Travis County Commissioners Court

July 10, 2012 - Item 5
Agenda

We have posted a public hearing for 10:00 a.m.
And that is item number 5 and little to receive comments regarding Fiscal Year 2013 Historic and Over 65 and Disabled Exemptions.
And we have an action item, number 9.
And the importance of the action item, mr. Nellis, is that the travis central aappraisal district needs to hear from us regard exemption by what date.
Travis central appraisal district need to hear from us by when?

>> Do you want to come up?
We have mary, the chief appraiser here today and she can answer that.

>> Thanks for coming.
We didn't want mr. Nellis to put you on the hot seat, but since he's done it, we'll apply a little pressure.

>> The appraisal district, we are scheduled to certify.
We are working very hard to finish by the end of this week and reach our certification levels so we can provide you certification information for budgeting purposes.
We need to know as quickly as possible if you plan on extending your exemption amount, exemption levels, if you want it to be included in the certification numbers that we provide to you.
Otherwise we will need to know about the middle of September so that that information can be provided accurately to the Travis County tax office for billing purposes.

>> Repeat that because I kind of ran into little difficulty and the difficulty is that I want -- I need a definition as far as as soon as possible what window is as soon as possible.

>> Our anticipated goal is to certify this Friday.
If we could get an answer today, we can include that in the certification numbers that we provide to you and give you an accurate estimate of what your certified values will be for 2013 or 2012 when we give you actual numbers next week and we anticipate next Tuesday would be the day you get your certified numbers.
We would need to know today if you want to include it as part of your certified numbers.
Otherwise we'll need it middle of September at the latest so we can get the data updated and have that included when we give the export to the Travis County tax office to generate tax bills.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> We have been proceeding as though we have a deadline of this Friday.

>> That's correct.
And I know that we wanted to give the t cad approximately two weeks to input and we appreciate the ability of tcad if in fact you approved it today.

>> We're ahead of schedule on certifying.
That's what pushed the schedule up.
We are actually ahead.

>> Thank you.

>> I do have a number of people here with me today.
We've steve sadowsky, preservation officer for city of Austin, and, of course, I have renee decker to my left and tim dow from the tax office that assisted us all the way through this process.
I did -- there was a request by a member of the court and we included it in your backup of the various tax impacts of the proposals that were set forward previously.
And you have that in your backup.
Under the current Travis County policy with no cap on the amount of the historic preservation, it shows from the lowest assessed value of 51,874, that -- that property has no Travis County tax liability on it to the highest assessed value of 7.6 million, and that has no Travis County tax liability.
Now, when you -- when you move to the proposal to match city of Austin's revised policy, which essentially they took and grandfathered things from 2004 back, and I'll stand corrected by my city people here and they essentially in that 2004 had a.
50% of tax liability ceiling or $2,000.
Whichever is correct.
Is that correct, steve?
And when you do that a median assessed value home at 645,637 would have a Travis County tax liability of $507.65.
The highest value would have 11,189.
The other options that were scud, one from the local tax policy group that proposed to take the historic exemption and then deduct the 20% homestead exemption, you can see in that the median assessed value of $645,000 homestead would have a tax bill of $634.57 as opposed to matching the city at 507.65.
Then you would have the other option was to just cap all properties at $2,500 tax exemption.
And under that case the $645,000 home would pay $7.65 of Travis County tax.
And then the option that would match the Austin independent school district, which they capped theirs at $3,500, then you would have zero tax liability on that $645,000 homestead.
So that kind of summarizes the tax impact of the various options.
I would encourage you to -- I did receive two telephone conversations of people that cannot appear here at the public hearing that after you have the public give their hearing I would like to read into the record those two conversations which have historic preservation exemptions.
We are here to answer any questions before the public hearing starts.

>> Court members, any questions?

>> I just have one question that I would like clarification on from the city of Austin.
Because we have 2000 that's put down here and in the backup there's 2500 figure also set forth.

>> Yes, ma'am.
What our city council did this last go round on the tax exemptions was to institute a new cap for any property that is designated a landmark after the effective date of the ordinance, which would have been December of last year.
So that new cap is $2,500.
Flat out.
Properties designated between 2004 and 2011 have the cape of the greater of 50% of city taxes or $2,000.
So there's a floating cap.
Anything designated before 2004 was grandfathered in at their existing rates unless that property sold and then that property falls under the new $2,500 cap.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> Yes, ma'am.

>> So can you -- can you take a $500,000 appraised value example and tell us how that would apply?

>> Sure.
The property is worth $500,000, what we do is figure out what the value of the land is and the value of the improvements because they are exempted at a different rate t land is exempted at.

>> %, 50% of the value of the land is exempted from taxes and 100% of the value of structure is exempted.
Whatever that works out to be.
If that property were to be designated today, if the city tax exemption would be over $2,500, it would be capped at 2500.
So even though legally they would be entitled to, say, a $2,800 or a $3,000 exemption, the city is going to cap that at $2,500.
In order to stabilize the liability.

>> Okay.
And the properties that are grandfathered remain that way unless the property is sold.

>> That's correct, sir.

>> And then the -- whatever policy is in place at the time of the sale would apply?

>> That's correct.
Currently that would be the cap of $2,500.

>> What's the effect if the property is inherited?

>> I'm sorry, ma'am.

>> What's the effect if the property is inherited if it passes by estate rather than sold.

>> It would not be in effect.
What we wanted to do was say if somebody owns a property and they sell it and there's actually cash being transferred, then the new cap would fall into place.
But if the property passes through heirship through descendant the cap would not come into play.

>> We got some sort of questions regarding how we would verify eligibility for the historic exemption.
I know there's the affidavit.

>> Yes, sir.

>> But which steps would city staff take in order to document historic status?

>> Well, we got a lot of affidavits in that we felt did not adequately address what the affidavit was focusing on.
And we contacted those applicants to see if they wanted to make a different statement because this was the first year so this is really trial.
People really didn't know what to expect to we wanted to give them a fair chance to make their case.
But really we were looking for statements that say that an historic house requires more money to maintain.
It may not be anything that they do on a regular basis, but over time these things do add up.
Owners of historic properties are required to get certificates of appropriateness for any work that they do to the exterior of the house.
And part of that is maintenance.
So, say, a window rots out.
We require that they actually replace that -- rehab that window rather than replace it.
They can't go to a local lumber store and get some vinyl windows and throw them in there because it's an it's an historic landmark and maintaining the integrity of that building is our priority there.
So the cost of maintenance of a house are over and above what the normal homeowner would do because normal homeowner is not going to rehab a window if they can replace it for less money.
But the statements that we received from our applicants did reflect this higher level of care, higher cost of materials, use of -- use of local craftsmen to do work on their houses where wouldn't normally happen for a normal homeowner.
And those are the affidavits that we recommended for approval by our landmark commission.

>> What kind of due diligence do you do on those applications where there is the statement of need?

>> Well, we inspect the houses every year.
And during our inspection, which is fairly detailed, we note that there are -- there maybe some deficiencies, and our purpose behind these inspections is to alert homeowners of potential problems that they may not be aware of.
So last year we conducted the inspections.
We alerted homeowners to potential problems. We saw that in a large number of cases those problems had been addressed adequately.
A lot of times they are routine maintenance so they don't have to come to the commission for a certificate of appropriateness for that by our code, but on our inspection we notice that.
So-and we note that the deficiency we noted last year has been addressed.
So these homeowners are definitely following our recommendations for repairs and taking the appropriate steps to repair their homes.

>> So you have an annual inspection on every home that has an historic designation?

>> Yes, ma'am, we do.

>> Do you have staff to get that done?

>> Pardon me?

>> You have sufficient staff to get that done?

>> Well, we relied on other members of our department to help us out on that because it is pretty arduous to get them all done within a very short period of time, but yes, we get them all done this year.

>> Okay.
And the city of Austin issues the certificate of appropriate innocence?
That comes from the city of Austin?

>> Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, it comes from the landmark commission.

>> Okay, now, landmark commission, is that like a group of city employees?

>> No, sir.
It's a city commission.
The members are volunteers.
They are appointed by councilmembers and they answer to their individual councilmembers.

>> Okay.
The.

>> Travis County only has one parcel that is not within the city of Austin.
That is a parcel that's owned by willie may merchantson out in Pflugerville that's been in the family since 1876.
Appraised value of 82,318.
It has a Texas historic landmark so there's not a question of need certification on that one property.
I might say that aisd has an interlocal with the city of Austin to utilize their certification of need information, and that's what they rely on to satisfy that statutory requirement for that exemption.
I'm not aware that Travis County has one currently, but in conversations with the city I think that they would be open to the same type of interlocal that the school district, if in a fact Commissioners court would like to go that way.

>> So how does the city of Austin treat the state designation?

>> Well, if it's also a city landmark, it falls within our jurisdiction and program.
State designation as far as the tax exemption goes exempts that property owner from having to file the affidavit showing a need or declaring a need for the tax relief to encourage preservation.

>> So you accept the state designation?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay.
Court members, any other questions?

>> I have one question.
From the city's perspective, which was options are hybridization of the options?
Would most closely reflect what the city is doing?
We have a little bit of an implementation hiccup here in that you all have a three-tiered system and we have never had a cap.

>> Right.

>> So we are contemplating a cap.
How -- and I'm just trying to figure out how we could implement a cap from this point that would most closely mirror what the city is doing?

>> Right now our level of exemption at the city is the same at Travis County.
So you all exempt the same value of a property that we do.
I think it could closely mirror what the city is doing as far as setting a cap, limiting the amount of tax liability every year for the county that is given out in historic preservation tax exemptions.
This could mirror it very well.
The one issue that I've had with the working group's recommendation is the date of construction to be eligible for a tax exemption.
Because our -- to be a city of Austin landmark, the property has to be at least 50 years old and have had its period of significance at least 50 years ago.
I know that now I'm well into my historic age that 50 years ago doesn't seem like much, but when you consider the growth of the city of Austin, so much of our growth happened after world war ii and so many of our neighborhood exhibit some really incredible mid-century modern architecture that we definitely felt if we're going to designate those properties as landmarks, then they should also be eligible for the tax exemption.
So that really is about the only difference that I saw, only john quinn kim difference that I saw.
I'm going to ask miss mcgee if she has any other comments.

>> I'll just add to that that also the 50-year rule as we sometimes refer to it is sort of the federal standard for designation of historic properties rather than a date certain of 1930.

>> I think at this point we're not contemplating that, we're just looking at a cap, trying to mirror the city's cap.

>> My only comment would be suggesting that you maybe follow the same date for the start of the cap as the city has done and as the school district has considered as well, partly because I think that makes it much easier for the appraisal district to calculate which properties should be receiving the cap and the date we used was any property designation after December 21 of 2011.

>> Would there be an implementation issue with having the same three-tiered system and date as the city with regard to 2004 forward, has a $2,000 have a 50% cap.

>> I think what tcad would do is take the city of Austin calculation and apply it to Travis County and you would -- you would have the same exemptions for both.

>> But -- but we have a difference though.
Go ahead and finish.

>> I was waiting for mario to opine on the difficulties of implementation because this would be -- it is a three-tiered system, but if the city is already requiring that of tcad, perhaps we could ride coat tail in order to have a consistent application throughout.

>> > we calculate the exemption on all the historical properties.
It would ease implementation for us if you either put a cap effective as of December 31, 2011, forward, that would be the calculation we would use for Travis County or if you mirrored exactly the city of Austin's calculation.
If you varied from that, that means the calculation that we have to do will be completely different and separate for the county as opposed to the city and the school district.

>> Thank you.

>> We normally don't back the implementation.
Are we legally authorized to do that?

>> If the answer is no, maybe we ought to go into executive session.

>> I'm sure that elliott has a good response on that.
That's not one that I looked at before.

>> Make a note of that, we need to discuss that in executive session.
So would it be burdensome if we made it effective the beginning of our fiscal year 2012, that would create agap, December 31 -- that would be nine months.

>> I would recommend you go with the December 31 date because the tax assessment date is January 31.

>> If the law allows us.

>> Yes.

>> We don't violate the law here at Travis County.

>> It can be December 31, 2012.
Anything from that point forward.
But a December 31 date will align more closely with the assessment date.

>> Okay.
John, that's a big question.
Anything else before we hear from our residents?

>> I have one question, judge.

>> Yes, sir.

>> There is a difference in some of this, and, of course, what Travis County does especially in our situation and also if that particular historic situation has homestead exemptions applied, Travis County offers a 20%, 20% right off the assessed value of that property, you get the homestead, you get the historic exemption on top of that.
And there is a difference between the city of Austin and Travis County in that regard.
And my question is, of course, it's another issue, but the -- the city of Austin right now is not offering a homestead exemption of 20%, and my question is do we know how much money, revenue as far as would be lost to the city by not offering a 20% homestead exemption on property?

>> The last number that I heard, and it was a couple years ago, was $15 million of tax revenue if in fact the city implemented a 20% homestead exemption.
I would assume that number has gone up since that number was --

>> Right.
Well, $15 million.
And what I'm hearing, again, throughout all of this process where we're talking about probably providing some tax relief to some folks in this community, and I know we haven't gotten to b yet, get a little ahead of myself, but the bottom line is what I'm hearing is providing more tax relief for affordable situations here in Travis County for the affordable homes.
Now, my question is when is the city going to belly up to the plate and bring about affordability to folks out here that are surviving by their chiny chin chin, and I really just mean that, chiny chin chin.
They are struggling and even with these particular situations if you were to go through just one of these situations, reroy, can you go through just briefly to let the public know exactly what we're talking about here, could you go through the scenario of the impact as far as Travis County?
Not anybody else, I'm not involving city of Austin because I'm thinking about what Travis County can do, what we can do as we look at this.
City of Austin is their own jurisdiction.
Travis County is our jurisdiction and we're dealing with this.
Now, can you provide for me in the low example of the $51,000 situation of low example applicable only to Travis County at this particular point?

>> Right.
In all -- from the lowest assessed value of 51,874, all the way to the highest assessed value of $7.6 million, that under the current -- current policy on homestead, the current policy of a 20% homestead exemption and the current policy for historical preservation of 50% of land and 100% of improvement with no cap, none of those property owners pay any Travis County taxes from the lowest to the highest.

>> So I wanted to lay that out because I wanted to show significance, but only to the fact that there are implications later on.
But I wanted to make sure we get that laid out early as far as what we're talking about.
Thank you for that scenario.

>> But if we do 100% of the structure and 50% of the land, still got zero?

>> Well, with the 20% you take the total assessed value and you take the 20% off the entire map and then you take 100% of the improvement of the total assessed value and 50% of the land to get the preservation exemption, then when you add them together, you have an amount that actually exceeds in a lot of cases, and ken did the calculations on those for me, the actual assessed value of it.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] ing

>> > I did have an email that I forwarded to the court.

>> As far as ms. Murchison goes, she no longer lives in the house because of her disability and age, she can't maintain it, she was in -- she lives in Pflugerville now.
Out of necessity, her children maintain the house.
Before you there's difficulty in any of them living in the house, because they have lives elsewhere.
So yeah she's --

>> There is a requirement that you reside in the house?

>> No.

>> For the city of Austin yes there is because we have two tiers of exemptions, if -- there's no requirement that you live in the house, but if you are representing it out for income, them your exemption just like Travis County would be half of what a resident homeowner would be eligible for.

>> If a house is unoccupied you can still get the exemption?

>> Yes, sir.

>> But from my understanding, after speaking with ms. Murchison, in fact I directed leroy nellis to speak with her, also, because I spoke with her early this morning, the property as far as an example of the school district, I think it's according to her, is in the Pflugerville i.s.d.
I don't know if it's located, the property itself is located off cameron between manor and Pflugerville.
So -- so I don't think it's within the city limits of Austin not -- not that I'm aware of, I don't believe it is.

>> I don't believe it is, either.
Either.

>> Leroy, did she specifically state to you any location other than what I just designated as far as what they would come up under.
I think she basically laid out the fact that under the historical omission the standards that they have is the reason why the amount of -- to maintain that deal is because of the standards that the -- that the commission require for that historic designation marker to continue, that was laid out to me this morning.
So I directed staff to talk with her for further information.
I had to come down to the dais this morning.
It was after 9:00, so the conversation was kind of lengthy, but at least ms. Murchison did lay it out.
I don't know how it applies to what we are doing here today.
If it's something that fits into, I think we should look at that.
I guess from the conversation that you had with her, leroy, what I'm just saying here, anything else that -- where this maybe could fit in.

>> Well, the only thing is she shared with me her estimated tax liability from the other taxing jurisdictions was about $2,700.
That she is expected to pay.
Of course the Travis County tax liability is zero.
Under the current policy.
So -- so that's what she was obviously Pflugerville independent school district probably does not have a historic preservation exemption.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> So -- so for -- for let's say in the future, if we got other applications for properties located outside the city of Austin, we would not be set up to go out and do those annual inspections, would we?

>> We wouldn't.
I would assume that we only have one currently.
And that one is -- has the Texas historic designation, so it does not have a requirement as ones that do not.
But I would assume that we could work with the city of Austin and -- in getting some type of interlocal and work together with them.

>> Does the state perform some sort of periodic review?

>> Right.
Huh?

>> The state, no.

>> I'm not sure what the state does.

>> The state does not do annual inspections of recorded Texas historic landmarks.

>> Anything else?

>> Would you like for me to read the email that the property owner.

>> Highlights.

>> It's very short.
My name is christine baskin, as the owner of a summer camp which is in season I am unable to attend the hearing on July the 10th, 12th and I would like to add some information to the affidavit for certification of historic or archaeological sites, that was notarized on January 12th, '12, concerning the property located at 2302 woodlawn boulevard in Austin, my home.
The house on this property was built in the late '20s, governor moody moved from the governor's mansion into this home.
I am its second owner, having bought it almost 20 years ago with my then husband, I am now the sole owner of the home.
Where I live with my three children I am also sole owner of the

>> [indiscernible] summer camp, camp balcones springs, which is struggling to stay afloat in this economy, in the past 10 years there have been eight homes of 12 total on the boulevard which have been gutted and replaced by huge mcmansions.
Built on the lots and leaving no yard space to speak of.
Between property lines, unimaginable millions have been spent in each case.
Among these neighbors all friends and very nice neighbors are joe and theresa long, dick and tammy anderson, jane and melanie mccraig and travis and sherri west.
I received several requests to hear from people wanting to buy my home, if I cannot continue to receive some tax relief, this is what will happen to my house and lot.
I feel certain.
The entire home will be razed the back portion is a 1950s addition on top of a carport is on a cracked foundation.
My father, a prominent structural engineer guided me saying that the house could stand as is for another 100 years or longer, maintaining plaster walls, brick exteriors, old wiring is costly, but I am so passionate about my home and it's historical significance that I have made no changes since purchasing it, have no intentions of making any.
If you need any further information to help in determining the house's historical worth, I will be glad to provide any details requested.
I will appreciate any help.
If I have to pay an additional 10,000 or more in taxes, there's no way that I can afford to keep my home, best regards.
Thank you.

>> Thank you, any other questions?
Let's hear from our residents.
Y'all will be able to stay around a few more minutes, right, just in case we have questions.

>> Sure.

>> Now, if you are here for the public hearing, this is your opportunity to provide input.
And we have six seats available, just come forth.
Give us your name and we do have a three minute time limit.
That ms. Porter hates to enforce but has been directed to do so.
Can we just start here, work our way around.
If we finish, if you would give another speaker an opportunity to come forth and have a seat.

>> Good morning.

>> Thank you, sir, Commissioners, my name is nancy burns, I live in the brown building and I manage the brown building and norwood tower.
I'm here to talk about a couple of the recommendations sounds as if you are not considering these, but I did want to say, like alison I have a concern about the 1930 date that has been stipulated in the working group's recommendations, I think that's very arbitrary.
Both of these buildings are on the national register of historic places.
The brown building would not qualify, it was built in 1938.
Yet I think all of you would recognize that it does have historical significance in the building and is a marvelous asset to the city in terms of the people that had offices there in that building and the significance of that.
I also want to let you know that right now, currently, we're spending $350,000 doing work on the exterior of the brown building.
All of this is because of the original features that we're required to maintain in order to have this historical significance.
Right now we're painting the spandrell panels part of the decoration on the north and east elevations of the building.
The building has the original steel framed windows which are being painted.
Sanded down, repainted, all of the caulking and perimeter caulking around the window frames to prevent having any masonry damage, all costing about $35,000.
This is quite significant.
We had to have a special assessment for the people that live in this building, this is not something that other structures would have to do.
These are all repairs that have to be done because of the original elements that are part of the exterior of this building.
And it is something that the city does look at when they come around and do their inspection is maintaining the exterior of your property.
They are not interested in and do not inspect the interior only the exterior.
Two years ago, at norwood tower, we spent $2.5 million working on the exterior of the building.
All of these were repairs that had to be done because these are historic structures and to be a account to maintain the facades of the building because of their significance, I think it's really important that you recognize that as a property gets older, it does cost more and more money to maintain that property.
And the fact that there is a recommendation in the working from the working group that the historic status only be limited to ten years makes absolutely no sense.
As these properties get older, instead of it being easier and less expensive to maintain, it's just going to be that much 7 more expensive.
I would urge you to consider what the city recommended.
I think we all recognize that maybe there should be a cap.
And I think that makes sense.
We're not opposed to that.
But we do want you to consider the fact that it is going to continue to be a burden for the people that live in these buildings to maintain them and they do add to the value and the -- the vibrancy of Austin, it would be a very different place if we didn't have our historic structures, thank you.

>> Any questions for ms. Burns?

>> I think we're only really contemplating the cap at this point.
In your experience being the -- the manager of the building, what is your feeling on $2,500 cap?

>> We already have that in place, it has gone into place for the city.
With respect to some of the properties at the brown building that have been sold since the cap went into effect.
And I think it makes sense, I certainly know for the brown building structures, we do not have any property there other than the first floor, which is retail.
We do not have any of the residential units that -- that would have an exemption that would be higher than the $2,500 cap.
Looking atmosphere the valuations for those -- at the valuations for those particular units.
I don't believe any units are valued much above 4 hub 400,000, $450,000 that's a combination unit that sold just a year and a half ago on the 10th floor that is actually two units that were combined, sold for 435,000.
I really do not believe it would have any effect on the residential units at the brown building.

>> So all of the -- all of the -- because it's a -- it's a condominiumized, no residents of the brawn brown building based on the valuations would be paying property tax?

>> They would be paying property tax, but they wouldn't be getting, if you implemented the cap, they would not be getting an exemption that would have been more than the cap is what I was saying.
They are paying Travis County taxes at this point.

>> I'm sorry, are you saying that the county taxes would be less than the $2,500 cap anyway.

>> Yes, they would be.

>> In that case, if the cap were instituted they would be paying no county property tax.

>> What I'm saying is that if you were -- if you were not doing it and you were to do the 50% and the 100%, 100% on the structure and 50% on the land, there's none of them that would have a tax amount that would be -- that would be more than the 2500.
You are probably right.
They would be -- they actually would be getting a benefit if you put in that -- unless the valuations continue to increase then I would assume at some point in the future our valuations will continue to increase.
This year for most of the residents, the brown building, I don't know whether that was city-wide, but I do know for the unit that I live in, the valuation for the property actually decreased by about $30,000.

>> Okay.

>> It does -- again it sounds like there is no property tax, no county property tax for residents of the brown building without the cap and there also would not be any with the cap.

>> I don't believe that's the case.
I do know that people, they are paying taxes to the city currently under the current system and I don't think -- I do not believe the cap would have an effect to the point that it would -- it would reduce the amount of money that anyone was getting substantially.

>> Thanks.

>> Yes, sir?
Next speaker?

>> Hi, I'm brian rogers with www.changeaustin.org.
Just to go off of what Commissioner Eckhardt was saying, I do have a list of all of the brown building properties.
Many of them pay nothing right now in -- under Travis County.
But I oppose these residential historic exemptions, I am an owner of an historic house.
I don't have the exemption.
As you can see from this photo here, I know all about preservation and maintenance of a histrionic home.
Okay?
The tax ed -- historic home.
The tax code provides an exemption but only after a determination from Travis County that there is a need of tax relief to preserve the property.
It requires a relationship between the need and the receipt of public funds.
So my question is have you all established a need for each of these properties?
Have they submitted a budget?
I don't think that you actually know what -- whether these properties need one, so I'm going to pull a homeowner with the biggest exemption.
Last year Travis County gave the owner of 2407 harris a $26,000 tax break, that's after the city of Austin gave 17,000 and aisd 34,000.
So how did the Commissioners know that this owner needed the additional 26,000 from Travis County?
When you add them together, you're getting close to $70,000.
Did that owner need a $70,000 tax break?
In 12, the same home is valved appraised value at 9 million, assessed at 7.6, Travis County will get exactly zero, giving up 29,000.
Next year if this opener, if they are capped -- owner, if they are capped under the ordinance, if they are grandfathered, I'm not sure exactly what date they were brought into the program, around 2004, they will get $90,000 in tax relief.
In my house on 9th street, for 10 years I haven't spent a dime on the exterior.
There's nothing about an old house other than it's just a wood, old house.
I did have termite damage, I spent $1,500 on a perimeter beam a month ago.
I'll have to repaint it.
I could get a museum quality paint job for 20, 25,000 bucks, but this is all about the exterior of the house, this is not about how much it costs for their electricity on the inside.
I have seen that on affidavits.
It costs me more for the electricity.
Why don't they insulate the inside of their house like everybody else.
You can gut the inside and the city of Austin has nothing to say about the historism of that.
This is all about the exterior facade and the fact that the foundation will hold it up.
You could fill the end side of the home depot, nothing to be said for it.
But yet all of the house and land is getting this exemption and the maintenance is far less.
So really we need to determine is there a need from these owners, because -- because if you are just -- you know, if you were to give me $20,000 a year, I wouldn't know where to put it in my house.
There's no place to put it.
Okay?
Except in my pocket which is what most of these owners do, there's 20 of them on this first page who pay nothing to Travis County.
Six pages from tcad.

>> Can you tell me if it's not too intrusive, can you tell me what the latest appraised t cad appraised value of your property now.

>> I think it's 926,000.
I paid oh, $20,500 in total taxes last year.
I don't have any exemptions.
I could, I mean, my house was -- got plenty of history.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Yes, sir?

>> Good day, Commissioners.

>> By the way, if you are here and you would like to give comments to this public hearing, please come forth as seats are vacated.

>> Commissioners, I'm going to have to step away from the dais, I'm going to have somebody read my comments, I'm due at the city for a meeting and I apologize.

>> Would you like to go now.

>>

>> [multiple voices]

>> My name he is August harris, here on behalf of the heritage society of Austin.
Before I begin with my comments, I would like to note that I'm a historic landmark owner and I do pay Travis County property taxes, so mr. Nellis' numbers are incorrect and would take a little more looking over.
Thank you for allowing the city of Austin time to enact significant reforms to the historic landmark program.
Many of the concerns voiced here were addressed, key reforms include ...
Including a hard cap that will have the greatest positive impact for lower valued properties.
Stringent objective criteria for historic designation that will raise the bar for residential structures to are designated as a landmark, a ban on all contingency based historic application fees and a stronger focus on the expansion of local historic districts for preservation.
These changes have resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of properties that have applied for historic zoning.
Only two have been designated this year.
Today you have before you several options for altering your participation in the landmark program.
We ask that you mirror the city of Austin reforms by enacting a cap on the county's portion of the historic tax abatement, focusing this cap by applying the cap designated as a landmark or change ownership after January 1st, 2012.
We believe this is a fair compromise that continues to provide incentives for the preservation of our historic structures while ensuring that owners are not penalized only are or even forced out of their homes as a result of the participation in the preservation of our historic fabric.
Over time the approach used by the city will result in an increase in taxable property value while directing tax relief to lower income landmark owners.
We strongly encourage you not to offset the homestead exemptions as they would result in the gutting of the benefit of the tax incentives to most residents.
The heritage society is taking steps to collaborate with the community partnership neither in this program.
We are working working with aisd on ways to leverage historic properties in the classroom.
Also expanding our outreach efforts to advance preservation education.
Recently we celebrated the launch of the historical wiki survey.
This web based tool now makes information about all of the city landmarks publicly available in one location.
Citizens can also use this web tool and you Commissioners can as well to add information for any historic property.
This feature allows dynamic data management of the historic attributes of neighborhood homes, commercial properties, histrionic landscapes and public spaces such as parks and cemeteries, all of these activities are evolving from the recognition that we must continually educate our community on the importance of our heritage and the historical fabric that illustrates our past.
This is going to become increasingly important as Austin and indeed central Texas faces an increasing development pressure from a growing population with few ties to our community.
We appreciate all the time and all of the staff time as well that you have spent on this issue and the testimony that you weighed.
We trust that you will support this practical resolution to the issue and continue as a valued partner in the preservation of Austin's past and present.
Thank you.
I do apologize, but I'm due --

>> Thank you very much, we understand.

>> How many other speakers do we have on this item?
Okay.
Mr. Rogers, we will need your seat.
If as seats become available, please come forth.
Yes, sir.

>> Please?

>> As I said, good morning, Commissioners, in many ways I am here as a trustee, I am representing three generations of my family that have attended, worked and volunteered for 75 years in Austin's schools and government.
My concept of Austin --

>> Your name, sir, your name.

>> Good morning, again, Commissioners my name is bill monroe for the record.
A residents of 1606 pearl street.

>> All right.

>> My concept of Austin includes Travis County, the city, aisd, the health district, a.c.c., the university of Texas and even the Austin state school.
I also would say to you that as a professional, I am a cpa and we should all be grateful for being a part of the best capital and pure new urban metropolitan county in america.
Maybe even in the western hemisphere.
And here are two particular capitals that I don't want to see us become.
Trenton, new jersey, sacremento, california.
Why do I use those as examples?
Those are two capitals that have become doughnuts.
Yes, doughnuts is an urban phrase for a community that has a core of no people living in it or very few.
And very few children.
That the core of those cities that I just mentioned is essentially business.
The students, the families, the living, have pretty much left beyond that.
And there are many other cities in america that are struggling to get rid of the doughnut.
That they have become.
So let us not become that.
And in -- and basically what we have is a historic program in this community that is shared among many jurisdictions.
This jurisdiction here today, the city, as well as aisd.
As leaders.
I ask you to vote strategically.
And think some of the points that I have made in my written comments.
This is using balanced economics to preserve our heritage and preservation for the businesses, for the houses, for the homes, that are in our community.
And it also provides proper justification and compensation for those owners who have given up their property rights.
The other taxing entities are sharing in many intercosts across our county.
And across our governments.
Not just in the preservation area, but in many facets that make this a great community.
Let's make Travis County that, also.
Thank you, judge, and Commissioners.

>> Any questions for mr. Monroe?

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.
Two seats are available.
Two seats are available for speakers.
Yes, sir?

>> My name is charlie thomas, I own ma ferguson's, the old governor's mansion at 1200 enfield road and I've owned it for about 15 years or so, so I do get the full benefit of the tax break.
When I designated the home historic, there were certain benefits that were provided to us.
The tax breaks, et cetera.
And which was the reason why I went ahead with the designation.
Now I see those being over time getting limited and I'm getting -- with this new proposal a potential cap on the amount of -- of the tax relief that I'm getting.
I'm not here necessarily to argue about whether it's, you know, how much we're getting the reduction under the tax or not.
I understand the city and the county have some budget, you know, restraints.
Talking about affordable housing, whatnot.
And most of these homes are, I know in my case, well over the median value of the home in Austin.
The only thing that I want to point out is if you do decide to make changes to the current tax exemptions, that you would at least allow for the homeowner to opt out of a historic designation, I went under the designation with a certain set of rules and now they're being changed.
So like I said they are being changed because of budget constraints, whatnot.
I understand that, I'm not arguing, I do believe that we each need to put our share.
But since you are potentially changing the rules now, all that I'm asking is that in your plan have an option for someone like myself to give up my historic designation at that point.
And pay the full taxes, you know, that's my concern.
I will be willing to give up my historic designation if I -- and pay the full taxes if they let me out now that they are changing the rules on us.

>> Any questions?

>> Is there a mechanism under the city's policy for opting out?
I would think why not?

>> Steve?

>> Actually, Commissioner, there is -- we don't call it opting out.
But since landmark is a zoning designation, the zoning would have to be removed.
The applicant would have to show a reason that the house should not have been designated to begin with.

>> I have heard from -- from many who feel that they have given up a development right in perpetuity, but is that true.

>> That they have given up the development right.

>> > the development right in perpetuity, I agree with you, as I read the policy I didn't see a mechanism for undesignating if you no longer wanted to have the burdens placed upon you.
So I was wondering if it is a -- what document has been required that gives up the development right in perpetuity?

>> Basically just a requirement for certificate of appropriateness for any new or any changes to the existing building or any new development on the site would need to be approved by the city's landmark Commissioner.
I think the words giving up development rights in perpetuity is a lot bigger than what actually exists.

>> All right.
It does sound like it's a lot bigger, but I can understand how a resident would feel that way if there's no mechanism in place to back out.

>> Has the city ever taken a property off the landmark designation.

>> Undesignated it?
No, we have not.

>> What about a person feels that they do not have to adhere the conditions of maintaining historic designation, in other words, do not spend any money to ensure that the historic setting is in place, what happens in that particular regard.

>> It would be ineligible for the tax exemption.

>> It would be end eligible.
Would that trigger -- ineligible.

>> Would that trigger then the historic designation being lifted.

>> No, sir.

>> It still would not be lifted.

>> It's a separate process.
If a property owner does not -- say, does things on the property, constructions a new building -- instructs a new building without approval by the city's landmark commission, they would not be eligible for the tax exemption that year because to be eligible one must, the property must be up to code, the property has to -- anything on the property has to have been approved by the commission.
If the property owner has gone outside of those requirements, then they don't get the benefit of the historiccal designation which is the tax exemption.

>> So there's no reversal.
If I'm hearing you right, there's no reversal of historic designation, it appears that way to me.
If it is then apparently I didn't get it.
What is the proper he is to get a reversal, if the property would like to require that.

>> The process would be to apply to remove the historic designation, so it would be another zoning case.
To remove the zoning that exists on the property right now.
The city has never done that, never had an applicant serious enough to say I want this removed from my property because our focus is once a property is designated as a historic landmark, it is recognized for it's historical and architectural significance to the city.
So we would rather work with the property other thanner to say please don't make these changes to the property because you are a steward of this property for the entire community.
So if you make these changes that have not been reviewed by professionals that affect the appearance of the preservation of the property, we're going to deny you the benefit of the designation but we're not going to take that designation away from you.

>> So in essence you are penalized basically.
If you don't -- during your inspections if you don't maintain the home, they will take away your tax exemption, but you are still under the scrutiny of the historic preservation, which that's exactly my point is what I like to point out is that we're at a crucial point right now where you're changing the rules, in essence, you are reducing the tax exemptions, et cetera.
So what I'm asking you is as you do this, consider it, giving a homeowner an out of this historic designation.
Because what they do is they'll -- if you don't comply, they'll take away your tax exemption.
Still historic.

>> Well, my question though is this then, is there anything in writing prior to a person coming and requesting that their particular property become historic, is there anything in writing to explain just this process within policy itself that say this is -- these are the rules and regulations and if you decide to opt out, then these are the conditions that you must go through to opt out if you change your mind later.
Is that anywhere in writing prior to -- to application of histrionic designation?

>> Yes, sir.
It's in the city code.

>> It's in the city code.
So the -- so the applicant is aware of all of that, when they come in and apply for historic designation, they see all of that?

>> We work with every applicant to make sure they understand their responsibilities that they are undertaking to -- at the time they seek historic zoning.
Our applicants understand this is a zoning designation, if they want to change it even base sf 3 to sf 4 to multi-family, they are building another property, another building on the site, that is they go through the typical city zoning case work.
Where they would present evidence that would support their request to change the zoning and then it's up to the city council to decide whether to grant the change in zoning or not.

>> Um.
Okay.

>> If a property has a historic landmark designation and if they choose not to do the improvements that would be required, to maintain it under that landmark designation, this -- it's been said that they would then not qualify for their historic tax exemption, is there anything else punitive relative to not complying with the improvements required by the landmark designation?

>> It would depend on the level of non-compliance.
If a property owner allows the property to -- to deinvolve to the point where it's no longer a safe structure, the city --

>> Is there anything punitive separate from any other --

>> Let him finish the answer.

>> We have a demolition by neglect provision.
This is not going to be for somebody who doesn't fix a broken window or things like that.
But if a property owner really left the -- let the property slide to the point where it's no longer a safe building, we can institute demolition by neglect.
But that's true on all of our landmarks, true on anything within a historic district.
That we have jurisdiction on.
And then our code compliance division can institute that same sort of process on any building in the city.

>> Any other questions, Commissioner.

>> Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> May I ask for a clarification on that answer, though?

>> Sure.

>> Is there anything punitive with regard to a histrionic designated structure aside from not getting the tax break that is specific to it being historic that isn't applicable to any other house?
Neglect to the point of unhabittability is applicable to any structure, right?
So is there anything specific, anything punitive beyond not getting the tax break that -- that is distinct to historic --

>> No, there is not.

>> Thanks, I just wanted that clarification.

>> Our tax -- our tax exemption is an incentive for preservation and maintenance of the buildings that we have designated as crucial to understanding our past and our heritage.

>> If you don't get the tax break, you are just being treated like any other homeowner.

>> Right.

>> Okay.
Thank you, mr. Thomas.
Yes, sir?

>> County judge, judge Biscoe, members of the Commissioners court, my name is james strickland, a life long Austin residents.
I live in a house that depending on who you talk to is between 104 and 108 years old on 47th street that my wife and I have lived in for approximately, depending on who you talk to, the last 46 or 47 years.
I have dealt with the issue of house to deal with -- how to deal with conservation development for a number of years now obviously, obviously within my own house hold as a matter of fact.
Because when I recently retired, I suggested to my wife that we be the first ones that test the city, the city regulation about rescinding on the historic exemption.
Because I share the concern that many of the other owners have.
I will tell you right now that you're going to have very, very few people very interested in preserving the history of Austin if we continue to have the rules changed after we go under the system.
If the system would stay the same, I'm sure that those of us who went for years without a historic tax exemption as we did, put much into this house, personally bringing this -- this piece of history to Austin, one of the gentlemen that helped the charter for the -- developed the charter for the city of Austin was the man that built this house.
So what we're facing is not just the -- not just the loss of the exception, we're facing our developmental rights, that's a substantial amount that we're giving back to the community.
If the rules change, mid stream, I can tell you that there will be a number of people not interested in having their houses go under it and a number of us that are going to be quite interesting in trying to figure out how to rescind the deal because the rules have changed.

>> Any questions for mr. Strickland?

>> Mr. Strickland with regard to the development rights, I want to make a distinction here.
If one loses their tax exemption, they are not treated any differently from another homeowner with regard to taxes.
But you're right they are treated differently with regard to their ability to develop the property as -- because they have obligations with regard to the facade, the historic facade.

>> Which when you compare the two economically, a substantially more than any -- than any tax deferment that you might have.

>> I totally get that.
I just wanted to make that distinction.
And depending on the neighborhood and the use, the preservation, the facade or not has a larger or smaller ramification.
7.

>> You can imagine, we have almost an acre of land on 47th street.
Between duval and red river.
The -- the right -- the use to go back and have all of our building rights for that much, for that much land and that particular location was substantial -- substantially overshadow any tax that we have.
I can attest that having just had the city inspection done and just gone through the several thousand dollars worth of just analysis of the mortar in the -- between the rock work of our house that we're replacing, at the request of the city, it does cost you a great deal.
And it's not just going to home depot and buying it.

>> But you could develop the rest of your lot, just as long as you didn't --

>> No.
The land is -- this whole area was developed by the man who built the house.
It was a large estate there at one time that was patterson -- that became patterson heights.
The land has historic exemption on it, too.
So if I go to build anything there, at all, even an actually -- anything at all, even the back of my property, I go through the city -- city historic people and have to have a number of -- have to have their approval on anything that I do there.

>> That actually I'm confused by that.
Mr. Sadowsky, is that the case?
I was given to understand that it just goes to the existing facade.
If somebody wanted to have a secondary structure or put a pool in or garage, that that was not reviewed by the city.
Am I misunderstanding?

>> I'm afraid so.
Because the entire property is zoned histrionic, so any new construction -- zoned historic, so any new construction on the site would have to be reviewed and approved by our landmark commission.

>> What would be the standard for approval.
Would a new structure have to mimic the historic nature of the facade of the original structure?

>> No, ma'am, not at all, the commission uses the secretary of interior's standards, we use national standards to review any projects on our historic sites.
The real key to everything is compatibility with the historic context and the historic character of the existing landmark.

>> I see, so it is a burden.

>> Certainly.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> Next, please.

>> Yes, sir.
Gooding month, Commissioner, my name is chris mackey.
My wife and I operate a business in west campus, two buildings, both of them over 100 years old.
One of them got a complete remodel 10 years ago to not zoned historic.
My electric bill in the month of may in that building was $800.
In the -- in the property of similar size, maybe 3800 square feet against 4200 square feet and the second building which is zoned historic, my utility bills for the month of may were $1,700.
The difference is vinyl windows, solar screens, awnings, a lot of other things that a lot of people don't like.
$2,500 a year is not enough to keep me interested in maintaining the historic zoning for the property that I have.
It's a simple business decision to make changes to the exterior of the building.
You know, this is simply a -- a time for the Commissioners to ask themselves, you know, are these properties valuable in themselves, is it something that the community is willing to map some sacrifice with the owners of those properties or not?
If the answer is no, then I think that you can plan on all of those neighborhoods changing quite a bit.
My property is in west campus.
I'm sure everybody is familiar with what's going on in west campus and maybe the commission doesn't really care about the old houses in west campus, maybe it's okay if this changes and they go away and we put up some, you know, more mid rise condos or something.
In the month of December, I spent 125 hours of my own time rebuilding the railing around a deck.
I did this because the historic commission insisted on maintaining the appearance of the building.
We're all familiar with that.
The railing isn't something that can be purchased at home depot.
If I had gone to home depot and purchased the railing and installed it, I probably could have done the entire project for about $500 and maybe about 20 hours of my time.
As it is, I spent close to 3,500, on a helper, you know, professional handyman to help me restore pylons and instead of having them replaced because I can't buy pylons, I will have to get a mill to cut those.
The rails, a mill will have to cut those.
All of the columns that are part of that railing, I had to rebuild myself.
So -- so, you know, if -- if -- I don't think that for most homeowners, $2,500 a year is going to be a particularly interesting number.
I mean, I'm going to --

>> We're actually only contemplating a cap moving forward, when did you get your exemption.

>> January 1st 2004 is when we purchased the property.
The exemption already existed.

>> So yours would be grandfathered.

>> Right.
But I'm -- I'm, you know, there's -- there's another building in the area that I would like to purchase and then, you know, it's going to be difficult for me to know, I'm having -- really having a hard time making a decision whether I want to expand my business into that building or not because I don't know what's going to happen here today.

>> Repeat your last name for me.

>> Mackey, the property in question is at 611 west 22nd street.
You know, I had -- I had Austin energy come out, talk to me about what we're going to do with the utility bills in this house, their recommendations included vinyl windows, solar screens and awnings.
Among some other things, which we did.
But old houses are expensive to maintain.
That's just the way it is.
If y'all want to -- if the community no longer wants to help the owners of these old houses maintain those old houses, then some of them will go away.
Some of them will be changed substantially.
Some of those neighborhoods will -- will change quite a bit.

>> Do you think there should be any cap?

>> I don't know, I don't know, you know -- there's no such thing as fair taxation, sooner or later it's arbitrary to someone.
I don't really, from the point of view of running the county and running the city and questions about fairness, I don't have any -- I don't have any answers to that.
You know?
There are large issues to discuss.
But what I can say without hesitation is the moment, that the moment, you know, a $2,500 -- in the grand scheme of home ownership, $2,500 is nothing.
These old houses that you're talking about, are in old neighborhoods that are really quite popular, they are expensive.
Expensive to buy.
They are expensive to maintain.
I know this firsthand.
So I hope that there's no illusions about whether or not -- many of these old structures are businesses.
You know, perhaps -- we're talking about residents in these old homes, you know, I mean somebody spoke earlier about an elderly woman who is worried about staying in her house if things change.
That's -- that's interesting.
But many of the business owners won't have any heart strings about making changes to --

>> That is not being contemplated on commercial property.
The cap is not being contemplated on commercial properties.

>> Okay.

>> Even for the homeowners, though.

>> Thank you, mr. Mackey.
Yes?

>> Hello, my name is melanie martinez, I own two landmark homes in fair view park.
They are both right next door to each other on one acre.
I'm surrounded on both sides by large apartment complexes and these homes were purchased in the '80s by my boyfriend who died in 2000.
He's the one that initiated the landmark process on the homes because of his interest in architecture and urban planning.
He saw the way the development was creeping around our street.
If you don't know, fairview park is the first planned development south of the river.
It's now been obliterated by development.
Very few people even know what fairview park is.
So now across the street from me, on the same amount of lands that I own, one acre, they are building a gated community of 12 homes that cost more than -- they will be selling for more than double what my property is valued at.
So in this program, I've been able to stay in my home, after my boyfriend died, his family helped me get the homes restored.
And factored in the amount of the tax abatements so that I could keep living there.
I'm a musician.
I make less than $20,000 a year.
And the tax abatements absolutely helped me stay in my home.
And do the maintenance I need to do to keep getting the -- the abatement -- the landmark status.
Sorry.
I just really hate talking about my personal life like this.
I don't think I need to justify why I live where I live.
But -- but I have fully intended to live there the rest of my life.
It's not an investment for me.
It's for the city of Austin.
Of the to know what its history is.
And so I really hope that you will consider things like that in your decision.
Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Any questions for ms. Martinez?
So you live in one of the homes, is the other one rented out or --

>> Not currently.
I do live in one.

>> Just unoccupied?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> Lawyer johnson.

>> Good morning.

>> Thank you.

>> This is where the law school

>> [indiscernible] state of mind, does she look a whole lot younger?

>> [laughter]

>> As I get closer to retirement.

>> Good morning, my name isdy anne johnson, I'm not a wealthy landowner in west Austin.
So I wanted to come here today to talk to you about the historic exemptions and I'm passing on you the a picture that someone dropped by my house just a couple of months ago and said -- I had never seen it before.
My house was built in 1876, it's on east 11th street.
Last night when it rained, while most people were probably celebrating, I was walking around to see where my house was leaking.
The 1876 part of the house was not leaking, the 1985 addition was leaking.
So there is a lot of work that goes into this house.
Had it not had historic exemption it probably would have been torn down, it was an urban camping experience when I bought it in 2000.
At that point, it was on the tax rolls at about 228,000.
Over the next five years, it went up to $758,000.
And then it has gone back down now, still me living in it, still approved on the same mortgage with the same salary that I had that -- at that time because my income didn't go up like the property taxes and the value of the house went up.
But I want to talk a little bit about the importance of historic zoning in east Austin in particular.
We would have lost all of those juniper street houses recent by because the city of Austin wanted to tear them down.
Had we not objected to that saying that those shotguns had historic significance for our part of the community.
And it's important, I think, to have this as a tool to try to protect an area that some people don't find valuable.
I think the fact that we had domestics and door men at the driskill hotel living in the houses on juniper street is important for our knowledge of how Austin operated and especially how it operated after 1928.
The historic zoning tool gives us a way of protecting some of those resources and valuing parts of our community that the dominant culture didn't always value.
So just as you look at it and think about it, there is a real value in east Austin to historic zoning.
Most of the houses have been protected on the other side of i-35, but there are parts of Austin that we would like to maintain having that tool as if it's really important.
So I just as you are thinking about it, a lot of the things that have been written just say that it's for wealthy landowners in west Austin, it is not.
It really does help preserve the whole fabric of Austin and I ask you to look at continuing the exemptions.
Thank you.

>> Questions?

>>

>> [indiscernible] mention earlier about the affordability of a lot of homes in that area.
And of course we are looking at super gentrification.
In this area.
Of course I brought up some other issues under another item, item 26 for an example.
Affordability and of course what the city is doing on one end and all we as a county can maybe intercept some of the things to preserve and bring about some type of integrity.
To a community that -- that where -- again, long time tax paying residents are really being forced out of the community.
And you brought up some good points.
I'm going to keep all of these in mind because my objective is to make sure that we still have some type of diversity in this community whereby long-time tax paying residents of that community are not going to be forced out in the street and given other places to live that's not acceptable.
So this is -- this is something that I'm looking at and in the big picture.
This is a part I think of that process.
And I'm just glad you brought that point up because you mentioned that street, I was born and raised in east Austin, so I know about those streets that you're talking about.
And I'm very strongly committed to speaking for those folks that have echoed to me that they want to make sure that they maintain some affordable aspects of residential integrity in their community.
So thanks for bringing this points up.

>> You're welcome.

>> Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> Mr. Sadowsky, this is an important point that deeanne raises, at least from my review last year, 80% are clustered in 78701 or in the immediate adjacent central zip codes in the Austin area.
What is the program doing to target -- I mean it's understandable that's the case because that covers the original waller grid.

>> Right.

>> So that is -- there's nothing nefarious about that.
But the original waller grid isn't the only history of Austin.
11 but east Austin is not covered by the waller grid because i-35 was east street, that was where the map falls off.
So since west street is where the map fell off roughly around lamar.
Um ...
So what can we do together to target um the -- the other history of Austin that isn't covered by the original waller grid?

>> Actually, Commissioners, there's a lot going on right now.
We hope to have even more in the future as we continue to build our program.
The heritage society of Austin has been extremely helpful and instrumental in -- in working with neighborhood folks in east Austin.
To help them develop local historic district nominations.
My office has always worked very closely with folks in east Austin to -- to develop landmark nominations.
Every year we try to -- the city tries to sponsor a traditional african-american property and a traditionally hispanic-american property for landmark designation with the intent of raising awareness of the other aspects of Austin's history.
I have long felt that our -- our program in its early days really celebrated the great white men of Austin's history.
And hopefully I think that since I've taken over the program, we have expanded that focus so that we are now incorporating much more race history, much more ethnic history, much more history of different economic strata in the city so that the entire picture of the city that we now live in is represented by -- by heritage sites and our landmarks and hopefully our historic districts that are coming about.

>> I have a painful question, though.
If we grandfather the richer exemption for the white history of Austin and we cap the seeking out of the preserving of the other history of Austin, will we achieve parity in having preserved the white history of Austin on the waller grid and the neighborhoods to the west?
I am concerned about equity in this regard.
The -- the historic exemption is not an affordable housing -- it actually has no relation to one's income.
And that's okay.
Because we are preserving history, we're not -- it's not an affordability mechanism.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> I'm finding it difficult to find a way to balance the -- what I see as a -- too expansive of a benefit in areas that may not need that -- don't have that kind of need.
Historic home in pemberton next to a non-designated historic home in pemberton, it's hard to tell the difference between the two.
And I live just south of pemberton.
I live in clarksville, one of the neighborhoods that has the highest percentage of historic destinations.
I'm just trying to find some balance here so that we can continue to move forward with preserving some areas of our history that have been neglected.
And I don't know if I can do that by grandfathering what I see as too deep an exemption for our white history and perhaps too shallow an exemption for our other history.

>> Any other comments, ms. Johnson?

>> No.

>> Yes, sir?
Comments, ms. Johnson.

>> I had a comment that related to this discussion with the city of Austin.
Because I share concerns on east Austin's preservation.
I think there's a lot of opportunity there that's not been realized.
And one of the concerns I have, and not having been intimate with all the details on imagine Austin, the focus of growth dezavala any in the core -- growth density in the core seems like it will put additional pressures on these properties that need to be preserved.
So did the city of Austin take into account that domino effect perhaps and is there anything moving forward in looking at the east Austin properties in a way that would be perhaps help accelerate the identification and preservation of properties before they're gone?

>> Yes.
In the last couple of years we have -- our city council has enacted local historic district, rules and regulations to establish locally designated historic districts that we have been working with folks in east Austin to develop certain districts there that are designed instead of protecting a single building, almost in a vacuum, but protecting an entire neighborhood or district with its context.
So there would be architectural regulations put in place.
The city is offering an incentive, a property tax incentive for folks who rehab houses within locally designated districts.
Which is different from the landmark designation.
And those two things combined with a growing sense of the history of the neighborhoods in east Austin and south Austin for that matter too and northeast Austin.
I mean, it's not concentrated in east Austin, but I think we're trying to become more holistic in our approach to preservation and instead of designating one house on one street, let's look at the entire context of the district and offer an incentive that addresses rehabilitation and preservation of those houses at a lesser extent than our landmarks.
Because our landmarks are -- if we look at tiers of priority and significance, our landmarks are at the very top.
Our landmarks are what define the architectural character of our city.
And it's one building at a time.
Sometimes they're clustered close together, but we're really looking at the buildings that represent our history architecturally and from their associations with the people who made the city what it is.
A district is looking at a much broader approach.
So we also want to incentivize the creation of those districts because in areas like east Austin even under our new criteria a lot of buildings that are important to the neighborhood may not rise to the level of an individual landmark according to our designation criteria.
So in order to preserve the character and the history of areas of the city like east or south Austin, these local historic districts are an invaluable tool.
So we are moving away, I think, from individual landmark designation in recognition that one house on one block does not represent enough of the character and the history of an area to maintain that all around it.
Because one landmark can be surrounded by local development.
A local historic district really protects the area for the future.
So that's the area -- the direction we're trying to head.

>> So it would be safe to say then that the historical tax exemptions as we may be looking at them here are only one piece of a bigger program of looking at preserving the history?
Austin?

>> Exactly, exactly.
When the city was looking at its reforms we did not look at the tax exemption issue in a vacuum either.
It's all part of changing the focus of the program, incorporating more properties, really addressing more of a context level.

>> Thank you.

>> Another tool that exists is that all demolition permits actually have to go through steve's department too for houses over 50 years old.
So that at least they have a view -- a review of it before a demolition permit is granted.

>> Precinct 1 and precinct four basically represent the residents in eastern Travis County, basically east of i-35, which we consider east Austin.
And of course, we have seen significant flight out of that community, flight meaning that the long time taxpayers as I mentioned earlier, the african-americans, a lot of white folks and also hispanics, have been forced out of this area because of, as I stated earlier, gentrification.
Now, I heard what the city has said, but I have not yet ever heard any way that we can slow down and put the brakes on gentrification whereby those long-term diverse persons that are losing their properties and whereby they are not able to afford to live anymore because of what we decide to do from a governmental entity is still at hand.
And the issue and the door is still open on that.
In my opinion we need to put the brakes on some of this, so those folks will be able to maintain some type of affordability in east Austin, especially those folks you brought up the situation where we have things on the west side, things on the east side, but the east side as far as the historic situation, which is good.
But at the end of the day what are we doing to put the brakes on the flight of persons that have long -- been long-term residents in this community?
That's the crux of the issue here as far as I'm concerned all across the board.
And I hear what the city is saying, but I'm not yet seeing a solution to slow down the gentrification and stop forcing long time taxpayers and residents out of east Austin.
Thank you.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Yes.
My name is fred meyers.
My wife and I live at 1101 west 31st.
It's known as the c cast house built in 1879.
Across the street from st.
Andrew's elementary school.
We have a large garden and there's a pedestrian -- the hike and bike trail passes right in front of us.
The house draws quite a lot of attention.
I really just wanted to make one point, add a point to the conversation about development rights, is that there is a sight line penalty -- you were talking about what penalties are there.
And there's an issue that our house has to be visible from the street.
And so it's costing us -- we have a huge lot right in front of the house that we cannot build on.
And that's not a temporary restriction, and it's not something that -- should the exemptions all go away we've still got that and have to go through some sort of process of undoing it.
So I just wanted to add that to the conversation.

>> That's because the historic aspect of it is of public value.
So you have to be able to see it.

>> But you've had your exemption how long?

>> I'm sorry?

>> You've had your exemption how long?

>> Oh, I believe I got it in '78.
We bought it with the exemption.
In '91.

>> Anything else?

>> No.

>> Any questions, of mr. Meyers?

>> No.

>> Thank you.
Yes?

>> Hi.
My name is lydia perez.
I'm the property owner of 227 congress avenue.
And it is an historical as of 1881.
That is a business for a nonprofit and we have been on the blocks for over 25 years.
The avenue cafe was historically the travis hotel, three floors.
When I took over the avenue cafe it was just one floor.
That has been demolished and I believe also the rackley building, which is the day care center, the

>> [speaking spanish], is now relocated on another east block of 32nd and i-35.
So we are the remaining building on 227 congress avenue.
It is historical and we would like for you to reconsider your cap because it will be --

>> There would be no cap on that.
It's a commercial structure.

>> Excuse me?

>> We're not contemplating a cap on commercial structures.

>> They're a nonprofit.

>> Okay, great, but we're also the ones who have diversified the neighborhood, being women-owned businesses, and sharing the space with jw marriott and we are working with them presently because of the changes that are taking place.
I think the demolition was in '08 and nothing was developed since and they are now coming forward.
So if you could consider all the changes that you're making.
And it does bring up the fact that it got redeveloped and reconsidered I guess because the river was so close and the entities that were in the alley were all merchants, being of different diversity, minority owned, and they would run the city.
The other buildings in the area are also I guess brand new, if you look at the austonian and all the other commercial buildings.
Thank you for your time.

>> Thank you for yours.

>> Any questions for ms. Perez.
Thank you very much.
Last call.
If you have comments, please come forward.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions for mr. Sadowsky?

>> Thank you so much for being here.

>> Let me ask you a couple of questions.
We heard a lot of talk about I guess on some of the structures the focus being on the external rather than the internal.
What's the rule on that?

>> The city only has jurisdiction over the exterior of the building and the site.
The interior of the building, I'm not sure any city in the country has tried to legislate what you can do on the inside of your own house.

>> Okay.
So all of the things that we heard about that are required or have been required were external, exterior.

>> No, sir, not all.
Because although the city doesn't have jurisdiction to approve work on the inside of a house, expenditures that people make on their house are necessarily going to include things on the inside.
Our interest is in keeping that building preserved and inhabited.
So if -- if interior things need to be repaired as part of the maintenance of that building.
Say its plumbing.
That's going to keep that building standing for that much longer.
So those are the types of things.
Even though we don't legislate or require approval by a city commission on the work that can be done on the interior, we recognize that that's part of keeping the building in place.

>> Okay.
But the internal work you don't require.
You just inspect it?

>> No, we do not inspect on the interior, no, sir.
We have a right of entry to the property, but we don't go inside.

>> Okay.
Do you have a sort of written documentation of the composition of the city landmark commission?

>> Yes.

>> Who is on it and maybe sensitive of a biographical nature.

>> Yes.

>> It would help to know that.
This district designation goes through the landmark commission also?

>> Yes, it does.

>> Okay.
So since the city's new ordinance was adopted and I guess implemented the first of this year, you have had requests from residents to opt out?

>> We have not.
We have not.
In fact, last year we had very few landmark nominations.
In the last month I've talked to two property owners who are interested in landmark designation.
So I see our numbers rising a little bit.
But as I said our real focus is on dezavala I guess nateing districts over landmarks now.
Not that we're going to deny a good case for a landmark, but we'd really like to take a broader approach to preservation in Austin.
So under the city's current ordinance those properties that have been grandfathered receive what treatment?

>> 100% of the value of their structure and 50% of the value of the land, if it's an owner occupied residence, is exempted from taxation.
Now, that's assuming that they owned that property since before 2004.

>> Gotcha.

>> If the property has been sold since 2004, then we have that one set where we've got the 50% of city taxes and $2,000 as cap or $2,000 as a cap, they could fall within that.
If the property was sold between 2004 and 2010 -- or 2011, I'm sorry.
And then just a flat cap of $2,500 if the property has been sold since December of 2011 or any newly designated property in the future.

>> Okay.
So if you reside in the home and you've done so since before 2004 and you continue to live there and meet the other requirements, then you are treated the same way now that you would have been treated before the new ordinance took effect.

>> That's correct.

>> So if you sell your property, that you would really be adversely impacted most.
That's because a new ordinance would apply to it.

>> Well, you wouldn't be, but the new owner would be.
The new owner would be subject to the new levels of capping the exemption.

>> So what impact that requirement has remains to be seen.
In time we will, I guess, see what impact it has.

>> Right.

>> But it's too soon today.

>> As far as I know, yes, because I don't -- I don't have records of how many properties that were landmarked before 2004 have been sold and the tax exemption implications of that.

>> Okay.
So when we pull the ordinance, we look at it and we basically see pretty much what you have described today.
But the due diligence regarding the legitimacy of the claim efforts that go into that, that won't be set forth in the ordinance.
That's simply a matter of staff work?
Or is that described in the ordinance?

>> That is described in the ordinance.
And it's following the Texas tax code, which we had owe we had a different interpretation of prior to a year ago, but taking our current interpretation that property owner -- that the property needs to be in need of tax relief to encourage its preservation, then we have now asked our property owners, our landmark owners, to provide us with an affidavit that their property is in need of tax relief.

>> Now, in my view I do have about three legal questions that we need to discuss in executive session.
But for the travis central appraisal district, I heard mentioned, I guess, of an effective date of December 31st of 2012, but should we look to January 1 of 2013?

>> It's up to your discretion, whichever you would choose.

>> The legal impact would matter, right, john?
That's question number 4.
Legal question number 4.

>> I'll write that one down too.

>> Any other questions for mr. Sadowsky?

>> Judge, I have one.

>> Mr. Davis, then Commissioner Huber.

>> Earlier we discussed the -- you heard testimony about the shotgun houses and other things east of i-35.
And of course you basically said that there was some situations looking at historic districts and in an area to hopefully save some of the integrity of a community with those type of historical structures.
My question is can I acquire from you, from the city, a map that depicts the historic districts, proposed historic districts for that type of preservation east of i-35?
Is that readily available or is it something that can you just put your hands on just like going to a map and saying okay, here it is, here is i-35.
Here is the area that we're considering for historic significance, that has historic significance in this community.
Is that available?

>> It is not yet, no, sir.
And it's because we work with neighborhood groups to develop these historic districts.
These districts are not something that the city is implementing.
We want these applications to come out of the neighborhoods.
So once the neighborhoods decide what their proposed boundaries are, we work with them, but I think in general we are looking at the areas of 11th and 12th streets, chestnut, chicon --

>> Right at 12th and chicon.
Effectively you get to 13th and beyond that is several.
But go ahead.
I didn't mean to cut you off, but I hear what you're saying.
Go ahead and mention some other locations.
I'm trying to visualize exactly what we're talking about.
Go ahead.

>> Well, as far as central east Austin, those are the areas basically 11th, 12th, all the way up to mlk.
Probably as far east as pleasant valley.

>> As far east as pleasant valley road?

>> Chestnut and pleasant valley is where the real historic core of east Austin would be.

>> And chestnut.

>> And it would be chestnut.

>> How far north?

>> North, right now we're looking at mlk as the northern boundary.

>> Okay.
So chestnut -- from chestnut and mlk all the way down -- how far south?

>> South would be town lake or lady bird lake.
And then the lower east Austin districts, say along cesar chavez, willow street, canterbury, would go further east because there's an older core there.

>> Which would be precinct four.
I mentioned earlier about Commissioner Gomez's precinct because that's exactly mirroring precinct 1 and four up to the eastern boundary, which I guess pleasant valley would be the eastern boundary all the way to town lake or would it be another road that would get you down to that point?

>> I think what we're under -- what we're looking at right now would basically be pleasant valley as an eastern boundary for now.
Not to say that we wouldn't expand that boundary or definition in the future.

>> What I would need, though, is some language or what are you proposing are requiring or asking.
Because the input that I received from this area, precinct 1, of course, is the same thing that I mentioned before in my earlier testimony.
So I would need from the city that type of information in writing as soon as possible.
I would like to have that.
And you can contact my office, 844-9111, to make sure what we're talking about is delivered in a timely manner whereby I will be able to digest and review what I'm hearing from the constituents I represent.

>> We can take care of that for you.

>> All right.
Thank you.

>> Commissioner Huber?

>> Yeah.
I just want to say that I'm really pleased to hear the city is looking more at districts.
I think that that's a very valuable direction to go.
But I am a little -- I have some concern about the game changer in the process on these historic exemptions as it relates to the homeowners.
And yet I know that we probably need to continue to tweak our policies and how we manage them for the future with the best collective interests involved.
So the question I have -- and it comes to mind when I think about the individual historic landmarks that are truly historic landmarks.
I realize there's been probably been some abuse of the larger homes, but there's no doubt in looking at the piece mansion and the cost for maintenance on that and the challenges that different public sectors have had in trying to deal with that.
Is the city doing any tracking now in such a way that if, for example, these -- we implement something that was along the city's guidelines and you've just these new guidelines in, that you can measure the impacts of that track and measure the impact on that to some of these individuals homes as we go through the future, which will then flag something if we see that this really isn't working for some of our larger historic treasures?

>> We don't have anything in place right now, but that is something of course that we're looking at.
Because any time we do make changes to a program we want to see what the effects are, whether beneficial or negative.
So that we can continue to make our program the best it can be.
So we don't have it -- because this is all fairly new, we haven't put any tracking mechanism into place yet, but it is something that we have discussed.

>> We always enjoy the opportunity to interact with our city leaders.
Thanks for coming over.
Anything else from the tax assessor, from Travis County staff?
Then in my view hopefully we will take action later this afternoon, but based on the way our agenda is unfolding and the afternoon time certains that we've given, I think we're looking at probably 3:30.
3:30 for this decision.
And my goal is to do it today.
We thank all of you for your input.
This has been informative again.
This is a tough area, but I think we want to do the right thing.
Okay?
Thank you.

>> Thank y'all.

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.

July 3, 2012: Travis County Launches New Video Playback System

Our new streaming video system uses a single video clip for each session and items are linked to specific locations on that clip. Some browsers and mobile devices do not recognize the location information and display the entire clip. If this happens the "start time" will help you find your item's video within the larger clip.

If you encounter playback issues check out our video playback help page. If you still encounter problems let us know.

On July 3rd, 2012, Travis County began leveraging free resources by posting Commissioners Court meetings on Youtube. Previously every video clip was edited separately and hosted on the county's video server. The old system also required RealPlayer to view the video clips.

The new systems save time and resources -- and that saves taxpayer dollars!