said none of those things would happen as long as the local government entities take their requests for added revenue to the voters. 2 . . "We have a lot of very good city managers, and they shouldn't be concerned with the revenue cap. If they need increased money for increased services, all they have to do is ask the voters," he said. But some say a tax cap wouldn't even benefit the schools that are struggling to search for new revenue. D~. Ray Braswell, Denton school superintendent, said it would "only make school finance worse." "We gain revenue ,from growth every year, so the school district doesn't see how this helps us at all," Braswell said. "Schobl finance is one thi~g and property tax relief is another, but they're being unfairly tied to one another." Frank Sturzl, executive director 'of the Texas Municipal League, which represents cities, said cities haven't been the ones burdening taxpayers. He says cities collect only 15' percent of property taxes in Texas, while school districts collect 60.percent. "Over the past 17 years, cities have raised property taxes very little," Sturzl said. "In fact, Texas cities have the lowest rate of change of all property- taxing authorities in Texas.'~ In Denton, the City Council has maintained a property tax rate of 54.815 cents per $100 valuation since 2002, and the rate hasn't been higher than 56.090 cents since 1995. But Denton school district property tax rates escalated from 62.5 cents per $100 valuation in 1993 to $1.8640 ~or the past two years. "Taxes have indeed risen, but the real, increase has been in school taxes, n~t in city taxes," Brock said. "We all agree that school funding needs to be fixed. Fix that. Don't try to fix something that's not broken." Black said Perry's overall goal in his plan is simple: tax relief. "The governor believes that cutting property taxes is central to education reform," Black said. But local' officials remain wary of the plan. The Denton City Council approved a resolution Tuesday that urges state legislators to adopt "reforms that would not adversely affect city revenues and . economic' development efforts." Officials at Wednesday's meeting say their councils would do the same. Many also plan to write letters to local legislators asking them,to voice disapproval of Perry's plans. "We need to present a united front and a united message this is a bad plan," Brock said. "This comes down to the governor not trusting local elected officials to do their jobs." The Colony Mayor John Dillard agre~d. "This plan is a snake. You don't talk to the snake. You don't compromise with the snake. You kill the snake," Dillard said. "This needs to be killed before it gets 3 It . Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [titybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:05 PM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Grand Prairie': seniors press for property tax freeze; groups may seek vote on breaks for disabled, older homeowners Seniors press for property tax freeze Groups may seek vote on breaks for disabled, older homeowners 04:15 PM CST on Saturday, March 27, 2004 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News A large group of seniors says that if city officials don't take some initiative, it's ready to place into the hands of voters a proposed freeze on property"taxes for homeowners 65 and older and the disabl.ed. The Grand Prairie AARP and the Golden Age seniors activities club have asked the City Council to adopt the freeze, an option given to counties, cities and comm~nity college districts last fall by overwhelming voter approval of a con'stitutional amendment. But a three-member council committee that reviewed the proposal and its potential impact on city coffers was split 2-1 against taking any action until it sees how proposed changes to the school funding system will affect taxes. The committee agreed, however, to put the issue before the full council for at least a discussion, if not a vote, perhaps as early as next month. If the council doesn't take action soon, the seniors will, said Marie Richie, chairwoman of the local AARP's tax-freeze committee. "If the council does not move forward with this, we are prepared to launch a petitLon drive to get it on the ballot," Ms. Richie said. They would need ,signatures from 5 percent, or 3,050, of the city's registered voters. Cities across ,Texas are grappling with the tax freeze, which locks in the amount of taxes seniors pay on their homesteads, even if the city's tax rate or their own property values rise. ' If a city adopts the freeze, it can never be rescinded. G'rand Prairie financial officers said it's difficult to proj ect the losses the city might incur in future years with the tax freeze; But finance director Elizabeth Walley estimates the city would lose more than $72,000 in future revenue based on a 5 percent growth in the property values of elderly homeowners. . Over the last 10 years, the average residential property value increase has been, just less than 5 percent a year. "There are a lot of variables," Ms.. Walley said. "Changes in market value of course have a big part to do with whatever revenue we might lose if we do the freeze. Changing demographics in the community will affect the revenue impact to the city; simply the number of parcels involved. If people who are eligible for 1 . the freeze move into the Clty in revenues." e great numbers, that can also affect the Collin County, Mesquite, Southlake, Euless and Mansfield have adopted the freeze. Plano,.Garland and Richardson have decided not to do so at this time. Like many other area cities, Grand Prairie offers a tax exemption for the elderly. In 2002, the council raised, the exemption from $30,000 to $45,000. Eligible homeowners who.apply for the exemption,pay taxes only on any property value over that amount. Council members Ron Jensen and Mike Lennard said they would like to give the seniors a tax break, but the two members of the finance committee said there are too many questions about the impact legislation coming out of Austin will have on the city's taxing ability to make a decision now. "I'd like to see us do something for the seniors," Mr. Lennird said. "Most of them today a~e paying more in taxes than they did on house payments when they bought 'their houses." But he said he's concerned .about the impact the freeze and any other tax law changes would have on th~ city's ability to provide vital services. "If we don't have the ambulance service to go out and take care of our senior citizens, then we're in trouble," Mr. Lennard said. Council member and finance committee Chairman Jim Swafford - the only one on the panel old enough to qualify for the freeze - supported the proposal. "I personally think if you wait around until you see what Austin does, you'll be waiting around forever," he said. "My vote would be to support it and go ahead and pass it right now: .'.. You can't worry about what's going to.happen five years from now. We don't know what our growth is going to be." More than 6 percent of the city's total population was aged' 65 or older in 2000, according to census data, with an additional 9 percent who would be just shy of o~ beyond that age now. About 61 percent of the heads of households (those whose names are listed as the' property owner or principal renter) in the same age bracket earned less than $35,000 in 1999. An additi~nal 17 percent earned ~ess than $50,000. And among 4,200 homeowners 65 and older, 362 had incomes below poverty level. "We have some people in Grand prairie that really need a break," local AARP president Alto Brown said. "I know a lot of them that live on around $1,000 a month, and some of them on close to $750 a month. ... Everything, goes up, and seniors are on a fixed income. They don't have any opportunity to make any more money than what they're making now." 2 . e Alexander,' Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [titybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:39 PM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx..us Galveston: tax freeze gets cool reception Tax f~eeze gets cool reception By Sarah Viren The Galveston County Daily News Published March 27, 2004 GALVESTON - City council members will consider a possible property tax freeze for senior citizens and disabled homeowners - a move that'nearby communities have approved but Galveston's finance director is recommending against. Council members discussed the possibility briefly at their workshop Thursday. The city's finance director, Rick G1assett, is advising against the option - especially as the possibility of further state-mandate~ property restraints loom on the hori?on. "Cities should proceed cautiously in freezing taxes for anybody," Glassett said. A state constitutional amendment passed in November gives municipalities the option to freeze property tax amounts for homeowners 65 and older as well as disabled people who own homes. Councilwoman Dianna Puccetti asked Glassett to return to council in two weeks with' a detailed forecast of how the property tax freeze could affect city finances. According to Glassett's estimates, senior,citizens comprise.13 percent of the area homeowners. Freezing their taxes could result in a $1 million loss in revenue during the next five years, he said. Several council members expressed hesitancy about the possibility of freezing senior ci ti zen taxes, saY1ng _' the ci.t,y already fac.ed a number of other tax constraints. ' ',- Elderly and disabled homeowners currently receive some property tax exemptions, said city attorney Susie Green, who warned council that, once passed, the tax freeze could never be revoked. Dickinson recently approved the freeze, although some council members there protested that the issue should be put up for a public vote. Municipalities have the option of passing the measure by a vote of council or putt~ng the matter on the ballot. Glassett said his concern with the tax freeze is that it would make finances even tighter in Galveston, especially in light of a recent proposal by Gov. Rick Perry to cap tax revenue increases for all municipalities. During Thursday's city council meeting, council members unanimously passed a resolution opposing "any school finance or tax system ~efbrms that would negatively affect city revenues or economic'development efforts." "This is something we need to fight all the way," sai~ Mayor Roger "ao" Quiroga. 1 . e Perry's proposed tax cap, which is part of a school finance plan, would limit property appraisal increases to 3 percent above. the previous year's value. Glassett said this arrangement would put an unfair burden on businesses and poorer neighborhoods and tie the hands of city officials. "In my opinion it would not be favorable to Galveston,U he said. 2 , e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, April 04, 20044:46 PM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us TML, others say cities should not be brought into the middle of school finance crisis 04-04, Local: Some say cities shouldn't be brought into middle of school finance crisis By JO LEE FERGUSON Longview News-Journal Texas cities are protesting a proposal from Gov. Rick Perry that they say would wrap them up in the solution to the school finance crisis. "Our primary message is we didn't create this mess," said Frank Sturzl, executive director of the Texas Municipal League. The league represents 89 percent of incorporated cities ~n Texas. ' On March 11, Perry presented a proposal for "true property tax relief," according to information from the governor's Web site. The state is planning to address the school funding problem, and Perry said in March that he didn't want taxing entities to "fill in the void" when school taxes are cut. "There are essenti~lly five parts to the program," Sturzl said. "We oppose three of them. We oppose the 3 percent cap on appraisals. We oppose the cap on municipal property tax revenue. We oppose the requirement for electe? 6fficials to serve on an appraisal board.H, The league has asked its members to stand against the proposal and tell their state elected ,representatives about how the proposal will do more harm than good, Sturzl said. "I've been here 25 years, apd I've not seen our membership more energized or mobilized on an issue, ever," he said. Longview City Manager Rickey Childers is a member of a school finance corrunittee that the league created in the fall. He said the cities' concern is that they not be left out of this process. "Our theory is that with the state ,going in and ~evamping the way that they fund schools, that the cities could get the short end of it,H Childers said. He said cities feel pressure not to ~aise their tax rates because schools are "taking up a majo~ity of the property tax dollars.H Schools can raise their tax rates 3 or 4 cents and nobody says anything, Childers said. It's a different story if a city tries, to raise its rate. "We think the problem is of the state not providing the support t6 schools like it has in the. past," Childers said. The league and the committee have'created several information brochures about this issue. That information says, for instance, that cities collect about 15 percent of all property taxes in Texas> compared with the 60 percent school districts collect. 1 e The information also says that while cities can $2.50 per $100 valuation, depending on the size property tax was 57 cents in 2002. e set a tax rate of up to $1.50 of the city, the average city or "We haven't created a property tax crisis, and we don't thi'nk we ought to be hauled into the solution to the school 'finance crisis," Sturzl said. Taxpayers increasingly oppose property taxes, regardless of who is levying them, he said. Cities have lobbied the state to broaden cities' 'reven~e sources t6 no avail, he said. Cities want a part in this discussion, Childers said, pointing to potential problems that some of the proposals could have. The 3 percent appraisal cap would harm Longview and limit the city's ability to raise revenua to pay for ~olice and fire services, he said. "Our tax base is made up of subparts - residential values, commercial, industrial and mineral," Childers said. Mineral values have been decreasing for 10 or 15 years in Longview, he said. The city's industrial values also are "negative," he said, and commercial values have remained flat. The only g~owth has been in residential values, Childers said. Residential property values have increased on average 41/2 percent during the past several years; ,he said. However, the total tax base has gone up 21/2 percent. "If you put that cap in there, that will hurt us," Childers said. "We would have a negative number." Sturzl said the governor said this type of cap was used in 25 other states. "What, they're not telling us is in these 25 other states the state government injects massive amounts of money to mak~ up for the cap," he said. Sturzl added later, "In essence, what the governor is proposing is a'system that does ,not exist anywhere, never has - a system where we ,don't get state assistanee. to build facilities that benef'it the whole state." Also, he said Texas cities raise money that goes to the state, primarily through municipal, court fines. The Longview City Council has approved a resolution, that the Texas Municipal League is providing to cities, that, opposes any school finance reforms that, would "negatively affect city revenues and econo~ic development efforts." For instance, Childers pointed to a separate legislative proposal to increase the state sales tax base to some untaxe~ items. Information on the Texas Municipal League Web site says cities would not be allowed to apply its sales tax rate to the expanded base. Instead, the "entire increase in both state and municipal sales tax revenue" would go to a "state education fund." "This is troubling for two reasons," the information says. "First, it tak~s from cities what should be theirs. Second, it will be difficult, if not 2 .. e .. lmposslble, for the state to accurately determlne the e~ent to which city sales tax increases are due to the expanded base and which increases are due to ordinary economic growth. As a result, city sales tax revenue .can be reduced." Cities are in a "protective mode," Childers said. They have little control and are at the state's mercy~ he said. "We just want to make sure that if it's done, that we're taken into consideration and not left out in the cold," Childers said.Sturzl recalled something a league member said that likened this situation to a person who decides to work on his or her washing machine when the car breaks down. "That's what this amounts to," Sturzl said. "We are taking great pains to mobilize our members as much as we possibly can to let them know this is potentially very dangerous, not just to cities, but to the state." 3 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2: 1 0 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Longview: paper says governor should quit worrying: about cities and counties and instead concentrate on funding public schools Editorial 04-06-04 LONGVIEW NEWS-JOURNAL Local Control Gov should focus on schools, not cities and counties We've got some serious questions about Gov. Rick Perry's ideas for solving school funding issues by usurping city and county budget authority. First of all, we'd like the governor to explain what became of that favorite' conservative.battle cry: "Local control." Actually, 'local control is 'an issue often supported by both ends of the political spectrum, yet the governor's most detailed plan to date for school finance reform would govern what has essentially been a local issue for cities, counties and special districts - but not schools. Next, we want to know how the governor's plan would maintain equity on local tax rolls. Granted, the plan is an outline and therefore has not' been fleshed out. But one of the key elements is his proposal to limit appraisal increases to 3 percent a year rather than the current state limit of 10 percent.. Appraisal distr~cts were originally established to assure that property tax rolls were fair and equitable throughout individual counties as well as across the' state. And appraised values are supposed to reflect actual values, within a few percent. So what happens in a hot real estate market where real values might be rising much more quickly than 3 percent a year? Does someone who buys a $100,000 house this year wind up paying less taxes than someone who happens t9 buy an identical house in the same development for $110,000 next year? Does the first homeowner get a $7,000 break on hi~ appraisal compared to his neighbor? Another question: Is the governor willing to make the state the last resort for indigent health care? He says he would pledge that local governments would not receive unfunded state mandates from the ~tate. That sounds good until one considers that one of the greatest burdens the state laid on local counties this past year was not a mandate, but simply a decision to cut back programs such as the Child Health Insurance -Progr~m and Medicaid. Such changes leave poor Texans with little other alternative than to use 'the services of local emergency rooms with funding coming either from local county budgets or from other patients. We understand the governor's concern for taxpayers, but we question his top-down approa~h. Right now, the limits on appraisals seem workable. The state's "Truth in Taxation" law requires taxing entities to inform taxpayers of the "effective tax rate" it would require to raise the same amount of property tax revenues, in the 1 coming hiding e year after accounting for tax hikes based on rising increased values. This~revents appraisals. entities from Where the governor might be able to convince us of a need for change is in the tax rollback law. Current law dictates that taxing entities setting tax rates more than 8 percent above the amount required to raise the same amount as, the prior year (on the same properties) are subject to tax rollback elections. (The law also requires that any entity planning to set a tax rate 3 percent above the effective tax rate must advertise,that fact prior to setting the new tax rate.) Under the rollback law,' 10 perdent of registered voters in,a county, city or other taxing entity may petition for a rollback election if that entity exceeds the rollback limit. We believe that the governor could make a solid case for lowering the threshold for such rollback efforts - perhaps to 5 percent, maybe even 3 percent - but that he should leave the rollback process in place. Granted, a rollback requires effort on the part of local residents. But that makes sense. If the governor fears that local voters are easily lulled by local officials, he 'need only look at Longv~ew's track record of mayoral elections where, for the past three election cycles, local voters in search of new leadership have resoundingly turned out the incumbents, including one whose program cut the local tax rate close to 10 percent in 3 years and set aside $8 million for early debt retirement. If that kind of track record isn't a sign of local voters taking control, we're not sure what is. In the meantime, however, we think the governor should quit worrying about cities and counties and instead concentrate on the state's role in funding public schools. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:40 AM alexanderc@ci .Ia-port~. tx. us Panhandle counties steaming mad at property tax appraisal restrictions proposed by governor Web-posted' Monday, April 5, 2004 School finance has'no easy solutions: Appraisal proposal draws counties' fire by GREG CUNNINGHAM greg.cunningham@amarillo.com A proposal by Gov. Rick Perry to restrict increases in property tax appraisals has officials from counties across Texas steaming mad, decrying the plan as a sleight-of-hand trick to pass responsibility for taxes from the state to counties. County judges say any plan to restrict income to c9untie$ is irresponsible at a time when the state is placing' record burdens on the counties, through unfunded mandates, while at the same time looking to reduce income further with a property tax cut. "This plan that Gov. Perry has presented could be the most damaging thing that has ever come down from Austin," said Oldham County Judge Don Allred. "It has the potential of breaking the State of Texas and putting us into bankruptcy." The proposal calls for capping growth in property tax appraisals at 3 percent unless approved by voters instead of the current 10 percent per year. Perry's press secretary, Kathy Walt said,the 3 percent cap would keep counties about even with inflation. "They are guaranteed what they got the previous year plus inflation and .population growth. They can also make a case to the voters if they need a larger increase," Walt said. Elna.,Christopher, spokeswoman for the Texas Association of Counties, refutes the argument saying the cap would result in decreased services' from counties. Christopher's group resea.rched county budget numbers. from 1998-2002. If the 3 percent cap had been in place, only four count~es would have shown no loss, while 'all the other counties in the state would have lost ftom just under $100,000 to nearly $70 million in the largest counties. Potter and Randall Counties would have lost about $4 million apiece, according to the estimate. Already 244 counties have passed resolutions opposing the mandates, while the other 10 counties are in the process of passing resolutions, Christopher said. Potter County is ,preparing to go a step further, taking up a resolution today that would directly oppose Perry's plan. Potter County Judge Arthur Ware said the governor's proposal, if passed by lawmakers, would cause tremendous repercussions throughout cities a~d counties across Texas. "The state doesn't raise your taxes. What they do is send it through us, 1 therefore we have afford to provide to," he_aid. "I don't know how the Inties the services that we're required to." will be able to Randall County Judge Ernie Houdashell said the state has been shifting the tax burden to the counties for years. Recent examples include Randall County having to shell out to hire an attorney lost to a budget cut at Child Protective Services and a $100,000 tab to pick up, the cost of visiting judges, which the Legislature decided last year to stop funding. Houdashell said he and other judges support reducing the tax burden on property owners, but it has to be done in a way that 'doesn't cripple county governments. "The only re~son I can figure out that he (Perry) is talking about cappirig valuations is the old no-new-taxes pledge," Houdashell said. "The counties are getting made out to be the bad guys." The governor's office, on the other hand, said the 'plan is a sound effort to keep counties from chipping away at the planned property tax cut. Some officials see irony that the sta~e, with its unfunded mandates is considering a cap, pushed forward by Republicans, who have traditionally favored local control. "There's a dual irony here," said Jim Allison, general counsel for the county judges and commissioners association of Texas. "First, the increases we've experienced (in county budgets)' have been almost exclusively state-mandated. Second, this proposal appears to be based upon the premise that Austin knows best, and they're going to show local folks how to do budgets. I find it hard to believe that local folks don't know more about how to do their own budgets." State Rep. David Swinford, who has been involved in the tax talk as part of the select committee on school finance, said he long ago got out of the business of predicting what the Legislature would do. Swinford, R-Dumas, said he would like to see ,some type of flexible cap tied to inflation so valuation increase~ could be reined in without hitting the counties too hard. "The thing about it is, your county governments, they don't have any other , sources of revenue," Swi.nfo.r:d said;. "And to say you "re capping the increase, below inflation rate, that really gets them in a bind. But on the other hand, these valuations just continue to skyrocket, and they don't ever seem to back off any." Globe-News reporter Jim McBride contributed to this story.. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1 :39 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Freelance journalists says appraisal cap could cripple local governments Jennifer Nagorka: Appraisal cap could cripple local governments Dallas Morning News 12:02 AM COT on Wednesday, April 7, 2004 ,By JENNIFER NAGORKA It is an alarming overreach. While lawmakers are trying to improve how Texas funds public educat~on, Gov. Rick Perry wants to restrict local governments' , control over their tax bases. Last month;, he announced,that he wants to cap homeste~d property tax appraisal increases at 3 percent per year. The current cap is 10 percent. He also would like to limit the revenue any local government can collect from property' taxes. Both proposals would cripple all local governments' ability to raise the money they need to operate. It is like using bloodlettin~ to cure anemia. Fairness is the most important quality of any tax system, and arbitrary caps undermine it. "Caps appear to be a great thing," said Foy Mitchell, chief apptaiser for the Dallas Central ~ppraisal District. "What really happens is that homes and properties don't go up uniformly. The few,properties that do rise receive huge benefits [under caps]. The taxes they don't p~y end up being borne by everybody else." In 2003, more than 90 percent of the Dallas County properties that benefited from the current 10 percent cap were north of Interstate 30, Mr. Mitchell said. In one neighborhood of 51 homes, $25 million worth of property went untaxed because of ~he cap, he said. Averaged out, each hqme was undervalue~, ~y about.,$500,OOO for tax purposes. Each homeowner paid .$14,000 less in prop~tty taxes than ne, would have without the cap. ' Homeowners in areas where values stayed flat weren't so lucky. They paid taxes based on the full value of their properties, so they shelled out disproportionately more than homeowners who lived in fast-appreciating neighborhoods. A cap also has some of the same perverse effects as old rent-control systems. In general, landlords with rent-controlled properties could raise rents by a limited amount each year, regardless of the apartment's market value. When the old tenant left and a new one moved in, the rent jumped to market rate. Two people, living next to each other in identical apartments, could pay rents that were hundreds of dollars apart. A similar problem would occur under the proposed appraisal cap. Two identical houses on the same block could have appraisals that are tens of thousands of dollars apart merely beca~se one house changed hands recently. Each homeowner, old or new, would receive the same local services, but one would pay much more 1 for them. e e Mr. Perry's proposal wouldn't cap business property appraisals., But it would protect commercial property owners by restricting how much money local governments could raise from all property taxes, the governor's spokesman said. Still, with a cap on homestead appraisal increases, business property owners probably would wind up paying a larger share of all property taxes. The governor's plan isn't identicaL to California's Proposition 13, which capped all property tax appraisal increases at 2 percent. But the ideas are similar enough to urge great caution. Many observers blame Proposition 13 for the decline in California's once- admirable public and higher education systems. It also has made cities and counties more dependent on sales tax' revenue, said Peter Schrag, a longtime observer of Golden State politics and a columnist for The Sacramento Bee. (As Dallasites know, a dependence on sales tax collections is unhealthy because sales 'taxes can wither quickly during economic downturns.) Because of the statewide cap, the. power of local governments has diminished while the s.tate government has gained authority, he said. And the cap hasn't made housing any more affordable. His advice to Texas: "Don't do anything that California has done." Most Texans, including this one, would like prQperty tax ,increases to slow down. But they must do so in a way that doesn't starve communities and doesn't make some people pay more than their fair share. Mr. Perry's plan fails on both counts. Jennifer Nagorka is a free-lance journalist who lives in Dallas. Her e-mail address is jenriifer.nagorka@earthlink.net. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Wednesday, April 07, 20042:01 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Governor, businesses spar over tax plan April 7, 2004, '1: 14AM Perry, businesses spar over tax plan Governor defends school finance changes By JANET ELLIOTT Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- Gov. Rick Perry vows not to allow any school funding plan that hurts job growth, but businesses large and small argue'that's exactly what would happen under his proposai to tax business property separately from homes. "It doesn't make sense to lower property taxes for homeowners and leave property taxes high for businesses if what we want to do is encourage businesses to make investments in the state," said Bill Allaway, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which represents 250 companies of various sizes. Perry wants to lower school property tax rates -- now set at a maximum of $1.50 per $100 assessed valuation -- to $1.25 for homeowners and $1.40 for businesses. Over time, he would bring down the tax rate for all property owners to 75 cents. But PerrY,would leave homeowners taxes collected locally.while having commercial property taxes collected by the state and distributed equitably to districts. Perry on Tues~ay defended his plan. He said it is not a true "split roll" because the Texas Constitution would be amended to require all rates to be brought down to 75 cents. "This would be a constitutionally linked roll that links ~esidential and nonresidential business property, where the rates go down proportionally and together," said Perry. Perry insisted that his plan is gaining support, but he didn't name any businesses that are publicly backing it. Last week, 17 of the state's most influential business and trade groups sent a letter to House and Senate education chairmen opposing the idea of splitting the business and residential tax rolls. "The split roll will inevitably lead to higher property tax burdens on businesses, discouraging new investment and stifling job creation," the letter stated. The signers included several general business g~oups along with trade organizations representing electric companies, oil and gas concerns, bankers, Realtors, electronics firms and wholesale beer distributors. Perry said he's continuing to work 'with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick so he can call a special session this month to address school funding .' Last week, Dewhurst said the Senate doesn't favor Perry's incremental approach to 1 lowering property taxes. tIl Senate wants to reduce all~roperty cents immediately, a dramatic change that would cost $8 billion. taxes to 75 ,Higher sales taxes and a new, broad-based business tax to include many service industries are among options the Senate is considering to make up for the lost property tax revenue. Perry's proposal would cost $3 billion, which could be raised through higher cigarette taxes and video slot machines at racetracks. Perry noted that property taxes have risen dramatically over the past 10 decades and it's not realistic to lower them all at once. "We didn't get ourselves into this problem overnight, and I don't think you can get out of it overnight without a very, very large tax bill, and a large tax bill will have a negative impact on job creation," said Perry. Among the corporate leaders Perry met with in Houst~n on Monday was David McClanahan of CenterPoint ,Energy. A Ce,nterPoint spokesman said McClanahan was not available to comment on Perry's "plan. CenterPoint is a'member of the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, one of the groups that signed the letter opposing a split tax roll. John W. Fainter Jr., president of the association, said the member companies feel "very strongly philosophically that all taxpayers ought to be tied together." Fainter, said his association would be more likely to 'support a .general business tax to include service industries. "We've paid a lot of tax over a long time. Those who haven't paid ought to be brought to the table," said Fainter. Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, agreed that "broadening and raising the sales tax" would be an easier sell to businesses. "You would be taxing consumption rather than income or property," said Hammond. However; the state's 6.25 percent sales tax already is one of the nation's highest~ and increasing it would have more of a n~gative impact on lower-income Texans because it taxes a higher percentage of their total earnings. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, April 08, 2004 1 :27 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Grand Prairie: city feeling pressure for tax freeze; council to decide this month on permanent break for seniors City feeling pressure for tax freeze Council to 'decide this month on permanent break for seniors 07: 10 PM COT on Wednesday, April 7, ,2004 By STEPHANIE'SANDOVAL I The Dallas Morning News Grand Prairie City Council members expect to decide this month whether to freeze city property taxes for homeowners who are disabled or age 65 and older. Support for the proposal was split when members debated the merits and potential impact of the tax freeze during a briefing session Tuesday 'afternoon. But they agreed to put it to a vote at their meeting April' 20,. Facing uncertainty over how cities will be affected by tax system changes proposed as part of Texas school finance reform, some council members said they are reluctant to take any steps - including the tax freeze for seniors - that would chip away at city coffers: The worry over lost revenue even had some council members supporting a proposal to allow Ripley's Believe It or Not! and the Palace of Wax to put their logos on a new water tower, in exchange for $15,000 a year over eight 'years, despite concerns about turning the towers into permanent billboards. "We're talking about. having to come up with some other sou~ces of revenue if we're going to lose our tax dollars on senior citizens," combined with any changes that come down from the state Legislature, council member Mike Lennard said. "If we lose revenue, we're going to be a police- and fire-only city," he said. "That's ,all we're going to be able to do, is keep police and fire going. We won't have enough money for streets or parks or emergency services." But council members are facing pressure from the Grand Prairie AARP and the Golden Age seniors activities club to adopt the freeze. "The senior community is very a'nxious for ,this council to make a decision," Mayor Charles England said. "They certainly have been very professional and not been threatening at all, but I can assure you they plan to institute a petition drive. They would need about 3,000 signatures to force us to put it before the voters." Mr. England and council member Jim Swafford said there is no reason to wait until legislators rule on school finance for the council to decide on the tax freeze. "We may be waiting on that this time next year," Mr. Swafford said. "I think we owe the seniors of this town a.n answer." Overwhelming voter approval of a state constitution~l amendment last fall gave cities, counties and community college districts the authority to adopt the 1 freeze, which locks in - even if the tax rate PI~e the amount eligible homeow~rs or property values increase. pay in property taxes If the taxing jurisdiction fails to take action, residents can force a vote on the issue by gathering signatures' from 5 percent of registered voters on a petition. "We hope we can avoid the petiiion," said Marie Richie, chairwoman of the Grand Prairie AARP's tax freeze committee. "I know it's going to be yery time-consuming and a lot of work, but it is something that we're committed to do if necessary." Under the freeze, the city would lose about $73,000 in future property tax revenue for every 5 percent increase in property valuations, finance director Elizabeth Walley said. During the last decade, valuations of Grand prairie residential properties have risen nearly 40 percen~, Ms. Walley said. Like other cities, Grand Prairie offers sen,iors a special tax exemption, which the council raised from $30,000 to $45,000 in 2002. Under the exemption, eligible homeowners pay taxes on the value of their property that exceeds $45,000, Council members also considered the impact that raising the exemption or implementing a general homestead exemption - available to all homeowners on the properties they live on - would have on city revenue. Both would prove more costly. Raising the senior exemption to $50,000 would cost the city about $126,000 a year, Ms. Walley said. And implementing a general homestead exemptio~ of 1 percent would cost the city about $765;000 a year. Residents age 65 and older own 4,444 homes, Ms., Walley said. 2 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:23 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us North Texas leaders gather to condemn Perry tax-cap plan North Texas leaders gather to condemn, Perry tax-cap plan 06:43 PM COT on Wednesday, April 7, 2004 By BRAD WATSON / WFAA-TV "No cap on taxes." That was the message Wednesday from elected leaders across North Texas who oppose Governor Rick Perry's plan to cap property appraisals as a form of tax relief. Top leaders from Dallas, Tarrant, Denton and Collin counties met at a fire station near d9wntown Dallas to sound an alarm. ~'We all have one unified strong message for the governor: please don't do'this to us," ~aid Dallas mayor Laura Miller. As a way to give property tax relief, the governor's plan would not let home appraisals go up more than three percent a year - a drop from the ~urrent ten percent cap. Local government spending could only increase based on inflation and population growth. "I think it might be wise, for them n6tto jump out in opposition to a plan their constituents mi~ht like a whole lot," Perry said. . However, cities and counties said a hard cap on appraisals and spending would mean cuts to services, and that Texas should learn from when California capped appraisals under Proposition 13. "I would suggest to you that the state of Texas doesn't want to be a bankrupt state like Ca~ifornia," said Collin,County judge Ron Harris. North Texas city and county officials said the Perry plan would give the average homeowner about $10 a year ~r less in tax relief -'and they question its fairness. The homeowner who keeps a house many years would see appraisals capped at just three percent a year, but a similar home, when sold, would be appraised at full market value, w~th the new owner paying higher taxes. "He's trying to tell you and sell you "tax relief, but all he's offering is pocket change," said Fort Worth mayor Mike Moncrief. After standing together, the ,local officials all signed a letter to Governor Perry, ~elling him they will fight his plan ~n a special session of the Legislature. Under the governor's 'plan, local governments co~ld.only spend beyond limits if voters approve. Perry's plan would not cap business property. 1 ,...... The Texas Associa~ion of ASSWg Officers has learned that Govemorick Perry held a ... Page 1 of2 Alexander, Cynthia From: Donna Harbers [donna@taao.org] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:34 PM To: AlexC!nderc@CLLa-Porte.Tx.Us ' Subject: [TAAO] Governor Proposes Plan to Cut Property Taxes The Texas Associati,on of Assessing Officers has learned that Governor Rick Perry held a press conference at 12:45 p.m. today in San Antonio to announce his new property tax relief plan for school finance. Complete text of the announcement follows. If you'd like to give us feedback for the June issue of the TAN magazine, email liz@taao.org If you'd like to talk to your legislator about Perry's announcement, you can find the complete list of legislators here http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyLhtm To learn more about Gov. Perry's Educational Excellence initiatives visit http://~.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/education/ Governor Proposes Comprehensive Plan To Cut Property Taxes and Increase Funding to Schools Plan Increases Equity, Boosts Funding by Average of $375 per Student SAN ANTONIO - Gov. Rick Perry today announced a comprehensive Educational Excellence and Equity Plan that will cut school property taxes by $6 billion, pump $2.5 billion new dollars into public schools, 'significantly increase funding equity, and preserve Texas' strong job creation climate. ' "My plan offers Texans a fiscally responsible approach: It invests an additional $2.5 billion in education excellence and it gives millions of Texas homeowners who are over-taxed an immediate $3.2 billion - or 17 percent - average reduction in school property taxes," Perry said. The governor's plan also provides additional revenues for other education and tax cut measures. Highlights of the school finance portion of Perry's plan include: . $2.5 billion in new funding for public schools, including the $1 billion per biennium Perry previously proposed in incentive-based rewards to schools that demonstrate excellence in the classroom. The Governor also is recommending that the one-time $150 per student funding granted in 2003 be continued, for a total school funding package of $3.7 billion. . $3.2 billion to reduce residential property tax rates by 17 percent, thereby erasing a decade's worth 'of property tax increases for homeowners. . Additional tax savings of $3.3 billion for homeowners and employers over the next biennium from Perry's appraisal and revenue caps on school property taxes. . An average increase of $375 per student in funding to school districts for the 2006-07 school year (on top of the one-time $150 per st!)dent funding). " ., ~ ,",. , . . , " : . " . ' Increased equity in'public schools, wifh 98 pe~cent ofstude:nls in th~ equ'alized ,system - a'slg'nificant increase in equity over the current system. The increased equity includes $ 1.2 billion to raise the guaranteed . 'yield to $29.50 per student by 2007 and $100 m,illion per biennium to provide additional help for students who speak a language other than English when they enter school. . Increase in the state's ~hare of education funding. . A constitutionally linked. tax base that will provide the foundation for additional school property tax cuts in the future and guarantee employers that their property tax rates will be reduced as residential rates are, reduced. . Preservation of the state's healthy job creation climate with revenue sources that do not make educatio.n gains at the expense of jobs. The constitutionally linked tax base will allow local residential property tax dollars to remain in 10ca'I communities and be spent on local schools, by local leaders, Perry said. Business, industrial and commercial property taxes will 'become part of a new statewide employer property tax base, and those dollars will be allocated to school districts across the state. "My plan will immediately raise the state's share of pUQlic education funding to about 60 percent and lower local districts' share to 40 percent," Perry noted. ' Under his constitutionally linked tax roll, Perry's plan will: 4/8/2004 The Texas Association of Asslng Officers has learned that Govemorick Perry held a ... Page 2 of2 · Provide an immediate 25 cent reduction in school property tax rates for residential payers. · Set a statewide school property tax rate for employers at$1.40 per $100 of valuation. · Establish new caps on school property of $1.25 for residences and $1.40 for businesses. Under the constitutionally linked tax roll, all residential taxpayers and most employers will see a tax cut. School districts will be allowed to seek voter approval for local enrichment, but that enrichment cannot exceed 5 cents per two-year budget cycle beginning in 2007 for a maximum of 15 cents. The governor's plan also provides the framework for additional property tax cuts in future years and more money for schools in future years. It does so by constitutionally dedicating one-third of future state budget surpluses to buying down school property tax rates until rates eventually reach to 75 cents for homeowners and employers, a third for increased funding of schools, and a third for other state priorities. "That means in times of economic growth, Texas homeowners and employers will see their school property tax rates go down even further, and Texas public schools will get additional resources," Perry said. Perry said that his constitutionally linked tax roll is "vastly different" from what some call a split tax roll because it prevents tax burdens from being shifted to the job sector, as, has happened in states with true split tax rolls. Perry's plan to cap residential property tax appraisals at 3 percent and limit growth in property tax revenues to inflation plus population growth will also provide Texans an additional $3.3 billion in tax savings in the next, biennium and $24.6 billion in tax savings over the next six years. ' perry'said he will pay for his plan through a variety of revenue sources that target tax fairness, unhealthy behaviors or voluntary actions. His revenue proposals include a $1 per pack cigarette tax hike, fees on adult entertainment, closing the franchise and auto sales tax loopholes, and - if Texas voters approve - video lottery at specified venues. ' "I believe we can reform our school finance system without a major tax hike, without a broad based business tax, and without an across-the-board rate hike on the existing sales tax base," Perry said. "I will further protect Texans by opposing a personal inc::ome tax in any shape or form - to the disappointment of those who are calling for one." Perry said his funding plan offers "a fine balance" of providing homeowner tax relief without implementing broad- based jcib-killing taxes. ' Perry said he will continue to work with legislat~rs ,i,n.,seeking the consensus he believes is necessary bef~re calling the legislature back'into..sess'ion. ' '. '. ' ,,"" , . " " Perry previously has proposed a Taxpayer Protection Plan and Educational Excellence Incentives that are part of his. comprehensive Educational Excellence and Equity Plan. U~der the Taxpayer Protection Plan, local taxing entities would be prohibited from raising appraisals ,on residential properties by more than 3 percent a year. Local taxing entities also would be required to seek voter approval if they want to raise more revenue from property taxes than what is needed to meet inflation and population growth. To balance the revenu~ cap, Perry said he will. support efforts to prohibit the legislature from passing unfunded state mandates on local entities. ' Perry also has proposed a seven-point Educational Excellence Incentive that will provide $500 million a year in new funding for schools and refocus attention from minimum expectations to maximum achievement. "My comprehensive plan will take Texas down the pathway to prosperity, a place that balances job creation and education, without harming one in the name of the other," Perry said. "It is a blueprint for progress that improves our schools, preserves the job climate and protects Texans' wallets." 4/8/2004 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Friday, April 09, 2004 1 :42 AM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us Longview: paper not impressed with school reform plan by governor Longview News-Journal Editorial... 04-09-04, Governor's plan sidesteps solid reform' For many years - well more than a decade, some would say educators, politicians and Texans in general have agreed that the state is in need of an innovative, comprehensive overhaul of the way it funds public schools. During that' time the. debate has raged over equity in school fundi~g, over sources for school funding and over the declining level of the state's share of school funding. The debate has,ebbed and flowed over the years, with some key state leaders shifting their positions to the point that the storied Bob Bullock - the former lieutenant governor who later formed a unique bi-partisan alliance with then Gov. George W. Bush did an apparent turnaround on the idea of a state income tax to fund schools: In the early 19905, Bullock first floated the idea of such a tax to resolve the school funding dilemma. But when he got no support from Gov. Ann Richards or other state leaders, he then championed the passage of an amendment that bars an income tax except to fund public schools and then only if approved by Texas voters. Bullock's proposal was handily approved by Texas voters and has effectively kept the idea of an income tax "off the table" in any school funding debate, since then. Later, Bush,himself was willing to overhaul the tax system, but a plan he favored ,. died for lack of s~pport in the' Texas ~egislature. That,left the state with l'ittle option other than to 'stick with"the'nbw,,reVfied-"Robin Hood" system of shifting local property tax revenues from "property rich" school districts to "property poor" districts. So now, with all of that historical context, comes Gov. Rick Perry with his much- ant~clpated plan to reshape the, state's approach to school funding. One would think that after waiting almost a year since he allowed school finance to take a backseat to a wracking partisan dispute over congressional redistricting, he might have had time to huddle with innovators and farsighted planners to piece together a plan that really evidences insight and depth. Instead, he spent time in the Bahamas earlier this year with a noted tax foe and key supporters of diverting public funds to private schools in the form of vouchers. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn that the governor's .program stands out primarily in its innovative approach to sidestepping a sound foundation ,for school funding. 1 e e Let's face it (even if the governor won't), any school funding plan that substantially eases the reliance on local property tax bills is going to require major shifts in state taxes. Even with an income tax off the table, we need to accept the fact that the state needs to find a significant, reliable source of tax revenues to not only replace local property taxes, but supplement them. Even leading,members of the governor's own Republican Party agree this is needed. Instead, the governor offers Texans a cobbled list of potential revenue sources including - can you believe this? - a new $5 fee (not a tax) on patrons visiting adult entertainment venues. A fee on strip joints to fund our schools? Whee doggie, there .goes a key block of voters. As expected, the plan also includes the idea of allowing the establishment and taxation of video gambling at race tracks ,around the state. And new to the table is the idea of changing state law to allow lottery ticket sales at resataurants, bars and even with charge' cards at'the gas pump for added convenience. Why not en~ance the plan and let credit counseling services and alcohol rehab' centers advertise, their services right on the lottery tickets? 'Tthe good news is Perry's plan would roll the property tax cap on residential property from $1.50 per $100 of assessed value down to $1.25. ,The'bad news, is that the ro~lback far less than various legislators' suggestions of cutting the cap by half or more. In addition, Perry's plan calls for a split property tax roll, with the state levying property taxes on businesses with a cap of $1.40. The split tax roll is being proposed because it wo~ld allow the state to use business property tax revenues to assure funding equity between various school . districts. Although the rollback in the maximum property tax rates is less than others have sought, Perry's plan calls for them to be rolled back to ~s low as 75 cents per $100 eventually. The idea is, to '"buy down" the pioperty tax rates with future state budget surpluses. The problem with such a plan is that it mirrors what Bush once touted as a major tax cut while he was still governor. After an initial reduction in property tax rates, however, they once again began'to'rise to the current cap. Instead 9f' ha..vi,ng a surplus wi, t:h which ,to '!buy down" local taxes, the state last ,,:y'~ar actually facedade~icit and was forced.to, among other things, cut in half the supplemental health-care payments it had approved for teachers just two years earlier. Beyond the video gam~ng proposal, one of the few Perry ideas that resembles ideas rising out of the Texas Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance is a proposal to close loopholes'in the franchise tax on businesses. That loophole allows many companies, including the Longview News-Journal, to avoid paying the primary state business tax. It should be closed. Another point in the governor's plan that deserves recognition is that it at least pays lip service to the idea that there is a need to inject more funds into the system. We say "lip service" because the plan's foundation i~ so shaky. Adding $1 to cigarette taxes and $5 to the cover charge at adult entertainment establishments might have some social benefits, but such taxes won't raise much money if smokers give up the habit .and voyeurs start staying home. For the most part, the plan seems to fit the admittedly partisan description of state Democratic chairman Charles Soechting who called it a "patchwork of 2 proposals" on Thursday. e e Before dismissing Soechting's criticisms, we believe it will be interesting to hear what members of the governor's own party have to say about the program he outlined Thursday. We're not really expecting a strong wave of support~ We believe that leaders in both parties were hoping for better from the governor. But frankly, we can't say we were expecting any better. There are a few glimmers of sense in Perry's plan, but perhaps the greatest reason for hope is that a~though he has not set a date, there are indications that we will soon get one for a 'special session of the Texas Legislature. Based on what we have heard from some members of the Joint Select 'Committee and others in Austin, there's still a chance that we get sound reforms that don't dance around the issue, but tackle it head-on. Until then, we can spend our time cracking wise about "Whiskey Bend" taxes and complaining about political leaders wil,ling to gamble on the education of. Texas children. r 3 e e Alexander, Cynthia From: Sent: To: Subject: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [citybase@mclaindss.com] Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 PM alexanderc@cLla-porte.tx.us , Dallas: paper says governor cannot ignore tax cap concerns of local officials Editorial: Don't'Do It Governor, can't ignore concerns of local officials 06:11 PM CDT on Saturday, April 10, 2004 The message couldn't be more clear: "Gov. Rick Perry, please don't do this to us." That's what elected officials from Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant counties said last week at a Dallas news conference to protest the latest school financing proposal to come out of Austin. The plan to give homeowne:r;s tax relief would cap annual increases in property appraisals at 3 percent - down from a current cap of 10 percent - and limit the revenue local governments can ~aise without a vote. The governor should not ignore arguments fr9m Collin County Judge Ron Harris, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and others that his plan would reduce homeowners' tax burden only slightly, while leaving North Texas' cities strapped for cash at a' time when their populations are skyrocketing. We agree. And it is fitting that Mr. Barris has taken a leadership role in the fight against Gov.' Perry's ill-conceived version of tax relief in his school finance package. Collin Co~nty has a lot to lose under a proposal.that would force cities to make millions of dollars in cuts to vital services. This region's popu~ation has been,growing by an average of 150,000 new residents annually for the last four years, according to the North 'Central Texas Council of Governments. Eight of the 16 regional cities that grew by at least 10 percent last year were in Collin County. The lower cap would prevent those cities fro~ raising and spending what is needed .- to rna'intain operations, attract major companies and bring more jpbs to ,the area. The new rules would also place the power 'to decide how to fund local needs in the hands of people miles away in Austin. Had Gov. Perry's plan been in effect for the last decade, homeowners in Collin County would have received average savings of just over '$90 - or about 77 cents a month - and those savings 'would have come at the expense of improvements to parks, roads and other services 'provided by the cities and the county. Texas needs a new financing plan for its schools, but that plan should not include an unreasonable tax cap that would rob cities of their ability to finance themselves or make local decisions about local needs. Leave the cap where it. is. A~ Mr. Harris put it, when the car is broken, fix the 'car, not the refrigerator. 1 It e PER STUDENT SPENDING: Each student would get an Perry's plan would not i~cr~ase per-student ~pendin.g in 1=1 Paso , :~~~t~~7~im and other large urban districts, Strayhorn said. And. It would only cut or her. , .school property taxes by $204 -- less than $20 a month -- and less than half of what Perry contends it would save taxpayers, Strayhorn charged. . Borderland Tuesday, April 20, 2004 School funding clash Comptroller says Perry plan would create $10 billion deficit Gary Scharrer' Austin Bureau AUSTIN:-- Gov. Rick Perry made a rare appearance Monday before a legislative committee to tout his school finance plan, which state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn criticized hours later as a proposal that 'would create a $10 biHion deficit. ' Texas lawmakers return to the C.apitol today for a special session on school finance. Perry, told lawmakers that he is looking for consensus, not combat. "Who doesn't want to cut property taxes, increase funding for schools and make funding more,equitable?" Perry asked the Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance. But Perry's proposal does not do that, the comptroller charged in a rapidly escalating attack a'gainst his leadership. "Its financial inadequacies, while stupendous -- creating a deficit of more than .$10 billion over the next five years -- is only surpassed ' by its policy inadequacies and failure to address the school. . financing crisi~," Strayhorn said. . The governor shrugged off the comptroller's harsh assessment of his plan. ,', "I don't have the time, and I don't think the schoolchildren or the taxpayers have the time to be distracted with that type of debate," Perry said. . http://cgi.elpasotimes.com/cgi-bin/advprint/print.cgi What Perry says PROPERTY TAXES: Perry said his plan would cut them by $418 a year on an "average" Texas home valued at $167,000. COST OF CUTS: Property tax cuts would cost $3.4 billion. EQUALIZED, FUNDING: 98 percent of children would be in an equalized funding system. What Page 1 of3 4/20/2004 e. The governor challenged Strayhorn, or anyone else, to produce a plan that eliminates the share-the-wealth, or Robin Hood, system; cuts and controls school property taxes; and increases education spending without jeopardizing the state's business climate. Strayhorn has not offered a school funding plan. More than half of the state's 1,041 school districts have reached their taxing limit. Eight of EI Paso's nine school districts are at the $1.50 tax rate per $100 property valuation and cannot increase revenue for school maintenanGe and operations. Perry's plan has yet to attract legislative support, and the comptroller's strong denundation of the governor's proposal probably dooms it, some lawmakers said. Perry's plan would "perpetuate inequality," Strayhorn said. "Most importantly, the governor's plan replaces Robin Hood with robbing everybody. It takes taxpayers out for separate muggings," she said. Anyone can spout an opinion, Perry countered. "That's what this debate is all about. I don't think there's room for partisan bickering or political combat," Perry said. "This is the time' for us really to come together and work in a positive way to create a public school funding plan and give us some property tax relief for the taxpayers. "It is a good plan. It may not be a perfect plan and if someone has a better idea and a better plan, please come forward. I happen to think it is the best plan," F?erry said. e Strayhorn says PROPERTY TAXES: Strayhorn says the plan would cut only $204 in taxes on an "average" home because the average value is $97,000. PER STUDENT . SPENDING: The plan would ,not boost spending at all next year; only $10 a student in 2006; and $53 in 2007. COST OF CUTS: $4.2 billion. EQUALIZED FUNDING: '85 percent would be in such a system. .. , -' Later, Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said Strayhorn's "rhetoric continues to " grow meaner as her grasp of policy matters ,grows leaner." . "Her doomsday projections appear to be based on fuzzy math. As one example, she incorrectly overcharges the state by $2.88 billion a biennium to eliminate Robin Hood," Walt said. "Legislators undoubtedly will have difficulty determining what they can believe from an official who -- among other miscounts -- missed the 2003 revenue shortfall estimate by 100 percent, significantly underestimated current sales tax revenues and missed her own tax amnesty revenue estimates by 658 percent." Strayhorn and Perry, both Republicans, could be sparring in the 2006 Republican primary. Strayhorn has not announced her candidacy for governor but noted that Perry's property tax cuts would take effect just three months before the 2006, primary. ' , http://cgLelpasotimes.com/cgi -bin/advprint/print.cgi Page 2 of3 4/20/2004 e ,e , Strayhorn's analysis probably indicates lawmakers will be unable to solve the problem in a single 3D-day session, Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-EI Paso, said. , "If her numbers are correct, I would say (Perry's) plan is probably dead on arrival," he said. But members will scrutinize the numbers of every school finance plan before them, he said. There is no consensus on how to fix the state's school funding system, Haggerty, said. Nor is there any agreement on an approach. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and many senators prefer a comprehensive and permanent solution. But Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Businesses, urged a legislative committee Monday to move incrementally, such as the governor's plan proposes. "We support a more gradual approach. We don't need to do this all in one session," he said.- "Make a down payment and proceed as the economy recovers." EI Paso County Judge Dolores Briones and other Texas county officials and mayors complained to the Texas Joint Select Committee on Public School' Finance that Perry's proposal to cap property appraisals at 3 percent would cripple them. "My constituents want lower taxes, but I almost never hear much about willingness for us to cut services," Briones said. "Instead, I hear requests for more services, better services, or the services they think families in another part of the county gets." . , Lawmakers must not "shut-the"doors on "counties meetingthein::onstitutional duties to provide certain basic services to their families," she said. Gary Scharrer may be reached at gscharrer@elpasotimes.com: (512) 479-6606. Copyright @ 2001 EI Paso Times. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 8/10/2001) http://cgi.elpasotimes.com/cgi -bin/advprint/print.cgi Page 3 of3 4/20/2004