Travis County Commissioners Court
July 12, 2005
Item 12
Joe gieselman has a couple of items here. 12 is to consider and take appropriate action on fy '06 exemptions, including the following. A, homestead exemption, b, over 65 years of age and disabled exemption, and c, historical exemptions.
>> this is what exemptions to provide for the upcoming fiscal year for at least a decade. Or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater. You have also established an over 65 and/or disabled exemption of $65,000. And also have established an historical exemption of 50% of the land and 100% of the structure for residences and nonprofits, and then half of that for all others. In the last year the city of Austin has gone through a review of its historical exemptions. Historically the county has followed suit with the city, so the city has a set of regulations and protocols and staff reviews applications and comes to a conclusion about exemptions for city exemptions and then the county takes that and says if it's okay with the city, it's okay with the county in essence. And that has been the approach that has been used for many years. You have a letter from barbara hankin, who is the chair of the Travis County historical commission that outlines some background and makes some observations about historical exemptions, and the judge asked for some background on what the city provides in all of its tax exemptions, which are typically less than the county. And then a summary of what the new provisions are for the city's historical exemption. In essence, what it did was grandfather in the existing exemptions, and then if property sells after December first of '04 there's a cap of the exemption that's provided by the city. And if the county in essence follows suit with what the city does, it would in essence we would execute the cap in the same way the city does.
>> that's what we have always done?
>> that's what we have always done. > but we have never provided an exemption for properties in unincorporated areas. And that's what the committee recommended that we do.
>> that's correct.
>> so what would be our deadline for acting on that?
>> i'd have to consult with my colleagues on that. I believe we have to have the exemptions for the effective tax rate advertisement. And dusty knight from the tax office may have the answer to your question.
>> good morning, dusty knight from the tax office. Christian is correct. We're doing this in order for the appraisal district to be able to give us the right values, right exemptions in order to calculate the effective tax rate. And that's going to be started on July the 25th so I would assume we would need to put something together to have guidelines to do this in an unincorporated area and do this within two weeks. Would be my assumption unless you want to delay the effective tax rate process.
>> and we would need to -- if the court is interested, it would seem to me, in having the properties that are historic outside of the city, but within the county, provided an opportunity for an exemption, it would seem to me that we would need to work with the Travis County historical commission because they would have a role to play. And if -- from what I understand, there are certain specifications that an owner must do through. As a recorded Texas historic landmark -- there's a national historic landmark. And I would assume if someone has those plaques and they went through the Travis County historical commission, to validate it. So that if we relied on the historical commission, the county historical commission to validate that yes this indeed meets whatever criteria y'all wish to establish, and it might be the city's criteria, then I would assume the historical commission would say, and probably to the planning and budget office, please follow through, or to the tax office, either one, and we would then inform the appraisal district. I don't believe -- according to barbara hankin's letter, there's probably a dozen properties that are outside of the city, but inside the county. That might meet that standard.
>> so there are different ways that could go. For example, as we do on our hub policy. Somebody else has gone through the validation process, like capital metro has certified you as a hub, we're willing to accept that certification. That's one thing that makes it a very easy process for the historical commission because they're basically relying on others that have taken somebody through the validation process. However, we are talking about the historical commission now getting into a situation where they are the ones who are deciding whether they are plaque worthy or whatever phrase we want to use. I can tell you from having been on occasion to the historic landmark commission at the city of Austin, those things are long, lengthy, contentious about whether something should or should not be saved, about things that are being imposed on owners who are not necessarily in sink with somebody else -- in sync with somebody else trying to impose historic zoning on their property, and vice versa. Somebody that wants it, but the property is beyond repair or not, so those are two very different things about whether we are granted. Make our folks the validaters are they are simply certifying somebody else's certification.
>> and I don't know who those somebody else's are.
>> I知 not sure that works either. Why don't we approve it with the understanding that we will place on the agenda an item dealing with historical exemptions in unincorporated areas either the 19th or the 26th. If we approve the three posted with exemptions for properties in unincorporated areas, which is a kind of subset of historical exemptions, it freeze up tcad to proceed with this work. If we never act on the historical exemptions for properties in unincorporated areas, there's no reason for them to slow down. If we act on it in a way that entitles additional properties for an exemption if they prove it, then they are probably looking at another year before they get it done anyway. I think we'll need to find out more about how that would exactly do. I've never quite understood how the city of Austin does it. I do know that the process is there and I would just assume that it was fair and equitable. So if we can achieve the same result for properties in unincorporated areas seems to me to be the thing to at least consider.
>> and I assume that I do not wish to have any staff increases as a result of this opportunity. The city has staff, full time people who worry about this. And I assume you're interested in having this basically be a -- accommodate within existing resources and not have any resources placed on to this effort.
>> right.
>> and barbara hankins, I assume would be a key player because she lives in that world and understands the world and, if you would like, i'll invite her --
>> the one page that sets forth steps describing how you accomplish the determination would be helpful. I do not have in mind us spending spending dollars to help others earn the exemption.
>> right.
>> but if it's fairly easy to consider appropriate properties and make the call, I think at least we ought to land on it.
>> i'll talk to barbara hank threep ins and see. I would assume there's going to be a role for the county historical commission somehow, whether it's a pass-through or an affirmative role, I don't know.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. Over 65, so does that mean you have to be 66? Over66 and disabled. Or is that 65 and over?
>> right.
>> I think we always say overover 65, but we'll clarify that. That would be the clarification in b.
>> it's also not 65 and over and disabled. You don't have to be both. You can be one or the other.
>> and dusty, remind me, is it automatic -- there is a process that you have to go through to get either one of -- the 20% and the 65 and over? That's not an automatic deduction on your ad valorem bill, right?
>> right. You have to make the -- apply for the exemptions to the appraisal district. It doesn't cost you anything. I知 using this for people that are trying to charge people $25 to file. It's free. We have the forms at the tax office. You can go to the appraisal district and get your residential homestead that will take care of all the taxing jurisdictions. You need to notify them of when you're going to turn 65 to be able to get the 65 and older exemption, and also there are some circumstances that would cause you to become disabled, you would need to notify the appraisal district. And we have the forms, we have the forms on alone, as does the appraisal district.
>> and you have to do that each year?
>> just once.
>> just once.
>> once you do it, then you're good.
>> it's been taken care of.
>> once you're 65 or over, you stay that way.
>> there are 10,000 comedians out of work and christian is cutting jokes.
>> I think I need a new job.
>> so do we encourage people who are about to turn 65 to come prior to that date?
>> we do. And it's required each year. I believe that the appraisal district does put an ad in each year talking about this, and there's some new legislation, I think, I知 going to have to go back and look at it now that you've asked me, but there's something in the legislation that's causing people to be asked or something, but there's something new so we would try to do that.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> but we do -- anyone that does come into the office, we're obviously asking to make sure that they're getting all the exemptions they qualify for.
>> so with those clarifications...
>> move approval.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis.
>> so for clarification, on historical exemptions, we are going to mirror what the city of Austin is doing for properties within the city of Austin -- [inaudible - no mic].
>> we've done that in the past, though.
>> no, I知 just getting clarification that we're going to continue.
>> it's exactly what we've done historically.
>> yes.
>> and since they've changed, we will follow their changes.
>> right. The only question is we have never addressed properties in unincorporated areas, so we'll have a separate agenda item on that. And clarification on b to be age 65 and over and/or disabled basically, either or. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, I heard you mention July 25th. So if we put this on July 26th agenda, a day later you think with the action we just took it will be okay for us to look at historical exemptions in unincorporated areas on the 26th?
>> I am assuming that -- I am assuming that on the 25th we will have the values as you have established today from the appraisal district to start the effective tax rate calculation. If you want to do something different on the 26th, we would have to do that and go back and have the appraisal district redo their calculations.
>> yeah. But on all of them or just the --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> only what's affected?
>> if you changed it by one, that's a different number and then we would have to start the whole calculation with, even if it's just one person changing.
>> what if we try and set up a process administratively that works and is thought through and hooks into the two dozen properties out there that might be eligible. Apparently, there are only two that have a landmark seal. And then have that be an effort for '06 or '07.
>> maybe we have to make it effective for next year. I知 left with a big question mark. But I知 not left with the impression that this will be just easy and straightforward. Somebody's got to do some work with public education, whichever. Maybe we ought to think about that then. Maybe think about taking action for this fiscal year, maybe wealthy about next fiscal year and give ourselves a chance to really seriously consider it.
>> and the historical commission to partner with us in terms of getting their suggestions on how to work through all of those issues.
>> sounds good.
>> I would like to add one thing. I don't know if christian said it. I try to say it each and every year to the public. The local optional homestead that y'all are granting, the 20% or five thousand minimum, is the maximum that's allowed by y'all for you to grant. So you are giving the public the maximum that you can.
>> 20% or five thousand.
>> yes, sir.
>> we don't see that five thousand that much, do we? Most of the time it's 20%.
>> yes.
>> christian did not say that. Thank you, dusty.
>> thank you, dusty. [ laughter ]
>> he was too busy cutting jokes. [ laughter ]
>> we just voted on that, didn't we?
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:46 PM