Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Apri128, 2008 <br />Page 4 <br />dealt with subsection A of the proposed ordinance with regard to the method of calculating the <br />effective date of the tax freeze. He said key language from the state tax code was omitted, which <br />would have clarified the year that the tax freeze was to be implemented. The omitted language was <br />from Section 11.261(b) of the Texas Tax Code. Mr. McIlyar explained that without this language you <br />could have a 70 year old resident who had lived in their house for ten or twenty years, and five years <br />ago applied for a residence homestead. Under petitioner's proposed ordinance, the tax appraisal <br />district and city would have to go back five years to determine what the tax value and tax rate on the <br />property was at the time the residence homestead owner turned 65. He further said that the City <br />Council had brought the tax rate down at least thirteen and one-half cents since 2003. Mr. McIlyar <br />said this ordinance could create a higher tax ceiling for the property owner than if they had established <br />the tax freeze for 2008, which is the way the state statute is set up. In addition, Mr. McIlyar said there <br />were other other important sections omitted from the petition ordinance which were required by state <br />law, such as taxation affecting additions to property (Section 11.261 (c) of the Texas Tax Code)and <br />how the Lamar County Appraisal District would handle the tax ceiling when an older spouse passes <br />away (Section 11.261(i) of the Texas Tax Code). <br />Mr. McIlyar referred to the spreadsheet prepared by Gene Anderson reflecting the difference <br />between imposing a ceiling based upon 2003 tax values and imposing a ceiling based upon 2007 tax <br />values in the City of Paris. The spreadsheet compared taxes paid by residential owners in 2003 versus <br />what they paid in 2007. Based on the city's tax rate at .69 1/2 cents in 2003 and the city's tax rate at <br />.56 cents in 2007, an owner of a residence would have paid less taxes in 2007 to the City. <br />Mr. McIlyar told the Council that the City Charter did not allow for Council to make any <br />corrections or amendments to a petition ordinance that was submitted through an initiative process. <br />He informed Council they did have the right to develop their own tax limit ordinance in whatever <br />time period they chose to do so. Mr. McIlyar emphasized there would still be an election on this <br />petition in November of 2008. He said if the ordinance was adopted as written, it would be difficult <br />to administer and someone over the age of 65 years may challenge the validity of it, because it does <br />not comply with the state law. <br />Council Member Strathern inquired why Council would adopt this ordinance since it had <br />problems. Kent McIlyar said he was recommending Council not adopt the ordinance. Council <br />Member Strathern wanted to know what would happen if they rejected the petition, it went to a vote <br />and passed in the written form. Mr. McIlyar said his opinion was it would leave the City with a <br />challenge if the voters adopt the ordinance as written in the petition. Mr. McIlyar went on to say the <br />citizens over 65 years of age who were adversely affected could challenge it. <br />Council Member Strathern inquired if the county had implemented a tax freeze for those <br />persons over 65 years of age and disabled. Kent McIlyar said he did not have that information, but <br />would get it for Council. Council Member Wilson said it was his understanding that the County had <br />a$10,000.00 deduction and the City had a$20,000.00 tax break for persons over 65 years of age and <br />disabled persons. Council Member Wilson said several years ago when the tax freeze issue came up, <br />