HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-09 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
e
e
.
.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:00 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilmembers Chuck Engelken, Barry Beasley,
James Warren, Bruce Meismer, Mike Mosteit, Peter Griffiths, Charlie Young and Mayor
Pro Tern Howard Ebow
Members of Council Absent: Mayor Norman Malone
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Attorney Knox
Askins, Acting City Manager John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins, Director
of Finance Cynthia Alexander, Assistant Director of Finance Michael Dolby, Director of
Emergency Services Joe Sease, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Assistant City Secretary
Sharon Harris, Police Chief Richard Reff, Director of Public Works Steve Gillett, Director
of Administrative Services Carol Buttler, Director of Planning Doug Kneupper,
BudgetJInvestment Officer Shelley Wolny, Fire Marshal Paul Hickenbottom,
Administrative Secretary Susan Turner, Receptionist Deputy Clerk Rose Hall, Meter
Reader Supervisor Sonny Rowlett, Systems Administrator Al Owens, Lieutenant Carl
Crisp, Human Resources Manager Lorie Doughty, Fire Chief Mike Boaze, Survey Party
Chief Richard Spicer, Public Inspection Coordinator Reagan McPhail, Human Resources
Specialist Kendra Williams and Sergeant Tammy McBeath
Others Present: Sue Gale Mock Kooken, Kay Scott, Bill Scott, Irene Hensley, Charles
Gilliam, Dave Turnquist, Mike Turner, Penny Garcia, Rudy Garcia, Amanda Kempf,
Jayme Reiss, Nick Barrera, Jonathan Gonzalez, Jaime Cannon, Brandon Bunch, Chris
Comperry, Christina McCrea, Krystle Clement, Yadiva Martinez, John Walker, Ashley
Thurman, Barbara Norwine, Jennifer Rice, Krystle Westergren, Priscilla Longoria,
Jennifer Longoria, Robin Duckett, Kellie Comellius, Adam Brown, Kathleen France, A. 1.
France, Charles Underwood, Colleen Hicks, Delia Claus and a number of other citizens.
2. Reverend Alan Neel of Life Community Church delivered the invocation.
3. Mayor Pro Tern Ebow led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Council considered approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the La Porte City
Council held on August 26, 2002.
Motion was made bv Councilmember Warren to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of the La Porte City Council held on August 26. 2002. Second by
Councilmember Meismer. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Warren, Beasley, Griffiths, Meismer, Mosteit and Young
Nays: None
Abstain: Ebow
.
.
City Council Minu~es 9-9-02 - Page 2
5. PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Pro Tern Howard Ebow presented Imogene Pulleine with a proclamation
recognizing "Constitution Week", September 17 through 23,2002.
Mayor Pro Tern Ebow recognized retiree, Carrie Whitburn, for her twenty years of service
with the City.
Mayor Pro Tern Ebow recognized employees, Richard Spicer and Brian Sterling, as the
"Employees of the Quarter" for the 2nd Quarter of 2002.
Mayor Pro Tern Ebow presented employees, James Evans and Mike Turner, with
"Employee Recognition" for their aide to a fellow citizen.
6. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND
TAXP AYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL
Kay Scott of 1802 Lomax School Road, La Porte, Texas, voiced her concerns regarding
ordinance violations for enforcing the number of cattle allowed on property; a video was
shown on the subject.
Bill Scott of 1802 Lomax School Road, La Porte, Texas, provided the City with a handout;
and voiced his concerns regarding the feedlot next to their home.
Irene Hensley of202 N. Nugent, La Porte, Texas, informed City Council of her concerns
with the manner in which the Police Department searched her home on August 14,2002.
Charles Gilliam of 202 N. Nugent, La Porte, Texas, voiced his concerns regarding his
arrest and the search of his grandmother's home; he is now missing some personal items.
Mr. Gilliam would like the case removed from the hands of the La Porte Police
Department.
Penny Garcia of 311 0 Oaken Lane, La Porte, Texas, voiced her concerns regarding the
skateboard ramps on Fairmont Park Baptist Church property behind her home, plus the
drainage problems. Ms Garcia provided Council with photographs of the property.
7. Open Public Hearing - Mayor Pro Tern opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Review by Staff - Director of Finance Cynthia Alexander presented summary and
recommendation and answered questions regarding adopting the 2002-2003 Budget
Ordinance.
Bill Scott of 1802 Lomax School Road, La Porte, Texas, compared the City of Deer Park's
budget with the City of La Porte's budget. Mr. Scott pointed out that La Porte salaries are
much higher.
Recommendation of Staff - Recommends approval.
Mayor Pro Tern Ebow closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m.
.
.
City Council Minutes 9-9-02 - Page 3
8. The Council considered adopting an ordinance approving the fiscal year 2002-03 Budget.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2002-2584 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, FOR THE
PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2003; FINDING THAT
ALL THINGS REQUISITE AND NECESSARY HAVE BEEN DONE IN
PREPARATION AND PRESENTMENT OF SAID BUDGET; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTNE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Council member Young to approve the Ordinance as presented bv Ms
Alexander. Second by Councilmember Beasley. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Warren, Beasley, Ebow, Meismer, Mosteit and Young
Nays: None
Abstain: Griffiths
9. Council considered approval or other action regarding a resolution for acceptance of the
appraisal roll.
Director of Finance Cynthia Alexander presented summary and recommendation and
answered Council's questions.
City Attorney read: RESOLUTION 2002-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS; ADOPTING THE 2002
APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
Motion was made bv Councilmember Engelken to approve the resolution as presented bv
Ms Alexander. Second by Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Warren, Young, Griffiths, Meismer, Mosteit, Ebow and Beasley
Nays: None
}\bstain: ~one
10. Council considered approval or other action regarding approval of an ordinance
establishing the tax rate for fiscal year 2002-03 at 71 cents per hundred-dollar valuation.
Finance Director Cynthia Alexander presented summary and recommendation and
answered Council's questions.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2002-2585 - AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES
UPON TAXABLE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION
IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT
OF SAID CITY OF LA PORTE; FINDING THAT ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE
BEEN PUBLISHED AND ALL REQUIRED HEARINGS HELD; CONTAINING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTNE DATE HEREOF.
.
.
City Council Minutes 9-9-02 - Page 4
Motion was made by Councilmember Warren to approve the ordinance as presented by
Ms Alexander. Second by Councilmember Mosteit. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Warren, Young, Griffiths, Meismer, Mosteit, Ebow and Beasley
Nays: None
Abstain: None
11. Council considered approval or authorization ofa committee to review City Council's
Travel Policy.
Mayor Norman Malone presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's
questions.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2002-2577 - AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING A
COMMITIEE TO REVIEW THE COUNCIL TRAVEL POLICIES; SUSPENDING
CITY PAYMENT OF COUNCIL SPOUSAL TRAVEL EXPENSES; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTNE
DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Beasley to approve the committee as presented by
Mayor Malone. Second by Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Young, Griffiths, Meismer, Mosteit, Ebow, Beasley and Warren
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Travel Policy Committee Members are as follows:
Rod Rothermal, Chairperson
Troy Burmaster, At Large-A
Alton Porter, At Large-B
Harry Fuller, District 1
Nick Barrera, District 2
Paula Bridges, District 3
Juliet Daniel, District 4
Lindsay Pfeiffer, District 5
Douglas Martin, District 6
12. Council considered approval or other action regarding authorization to approve members
to the La Porte Redevelopment Authority and Tax. Reinvestment Zone Number One.
Mayor Norman Malone presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's
questions.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2002-2586 - AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING
MEMBERS TO V ARlOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES, OF THE
CITY OF LA PORTE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; CONTAINING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS
LAW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTNE DATE HEREOF.
.
.
City Council Minutes 9-9-02 - Page 5
Motion was made bv Councilmember Warren to approve the ordinance as presented bv
Mavor Malone. Second by Councilmember Engelken. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Warren, Young, Griffiths, Meismer, Mosteit, Beasley and Ebow
Nays: None
Abstain: None
La Porte Redevelopment Authority and Tax Reinvestment Zone Number One Committee
Members are as follows:
Alton Porter, Chairperson
Paul Larson, Position 2
Horace Leopard, Position 4
Lindsay Pfeiffer, Position 6
Chester Pool, Position 8
13. Administrative Reports
Acting City Manager John Joerns reminded Council of the tentative date of September 17,
2002 to receive a draft report from the independent auditor.
Mr. Joerns reminded Council of the Chamber Annual Steak Cookout on September 12,
2002; the Health and Safety Awareness Fair at the Recreation and Fitness Center on
September 13, 2002; the Celebration of Our Heroes at Sylvan Beach Pavilion on
September 19,2002; the Council Retreat on September 27 and 28, 2002; and the TML
Conference in Fort Worth, Texas on October 16 through 19,2002.
14. Council Comments
Councilmembers Griffiths, Beasley, Warren, Young, Meismer, Mosteit, Ebowand
Engelken brought items to Council's attention.
Mr. Meismer noted he wanted the minutes to reflect he requested an Executive Session be
placed on the agenda to review the ongoing issues for the past three meetings.
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, 551.086, TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE - (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY,
DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, DELIBERATION
REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION, PERSONNEL MATTERS,
DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES, OR EXCLUDING A
WITNESS DURING EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN
INVESTIGATION, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS)
There was not an Executive Session.
16. CONSIDERATIONS AND POSSffiLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN
EXECUTWE SESSION
There was no action taken.
.
.
City Council Minutes 9-9-02 - Page 6
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting and
Public Hearing were duly adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
<--tVJ/)J I J-IIAJ:tt ~
Martha ~
City Secretary
Passed and approved on this the 23rd day of September 2002.
<&~
e
e
e
e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Appropriation
Requested By: C nthia lB. Alexander
Source of Funds: N/A
Department: Finance
Account Number: N/A
Report:
Resolution: XX Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Exhibits:
Amount Requested: N/A
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The City Council held budget workshops on August 19 and 20, 2002 to discuss proposed budgets for the
fiscal year beginning October 1,2002 and ending September 30,2003.
The Summary of Funds, which is shown below, represents the result of the workshops held with City
Council. All changes made by Council were incorporated into the various budgets.
General Fund
HotellMotel Occupancy Tax
Economic Development
La Porte Development Corporation
Tax Increment and Reinvestment Zone
Utility
Sylvan Beach
Airport
La Porte Area Water Authority
Golf Course
Motor Pool
Computer Fund
Employee Health Services
General Capital Improvement
Utility Capital Improvement
Sewer Rehabilitation Capital Improvement
Infrastructure Fund
I 998 General Obligation Bond Fund
2000 General Obligation Bond Fund
2000 Certificates of Obligation Bond Fund
2002 General Obligation Bond Fund
General Debt Service
Utility Debt Service
La Porte Area Water Authority Debt Service
Total of All Funds
$ 26,187,582
214,100
400,000
2,609,333
30,500
6,752,241
216,199
51,673
1,115,731
1,196,106
2,20 I ,583
239,527
3,804,858
1,850,250
920,000
672,381
300,000
50,000
975,000
315,730
4,850,000
2,414,046
726,463
783.019
$ 58,876,322
There is no change in the Tax Rate, which has remained constant for the last ten years; nor are there any
changes in residential water and sewer rates.
e
e
Action Required bv Council:
ACTION REQUIRED BY COUNCIL: Adopt Ordinance Approving Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget.
Approved for City Council Aeenda
~ ff) ~~
-Q'le
e
e
THE STATE OF TEXAS)
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
CITY OF LA PORTE)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of La Porte'
will hold a Public Hearing on the 9th day of September 2002, in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas,
beginning at 6:00 P.M. The purpose of this hearing is to provide citizens the
opportunity to comment on the overall budget.
The City of La Porte, must, by Charter requirement, adopt its fiscal
budget by September 30, 2002. Within thirty days thereafter, copies of the
adopted budget will be available for public inspection and copying at the
office of the City Secretary, City Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La
Porte, Texas, and the La Porte Community Library, 600 South Broadway, La
Porte, Texas, during normal business hours.
CITY OF LA PORTE
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
e e
ORDINANCE NO. 02- ~ S~ If
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS,
FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2003; FINDING THAT ALL
THINGS REQUISITE AND NECESSARY HAVE BEEN DONE IN PREPARATION AND PRESENTMENT
OF SAID BUDGET; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of La Porte, Texas, and the Statutes of the State of Texas, require that
an annual budget be prepared and presented to the City Council of the City of La Porte, Texas, prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year of said City, and that a public hearing be held prior to the adoption of said
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the Budget for the fiscal year October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, has heretofore
been presented to the City Council and due deliberation had thereon, was filed in the office of the City
Secretary on August 12, 2001, and a public hearing scheduled for September 9, 2002 was duly advertised
and held.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
SECTION 1: That the Budget for the City of La Porte, Texas, now before the said City Council for
consideration, a complete copy of which is on file with the City Secretary and attached hereto by reference
as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted as the Budget for the said City of La Porte, Texas, for the period of
October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003.
SECTION 2: Be it FURTHER ORDAINED, that the said City Council finds that all things requisite and
necessary to the adoption of said Budget have been performed as required by charter or statute.
SECTION 3: 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, 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 4: This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 9th day of September, 2002.
~TYOF~~RTE,TEXAS
\~~ -~~ 6'"L-'~J20.-)~.
Norman Malone, Mayor -)
e
e
e
e
RlEQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 9, 2002
Appropriation
Requested By: Cynthia B. Alexander
Source of Funds: N/A
Department: Finance
Account Number: N/A
Report:
Resolution: XX Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Exhibits:
Amount Requested: N/A
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
On August 12, 2002, the City of La Porte received the Certified Appraisal Roll from the Harris County
Appraisal District.
Section 26.04 of the State Property Tax Code requires the submission of the Appraisal Roll to the
Governing Body.
The 2002 Certified T ax Roll for the City of La Porte, as received from the Harris County Appraisal
District (HCAD), shows a total appraised value of $1,671,098,380 and a total taxable value of
$1,432,858,080.
Action Required bv Council:
Approve Resolution for acceptance of the appraisal roll.
Approved for City Council Ae:enda
, Acting City Manager
Ff~
Date
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 02-3..3.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE 2002
APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Harris County Appraisal District has submitted to the City Council of the City of La Porte, for
approval, the 2002 tax appraisal roll; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the 2002 appraisal roll with the amounts shown therein
should be adopted;
WHEREAS, the Harris County Appraisal District has reported to the City Council that there was situated in
the City of La Porte, as of January 1,2002, property with a total appraised value of $1 ,671,098,380 and a
total taxable value of $1 ,432,858;080.
WHEREAS, new personal property added to the appraisal roll had a total taxable value of $2,548,000 as of
January 1, 2002; .
BE IT RESOLVED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, THAT:
Section 1. the 2002 taxable roll in the amount of $1,432,858,080, as submitted by the Harris County
Appraisal District is hereby adopted;
Section 2. the City Council officially finds, determines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice of
the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was posted at a place convenient to the
public at the offices of City of La Porte for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by
the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to
the public as required by law at all times during which this resolution and the subject matter thereof has
been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and
confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 9th day of September, 2002.
I
CITY OF LA P?\~~TEXAS
\<~aJ~~ ;''vV1t~,/ot -Pw'\~
Norman Malone, Mayor
ATTEST:
'ill!~ffa JA$LI'
Mart a Gille ,City Secretary
APP~: j/ /
l/<~4]l- a . W~
Knox Askins, City Attorney
e
Harrise>unty Appraisal District
2800 North Loop West, Houston, Texas
Telephone: (713) 812-5800
Information Center: (713) 957-7800
071
Mal I ing Address:
OFFICE OF CHIEF APPRAISER
".0. Box 920975
.ouston, :rx 77292-0975
ID).~~~~~~!~
~ I AUG 12 20021~
CITY OF LA PORTE
AUGUST 12, 2002
KATHERINE POWELL
TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR
CITY OF LA PORTE
POBOX 1115
LA PORTE TX 77571-1115
Dear Mrs. Powell:
On August 9, 2002, the Appraisal Review Board approved the 2002 appraisal records under Section
41.12; Tax Code. These records, as approved, constitute this year's appraisal roll for the Harris County
Appraisal D'i.strict.
Following approval, pursuant to Section 26.01 (a) of the code, the chief appraiser certifies to each taxing
unit that part of the approved 2002 appraisal roll which contains properties taxable by the unit. My
certification for your unit is enclosed.
Please note that the certificate sets out two 'amounts. First, I have summarized the total market value
and the taxable value of all approved accounts included on your certified roll. Second, I have listed my
estimate of the taxable value which will be assigned to accounts currently under protest if the owners'
claims are upheld by the appraisal r~view board. These accounts are listed on the paper hard copy of
your roll with a flag of "HTS" and a vafue of "0", but are not il"\cluded on your certified appraisal roll tape.
Your certified roll includes, as of the date of ARB approval, values for those accounts on which no
protest was filed, those on which a late protest was filed without "good cause" as determined by the ARB,
and those on which a timely-filed or "good cause" late protest has been determined.
Your certified roll does not include the value of accounts still under protest (HTS); accounts on PTS on
which the valuation is incomplete and notices have not been mailed; accounts which are ready to notice,
or accounts that have been sent notices of appraised value in the last 30 days (OTHER). The estimated
value for properties that are neither under protest nor included on the certified roll is reported on the
AV2800 form included in your certification material as required by Section 26.01 (d) Tax Code. Final
certified values for properties in these categories will be included in later supplemental rolls as required
by Section 25.23, Tax Code.
Your certification package contains a report titled "UNCERTIFIED" which summarizes by state property
class the appraised and taxable values of alluncertified accounts. It is important to note the total value
shown on page 2 of this report differs from the taxable value shown for uncertified accounts on page 5 of
the report titled "CERTIFIED TO DATE". The reason for this difference is that uncertified values on the
"CERTIFIED TO DATE" report are reduced by substituting the owner's opinion of value and/or estimated
hearing loss which we are required to calculate for accounts currently under protest.
Also included in your certification materials is a sheet titled "WHERE TO FIND". This sheet notes where
to find information you will need to calculate the unit's effective and rollback tax rates.
CERT02 1EV:1' DI-G7-o:1 JllC.CSH
e
e
071 AUGUST 12, 2002
APPRAISAL ROLL CERTIFICATION INFORMATION
pg.2
Please review the homestead exemption data in your printouts to ensure that we used the most current
information on your exemption rates. Also, remember that all homestead exemptions may be claimed
up to one year after the tax is paid or becomes delinquent, whichever is earlier, and that over-55
exemptions are effective immediately upon qualification, and may be claimed without penalty up to one
year after qualification. Late-filed homestead applications will cause some reduction in your taxable
value.
Additional value loss may result from provisions in the Tax Code which allow for district court appeal of
ARB decisions, late protests, and corrections. These include protests on grounds that the taxpayer did
not receive a required notice, and motions for correction of clerical, form or location, and substantial
errors.
Sincerely,
,
~ -.::.Ja.......-
Jim Robinson, R. P. A.
Chief Appraiser
Attachments
CERra REV:1' 07-22-DI ,JC CSN
e
e
071
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
HOUSTON, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS, }
COUNTY OF HARRIS. }
2002
CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL ROLL AND
LISTING OF PROPERTIES UNDER SECS. 26.01 (c) AND (d)
FOR
CITY OF LAPORTE
I, JIM ROBINSON, Chief Appraiser of the Harris County Appraisal District, certify pursuant to Section
26.01 (a), Texas Tax Code, that the 2002 appraisal roll of properties taxable by
the CITY OF LAPORTE is attached hereto.
The total appraised value now on the appraisal roll for this unit is: $1,671,098,380.
The taxable value now on the appraisal roll for this unit is: $1,432,858,080.
Pursuant to Section 26.01 (c), Texas Tax Code, I have included in your printed roll a listing of those
properties which are taxable by the unit but which are under protest and are therefore not included in the
appraisal roll values approved by the appraisal review board and certified above. My estimate of the total
taxable value which will be assigned to such properties if the owners' claims are upheld by the appraisal
review board is: $29,182,566.
As required by Section 26.01 (d), Texas Tax Code, a listing of taxable property not yet included on the
certified appraisal roll is reported on the A V2800 form included in your certification material.
Signed this 12TH day of AUGUST, 2002
,
~ -y:: .Ja4l'\~~ It -.,
Jim Robinson, R.P.A.
Chief Appraiser
ASSESSOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
As tax assessor/collector of the above-named taxing unit, I hereby acknowledge receipt of the
certified 2002 appraisal roll on this the _ day of . 2002.
CDTD'= IIIYDI: 07-22-02 PJC.CSM
e
e
071
WHERE TO FIND
2002 TAX RATE CALCULATION INFORMATION
COMPTROLLER
WORKSHEET
LINE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE
Losses due to 2001 Sec. 25.25(d) hearings
A V2120 Recap Page 4
A V2800 Line 10
1. 2001 Total Taxable Value
2.
2001 School district taxable value of over-65 homesteads with
tax ceilings (appraised minus exemptions)
A V2120 Recap Page 6
5. 2001 Taxable value lost due to court ordered redyctions A V2800 Line 8
8. 2001 Taxable value lost due to property first qualified for A V2800 Line 3
exemptions in 2002
9. 2d01 Taxable value lost because property first qualified for ag A V2800 Line 4
appraisal (1-d or 1-d-1), timber appraisal, recreational/scenic
appraisal or public access airport special appraisal in 2002
16. 2002 Taxable value on the 2002 certified appraisal roll as of Certified to Date Recap
this date (including 16.C reduction) Page 2
16C. Pollution control value exempted A V2800 Line 9
17A. 2002 Taxable value of properties under protest Certified to Date Recap
Page 5
178. 2002 Value of properties not under protest or included on the AV2800 Lines 13, 14, 15 &
certified appraisal roll 16
18. 2002 School district taxable value of over-65 homesteads witH A V2800 line 5 & line 6
tax ceilings
20.
2002 Taxable value of properties in territory annexed since
January 1, 2001
A V2800 line 7
21.
2002 Taxable value of new improvements, new personal
property located in new improvements, and new improvements
to the land
A V2800 lines 1, 2, 12 and
Charles Stone memo
:>TE: If your unit deannexed property after January 1, 2001. your assessor will need to determine the value -lost
aue to deannexatiori. Our computer system is unable to capture deannexation loss.
We have reported the amount exempted as a result of the $500 personal property and mineral exemptions under
line 3A on the A V2800 report.
e
e
******************************************************************************
~8/l0/2002
'2800
Harris County Appraisal District
Data Summary For Jurisdiction 071 For Tax Year 2002
~****************************************************************************
I.
2.
3.
Real Property New Improvements Value......................
Personal Property New Improvements Value..................
Last Year Taxable Value Becoming Exempt This year.........
A. TotallY Exempt........ 504,289
(Includes Under $500 Exemptions of 2,519)
B. Partially Exempt...... 6,552,668
Last Year Taxable Value Lost Due To New AG Use This Year..
A. Taxable Value......... 589,240
B. Productivity Value.... 146,230
Current Year Taxable Value Of Over-65 Homesteads
With Tax Ceilings..............
Current Year Taxable Value Of Over-65 Homesteads
Transferred to surv~ving Spouse...
Current Year Taxable Value Added By Annexations* Last Year
Value Loss From PriQr Year Lawsuits.......................
A. Initial Value......... 1,563,330
B. Final Value........... 1,461,360
TNRCC P~llution Control Exemption.........................
Last Year Losses Due to Substantial Error Corrections.....
Current Year Appr. Value Loss Due to Capped Accounts......
New Improvements to the Land..............................
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
-. .,
Market Value of Properties Not under Protest and Not
Included on the Appraisal Roll Certification
A. Preceding year......................................
B. Current Year Estimated..............................
14. Appraised Value of Properties Not under Protest and Not
Included on the Appraisal Roll Certification
A. Preceding year......................................
B. Current Year Estimated..............................
15. Exemption Value of Properties Not under Protest and Not
Included on the Appraisal Roll Certification
A. Preceding year......................................
B. Current Year Estimated..............................
16. Taxable Value of Properties Not under Protest and Not
Included on the Appraisal Roll Certification
A. Preceding year......................................
B. Current Year Estimated..............................
*Annexations may include property added to your jurisdiction
as the result of boundary adjustments in the GIS system.
For example, you may have gained a property that due to a
previously unrecognized boundary error was not coded to you.
31,238,300
2,548,000
7,056,957
443,010
o
o
4,150
101,970
o
103,390
10,357,860
2,017,650
62,377,622
63,496,823
61,955,412
63,274,723
2,175,680
2,836,340
59,775,932
60,435,844
PAGE 1.
DATE 08/10/2002
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTl F I ED ROLL
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TAXABLE VALUE
624.850,250
839.390
EXEMPTIONS
208,739.770
45 360
PRODUCTI V ITY
o
o
USE CATEGORY RECAP
APPRAISED
833,590,020
2,290.750
PROPERTY
ACREAGE
802.6222
7.2074
741,750
198.370
o
30
4
5,030
75.550
o
o
30,756,780
4.373.920
o
57 776
0.0000
0.0000
o
o
tit
o
o
o
o
0.0000
UNITS
9.412
103
26
73
o
o
552
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
REAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME
REAL RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
A
A2.
B
REAL RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL THREE-FAMILY
B2
B3
FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL FOUR+
B4
970
14.54
140
133
o
o
4.675
288.7178
IN CITY
REAL VACANT RESIDENTIAL
C
791,200
52.860
o
o
200
79
327.2706
424
3
IN CITY
REAL VACANT COMMERCIAL
C2
o
o
52.860
6.3068
REAL VACANT
C3
188,040
o
o
o
188,040
o
o
o
984.3048
0.0000
49
o
REAL ACREAGE RANCHLAND
REA~ ACREAGE TIMBERLAND
REAL ACREAGE FARMLAND
o
02
03
8,640
.030
o
18.020
8.640
o
o
7495
3
5
76
13.46
3.479,050
4936
5
UNDEVELOPED
REAL ACREAGE
04
o
116,594,580
390.447,930
o
265,930
23.263.310
o
o
o
o
16.860,510
413.711,240
0.0000
572.463
56 646
o
53
IMPROVEMENTS
REAL FARM&RANCH
REAL COMMERCIAL
E
F
e
66
INDUSTRIAL
REAL
F2
o
o
o
o
0.0000
o
OIL GAS AND MINERAL RESERVES
G
o
o
o
o
o . 0000
o
TANGIBLE PERSONAL VEHICLES
H
o
o
o
o
0.0000
o
o
3
REAL BANKS
o
2,249.850
21,399,340
0,147.600
o
o
o
o
o
2,249,850
,399.340
0.0000
0.6900
94.905
REAL&TANGIBLE PERSONAL UTILITY
GAS COMPANIES
'-'
'-'2
o
o
2
30
ELECTRIC COMPANIES
'-'3
o
o
147,600
o
1478
3
COMPANIES
TELEPHONE
'-'4
84,740
0,709,400
o
o
o
o
84,740
709.400
10
62.2593
0.0000
23
77
RAILROADS
PIPELINES
'-'5
'-'6
PAGE 2
DATE 0~/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
0 4,021,410
2,850 78,159,950
3,480,720 91,319,770
0 0
1,396,450 5,419,050
0 0 --
6,080 630,960
0 0
102,760 0
0 0
189,330 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 e
0 0
238,240,300 432.858.080
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGDRY RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI~EQ PRODUCTIVITY
2 o . 0000 4,021,410 0
730 0.0000 78,162,800 0
163 o . 0000 94,800,490 0
0 0.0000 0 0
464 0.0000 6,815,500 0
0 0.0000 0 0
137 15.0305 637,040 0
0 0.0000 0 0
715 1,251.8424 102,760 0
16 24.9437 0 0
81 55.1296 189,330 0
4 0.0000 0 . 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
2 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
4,870 6.406.4264 670,90 700 196.680
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2100
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
\J7 MA\JOR CABLE TV SYSTEMS
L1 TANGIBLE PERSONAL COMMERCIAL
L2 TANGIBLE PERSONAL INDUSTRIAL
M2 TNGBL PERS OTHR-PRIVATE AIRCRFT
M3 TANGIBLE PERS oTHR-MOBILE HOMES
",4 MISCELLANEOUS
01 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-VACANT
02 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-IMPROVED
Xi GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION
X2 CHARITABLE EXEMPTION
X3 RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
X4 CEMETERY EXEMPTION
X5 PRIVATE SCHOOL EXEMPTION
X6 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION
X7 HISTORICAL EXEMPTION
X8 MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTION
X9 LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
UO UNKNOWN
TOTAL REAL&PERSONAL PROPERTY
e
e
PAGE 3
DATE 0~/10/2002
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
SPECIAL REVALUATION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRA I ~EP. PRODUCTIVITY
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
54 016.0543 9 69,960 196,680
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
CLASSIFICATION
TIMBER
AG-1D
AG-1D1
AG-1D W/PENALTY
AG-1D1 W/PENALTY
TIMBER W/PENALTY
OTHER/SPECIAL
PAGE 4
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS
141,757,490
2,724,820
56,118,990
9,460,560
772,820
562,930 e
6,856,050
0
35, 190
6,467,880
0
0
3.480,720
2,850
0
0
0 e
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
EXEMPTION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI~EQ
7,847 650.7530 707,359,480
56 1 .6220 4,971,700
144 161.8315 92,488,920
188 27.3578 15,017,900
125 1.3344 10,859,940
825 331.9157 562,930
1 0.0000 33,712,100
0 0.0000 0
5 0.0000 4 1 , 900
4 9.3992 7,400,440
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
6 0.0000 3,480,720
3 0.0000 2,850
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
100
AV2
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
HOMESTEAD
SURVIVING SPOUSE
OVER 65
DISABILITY
DISABLED VETERAN
TAX EXEMPT
ABATEMENTS
FREEPORT
PRORA TI ONS
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOREIGN TRADE
CUSTOMS BONDED
TRANSIT IMMUNE
UNDER $500
SOLAR
HISTORICAL
OTHER EXEMPT
PAGE 1
DATE 08/10/2002
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED TO DATE
SUPP H 00 CORR H 00
HARRIS
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TAXABLE VALUE
624,850,250
1,839,390
30,741,750
4,198.370
o
o
EXEMPTIONS
208.739,770
451,360
5,030
75.550
o
o
33 40
-
970
200
14,54
,79
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PRODUCTIVITY
CATEGORY RECAP
APPRAI~EQ
833.590,020
2,290,750
30.756,780
PROPERTY USE
ACREAGE
802.6222
7.2074
57.1776
UNITS
9,412
03
26
73
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
REAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME
REAL RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
A
A2
B
4.373.920
o
0.0000
0.0000
o
0.0000
110
4.675
288.7178
o
o
552
424
REAL RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL THREE-FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL FOUR+ FAMILY
B2
B3
B4
IN CITY
REAL VACANT RESIDENTIAL
C
o
200
79
327.2706
IN CITY
VACANT COMMERCIAL
REAL
C2
52.860
o
o
52.860
6.3068
3
VACANT
REAL
C3
88.040
o
88.040
o
o
984.3048
49
REAL ACREAGE RANCHLAND
o
o
8,640
3,461,030
o
116 , 594 , 580
390,447.930
o
o
8.020
o
265,930
23.263.310
8,640
o
o
o
o
0.0000
o
REAL ACREAGE TIMBERLAND
02
o
7495
3
3.479,050
o
4936
0.0000
5
e
o
o
o
o
o
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
116,860,510
413,7 .240
572.463
56 1646
5
76
o
531
66
REAL ACREAGE FARMLAND
03
REAL ACREAGE UNDEVELOPED
04
IMPROVEMENTS
REAL FARM&RANCH
REAL COMMERCIAL
E
F
INDUSTRIAL
REAL
F2
o
:0
o
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o
o
o
OIL GAS AND MINERAL RESERVES
TANGIBLE PERSONAL VEHICLES
REAL BANKS
REAL&TANGIBLE PERSONAL UTILITY
G1
H
I
'"
o
o
0.0000
o
2.249.850
399,340
147,600
84,740
709.400
o
o
2
o
o
o
2,249.850
399.340
147,600
84.740
o
2
0.6900
94.905
1478
2593
3
30
3
GAS COMPANIES
ELECTRIC COMPANIES
TELEPHONE COMPANIES
1.12
"'3
"'4
o
o
o
o
0.709.400
162
0.0000
23
177
RAILROADS
PIPELINES
1.15
"'6
PAGE 2
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
0 4,021,410
2,850 78,159,950
3,480,720 91,319,770
0 0
1,396,450 ~,419,050
0 0 --
'6,080 630,960
0 0
102,760 0
0 0
189,330 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 e
0 0
238,240,300 432.858,080
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
C~RTIFIED TO DATE
SUPP II 00 CORR II 00
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAISED PRODUCTIVITY
2 0.0000 4,021,410 0
730 0.0000 78,162,800 0
163 0.0000 94,800,490 0
0- 0.0000 0 0
464 0.0000 6,815,500 0
0 0.0000 0 0
137 15.0305 637,040 0
0 0.0000 0 0
715 1,251.8424 102,760 0
16 24.9437 0 0
81 55.1296 189.330 0
4 o . 0000 0 . 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
2 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
4.870 6.406.4264 670,90 700 196,680
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2100
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
u7 MAuOR CABLE TV SYSTEMS
L1 TANGIBLE PERSONAL COMMERCIAL
L2 TANGIBLE PERSONAL INDUSTRIAL
M2 TNGBL PERS OTHR-PRIVATE AIRCRFT
M3 TANGIBLE PERS OTHR-MOBILE HOMES
M4 MISCELLANEOUS
01 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-VACANT
02 RESIOENTIAL INVENTORY-IMPROVED
X1 GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION
X2 CHARITABLE EXEMPTION
X3 RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
X4 CEMETERY EXEMPTION
X5 PRIVATE SCHOOL EXEMPTION
X6 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION
X7 HISTORICAL EXEMPTION
X8 MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTION
X9 LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
UO UNKNOWN
TOTAL REAL&PERSONAL PROPERTY
--
e
PAGE ;3
DATE 08/10/2002
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED TO DATE
SUPP II 00 CORR II 00
SPECIAL REVALUATION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI SED. PRODUCTIVITY
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
54 016.0543 9 69.960 196,680
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 o . 0000 0 0
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
CLASSI F ICATION
TIMBER
AG-10
AG-1D1
AG-1D W/PENALTY
AG-1D1 W/PENALTY
TIMBER W/PENALTY
OTHER/SPECIAL
PAGE 4
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS
41,757,490
2,724,820
56,118,990
9,460,560
772,820
562,930 -
16,856,050
0
35,190
6,467,880
0
0
3.480,720
2,850
0
0
0 e
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL OISTRICT
CERTIFIED TO DATE
SUPP H 00 CORR H 00
EXEMPTION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI ~ED.
7,847 650.7530 707,359,480
56 1 .6220 4,971,700
144 161.8315 92,488,920
188 27.3578 15 ,017 , 900
125 1.3344 10,859,940
825 331.9157 562,930
1 0.0000 33,712,100
0 o . 0000 0
5 0.0000 4 1 ,900
4 9.3992 7,400,440
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
6 0.0000 3,480,720
3 O. 0000 2,850
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
HOMESTEAD
SURVIVING SPOUSE
OVER 65
DISABILITY
DISABLED VETERAN
TAX EXEMPT
ABATEMENTS
FREEPORT
PRORATIONS
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOREIGN TRADE
CUSTOMS BONDED
TRANSIT IMMUNE
UNDER $500
SOLAR
HISTORICAL
OTHER EXEMPT
PAGE 5
DATE 08/10/2002
DWNERS VAL TAXABLE VALUE
0 19,812,180
32,837,948 29,182,566
0 44,070.360
32.837,948 93.065 06
-
e
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIEO TO DATE
SUPP If 00 CORR /I 00
UNCERTIFIED SUMMARY
UNITS APPRAISEQ PREVIOUS
196 20,693,220 21,504,540
468 39,329,690 31 ,847,090
361 46,058,820 40,451,310
025 06,081,730 93.802,940
AV2100
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
ACCOUNTS ON PTS
ACCOUNTS ON HTS
OTHER ACCOUNTS
TOTAL UNCERTIFIED
-
e
PAGE 6
DATE 08/10/2002
LOSS
750
9;483
AV2100 HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED TO DATE
SUPP II 00 CORR II 00
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEADS SUBuECT TO 10% CAP
UNITS MARISH CAPPED
245 06.388.060 96.904.310
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT PAGE 1
CERTI F I ED ROLL DATE 08/10/2002
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAl,SED PRODUCTIVITY EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
9,412 802.6222 833,590,020 0 208,739,770 624,850,250
9,655 843.2163 821,720,170 0 205,834,620 615,885,550
97% 95% 101% 0% 101% 101%
103 17.2074 2,290,750 0 451,360 1,839,390
112 18.0989 2,451 ,540 0 468,550 1,982,990
91% 95% 93% 0% 96% 92%
26 57.1776 30,756,780 0 15,030 30, 74 1 , 750
29 57.1776 29,208,780 0 14,460 29,194,320 -
89% 100% 105% 0% 103% 105%
73 0.0000 4,373,920 0 175,550 4,198,370
76 0.0000 4,425,410 0 203,310 4,222, 100
96% 0% 98% 0% 86% 99%
0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
1 0.0000 25,750 0 0 25,750
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0 o . 0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
552 288.7178 14,675,110 0 133, 140 14,541,970
719 345.9110 17,078,130 0 190,950 16,887,180
90% 83% 85% 0% 69% 86%
424 327.2706 11 , 791 , 200 0 0 11 ,791,200
480 353.3489 13,073,220 0 0 13,073,220
88% 92% 90% 0% 0% 90%
3 6.3068 52,860 0 0 52,860 e
2 3.0578 11:\,860 0 0 18,860
150% 206% 280% 0% 0% " 280%
. ,
49 984.3048 0 88,040 0 188,040
52 047.0350 0 ~9,380 0 179,380
94% 94% 0% 104% 0% 104%
0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 31.7495 0 8,640 0 8,640
5 35.9592 0 8,630 0 8,630
00% 88% 0% 100% 0% 100%
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2120
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY YEAR
Ai REAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMIL2002(C
2001(C
A2 REAL RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME 2002(C
2001 (C
B1 REAL RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY2002(C
2001 ( C
B2 REAL RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY 2002(C
2001(C
B3 REAL RESIDENTIAL THREE-FAMILY2002(C
2001 (C
B4 REAL RESIDENTIAL FOUR+-FAMILY2oo2(C
2001( C
C1 REAL VACANT RESIDENTIAL IN CI2002(C
2001 ( C
C2 REAL VACANT COMMERCIAL IN CIT2002(C
2001 (C
C3 REAL VACANT 2002(C
2001 ( C
-.
D1 REAL ACREAGE RANCHLAND 2002(C
200 ~ ( C
D2 REAL ACREAGE TIMBERLAND 2002(C
200 1( C
D3 REAL ACREAGE FARMLAND 2002(C
2001 (C
PAGE 2
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
18.020 13,461,030
64.800 17,939,460
27% 75%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
265.930 116,594,580
129.960 . 116,558.080 -
204% 100%
23.263.310 390,447,930
40,038,470 394,935,980
58% 98%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
0 2,249,850 e
0 2;254,290
0% 99%
0 21,399,340
0 44,581,250
0% 48%
0 0,147,600
0 9,164,930
0% 110%
0 84,740
0 427,950
0% 5%
PAGE 3
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE'VALUE
0 10,709,400
0 11,185,180
0% 95%
0 ' 4,021,410
0 3,555,970
0% 113%
2,850 78,159,950
8,100 15,780,930 -
35% 67%
3,480,720 91,319,770
1,168,570 95,312,020
297% 95%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
396,450 5,419,050
~39,090 6,621,600
97% 81%
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
6,080 630,960
0 307,870
0% 48%
0 0 -
0 0
0% 0%
102,760 0
182,760 0
56% 0%
0 0
422,660 0
0% 0%
189,330 0
215,070 0
15% 0%
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2120 HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL CERTIFIED ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY YEAR UNITS ACREAGE APPRA~ SE.D PRODUCTIVITY
..16 PIPELINES 2002(C) 177 0.0000 10,709,400 0
2001(C) 174 0.0000 11,185,180 0
101% 0% 95% 0%
..17 MAuOR CABLE TV SYSTEMS 2002(C 2 0.0000 4,021,410 0
2001 ( C 2 0.0000 3,555,970 0
100% 0% 113% 0%
L1 TANGIBLE PERSONAL COMMERCIAL 2002(C 730 0.0000 78,162,800 0
200 1 ( C 015 0.0000 115,789,0:30 0
71% 0% 67% 0%
L2 TANGIBLE PERSONAL INDUSTRIAL 2002(C 163 0.0000 94,800,490 0
200Hc 193 0.0000 96,480,590 0
84% 0% 98% 0%
M2 TNGBL PERS OTHR-PRIVATE AIRCR2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 (C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
M3 TANGIBLE PERS OTHR-MOBILE HOM2002(C 464 0.0000 6,815,500 0
2001 (C 584 0.0000 8,060,690 0
79% 0% 84% 0%
M4 MISCELLANEOUS 2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 (C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
01 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-VACANT 2002(C 137 15.0305 637,040 0
200 1( C 176 12.7349 3~7,870 0
77% 118% 48% 0%
02 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-IMPROVE2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 ( C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
X1 GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION 2002(C 715 251.8424 102,760 0
2001 (C 699 255. 1000 182,760 0
102% 99% 56% 0%
X2 CHARITABLE EXEMPTION 2002(C 16 24.9437 0 0
200 1 (C 15 22.0750 422,660 0
106% 112% 0% 0%
X3 RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION 2002(C 81 55.1296 189,330 0
2001 ( C 82 55.9912 215,070 0
98% 98% 15% 0%
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2120 HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DI~TRICT PAGE 4
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL CERTIFIED ROLL DATE .08/10/2002
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY YEAR UNITS ACREAGE APPRA~SE.D PRODUCTIVITY EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
X4 CEMETERY EXEMPTION 2OO2(C) 4 0.0000 0 0 0 0
2OO1{C) 4 0.0000 0 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
X5 PRIVATE SCHOOL EXEMPTION 2oo2(C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
2001 (C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
X6 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION 2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
2001{ C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
X7 HISTORICAL EXEMPTION 2002(C 0 0.0000 .0 0 0 0
2001{ C 0 o . 0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
X8 MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTION 2oo2(C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
200 1( C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
X9 LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING 2002(C -2 0.0000 0 0 0 0
2001 (C 3 0.0000 0 0 ,.0 0
66% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
UO UNKNOWN 2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
200 1 (C 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2OO2(C 14,870 6,406.4264 670,901,700 196,680 238.240,300 432,858.080
2001 (C 15,842 6,883.4286 753,296,850 188.010 251.381,370 502,103,490
93% 93% 95% 104% 94% 95%
e
--
PAGE 5
DATE 08/10/2002
AV2120 HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
SPECIAL REVALUATION RECAP
YEAR UNITS ACREAGE APPRA\SE,D PRODUCTIVITY
2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 (C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
2oo2(C 0 0.0000 0 0
200i(C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
2002(C 54 016.0543 9,169,960 96,680
2001 ( C 57 082.9942 0,038,600 88.010
94% 93% 91% 104%
2oo2(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 ( C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
2oo2(C) 0 0.0000 0 0
2oo1(C) 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 ( C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
2002(C 0 0.0000 0 0
2001 ( C 0 0.0000 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
~002 APPRAISAL ROLL
CLASSIFICATION
TIMBER
AG-1D
AG-1D1
AG-1D W/PENALTY
AG-1D1 W/PENALTY
TIMBER W/PENALTY
OTHER/SPECIAL
e
PAGE 6
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS
41,757,490
40,538,630
100%
2,724,820
2,686,390
101%
56, 118, 990
55,113,990 -
101%
9,460,560
9,145,130
103%
772,820
690,800
111%
562,930
1,820,490
30%
16,856,050
21,375,000
78%
0
0
0%
35,190 e
105,360
33%
6,467,880
8,728,910
34%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
AV2120 HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
EXEMPTION RECAP
YEAR UNITS ACREAGE APPRAJ;,SED
2002(C) 7,847 650.7530 707,359,480
200Hc) 8,073 705.5408 701,204,000
97% 92% 100%
2002(C) 56 1.6220 4,971,700
200 H C) 56 5 . 1341 4,784,210
100% 31% 103%
2002(C) 144 161.8315 92,488,920
200 H C) 169 171.2196 90,615,700
97% 94% 102%
2002(C) 188 27.3578 15,017 ,900
2001(C) 185 27.3578 14,220,650
101% 100% 105%
2002(C) 125 1.3344 10,859,940
200Hc) 119 1 .3344 9,934,860
105% 100% 109%
2002(C 825 331.9157 562,930
2001 ( C 807 333.1662 1,820,490
102% 99% 30%
2002(C 1 0.0000 33,712,100
2001( C 1 0.0000 50,000,000
100% 0% 67%
2002(C 0 o . 0000 0
200 1 ( C 0 0.0000 0
0% 0% 0%
2002(C 5 0.0000 4 1 , 900
200 1 (C 12 9.4734 29 1 , 900
41% 0% 14%
2002(C 4 9.3992 7,400,440
2001 ( C 4 9.3992 21,526.650
100% 100% 34%
2002(C 0 o . 0000 0
2001 ( C 0 o . 0000 0
0% 0% 0%
2002(C 0 0.0000 0
2001( C 0 0.0000 0
0% 0% 0%
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
HOMESTEAD
SURVIVING SPOUSE
OVER 65
DISABILITY
DISABLED VETERAN
TAX EXEMPT
ABATEMENTS
FREEPORT
PRORATIONS
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOREIGN TRADE
CUSTOMS BONDED
-
e
PAGE 7
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS
3,480,720
1. 167,920
298%
2,850
8,750
32%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
CERTIFIED ROLL
EXEMPTION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAlSED
6 0.0000 3,480,720
3 0.0000 2,557,320
200% 0% 136%
13 o . 0000 2,850
33 o . 0000 8,750
39% 0% 32%
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0% 0% 0%
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0% 0% 0%
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0% 0% 0%
AV2120
YEAR
2002(C
200 1( C
2OO2(C
2001 (C
2oo2(C
2001 (C
2002(C
200 1( C
2002(C
2001 (C
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
TRANSIT IMMUNE
UNDER $500
SOLAR
HISTORICAL
OTHER EXEMPT
PAGE 1
DATE 08/10/2002
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
UNCERTIFIED
AV2110
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
VALUE
TAXABLE
32.787.230
85.910
2.290
64.800
o
--
o
52.670
146.400
o
26.270
EXEMPTIONS
6.438.780
o
o
o
o
o
68.240
o
o
o
o
PRODUCTIVITY
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
26.270
o
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
APPRAISED
ACREAGE
UNITS
417
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
39.226.010
55.5269
FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
A
A2
85.910
0.0000
4
HOME
REAL RESIDENTIAL MOBILE
2.290
0.0000
REAL RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
164.800
0.0000
o
0.0000
o
0.0000
220.910
34.7166
2
o
o
123
24
REAL RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY
REAL RESIDENTIAL THREE-FAMILY
B
B2
B3
B4
REAL RESIDENTIAL FOUR+-FAMILY
IN CITY
REAL VACANT RESIDENTIAL
C
C2
C3
146.400
38.3665
IN CITY
REAL VACANT COMMERCIAL
o
4.7457
o
REAL VACANT
o
315.3974
3
REAL ACREAGE RANCHLAND
o
o
750
125.070
3
139,600
759.830
9
335.440
o
o
34.900
54.660
o
o
750
o
74.500
o
o
o
o
o
o . 0000
00
7
o
REAL ACREAGE TIMBERLAND
ACREAGE FARMLAND
REAL
02
25.070
3
147.5056
14
REAL ACREAGE UNDEVELOPED
o
5659
IMPROVEMENTS
REAL FARM&RANCH
03
04
E
F
9.814.490
7928
7
2
COMMERCIAL
REAL
335.440
0.0000
INDUSTRIAL
REAL
F2
e
o
o
o
o
o
404.390
o
573.790
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0.0000
o
GAS AND MINERAL RESERVES
OIL
G
o
0.0000
o
TANGIBLE PERSONAL VEHICLES
H1
o
0000
o
o
o
REAL BANKS
I
J
o
0.0000
REAL&TANGIBLE PERSONAL UTILITY
o
0.0000
o
GAS COMPANIES
404.390
3120
ELECTRIC COMPANIES
o
0000
o
o
TELEPHONE COMPANIES
573.790
o
0000
0000
o
o
3
o
RAILROADS
PIPELINES
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
PAGE 2
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE VALUE
0 0
1,900 41,791,560
810 1,897,790
0 0
15,810 886,430
0 0 e
0 157,700
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 e
0 442,210
6,615,100 95,990 30
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
UNCERTIFIED
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI~ED. PRODUCTIVITY
0 0.0000 0 0
241 0.0000 41,793,460 0
22 0.0000 1,898,600 0
0 0.0000 0 0
96 0.0000 902,240 0
0 0.0000 0 0
15 2.2956 157,700 0
0 0.0000 0 0
1 6.8200 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
1 0.8616 0 0
0 0.0000 0 . 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 o . 0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
13 48.7210 442,210 0
025 746.7376 02,403,710 20 520
071 CITY OF LAPORTE AV2 0
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
PROPERTY USE CATEGORY
..J7 MA..JOR CABLE TV SYSTEMS
L1 TANGIBLE PERSONAL COMMERCIAL
L2 TANGIBLE PERSONAL INDUSTRIAL
M2 TNGBL PERS OTHR-PRIVATE AIRCRFT
M3 TANGIBLE PERS OTHR-MOBILE HOMES
M4 MISCELLANEOUS
01 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-VACANT
02 RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY-IMPROVED
X1 GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION
X2 CHARITABLE EXEMPTION
X3 RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
X4 CEMETERY EXEMPTION
X5 PRIVATE SCHOOL EXEMPTION
X6 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION
X7 HISTORICAL EXEMPTION
X8 MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTION
X9 LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
UO UNKNOWN
TOTAL REAL&PERSONAL PROPERTY
e
e
PAGE 3
DATE 08/10/2002
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
UNCERTI F I ED
SPECIAL REVALUATION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAISED. PRODUCTIVITY
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
3 314.5074 3,421. 210 27,020
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
0 0.0000 0 0
5659 256,810 174,500
AV2110
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
CLASSIFICATION
TI MB ER
AG-1D
AG-1D1
AG-1D W/PENALTV
AG-1D1 W/PENALTY
TIMBER W/PENALTY
OTHER/SPECIAL
PAGE 4
DATE 08/10/2002
EXEMPTIONS
5.250,940
0
22,960
20,000
13,800
98,250 e
0
0
6,440
0
0
0
0
2,710
0
0
0 -
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
UNCERTIFIED
EXEMPTION RECAP
UNITS ACREAGE APPRAI~ED.
269 46.2356 26,280,340
1 3.5121 100
23 2.5461 2,216,200
2 0.0000 71,100
2 0.0000 75,300
12 7.6816 98,250
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
1 0.0000 64,400
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0 o . 0000 0
0 0.0000 0
10 0.0000 2.710
0 0.0000 0
0 0.0000 0
0 o . 0000 0
o
AV2
071 CITY OF LAPORTE
2002 APPRAISAL ROLL
TYPE
HOMESTEAD
SURVIVING SPOUSE
OVER 65
DISABILITY
DISABLED VETERAN
TAX EXEMPT
ABATEMENTS
FREEPORT
PRORATIONS
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOREIGN TRADE
CUSTOMS BONDED
TRANSIT IMMUNE
UNDER $500
SOLAR
HISTORICAL
OTHER EXEMPT
e
e.
,
, -
e
e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Appropriation
Requested By: C nthia B. Alexander
Source of Funds: NI A
Department: Finance
Account Number: N/A
Report:
Resolution: XX Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Exhibits:
Amount Requested: N/A
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget was built around a tax rate of 71 cents per hundred dollar valuation.
A breakdown of the tax rate is as follows:
General Fund = 57Y2 cents per hundred dollar valuation
Debt Service = 13 Y2 cents per hundred dollar valuation
The tax rate of 71 cents is the same rate that has been adopted for the last ten years.
Action Required bv Council:
Approve Ordinance establishing the tax rate for Fiscal Year 2002-03 at 71 cents per hundred dollar
valuation.
Approved for City Council Ae:enda
r~
Date
I,.-
e
e
820 South 8th Street
La Porte, Texas 77571
281-471-1234
Fax: 281-471-5763
TheB
re Sun
'Serving The Bayshore Area Since 1947'
..:.
City of La Porte
County of Harris
State of Texas
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Karolyn Kellogg, a duly authorized
representative of The Sayshore Sun, a semi-weekly
newspaper published and generally distributed in the
City of La Porte, Harris COUl'1ty, Texas and who
after being duly sworn, swears the attached notice was
published in The Bayshore Sun dated .0 '8 - ;2 5 - 0 ^
~~
arolyn Kellogg
Authorized Representative
-''-~I i_ -r I
Sworn and subscribed before me this..3 day of ~
'/~~' ~~
Sandra E. Bumgarner
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
.'"
, 200 2.
')
..,v. rIVI"'I'J IlIA ftllftoa
!n City of La Port. ..
This nolice concerns 2002 prop.,ny ..;. nileS for City of La Porte~ts
infonnalion ibout ~e lax rala. Last year's laX rale is 1b2 actual rale lhc laXing unit
used 10 delermine properly !axes lat year. This year's c1Tectivc laX rale would impose
lhc same t01a1 laXes a lISt yc8r if you compare propcnies taxed in bblb yean. This
yat's rollback laX rale is the highest laX rate the Iaxinll unit can set bclbn: laXpaycn
can start laX rolllleek proccdutel. In each case these ralcs ore found by dividing the
tolal emount of !axes by the laX base (the IOIaI viluc of taxable propcny) with
~djustmcnu a required by Slale law. The rala are givCll Jm' 5100 of properly value.
Last year'. tu rate:
Last yat's operating taxes
Lasl yat's debt laX..
Lasl year's IOlallaXes
Last year's laX base
Last ycar'. tolallaX rale
nb year'. errectlve Ills rate:
Last yat'. adjusted laX..
(siler subb'ICting taXes on lost property)
I Thi. year's adjusted laX base
(siler subb'ICting v.luc of new properly)
-.lbiiyean"effCctiv"ctaX'r.te-i1" ~';j"_. 4..~.'.'
x 1.03"'111l1Ximum rale unl..s unit publish..
notic.. and holds hearing
This y.ar'. rollback Ills rat.:
Last ycar'. adju.ted operating laXes (aner
subtracting tax.. on lost property and adjusting for
any Innsfened function, laX increment Iinancing,
and/or enhanced indigCllt health care expcn!lilUres)
This yat's adjusted laX base
a This year's errective operating rale
x 1.08 - Ibis year's maximum Operatin8 rate
+ This yat's debt rale
- Thi. year's roll~bate
5 ement of Incr..HID.c......
ICCityofLa Porte.d . 2f2 tax rale equal 10 theerrective tax raleofSO.111 per
5100 of value, laX.. din compared IOpflaXCS by S210,420.
~'u/~
- .n.um red Funci).lanc.. .
The following estimated balances will in the unit" propeny tax accounta atlbe
end oflhc 11..al year. These balanc.. are not encumbered by a .orresponding debt
obligation.
Type of Property Tax Fuod
Schedul. B
2002 D.bt 5.....1..
The unit plans 10 pay the following amolOllS for 10"l-lenn debta that are secured by
properly taxes. These amounta will be paid from properly tax revCllues (or additional
sal..tax revenues, ifsppli.able).
Principal or .
Contract Paym.nt
D.s.rlpl/on to be Paid from
.~~!!~rop.rty Taxes
Oeneral 515,000
Operatin8
Bonds 1990
General Fund
Debt Service Fund
loterat to be
Paid from
Prop.rty
Taxes
52,625
e
58,669,138 .
52,035,363
510,104,501
51,501,616,197'
0.7101$100
510,651,252
5 I ,484,350,506
o:uMIOO
0.1381$100
.'.1 ~.~
58,625,837
51,484,350,506
0.5811S100
0.6211$100
'O.1351S100
0.7621S100
Balance
56,494,950
51,530,281
Otber
Amounts
to b. Paid
Total
Paymeot
577,625
so
General 5 J ,090,000 5125,305 SO 51,215,305
Operating
Refunding
Bonds 1!1!14
General 5125,000 5!1!1,844 50 5224,844
Operating
Bonds 1995
General 5150,000 5165,344 50 5315,344
Operating
Bonds 2000
Conilicale of 5150,000 5151,050 SO 5301,050
Obligalions
Bonds 2000
General SO 5279,818 SO 5219,87S
Operaling
Bonds 2002
Total required for 2002 debt servi.e 52,414,045
- Arnounl (if any) paid tTom funds listed in Schedule A SO
Amounl (if any) paid from other resou",.. 5350,050
Excess collections /lSt year 50
- TOIa/lo be paid from taxes in 2002 52.063,99S
+. Amounl added in anli.ipatim thatlhe unil will
collect only 100.000/. of ita tax.. in 2002 SO
- Total debt levy 52,063,995
This notice contains a summary of aClual errective and rollback lllx rala' ..I.ulations.
You can inspect a .opy oUhe full cal.ulalioRS al604 W Fairmonl Parkway, La Porte,
Texa 77571.
Name of person preparing this noli.e: Kalherine R. Powell
Tille: Tax Manaser
Dale preuared: AU."'I I J. 2M'
e e
ORDINANCE NO. 02- ~1~)
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES UPON TAXABLE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN AND SUBJECT TO
TAXATION IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE, AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAID CITY OF LA PORTE;
FINDING THAT ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AND ALL REQUIRED HEARINGS
HELD; CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; 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. That there is hereby levied for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September
30, 2003, on all real property situated and all personal property owned within the taxable limits of the said
City of La Porte, on the first day of January, 2002, except so much as may be exempt under the constitution
and laws of the United States, this State, and the City of La Porte, the following taxes:
(1) An Ad Valorem Tax of and at the rate of fifty-seven and one-half cents ($.575) on the one
hundred dollars ($100.00) cash value thereof, estimated in lawful currency of the United
States for the current expenses for the support, maintenance, and improvement of the City
Government of said City of La Porte; and
(2) An Ad Valorem Tax of and at the rate of thirteen and one-half cents ($.135) on the one
hundred dollars ($100.00) cash value thereof, estimated in lawful currency of the United
States, to pay current interest on and provide one year's sinking fund and to pay all of the
Principal and Interest accruing on all outstanding general obligation bonds and certificates of
obligation lawfully issued by the City of La Porte.
That this provides the sum of total Ad Valorem tax at the rate of seventy-one cents ($.71) on the one
hundred dollars ($100.00) cash value thereof, estimated in lawful currency of the United States.
Section 2. All property upon which a rate of taxation is hereinabove levied shall be assessed on a ratio of
one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated market value thereof.
Section 3. That the sums hereinafter accruing and collected from the hereinabove taxes so levied be and
the same are hereby appropriated for the support, maintenance, and improvement of the City Government
of the City of La Porte.
Section 4. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites and declares that all notices required by law
have been published, and that a public hearing as required by law was duly called and held, and that all
matters prerequisite to the establishment and levy of an ad valorem tax have been accomplished, all as.
required by the laws of the State of Texas, and the Home Rule Charter of the City of La Porte.
Section 5. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause, or any part of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause,
of this Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions
of this Ordinance, and it is hereby declared to be the intention of this City Council to have passed each
section, sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, irrespective of the fact t hat any 0 ther section,
sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, may be declared invalid.
e
e
Section 7. 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, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the
public as required.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 9th day of September, 2002.
" TEXAS
~ "'1V\\~'(OlL ~A.7~.
ATTEST:
~~ )1;mi
Marth Gillett, City Secretary
r
APPRG'itED:
/)/ I co""? I
( ~<A/"0 a/{
Knox Askins, City Attorney
e
2002 Property Tax Rates
in City of La Porte
This notice concerns 2002 property tax rates for City of La Porte. It presents
information about three tax rates. Last year's tax rate is the actual rate the taxing unit
used to determine property taxes last year. This year's effective tax rate would impose
the same total taxes as last year if you compare properties taxed in both years. This
year's rollback tax rate is the highest tax rate the taxing unit can set before taxpayers
can start tax rollback procedures. In each case these rates are found by dividing the
total amount of taxes by the tax base (the total value of taxable property) with
adjustments as required by state law. The rates are given per $100 of property value.
Last year's tax rate:
Last year's operating taxes
Last year's debt taxes
Last year's total taxes
Last year's tax base
Last year's total tax rate
This year's effective tax rate:
Last year's adjusted taxes
(after subtracting taxes on lost property)
/ This year's adjusted tax base
(after subtracting value of new property)"
= This year's effective tax rate
x I.03=maximum rate unless unit publishes
notices and holds hearing
This year's rollback tax rate:
Last year's adjusted operating taxes (after
subtracting taxes on lost property and adjusting for
any transferred function, tax increment financing,
and/or enhanced indigent health care expenditures)
This year's adjusted tax base
= This year's effective operating rate
x 1.08 = this year's maximum operating rate
+ This year's debt rate
= This year's rollback rate
e
$8,669,138
$2,035,363
$10,704,501
$1,507,676,197
0.710/$100
$10,651,252
$1,484,350,506
0.717/$100
0.738/$100
$8,625,837
$1 ,484,350,506
0.581/$100
0.627/$100
0.135/$100
0.762/$100
.
Statement of IncreaselDecrease
e
If City of La Porte adopts a 2002 tax rate equal to the effective tax rate of $0.717 per
$100 of value, taxes would increase compared to 2001 taxes by $210,420.
Schedule A
Unencumbered Fund Balances
The following estimated balances will be left in the unit's property tax accounts at the
end of the fiscal year. These balances are not encumbered by a corresponding debt
obligation.
Type of Property Tax Fund Balance
General Fund
Debt Service Fund
$6,494,950
$1,530,28 I
Schedule B
2002 Debt Service
The unit plans to pay the following amounts for long-term debts that are secured by
property taxes. These amounts will be" paid from property tax revenues (or additional
sales tax revenues, ifapplicable).
Principal or Interest to be
Contract Payment Paid from Other
to be Paid from Property Amounts Total
Property Taxes Taxes to be Paid Payment
$75,000 $2,625 $0 $77,625
$1,090,000 $125,305 $0 $1,215,305
$125,000
$99,844
$0 $224,844
$0 $315,344
$0 $301,050
$0 $279,878
$2,414,045
$0
$350,050
$0
$2,063,995
$0
$2,063,995
This notice contains a summary of actual effective and rollback tax rates' calculations.
You can inspect a copy of the full ca]cu1ations at 604 W Fairmont Parkway, La Porte,
Texas 77571.
Description
of Debt
General
Operating
Bonds 1990
General
Operating
Refunding
Bonds 1994
General
Operating
Bonds 1998
General
Operating
Bonds 2000
Certificate of
Obligations
Bonds 2000
General $0 $279,878
Operating
Bonds 2002
Total required for 2002 debt service
- Amount (if any) paid from funds listed in Schedule A
- Amount (if any) paid from other resources
- Excess collections last year
= Total to be paid from taxes in 2002
+ Amount added in anticipation that the unit will
collect only 100.00% of its taxes in 2002
= Total debt levy
$150,000
$165,344
Name of person preparing this notice: Katherine R. Powell
Tit]e: Tax Manager
Date prepared: August 13,2002
$150,000
$151,050
2002 Elective Tax Rate Works.!et
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
Date: 9/10/2002
(Note: School districts are not required to publish an effective tax rate. School districts may complete this part, at
their option, or may skip to the Rollback Tax Rate Worksheet.)
1.
2001 total taxable value. Enter the amount of2001 taxable value on the 2001 tax roll
today. Include any adjustments since last year's certification; exclude the Section
25.25(d) one-third over-appraisal corrections from these adjustments. This value includes
the taxable value of over-65 homesteads (will deduct in line 2 below) and the captured
value for tax increment fmancing (will deduct taxes in line 14 below). $1,502,103,490
SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Enter 2001 taxable value ofover-65 homesteads with tax
ceilings. OtPer units enter "0". $0
Preliminary 2001 adjusted taxable value. Subtract line 2 from line 1. $1,502,103,490
2001 total tax rate (per $100). 0.710
2001 taxable value lost because court appeals of ARB decisions reduced
2001 appraised value.
I A. Original 2001 ARB values: $1,563,330
I B. 2001 values resulting from fmal court decisions: $1,461,360
-
C. 2001 value loss. Subtract B from A: $101,970
2001 taxable value, adjusted for court-ordered reductions. Add line 3 and line 5C. $1,502,205,460
2001 taxable value of property in territory the unit deannexed after January 1,
2001. Enter the 2001 value of property in deannexed territory. $0
2001 taxable value lost because property first qualified for an exemption in 2002.
Note that lowering the amount or percentage of an existing exemption does not create a
new exemption or reduce taxable value. If the taxing unit increased an original exemption,
use the difference between the original exempted amount and the increased exempted
amount. Do not include value lost due to freeport exemptions or tax abatements.
A. Absolute exemptions. Use 2001 market value: $504,289
B. Partial exemptions. 2002 exemption amount, or + $6,552,668
2002 percentage exemption times 2001 value:
C. Value loss. Total of A and B: $7,056,957
2001 taxable value lost because property first qualified for agricultural
appraisal (l-d or I-d-l), timber appraisal, recreational/scenic appraisal or
public access airport special appraisal in 2002. Use only those properties that
first qualified in 2002; do not use properties that qualified in 2001.
A. 2001 market value: $589,240
B. 2002 productivity or special appraised value: - $146,230
C. Value loss. Subtract B from A: $443,010
Total adjustments for lost value. Add lines 7, 8C and 9C. $7,499,967
2001 adjusted taxable value. Subtract line 10 from line 6. $1,494,705,493
Adjusted 2001 taxes. Multiply line 4 times line 11 and divide by 100. $10,612,409
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 1
2002 E'ective Tax Rate Works'et
Entity Name: City of La Porte
FiJe Name: CLP
13. Taxes refunded for years preceding tax year 2001: Enter the amount of taxes
refunded during the last budget year for tax years preceding tax year 2001. Types of
refunds inclulie court decisions, Section 25.25(b) and (c) corrections, and Section 31.11
payment errors. Do not include refunds for tax year 2001. This provision applies only to
tax years preceding tax year 2001.
14. Taxes in tax increment financing (TIF) for tax year 2001: Enter the amount
of taxes paid into the tax increment fund for a reinvestment zone as agreed by the taxing
unit. This provision does not apply to school districts or taxing units in counties with
500,000 or more population..
15. Adjusted 2001 taxes with refunds. Add lines 12 and 13, subtract line 14.
16. Total 2002 taxable value on the 2002 certified appraisal roll today. This value
includes only certified values and includes the taxable value of over-65 homesteads with
school tax ceilings.
A. Certified values only:
B. Counties: Include railroad rolling stock
values certified by the State Comptroller:
C. Pollution control exemption: Deduct
the value of property exempted for the current tax
year for the first time as pollution control property
(use this step based on attorney's advice):
D. Tax increment financing: Deduct the 2002
captured appraised value of property taxable by a
taxing unit (other than a school district) in a tax
increment fmancing zone for which the 2002
taxes will be deposited into the tax increment
fund. This provision does not apply to school
districts or taxing units in counties with 500,000
or more in population. Other units, enter "0."
$1,432,858,080
+
$0
$0
$0
E. Add A and B, subtract C and D:
Date: 9/10/2002
$38,843
$0
$10,651,252
i
$1,432,858,080
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 2
2002 Etective Tax Rate Works!et
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
17. Total value of properties under protest or not included on certified appraisal roll.
A. 2002 taxable value of properties under protest.
The chief appraiser certifies a list of properties
still under ARB protest. The list
shows the district's value and the taxpayer's
claimed value, ifany, or an estimate of the value
if the taxpayer wins. For each of the properties
under protest, use the lowest of these values.
Enter the total here. $29,182,566
B. 2002 value of properties not under protest or
included on certified mppraisal roll.
The chief appraiser gives taxing units a list of
those taxable properties that the chief apprasier
knows about but are not included at appraisal roll
certification. These properties also are not on the
list of properties that are still under protest. On
this list of properties, the chief appraiser includes
the market value, appraised value, and exemptions
for the preceding year and a reasonable estimate
of the market value, appraised value, and
exemptions for the current year. Use the lower
market, appraised, or taxable value (as
appropriate). Enter the total here. +
$60,263,490
C. Add A and B:
18. SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Enter 2002 taxable value of over-65 homesteads with
tax ceilings. Other units enter "0".
19.
20.
2002 total taxable value. Add lines 16E and 17C. Subtract line 18.
I
I Total 2002 taxable value of properties in territory annexed after January 1,
2001. Include both real and personal property. Enter the 2002 value of property in
territory annexed, including any territory annexed by the school district.
21.
Total 2002 taxable value of new improvements and new personal property
located in new improvements. "New" means the item was not on the appraisal roll
in 2001. An improvement is a building, structure, fixture or fence erected on or affixed to
land. A transportable structure erected on its owner's land is also included unless it is held
for sale or is there only temporarily. New additions to existing improvements may be
included if the appraised value can be determined. New personal property in a new
improvement must (1) have been brought into the unit after January 1,2001, and (2) be
located in a new improvement. New improvements does include property on which a tax
abatement agreement has expired for 2002. New improvements do not include mineral
interests produced for the first time, omitted property that is back assessed, and increased
appraisals on existing property.
Date: 9/10/2002
$89,446,056
$0
$1,522,304,136
$4,150
$37,949,480
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 3
e It
2002 Effective Tax Rate Worksheet
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
Date: 9/10/2002
22.
23.
24.
25.
Total adjustments to the 2002 taxable value. Add lines 20 and 21. $37,953,630
2002 adjusted taxable value. Subtract line 22 from line 19. $1,484,350,506
2002 effective tax rate. Divide line 15 by line 23 and multiply by 100 (per $100). 0.717
COUNTIES ONLY. Add together the effective tax rates for each type of tax the county
levies. The total is the 2002 county effective tax rate (per $100).
A county, city, or hospital district that adopted the additional sales tax in August or November 2001, or in
January or May 2002, must adjust its effective tax rate. The Additional Sales Tax Rate Worksheet,
immediately following the rollback worksheet, sets out this adjustment. Do not forget to complete the
Additional Sales Tax Rate Worksheet if the taxing unit adopted the additional sales tax on these dates.
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 4
e
e
2002 Rollback Tax Rate Worksheet
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
26. 2001 maintenance and operations tax rate (per $100).
27. 2001 adjusted taxable value. Enter the amount from line 11.
28. 2001 maintenance and operations taxes.
A. Multiply line 26 by line 27 and divide by 100:
B. Cities, counties and hospital districts with additional sales tax:
Amount of additional sales tax collected and spent on
maintenance and operations in 2001. Enter amount from fUll
year's sales tax revenue spent for M&O in 2001 fiscal year, if
any. Other units, enter "0". Counties exclude any amount that
was spent for economic development grants from the amount
of sales tax spent: +
C. Counties: Enter the amount for the state criminal justice
mandate. If second or later year, the amount is for increased
cost above last year's amount. Other units, enter "0": +
D. Transferring functioJll: If discontinuing all of a
department, function, or activity and transferring it to another
unit by written contract, enter the amount spent by the unit
discontinuing the function in the 12 months preceding the
month of this calculation. If the unit did not operate this
function for this 12-month period, use the amount spent in
the last full fiscal year in which the unit operated the
function. The unit discontinuing the function will subtract
this amount in H below. The unit receiving the function will
add this amount in H below. Other units, enter "0":
+/-
E. Taxes refunded for years preceding tax year 2001:
Enter the amount of M&O taxes refunded during the last
budget year for tax years preceding tax year 2001. Types of
refunds include court decisions, Section 25.25(b) and (c)
corrections, and Section 31.11 payment errors. Do not
include refunds for tax year 2001. This provision applies
only to tax years preceding tax year 2001: +
F. Enhanced indigent health care expenditures:
Enter the increased amount for the current year's enhanced
indigent health care expenditures above the preceding tax
year's enhanced indigent health care expenditures, less any
state assistance. +
$8,594,556
$31,281
$0
$0
$0
$0
Date: 9/10/2002
0.575
$1 494 705 493
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 1
e
2002 Rollback Tax Rate Worksheet
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
G. Taxes in tax increment financing (TIF):
Enter the amount of taxes paid into the tax increment fund
for a reinvestment zone as agreed by the taxing unit. This
provision does not apply to school districts or taxing units in
counties with 500,000 or more in population. Other units,
enter "0".
H. Adjusted M&O Taxes. Add A, B, C, E and F. For
unit with D, subtract if discontinuing function and
add if receiving function. Subtract G.
29. SCHOOL DISTRICTS ONLY:
Complete the Texas Education Agency's worksheet entitled Worksheet to Assist
Districts in Calculating Rollback Rate. Enter amount on line 41 of the TEA
worksheet for the 2002-2003 M&O component here.
2002 adjusted taxable value.
A. Enter line 23 from the effective tax rate worksheet. School
districts, enter line 19; if a school district did not complete
the Effective Tax Rate Worksheet, the school district does
the following steps (1) to (5) below.
(1) Total 2002 taxable value on the 2002 certified
appraisal roll today. This value includes only certified
values and includes the taxable value of over-65
homesteads with school tax ceilings. Include also the
taxable value in reinvestment zone, but remember that
the unit will deposit a portion of the taxes to a special tax
increment fund.
30.
$1,484,350,506
(2) Total 2002 taxable value of properties under protest.
The chief appraiser certifies a list of properties still
under ARB protest. The list shows the district's value and
the taxpayer's claimed value, if any, or an estimate of the
value if the taxpayer wins. For each of the properties
under protest, use the lowest of these values. Enter the
total here.
(3) Total 2002 value of properties not under protest or
included on certified appraisal roll.
The chief appraiser gives taxing units a list of those
taxable properties that the chief appraiser knows about
but are not included at the time of appraisal roll
certification. These properties also are not on the list of
properties that are still under protest. On this list, the
chief appraiser includes the market value, appraised
value, and exemptions for the preceding year and a
reasonable estimate of the market value, appraised value,
and exemptions for the current year. Use the lower
market, ap,praised, or taxable value (as appropriate).
Enter the total here.
e
Date: 9/10/2002
$0
$8,625,837
$0
$0
$0
$0
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 2
e
e
2002 Rollback Tax Rate Worksheet
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
Date: 9/10/2002
31.
(4) 2002 taxable value of over-65 homesteads with tax
ceilings. $0
(5) 2002 taxable vaUue. Add lines (1), (2) and (3) and
subtract (4) and enter above at A.
B. School districts Subtract the 2002 captured
appraised value of real property taxable by the school
district in a tax increment fmancing zone for which the
2002 taxes will be deposited into the tax increment
fund; other units, enter "0." - $0
C. Subtract B from A: $1,484,350,506
2002 calculated maintenance and operations rate. Divide line 28H by line 30C and
multiply by 100. School districts: Divide line 29 by line 30C and multiply by 100
I (per $100). 0.581
2002 rollback maintenance and operation rate. County, cities and others:
Multiply line 31 by 1.08. School districts: Add $0.06 to line 31 (per $100). 0.627
Total 2002 debt to be paid with property taxes and additional sales tax revenue.
"Debt" means the interest and principal that will be paid on debts that (1) are paid by
property taxes, (2) are secured by property taxes, (3) are scheduled for payment over a
period longer than one year, and (4) are not classified in the unit's budget as maintenance
and operations expenses. Debt also includes contractual payments to other taxing units that
have incurred debts on behalf of this taxing unit, if those debts meet the four conditions
above. Include only amounts that will be paid from property tax revenue (or additional sales
tax revenue). Do not include appraisal district budget payments. List the debt in "Schedule
B: Debt Service." Ifusing unencumbered funds, subtract unencumbered fund amount used
from total debt and list remainder here. School districts do not have a Schedule B
requirement. School districts subtract state aid received for paying principal and interest on
debt for facilities through the existing debt allotment (EDA) program and/or instructional
facilities allotment (!FA) program. $2,063,995
Certified 2001 excess debt collections. Enter the amount certified by the collector. $0
Adjusted 2002 debt. Subtract line 34 from line 33. $2,063,995
Certified 2002 anticipated collection rate. Enter the rate certified by the
collector. If the rate is 100 percent or greater, enter 100 percent. 100.00%
2002 debt adjusted for collections. Divide line 35 by line 36. $2,063,995
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 3
e
e
2002 Rollback Tax Rate Worksheet
Entity Name: City of La Porte
File Name: CLP
Date: 9/10/2002
38.
2002 total taxable value. Enter the amount on line 19. School districts
enter line 30C. $1,522,304,136
2002 debt tax rate. Divide line 37 by line 38 and multiply by 100 (per $100). 0.135
2002 rollback tax rate. Add lines 32 and 39 (per $100). 0.762
COUNTIES ONLY. Add together the rollback tax rates for each type of tax
the county levies. The total is the 2002 county rollback tax rate (per $100).
39.
40.
41.
ANY taxing unit that has adopted the additional sales tax must complete the Additional Sales Tax Rate
Worksheet. Any taxing unit seeking additional rollback protection for pollution control expenses should
complete the Additional Rollback Protection for Pollution Control Worksheet.
Truth - in -Taxation - July 2002
Page: 4
e
e
City of La Porte
GOVERNING BODY SUMMARY #1A
Benchmark 2002 Tax Rates
September 10, 02
TAX RATE TAX ADDITIONAL
DESCRIPTION OF TAX RATE PER $100 LEVY * TAX LEVY
EFFECTNE TAX RATE 0.717 $10,914,921 $0
ONE PERCENT TAX INCREASE ** 0.724 $11,021,482 $106,561
ONE CENT PER $100 TAX INCREASE ** 0.727 $11 ,067,151 $152,230
NOTICE & HEARING LIMIT "''''''' 0.738 $11,234,605 $319,684
ROLLBACK TAX RATE 0.762 $11,599,958 $685,037
LAST YEAR'S TAX RATE 0.710 $10,808,359 ($106,562)
PROPOSED TAX RATE 0.710 $10,808,359 ($106,562)
* Tax levies are calculated using line 19 of the Effective Tax Rate Worksheet
** Tax increase compared to effective tax rate.
***
The Notice & Hearing Limit is the highest tax rate that may be adopted without notices and a public
hearing. It is the lower of the rollback tax rate or 103 percent ofthe effective tax rate.
e
e
City of La Porte
GOVERNING BODY SUMMARY #IB
Comparison of This Year's Tax Levy with Last Year's Tax Levy
September 10, 02
DESCRIPTION OF TAX RATE
TAX RATE
PER $100
Last Year's Tax Levy *: $10,704,501
THIS YEAR'S
TAX LEVY **
TAX LEVY
INCREASE ***
LAST YEAR'S T AX RATE
EFFECTNE TAX RATE
0.710
0.717
NOTICE & HEARING LlMIT ****
0.738
ROLLBACK TAX RATE
PROPOSED TAX RATE
0.762
0.710
$10,808,359
$10,914,921
$11,234,605
$11,599,958
$10,808,359
$103,858
$210,420
$530,104
$895,457
$103,858
* This figure is calculated based on Texas Property Tax Code's definition of "last year's levy".
** This year's tax levies are calculated using line 19 of the Effective Tax Rate Workshee
*** Tax levy increase is the difference between this year's tax levy and last years tax levy.
**** The Notice & Hearing Limit is the highest tax rate that may be adopted without notices and a public
hearing. It is the lower of the rollback tax rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate.
City of La Porte
GOVERNING BODY SUMMARY #2A
2002 Total Tax Levy According To Tax Rate Increase In Cents Per S100
'fax Increase Compared to Effective Tax Rate
e
It
September 10, 02
TAX RATE TAX ADDITIONAL
INCREASE IN CENTS PER S100* PER S100 LEVY TAX LEVY
0.00 0.717 $10.914.921 $0
0.50 0.722 $10.991.036 $76.115
1.00 0.727 $11.067.151 $152.230
1.50 0.732 '$11.143.266 $228.345
2.00 0.737 $11.219.381 $304.460
2.50 0.742 $11.295.497 $380.576
3.00 0.747 $11.371.612 $456.691
3.50 0.752 $11.447.727 $532.806
4.00 0.757 $11.523.842 $608.921
4.50 0.762 $11.599.958 $685.037
5.00 0.767 $11.676.073 $761.152
5.50 0.772 $11.752.188 $837.267
6.00 0.777 $11.828.303 $913.382
6.50 0.782 $11.904.418 $989.497
7.00 0.787 $11.980.534 $1.065.613
7.50 0.792 $12.056.649 $1.141.728
8.00 0.797 $12.132.764 $1.217.843
8.50 0.802 $12.208.879 $1.293.958
9.00 0.807 $12.284.994 $1.370.073
9.50 0.812 $12.361.110 $1.446.189
10.00 0.817 $12.437.225 $1.522.304
10.50 0.822 $12.513.340 $1.598.419
11.00 0.827 $12.589.455 $1.674.534
11.50 0.832 $12.665.570 $1.750.649
12.00 0.837 $12.741.686 $1.826.765
12.50 0.842 $12.817.801 $1.902.880
13.00 0.847 $12.893.916 $1.978.995
13.50 0.852 $12.970.031 $2.055.110
14.00 0.857 $13.046.146 $2.131.225
14.50 0.862 $13.122.262 $2.207.341
15.00 0.867 $13.198.377 $2.283.456
15.50 0.872 $13.274.492 $2.359.571
16.00 0.877 $13.350.607 $2.435.686
16.50 0.882 $13.426.722 $2.511.801
17.00 0.887 $13.502.838 $2.587.917
17.50 0.892 $13.578.953 $2.664.032
18.00 0.897 $13.655.068 $2.740.147
18.50 0.902 $13.731.183 $2.816.262
19.00 0.907 $13.807.299 $2.892.378
19.50 0.912 $13.883.414 $2.968.493
20.00 0.917 $13.959.529 $3.044.608
* Tax levies are calculated using line 19 of the Effective Tax Rate Worksheet.
City of La Porte
GOVERNING BODY SUMMARY #2B *
e
e
2002 Total Tax Levy According To Tax Rate Increase In Cents Per $100
Tax Increase Compared to Last Year's Tax Rate
September 10, 02 Last Year's Tax Levy: $10,704,501
TAX RATE THIS YEAR'S TAX LEVY
INCREASE IN CENTS PER $100 * PER $100 TAX LEVY INCREASE
0.00 0.710 $10.808.359 $103.858
0.50 0.715 $10.884.475 $179.974
1.00 0.720 $10.960.590 $256.089
1.50 0.725 $11.036.'105 $332.204
2.00 0.730 $11.112.820 $408.319
2.50 0.735 $11.188.935 $484.434
3.00 0.740 $11.265.051 $560.550
3.50 0.745 $11.341.166 $636.665
4.00 0.750 $11.417.281 $712.780
4.50 0.755 $11.493.396 $788.895
5.00 0.760 $11.569.511 $865.010
5.50 0.765 $11.645.627 $941.126
6.00 0.770 $11.721.742 $1.017.241
6.50 0.775 $11.797.857 $1.093.356
7.00 0.780 $11.873.972 $1.169.471
7.50 0.785 $11.950.087 $1.245.586
8.00 0.790 $12.026.203 $1.321.702
8.50 0.795 $12.102.318 $1.397.817
9.00 0.800 $12.178.433 $1.473.932
9.50 0.805 $12.254.548 $1.550.047
10.00 0.810 $12.330.664 $1.626.163
10.50 0.815 $12.406.779 $1.702.278
11.00 0.820 $12.482.894 $1. 778.393
11.50 0.825 $12.559.009 $1.854.508
12.00 0.830 $12.635.124 $1.930.623
12.50 0.835 $12.711.240 $2.006.739
13.00 0.840 $12.787.355 $2.082.854
13.50 0.845 $12.863.470 $2.158.969
14.00 0.850 $12.939.585 $2.235.084
14.50 0.855 $13.015.700 $2.311.199
15.00 0.860 $13.091.816 $2.387.315
15.50 0.865 $13.167.931 $2.463.430
16.00 0.870 $13.244.046 $2.539.545
16.50 0.875 $13.320.161 $2.615.660
17.00 0.880 $13.396.276 $2.691.775
]7.50 0.885 $13.472.392 $2.767.891
18.00 0.890 $13.548.507 $2.844.006
18.50 0.895 $13.624.622 $2.920.121
19.00 0.900 $13.700.737 $2.996.236
19.50 0.905 $13.776.852 $3.072.351
20.00 0.910 $] 3.852.968 $3.148.467
* See Governing Body #lB for.definition oflast year's tax levy, this year's tax levy, and.tax levy increase.
e
tit
e
e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 9. 2002
Appropriation
Requested By: Maynr Nnlrman Malnnp.
Source of Funds:
Department
Nay~r aAd Ci~' COUAcil
Account Number:
Report:
Resolution:
Ordinance:
x
Amount Budgeted:
Exhibits: Ordinance
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
At the August 12, 2002, City Council Meeting, I recommended the appointment ofa committee to study Council's
present "Travel Policy" and make suggestions and recommendation for changes.
Several citizens and local business owners were recommended to serve on the committee. I recommend that Rod
Rothennal be appointed as Chairman of the committee. City Council voted to table this item until the September 9,
2002 council meeting.
The item was brought back to the August 26, 2002 meeting and council tabled the item again in an effort to allow
council time to recruit members to serve on the committee from each council district.
This item is being brought back before City Council for discussion and possible recommendation of committee
members to review City Council's Travel Policy.
Action Required bv Council:
Authorize and approve a committee to review City Council's Travel Policy
ADD roved for City Council Aeenda
~Q.~~
orman L.7Malone
q. 4. Oz,
Date
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-2577
AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE COUNCIL TRAVEL
POLICIES, SUSPENDING CITY PAYMENT OF COUNCIL SPOUSAL TRAVEL
EXPENSES, 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 hereby appoints the following
named persons to a committee to review the City Council travel
expense policy ordinance, and make recommendations for revisions to
such policies:
Rod Rothermal, Chairman
Harry Fuller
Nick Barrera
Troy Burmaster
Alton Porter
Juliet Daniel
Lindsay Pfeiffer
Douglas Martin
Paula Bridges
Section 2. Pending the review and revision of Council travel
policies, the city shall not payor reimburse travel expenses for
City Council spouses.
Section 3. 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, Chapter 551, Texas Government
e
e
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 from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 9th day of September, 2002.
By:
CITY OF LA PORTE
\l(~r-, i.0 - '--),/\I>.'(",,-:f!2.c. T......
Norman L. Malone
Mayor
ATTEST:
~a.&w1
Mart a A. Gillett
City Secretary
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
2
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.
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, 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
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
policies, the city shall not payor reimburse travel expenses for
City Council spouses.
Section 3. The city Council officially finds, determines,
Section 2. Pending the review and revision of Council travel
, Chairman
such policies:
expense policy ordinance, and make recommendations for revisions to
named persons to a committee to review the City Council travel
Section 1. The City Council hereby appoints the following
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
e e
1JlBl{tn~~~o
ORDJ:HAIlICB HO. 2002 - (). (111 (fI 'b~~~)
AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING ~OMKITTEE TO REVIEW THE COUNCIL TRA~L
POLICIES, SUSPENDING CI~Y PAYMENT OF COUNCIL SPOUSAL TRAVEL
EXPENSES, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
e
e
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 26th day of August, 2002.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
Norman L. Malone
Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gillett
city Secretary
APPROVED:
1~/~'<~
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
2
e
e.
e
e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 9. 2002
Appropriation
Requested By: Mayor Nnrman Malonp.
Source of Funds:
Department
Ma~or aD~ Ci~' COUDdl
Account Number:
Report:
Resolution:
Ordinance:
x
Amount Budgeted:
Exhibits: Ordinance
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Appointment of the following members to the La Porte Redevelopment Authority and Tax Increment Reinvestment
Zone Number One for terms expiring on August 31, 2004.
Position 2
Position 4
Position 6
Position 8
Paul Larson
Horace Leopard
Lindsay Pfeiffer
Chester Pool
2004
2004
2004
2004
Action Required bv Council:
Authorize and approve members to the La Porte Redevelopment Authority and Tax Reinvestment Zone Number
One.
Approved for City Council Ae:enda
~~hZ1!1~~
Nor n L. Malone
9.4-02
Date
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-
~5~~
AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS, CODISSIONS, AND
CODITTEES, OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE, CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
OPEN MEETINGS LAW, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
nominates and appoints the following persons to serve as members of
the Board of Directors of the City of La Porte Reinvestment Zone
Number One, for the term beginning on the effective date hereof,
and expiring on August 31st of the year indicated, or until their
successor shall have been duly appointed and qualified, to-wit:
position 2 Paul Larson 2004
position 4 Horace Leopard 2004
position 6 Lindsay Pfeiffer 2004
position 8 Chester Pool 2004
The Mayor hereby re-appoints Alton Porter to serve as Chairman
for a one year period.
Section 2.
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
appoints the following members to the La Porte Redevelopment
Authority, for terms expiring on August 31st of the year indicated,
or until their successors shall have been duly appointed and
qualified:
position 2
Paul Larson
2004
position 4
Horace Leopard
2004
position 6
Lindsay Pfeiffer
2004
position 8
Chester Pool
2004
The Mayor hereby re-appoints Alton Porter to serve as Chairman
for a one year period.
e
e
Section 3. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause or any
part of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause, of this ordinance
shall, for any reasons, be held invalid, such invalidity shall not
affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it is hereby
declared to be the intention of this City Council to have passed
each section, sentence, phrase or clause, or part thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any other section, sentence, phrase
or clause, or part thereof, may be declared invalid.
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict only.
section 5. 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, 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 6. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 9th day of September, 2002
By:
C~OF rJ?
~.:,. "'0. ~ ._--rf'A,(o-'l~ f~-T~
rman L. Malone
Mayor
2
e
ATTEST: ~.___
;[IJ.11J./Jra-, d, '1LIif
Mart a A. Gilletf
:~d:~~
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
e
3
e
~ETING HANDOUTS
e
e
e
TO: La Porte Mayor Norman Malone, Interim City Manager John Joemes, City Councilperson
FROM: Rudy & Penny Garcia, 3110 Oaken Lane, La Porte TX 77571-4224
SUBJECT: COMMON LAW NUISANCES and HEAL m ENDANGERMENT r.
by Fairmont Park Baptist Church (FPBC] ineffective choiceslleadership: i "J
1. Bicyde park despicable condition '
2. Noisy ramps
3. Lack of drainage
DATE: September 9, 2002
TODA Y marks the one-year deadline for Fairmont Park Baptist Church to fulfill its Special
Conditional Use Permit ##01-003. Therefore, we are asking the City Council to take immediate
action against Fairmont Park Baptist Church through (1) assessment of fines ($$S), (2) setting
imminent deadlines, (3) verifying the bicycle park abandonment rumors, and (4) revoking their
Permit #01-003 regarding the following:
1. Bicycle race park
a. Fine for dirty/trashy mounds of dirt (despicable eyesore to our neigflfJorhood)
b. Fine for nack of maintenance (not acceptable for homeowners to do or to endure)
c. Fine for months of unmowed mounds (6-8 ft. taU grass)
d. Fine for tml()(ked gate all of summer 2002
e. Imminent deadline to remove their park fence away from our fence
f. Verify rumor of church's abandonment of the park activity
g. Verify rumor of their spreading the dirt (NOTE: worsens neighbon' drainage problem)
h. Verify rumor of filling their ditch with dirt (NOTE: worsens neighbors' drainage problem)
i. Rev()(ation of Permit #01-003.
2. Standing water from their lack of drainage
a. Fine for lItanding water every time it rains (as close as 3 ft. from our fence)
b. Fine for health endan2erment due to excessive mosquitoes re: standing water
c. Fine for common law nuisance-no enjoyment of our home
d. Fine for church!!!!! addressing since neighbon' certified notification in August 1999
e. Imminent deadline to correct drainage problem
3. New 8 ft. x 24 ft. 3-in-l RAMP too noisy & echoes in our home
a. Fine for not insulating weD enough
b. Fine for disruptive/disturbing/thumping noises from skateboards
c. Fine for unsupervised use of ramp by bicyclers (parked church van !!!!! a deterrent)
d. Fine for common law nuisance-no enjoyment of our home since January 2001.
e. Rev()(ation of Permit #01-003.
4. Fine for church's accessible boards that cbildren use to build their own ramps under church's
awning by angling the boards against the concrete support structure as well as in the parking lot next
to the Fun Box as recently as Sun., 9-8-02. These noises echo into our home.
Fairmont Park Baptist Church is IRRESPONSIBLE regarding their church activities and property
maintenance. We have years of d()(umentation and photos as proof. Furthermore, the City of La Porte has
given the church far too much time and too many chances to corred what the church has never intended to
correct. Also, the City of La Porte has not acted in a timely manner to make the church responsible and
neighbor friendly because the City has chosen to believe church leaders who are !!!!! believable or credible.
The City of La Porte must do its job & take immediate action to make the church responsible and give the
Oaken Lane residents the relief that we have been asking for (1) since August 1999 regarding their lack of
drainage, thus our health endafl2erment and (2) since January 2001 regarding their common law nuisances
from their outside activities.
e
e
... .."-
l'
My name is Charles Allen Gilliam, Jr. I live in La Porte. On the 14th of
August a Warrant was served at my residence by the La Porte Police
Department I am sure you have heard something about this. What you may not
have heard though is that this warrant was a direct result of one or more o!.~
~rn!!Y--m,e11)~qe..m telling the police that I was a drug dealer and had drugs stored
on my. property.
Their aim was to get me out of my Grandmothers house. I have been here taking
care of her for about three years, ever since my father died at 47 from liver
cancer, he was taking care of her before that.
A number of my relatives have been trying to get my Grandmother to go into a
nursing home. My Aunt wants her house and is afraid my Grandmother is going
to leave it to me.
My Grandmother is terrified of the prospect of going to a nursing home, she
wants to die here at her home. I am committed to keeping her out of any kind of
care facility.
I will as long as I am capable care for her here at her home.
I have requested that the police give me a copy of the investigative part of the
Warrant.
They have refused. I have told them of the plot to remove me from the residence
yet they have done nothing to investigate this. No one has been by to talk to my
Grandmother.
It was obvious to the police that I was not a drug dealer and it must be obvious
that someone gave them false information.
Why are charges not being pressed against these individuals or individual?
There is also an Officer here in La Porte that has been harassing me.
He has pulled up next to me in his car and pointed his finger as if it were a gun
and then sped off two times.
This same officer was with two local convicted felons and known drug dealers in
Denny's here in La Porte one night when a few of my friends and I went in to get
something to eat.
I provided information to the DEA on one of these felons and he went to jail. they
are both brothers.
They want me dead.
This officer put one of the brothers up to coming over to my table and threatening
me.
He came over to where I was sitting and put his arm around me, his other arm
was under the table as if he had a knife or something. He told me he was going
to kill me and then he spit in my food.
One of my friends lunged over the table and began beating this guy up right in
the middle of Denny's.
Soon police were everywhere. The whole incident was pretty much swept under
the rug because of the presence of this officer I believe.
I have filed a complaint with the La Porte Police Department regarding their
behavior and procedure when the warrant was served. I do not feel that the La
Porte Police Department is doing anything to investigate my claims and are just
hoping this will all blow over.
I honestly feel some other branch not connected with them should be conducting
this investigation.
I was at one time a racist and a member of The National Alliance, a white
supremacist group.
Three years ago I saw Eminem's video "Guilty Conscience" on MTV. I was blown
e
e
.; ..
away at the tallent he had and the way he used his words with his music.
I was a racist, yet I went out and bought his CD. I was hooked. Never before had
I listened to Rap. In fact I would regularly say I liked every kind of music except
Rap.
Soon I was buying other artists. Black ones, Hispanic ones and I would listen to
them at racial functions. I began seeing the people around me in a different light,
I began seeing through much of the propaganda used by the Alliance to control
the minds of their members.
Soon I was offered a job through an Alliance member went in for an interview.
The job was at an air conditioning service company that serviced large buildings,
this was the ~all of 1999.
Upon arriving for the interview I was greeted by a man with a name straight out of
the Civil War. We bantered back and fourth and talked about the Alliance, he
said he wanted to get rid of the Mexicans who were working for him and wanted
to fill their positions with Alliance members.
We laughed and joke about racism and seemed to get along well.
He then started talking about the buildings he serviced, several of them
government buildings. He was especially talkative about some kind of FBI
building he serviced.
He said he had blueprints to the building.
He then started talking about Timothy McVeigh and how much of a good soldier
he was.
I was terrified. I knew what this man was getting at.
He passed me an application and told me to fill it out. He said he didn't need to
see my identification and not to worry about the job references. Just to put a
name on the application and return it Monday to start work.
Needless to say I didn't show up for that job.
I did however go to the FBI. I told them everything and they wanted me to go
back and take the job. I did not do it. Something about the way they were acting
spooked me and I felt they knew more than they were saying. I also got the
impression from them that they had undercover operatives already in the
Alliance. They did not say that but I honestly felt it
I did go on to get them names and license plates of some Alliance members but I
decided to clo nothing else for them. At the time with Y2K just around the corner I
felt I could not even trust the FBI.
I left and came to my Grandmothers then.
In the last three years I have come a long way and have conquered all my racist
views of the past.
I am now a Rapper who goes by the name of Heavy Fed, it's because of my
weight and not because of my involvement with the Feds.
You can see more info about this on my website at; httD:/Iheavvfed.coml .
Two of my spirals in which I kept much of my info""ation on the Agents I have
worked with in the past and info""ation I had on the racists I was involved with
are still missing after the Police served a warrant here.
I saw one of these spirals in the possession of the warrant serving officer.
I was really upset and thought for sure they would not be covered under the
warrant.
I immediately requested both a copy of the search warrant and a copy of the
property they were removing from my home.
They just laughed at me and said "Oh we'll make a list."
They took me to jail and pressed a Class C. Misdemeanor for paraphernalia.
They found a small pipe that belonged to my father out in his barn along with
many of the catalogs of paraphernalia that he ordered his products from in the
e
e
,. .
..
late 70's and early 80's, he owned a headshop in Deer Park then.
The next day I went to the City Attorneys office and told him what had happened,
I was told to go see him by a friend of his.
After I explained to him what had taken place and that I still had not received
either a copy of the warrant or a copy of the property removed.
He told me to go right away and see the Chief of police.
I went in to see the Chief and he would not talk to me but had the Assistant Chief
Aarron Corales speak with me.
I told the Assistant Chief what had taken place and that I was angry they had
unnecessarily put my injured grandmother though so much stress.
I again requested both a copy of the search warrant and a copy of my property
taken.
He said he did not have a copy to give me and could not get me one.
Needless to say this angered me more.
I left there and went directly to La Porte City hall. There I went in to see the
Mayor.
He was not in at the time but his secretary was very helpful in helping me fill out
a complaint against the police department.
In the complaint I again requested the copies I wanted and I also asked that they
return my personal property that was not covered under the warrant.
I went home and a few hours later bNo officers showed up at my door with both a
copy of the first page of the warrant and a list of items removed from my
residence.
They also at that time returned some of my property illegally seized.
I told them I still had more property missing including the two spirals I have
mentioned before.
When they left I called the Mayors office back and told them I was still missing
property that was not covered under the warrant. The secretary said she would
have the Chief of Police call me.
A few minutes later I received a call from the Assistant Chief. I told him the items
I knew I was still missing and he assured me they had no more of my property.
The next day the La Porte police department was looking for me to return more
property .
That evening the officer I had mentioned before pulled up next to me and pointed
his finger at me like a gun and sped off.
I am at my wits end here, I do not know what to do next. I have contacted the
Chronicle before but have yet to speak with anyone except over the phone.
The local paper the Bayshore Sun told me they were waiting for the investigation
to be finished before they began a story.
I believe however that the police are working to put a spin on this story and cast
me in some kind of bad light.
Any help or advice you could give me on this matter would greatly be
appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
Charles Allen Gilliam, Jr.
202 North Nugent
La Porte Texas 77571
(281)471-2467
e
e
TO: La Porte Mayor Norman Malone, Interim City Manager John Joemes, City Councilperson
FROM: Rudy & Penny Garcia, 3110 Oaken Lane, La Porte TX 775714224
SUBJECT: COMMON LAW NUISANCES and HEALTH ENDANGERMENT
by Fairmont Park Baptist Churcb [FPBC) ineffective cboiceslleadership:
1. Bicycle park despicable condition
2. Noisy ramps
3. Lack of drainage
DATE: September 9, 2002
TODA Y marks the one-year deadline for Fairmont Park Baptist Church to fulfill its Special
Conditional Use Permit #01-003. Therefore, we are asking the City Council to take immediate
action against Fairmont Park Baptist Church through (1) assessment of fines ($$$), (2) setting
imminent deadlines, (3) verifying the bicycle park abandonment rumors, and (4) revoking their
Permit #01-003 regarding the following: .
1. Bicycle race park
a. Fine for dirty/trasby mounds of dirt (despicable eyesore 10 our neighborhood)
b. Fine for lack of maintenance (not acceptable for homeowners to do or to endure)
c. Fine for montbs of unmowed mounds (6-8 It. tall grass)
d. Fine for unlocked gate all of summer 2002
e. Imminent deadline to remove tbeir park fence away from our fence
f. Verify rumor of cburcb's abandonment of tbe park activity
g. Verify rumor of tbeir spreading tbe dirt (NOTE: worsens neighbors' drainage problem)
b. Verify rumor oUilling tbeir ditcb witb dirt (NOTE: wonens neighbors' drainage problem)
i. Revocation of Permit ##01-003.
2. Standing water from tbeir lack of drainage
a. Fine for standing water every time it rains (as close as 3 ft. from our fence)
b. Fine for bealtb endan2erment due to excessive mosquitoes re: standing water
c. Fine for common law nuisance-no enjoyment of our bome
d. Fine for cburcb !!!!! addressing since neighbors' certified notification in August 1999
e. Imminent deadline to correct drainage problem
3. New 8 ft. x 24 It. 3-in-l RAMP too noisy & ecboes in our bome
a. Fine for not insulating well enough
b. Fine for disruptive/disturbing/thumping noises from skateboards
c. Fine for unsupervised use of ramp by bicyclers (parked cburcb van not a deterrent)
d. Fine for common law nuisance-no enjoyment of our home since January 2001.
e. Revocation of Permit ##0 1-003.
4. Fine for cburcb's accessible boards tbat cbildren use to build tbeir own ramps under cburcb's
awning by angling the boards against the concrete support structure as well as in tbe parking lot next
to tbe Fun Box as recently as Sun., 9-8-02. These noises ecbo into our home.
Fairmont Park Baptist Churcb is IRRESPONSmLE regarding tbeir churcb activities and property
maintenance. We bave years of documentation and pbotos as proof. Furtbermore, the City of La Porte bas
given tbe cburcb far too mucb time and too many cbances to correct wbat tbe cburcb bas never intended to
correct. Also, tbe City of La Porte bas not acted in a timely manner to make tbe cburcb responsible and
neighbor friendly because tbe City bas cbosen to believe cburcb leaders wbo are !!!!! believable or credible.
Tbe Cit)' of La Porte must do its job & take immediate action to make tbe cburcb responsible and give tbe
Oaken Lane residents tbe relief tbat we bave been asking for (1) since August 1999 regarding their lack of
drainage, tbus our healtb endab2erment and (2) since January 2001 regarding tbeir common law nuisances
from tbeir outside activiti28.
v....:
t/
~ .
(I
e
I,'
f
c
I:
I.
r
\
!.
~.
,-,
f.
.
,"'0:-
p,
e
City of. La Porte
Established 1 R<.J 2
. ---"
December 14, 1993
r--EGe\~.l(.::.n b'\ l.p\.:L.
n~c.. is; r"tq~
"
Mr. Bill Scott
1802 Lomax School Road
La Porte, TX 77571
Re: Livestock Concentrations - 10427 North Ave. "L"
Dear Mr. Scott,
O~er 16, ~. Kevin Blackwell obtained a "Non-Conforming Use Zoning
Permit (copy attached)." The specific activities covered by this permit are cattle production,
welding shop and horse stables. This permit superceeds the two animal per acre livestock
concentration li . established by Zoning Ordinance 1501. Bas~~ on this permit, Mr.
Blackwell is not limite to the number of animals he can house on his "L" street property.
:<.: .,\ '"' <..... ",,(. \.
The City of La Porte will not be able to take further actiQg..on complaints regarding
the number of livestock animals housed on Mr. Blad.-well's property. If I can be of
assistance on any other matters, please call me. I can be reached at 471-5020, ext. 254.
.~
Encl~
Sincerely,
d~L:-
(:-Mark S. LewiS~
....... ..
Cliief"Buildiiig Official
P.Q.BoxII15. L;ll)orte, Texas 77572-1 115 · (713)471.5020
f/~ .
. .
:-' ,
t.
f
""-........ -.. .......... ....'-"...\.~....
~TER-OFFICE MEMORA~DUM
e
P1-
. .-- . ---. --.... .-........- ------- .. ------
.:..~-::---: ;~- --.-. :~;.";". ..... .-:.:!:-.: '. : .-T.-....=:: :.... ._._.-":::;::.. _ --....--=:::. -0. ._': _--..:" ;.-
- .-OCTOBER 2, 1990
. .-......
._.. _.. n_. _..-_.. ....... .
-
TO::
. -. . -.. ,------:-. ... - '." ""'.-...,
-.. "-:~iIoe.i:.:;'H-=;, .itYbr".e.cht.,.. Dir:::ector-. of: Communi ty. Developmen t
FROM:
John D. Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Blackwell Property; Response
Memorandum dated October 2, 19~0
to Joel Albrecht's
-:--.. - ..-t=. n~-:i::es.p:oi1afn<T to' youi-" me'mo" da.ted-":' Oct:ooer 2., 1990.
_:'=Y:9un~~_eJDO.c" is.. a t tached-.~fo.r:.. yOuI:.c...r.efeience....
A' copy of
, \
- ---I-as-C~I;:tClill, ba'seC:}-<-on-the-fact5-conta-i:ned-in-your--memo,. .th'at-two--
... :d. (2.):~ i~s.~~s.~are,-.J;.?.i~_e9: :.......r,~g~r.d~ng.. ~e': Blackw~ll property. ~heo _
. _....::- f.frst._issue.. concerns;,-.a... .complaint oy Mr.. Bill. Scott regardrrig.. a-.-..----..~... --
. building close to Mr. Scott.s property line. You have indicated
.~ . ~o me .that the building. was recently built without Mr. Blackweil
~.;..;..~:tak:fng;;::o~'~peJ:'mio~fi-oDli.;the~tY='"_;:of:. .La . Por,;te. _ Yo.u- fUt:.ther-'
..< indi-cate' to.. me- that. since. the complaint was. made,_ Mr.. Blackwell
.~. has.,. taken out a permit and. his building has. been inspected by the
CIty.. Based-on tfie City.s inspections, Mr. Blackwell has. agreed
~o~ correct:...:. the:. onl~ denciency.- found'. in the building, by.. cutting.
back a. . roof over-hang' to establish the building at the requ':i:red
set-back distance from Mr. Scott's property. If all my
assumptions are correct, it would seem that the building, ~hen
conformed to the- Ordinance, would then be eligible f.or a build.1-ng
permi t.. .
The second issue raised by your memo regaJ:ds the concentration of
domesticated livestock on the Blackwell property. You have
indicated to me that th~ concentration is in excess of City oe La
Porte Zoning Ordinance concentrations, as established' in Section
10-300 of the Zoning Ordinance.. However, you have also
established in your ~e~o that these domestic livestock have
existed on the property prior to the passage of the Zoning
Ordinance.
You have indicated that the primary use of the property falls
under SIC Code Number 0291 {General Farm - Primary Livestock
Specialties}. If that in fact is the case, and if ~hat property
has been so utilized since before the passage of the Zoning f
II Ordina~ce~ then it iSfcle~r that Mr.tBlacbk~ellt thas a legtitzim~te li
pre-ex1st1ng, non-con orm1ng use, no su Jec 0 curren on1ng
:'.." j ~_r~in'ance r.esni.ctions.
- H<lwever, I would-: caut'ion you to.. be sure that the SIC Code
assig.ned tQ..._.Mt..... Blackwell"....!;i . Q~oe~'rty is aIm.r~.Er iate. My reyiew
of ST'C: Code: HWIlbe-r. O~~l:--.-:i:ndi-cMes-:.that. Mr.. -Blackwe'll.'s proper:t-y-
-~- n'ee:ds- to deI:j.ve~ fifty.:: pe.rcen.t (50%) or more of the total value of
sales fio~:li~estock' or other agricultural products or other
incidental revenue sources. In addition, Mr. Blackwell must
derive less than fifty percent (50%) of the total value of his
sales from agricultural products of any single three-digit
industry group. Before you can be sure tha~ the property
qualifies as pre-existing, non-conforming, you must satisfy
yourself that these two tests as established in the SIC Code have
--::.~e.n::,-me~~=. _._
I .
i f_
;" ~
I V'...
Il.\ ..'~
r.~
.
,
I;
L
("",
I;.
I ':'
, k.
I.:
rn
r
l.";
I l.
I
,
!U
n. /...-..."!"
'U' 0'
M .. :1
:1' 0 , ':7
. . ,.-
I
, r-.
i !~'.
.j L.
,
I....
II
..
'>:
I".:
~ '
;;..
~
e e
f(2-uYV"' ~~{l..,~ ottd 11\ ~"c6 ISa \.
-109-
p~
date such notice is mailed to the person, firm or the address
of such person, firm or corporation as the same shall appear
in the records of the City Secretary relating to the granting
of such application.
11 - 700 Penalties for Violations
1. Any person, firm or corporation in violation of any of the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in
a sum not more than One Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($1,000.00).
Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate
offense.
2. In case any building or structure erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained,
or any building, structure, or land is used in violation
of the general law or the terms of this Ordinance, the
City of La Porte, in addition to imposing the penalty
above provided, may institute any appropriate action or
proceedings in court to prevent such unlawful erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, con-
version, maintenance or use, to restrain, correct or
abate such violatjon, or to prevent the occupancy of
such violation, or to prevent the occupancy of such
building, structure or land, to prevent the illegal act,
conduct, business or use, in or about such land; and
the definition of any violation of the terms of this
Ordinance as a misdemeanor, shall not preclude the City
of La Porte from revoking the civil remedies given it
by law in such cases, including collection or reasonable
attorney fees and court costs, but same shall be cumula-
tive of and in addition to the penalties prescribed for
such violation.
11 - 800 Saving Clause
.~
,;;
..
All rights or remedies of the City of La Porte, Texas, are
expressly saved as to any and all violations of any Zoning
Ordinance or amendments thereto, of said City of La Porte,
that have accrued at the time of the effective date of this
Ordinance; and as. to such accrued violation, the court shall
have all the powers that existed prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance; and as to such accrued violation, the
court shall have all the powers that existed prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance; and that all existing
violations of previous zoning ordinances which would other-
wise become non-conforming uses under this Ordinance but
shall be considered as violations of this Ordinance in the
same manner that they were violations of prior zoning ordi-
nances of said City of La Porte.
v
.~ .
It
FL~ ..;
e
Dft.d rY\~Y'lc..E: 7<<:0.- ppp
p~\
I~ Y'~
Article 620-15
NON-CONFORMING USES
(
1. Any use of pr
regulations prescribed
ordinance and which sh
rty that does not conform to the
the preceding articles of this
July 29, 1955
have been in existence prior to
, shall be called a non-con-
forming use.
2. Any non-confo: _ng use of land or structure may be
continued for definiteriods of time and subject..to such
regulations as the Boa? of Adjustment may require for immed-
iate preservation of tt adjoining property and the ultimate
removal of the non-conf .~ming use. The Board of Adjustment
may grant a change of occupancy from one non-conforming use
to another, providing the use is within the same, or higher
classification as the or~ginal non-conforming use; provided,
however, that-such chang~ of use and occupancy will not tend
to prolong and continue the non-conforming use. A non-con-
forming use may be changed to a use authorized in a IIB"
Commercial or higher cla~sification use district, without
obtaining a permit from the Boaro" of Adjustment, provided it
is not a change from a h~gher to a lower classification use.
A non-conforming use once changed from a lower to a higher
classification use shall not be changed to a lower classifica-
tion use, and such prior lower classification use shall be
considered abandoned.
3. A non-conforming use shall not be extended or rebuilt
in case of obsolescence or total destruction by fire or other
cause. In case of partial destruction by fire or other causes,
not exceeding 50 % of its value, the Building Inspector shall
issue a permit for reconstruction.
I,
I
,
SECTION 13-400 "C~I ItRTMENT ;\ND COM.t-fERCI.',L DISTRIC~
@$
13-301
~ .'
Use ReGulations: In the "c" .i.partment and Commercial District,
no land "GiUiiIb"e used and no buildinc shall be erected for or
converted to any other use than:
(1) .illy UGe parmi tted in the IR-2" District.
(2) ;..ntique and gift shops.
(3) ~partments, apartment hotels, hotels. motels, and motor
lodees, town houses, row houses, and patio houses.
(4) hrt ~~d crafts, pottery, ceramics. and ornaQental ceme~t
products.
(5) Auction rooms.
(6) Automobile, motorcycle or trailer display, sales and rental.
including the sale of.small trucks when the sale of such
trucks is not the principal activity.
(7) hutomobile laundries.
(8) ~utomobile casoline service stations, includine services
customarily incidental thereto.
(9) Automobile ~lass, tire. muffler. and scat cover sales and
installation.
(10) ~utomobila parking lots and parkine 6arn~es.
(11) Automobile trailer dealerships, for example. "U-Haul",
only when in conjunction with an automobile ensoline service
station as an accessory use.
(12) Bakeries, confectionery and candy retail sales. with
manufacturing and proccsGi~ permitted as an accessory use.
(13) Battery rebuildino. but not includino reclaimino or o~lva-
gin~ operations.
(14) Blue prints and printiUG shops.
(15) Bottlinc works.
(16) BuwlinG alleys.
(17) Buildino material storace yard, provided such facilities
ohall be enclosed by a screeninG device as defined in
Section 7-171.
(18) Buoiness or commercial school.
,
.,
.\
(19) Carpentry. paintinG, plumbinG or tinsoithin6 shop.
(20) Cle~inG ~~d dyein5 pl~nts, lawldry.
(21) Creamery, ice creao manufacturino and d~iry operatio~~.
(\~J
---.---.-.- -
. .... ...... .. ...---..--.,--...-..--..... "-'-~:""'--'-'--p-~
It
COMM. DEV. .
10-2-90
Memo to: l~. Joel Albright
From: Kevin L. Blackwell
Subject: Use of property o~ ltlet 420
3ation on 10-2-90, I would like to make you
~ (100%) of my income is derived from this
~nd the following is a list of the many ways
Mr. Albright as per our con'.
aware that one hundred per (
property. I am. self-employ"
which I make a living. .
I." Commercial hay baleing.
2. Commercial tractor work ~ndscaping, backhoe, cOQstruction).
3. Commercial welding both the job and 'shop .fabrication.
4. Raising of livestock for ~e purpose of sales. In the past year and a
half, I have had,. as many as irty-fi ve (35) roping calves and twenty (20)
roping steers on outlot 4190) j 420 for the purpose of use in rodeos in the area.
5. The use of the outlot 41: has been used for the raising of li~estock and
hay since 1950 through 1990 ~ my Father and 1. Ou.tlqt 420 has been used 8:$
~ horse operation for the s~ period of time. We have been using it since purchasil
it in 19.80 from Pr. Lee, who '.:as in the race horse and livest:ock business. Mr.
Jesse Neuman and Mr. Red Che. ~ire owned this property since 1950. Both owned
this property since 1950. BI vh of these gentlemen have passed on but their
past and the use of this pror~rty lives on.
lam very concerned about bei~g a good neighbor and have tried to talk to
Mr. Scott in the past few we€:~s. It appears that he is impossible to
deal with. I am sorry for tr.~ inconvience this has caused the City. My
interest is not in causing tre City or yourself any problems but feel this
peice of property should be considered under the Grandfather Clause at this
time and also in the future.
If I can be of further assistance please donlt hesitate to contact me at
471-6525. Thanks for' your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin~. Blackwell
CD D v..-r Us\" L \ \ C\ "b tvlS\ E...) ,==:~., e C\ r~ \ <:) <\~
t'"'f f\ G ~ ~ L~.t:t1 rr-.
~
,"I
'. ... . . _/
\../ ,\/..,.. ./
. - ~. ,I vt', -,' :. - /~--.:r - ;;/.-(.()
~
"
e
e
Page 1 of 5
City of La Porte, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing dated June 1, 2000
Regarding: Sectio'11 06-266(2) . Application by Kevin and Bobby Blackwell for exemption
from a modification or termination of nonconforming uses on outlot 4201 South % .
Summary:
The evidence in this brief will prove the following":
1. Outlot 420A was already controlled by City Zoning Ordinance 780 when Bobby
Blackwell purchased it and 780 did NOT allow the activities Kevin Blackwell later
claimed as pre-existing nonconforming uses.
2. Kevin Blackwell himself proved in his letter received by the City Oct. 3,1990 that
he did NOT qualify for the non conforming use permit he received.
3. The City notified Kevin Blackwell in writing on Nov. 30, 1993; that the use of his
property was controlled by Sec. 10-300.10 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 which limited
the concentration of large animals to 2 animals per acre. Kevin Blackwell did not
appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days as required by
Ordinance 1501; Therefore the Chief Building Official's decision stands and
livestock on Outlot 420A is limited to 2 animals per acre.
4. Under Sec. 1 06-263(b); the use of outlot 420A became much more conforming to
City Zoning Requirements of 2 animals per acre when Kevin Blackwell moved to
East Texas approximately 3 years.
e
tit Page 2 of 5
.;.
'Note:
Zoning Ordinance 780 effective dates, October 4, 1960 - January 26, 1987
Zoning Ordinance 1501 effective dates, January 26,1987 - November 6, 1999
Zoning Ordinance 106 effective dates, November 6, 1999 - Present
1. The use of Outlot 420A located in Lomax was already controlled by City Zoning Ordinance
780 when Robert Blackwell purchased. it.
A. La Porte annexed Lomax on April 9, 1980 (exhibit A). Bobby Blackwell purchased
outlot 420A on July 25 1980 (see exhibit 8); 3 ~ months AFTER Lomax was
annexed, so the Use of outlot 420A was governed by Zoning Ordinance 780 before Bobby
Blackwell bought it. .
B. City Ordinance 780-PPP, dated July 15, 1981 (exhibit C) stated that the former City
of Lomax would be temporarily classified as R-1 Residential. Outlot 420A went from temporary
to permanent R-1 Residential.
C. Ordinance 780, Section 620-15 (exhibit D) states that property uses that did not
conform to Ordinance 780 had to exist before July 29, 1958 to be considered non-conforming
uses. Kevin Blackwell's uses of outlot 420A started in July 1980; 22 years AFTER the
deadline. His uses were direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 780, and NOT non-conforming
uses as he claimed.
D. Kevin Blackwell's uses were new uses and not a continuation of any old nonconforming uses
for the following reasons:
1. Kevin Blackwell's uses were of a different SIC classification than the previous owner. For
example Dr. Lee raised race horses where as Kevin Blackwell rented out horse stalls.
2. Zoning Ordinance 780 section 620-15.2(exhibit D) states, "The Board of Adjustment may
grant a change of occupancy from one non-conforming use to another...".Only the Board of
Adjustment can grant a change of occupancy" (use); and They did NOT grant Kevin
Blackwell a change.
3. Swain v. Board of Adjustment of City of University Park (433 S.W. 2d 727, 1968) Property
owners do not receive any vested rights in non-conforming uses of previous property
owners.
McClain v. City of Ennis (340 S.W. 2d 66, 1960) a purchaser of a lot is subject to Zoning
Ordinance regulations against his proposed building, although the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted after he applied for a building permit.
E. Zoning Ordinance 780 Section 13-200, R-1 District Requirements) R-1 did NOT allow the
activities Kevin Blackwell later claimed .as pre-existing nonconforming uses (exhibit E).
Therefore; Kevin Blackwell's uses were a violation of City Zoning Ordinance 780, and NOT a
nonconforming uses.
e
It
Page 3 of5
F. When Kevin Blackwell asked for a nonconforming use_ permit on Oct. 2,1990; outlot 420A was
governed by Zoning Ordinance 1501 which replaced Zoning Ordinance 780. Ordinance 1501,
Section 11-800(exflibit F), states "...and that all existing violations of previous
zoning ordinances which would otherwise become non-conforming uses under this Ordinance
but snail be considered as violations of this Ordinance in the same manner that they were
violations of prior zoning ordinances of said City of La Porte." or in plain English; a violation of
Zoning Ordinance 780 IS' still a violation under Zoning Ordinance 1501.
Conclusion: This proves:
1. 'Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NEW under Zoning Ordinance 780 and did NOT
pre-date Zoning Ordinance 780.
2. Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NOT nonconforming uses.Th~ were direct
violations of Zoning Ordinance 780 and also direct violations of Zoning Ordinance
1501.
3. All of Kevin Blackwell's claims of a pre-existing non-conforming use are
completely false. .
2. Kevin Blackwell himself proved in his letter received by the City Oct. 3,1990 that
he did NOT qualify for the non conforming use permit he received.
The following documents are in Kevin Blackwell's City file.
. , .
A. Exhibit G is a 10-2-90 memo from Community Development Director Joel Albrecht to Assistant
City Attorney John Armstronf!. It states in the fast paragraph," The information presented to date
. suggests tnat Mr. Blackwell s operation is a legal nonconforming use that falls into the SIC Code .
Classification #0291. I have asked Mr. Blackwell to furnish information as to 50% or more of income
being derived from his property." Two important corrections to page 1 of Joel Albrecht's letter are:
a. The 2 acres containing 11 heifers is actually 1.05 acres as I recently measured it.
b. The ro~ing calf pen held roping calves only after Bobby Blackwell bought the propertY in 1980,
not before. Kevin Blackwell confirmed this fact in one of his two, 10-2-90 letters to the City
attempting to support his nonconforming use claim.
B. Exhibit H is John Armstrong's response to Joel Albrecht. In the fourth paragraph John
Armstrong states, "You have indicated that the primary use of the proper:tY falls under SIC Code
Number U291 (General Farm-Prima!)' Livestock Specialities). If in fact that IS the case and if that
Pro~erty has been so utilised since Defore the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, then it is clear that
Mr. Blackwell has a legitimate pre-existing, non-conforming use, not SUbject to current Zoning
Ordinance restrictions. However, I would caution you to be sure that the SIC Code assigned to
Mr. Blackwell's property is ap-propriate.....Before you can be sure that the property qualifies
as pre-existing, non-conforming, you must satisfY yourself that these two tests as
established in the SIC Code have been met"
~
It is also clear in John Armstrong's directions that if Kevin Blackwell did not meet the SIC tests,
then he did not have a non-conforming use. John Armstrong changed the actual SIC wording in his
definition of the tests to make them easier to meet Below is the exact definition from the Standards
of Industrial Classification page 30.
"0291 General Farms, Primarily- livestock and Animal Specialities.
Establishments geriving 5P ~ or more o~ their total value of sales of agricultural products from
livestock and animal speCialities and their products, but less than 500/0 from the products of
any single three digit industry group."
As you see 'John Armstrong's "or other agricultural products or other incidental revenue sources" is
r!9t !n th~ ~!C 'g~fjniti9n:
e
e
Page 4 of 5
. '
Exhibit I is Kevin Blackwell's letter responding to Joel Albracht's request for information on
compliahce with the SIC 0291 classification and was received by the City on 10-3-90. The one page
letter is the only information he supplied. Kevin Blackwell's own evidence proves he did not have a
nonconforming use. His letter proves he completely failed to meet even John Armstrong's liberal
invention of src standards. Let's look:
Kevin Blackwell starts with, "I would like to make you aware that one hundred percent (100%) of
my income is derived from this property. I am self-employed and the following is a list of the many
ways which I make a living."
Note: The nonconforming use permit is for outlot 420A only, NOT Outlot 419 he uses below.
Of all the items he listed; the only items generatingJncome from Outlot 420A were the weld shop and
horse stalls and neither one of tliose can be classified under the definition of SIC 0291 "livestock and
animal specialities and their products. Horse Animal specialities as defined in SIC 0291, page 29,
requires" primary engagement in the production of horses and other equines. I acquired tlie .
entire City file for Outlot 420~ including the entire confidential section and there is no evidence that
Kevin Blackwell ever providea sny evidence concerning the "value of sales" as SIC 0291 and John
Armstrong required.
"1. Commercial hay baleing." He Commercially baled hay on other peoples property, not Outlot
420A which was grazed short from the multitude of animals concentrated on it.
"2. Commercial tractor work (landscaping, backhoe, construction)." All of the Commercial tractor work
was done on other peoples property, not on Outlot 420A.
"3. Commercial welding both on the job and shop fabrication" I saw very little welding at the shop so
most of the Commercial welding must l:1ave been done using the weld rig truck; which was
used on other peoples property, not o~ Outlot 420A.
"4. Raising of livestock for the purpose of sales. In the past year and a half, I have had as many as thirty-
five (35) roping calves and twenty (20) roping steers on outlot 419 and 420 for the purpose of use in
rodeos In the area." Basically he rented out his livestock for people to rope. The primary .
income was generated at a rodeo arena through Commercial rodeo sports, not from any
animal specialities on outlot 420A and he has never had 55 head of cattle on Outlot 420A at the
same time. If these excessive numbers of cattle were on outlot 419, then he violated the City Zoning
Ordinance.
"5. Outlot 420 has beei'l used as a horse operation for the same period of time."... His horse
operation was rentinjl stalls and pasture for horses. This was a Commercial business. This
violates the Zoning Ordinance for residential zone R-1 and is why he asked to be "grand
fathered". This does not qualify under animal specialities and Is even strictly forbidden for
agricultural exemption for property taxes (see exhibit J)
Kevin Blackwell also stated in an October 2, 1990 letter to the City that he had leased 55 acres
a joining, his property for agricultural purposes. This also proves his statement about deriving
100% of his income from "this property" to be false.
Kevin Blackwell proved with his own evidence that he did NOT even remotely gualify under
SIC 0291. He also proved with his own evidence that his statement of 100% of his income
coming from "tt)is property" to be completely false.
3. The City notified Kevin Blackwell in writing on Nov. 30, 1993; that the use of his
property was controlled by Sec. 10-300.10 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 which limited
the concentration of large animals to 2 animals per acre.
.
.
Page 5 of 5
A. Exhibit K is a November 30, 1993 letter from City Chief Building Official Mark Lewis to
Kevin Blackwell and his attorney. It states, "... Section 10-300.10 of the City Zoning Ordinance
1501 specifically allows livestock (as an accessory use) to be pastured on properties of an acre
~r more in size. However, this section also limits livestock concentration to a maximum of two
animals per acre. Concentration limits apply to individual pastures." and on page 2 Mr. Le~is
states, "In the future, the City must ask that you observe these concentration limits when housing
livestock animals on the property in question. Should these concentration limits be violated, the
City will issue a Municipal Court citation for violation of Zoning Ordinance requirements."
B. Zoning Ordinance 1501, sec. 11-604. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment, states that an appeal
to the Board Of Adjustment of a decision of the enforcement officer must be made within 30 days.
C. Kevin Blackwell never appealed Mr. Lewis' decision to limit the Blackwell's housing of livestock to
2 animals per acre. Therefore; Mr. Lewis' decision stands.
4. Under Sec. 1 06-263(b); the use of outlot 420A has become much more conforming to
City Zoning requirements of 2 head per acre after Kevin Blackwell moved to East
Texas approximately 3 years.
A. Current Zoning Ordinance 106 section 263( exhibit L) states... "or the nonconforming use or
structure may be changed to a use or structure more conforming to the zoning district in which the
nonconforming use or structure is located. For the purposes of this section, the term" more
conforming to the zoning district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located" shall
mean a less intense use, (per the Standard industrial classification code)... "A nonconforming
use or structure so changed shall not thereafter be returned to a nonconforming use or
structure.
B. The City started a weekly inspection of Outlot 420A in app. January, 2000. Their inspection
proves the numbers of animals have been greatly reduced during that time. I have videos that
prove th~ number of animals on Outlot 420A has been greatly reduced since Kevin Blackwell
moved to East Texas app. 3 years ago. Greatly reduced means from up to 45 animals per acre
from 1990 to 1997 down to 0 to app. 4 animals per acre from 1997 to present.
Under Current Zoning Ordinance 106, section 266. The only factor in deciding whether to extend the
useful life of a nonconforming use Is whether an extension is necessary for the property owner to recoup
the current remaining useful investment in the use made prior to the effective date of this zoning
ordinance.
Kevin Blackwell's investment in the horse stables and feed lot amounted to a pole barn, and fencing. If
he has rented 10 to 15 horse stables over the past 20 years at app. $50 each, he has paid for the barn
and fencing many times over and therefore his nonconforming use permit should be revoked
immediately.
Just one of these 4 facts is enough justify revoking Kevin Blackwell's
nonconforming use permit. Together they are a mountain of evidence that
Kevin Blackwell's nonconforming use permit should be immediately revoked.
~~~~o-.d ~~~ J;~~
""'"'..,-.,......
~ .
~
9.. ,...", i
9 fI#;'1 ell IJA
#t~
" \
"'Il";P....---.. j' ;..n......... ~ .,.......MJ~!l' -~ ~._..liiJD-
',' '~'~~l:""""""~-,~,,,,;..,r;.'.~~~I~:-1~"/~"~',"'~i~, ,..,-~Y.f~
~...w ~..~. ... ," ... ':f'.' ,w~,r...,i,' -".' ::..," ,.....
"u't~~ o-..".{)_~ ,~
~~~~
,.
H,
""~ij"':
,
11'
, l~::t,,,~ ~~~'~\:~::;;
.-..-
,. ,,,,~ ~
..1......;.~-<-
~"'f.~........- ~.,.....
~~~ ~~,a-'-~i
~.,i~"i""
l'l...J-'...
~'..., .~
~ ~;
:r+!~).;.i,,, ~,.
~-'.', I
;~''''~;.a..,
., , :~.~:\ ..
. .....
.~
.trl....
17vJ,~/~
g"'~-Di'
r;YESOI<E",4L, ~
,.j},
.~"*
.i,I".~
-. ~~'"
~~ ~
~'*!:ti. . ·
""", .,,'_.r"". ...;,j.,. I. .,t..!, '\;! yo' ~ ,.." I.' '~(;.,j U.
.' . i'.J I. . t~ :1:" l' ~~#o ! ".". 11'(