Nov. 3 ballot filled with amendments

By Lauren LaFleur

assistanteditor@jacksonvilleprogress.com

Editor’s note: This is the first in a four-part series about the proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. Information for analyses of each proposition came from reports published by the House Research Organization and the Texas Legislative Council. Views expressed are not those of the Jacksonville Daily Progress or its staff.

With Election Day just a week away, local governing bodies are readying for Nov. 3. Voter turnout has been low in early voting, though, according to Linda Little, Cherokee County tax assessor/collector.

“We get e-mails from other registrars, and they’ve been lamenting the amount of voter interest in this election,” Little said. “It just isn’t there. I know people are not interested, but this election will affect them — forever.

“They need to read the pros and cons (of each amendment on the ballot), and they need to vote.”

Little said those wishing to cast their ballots Tuesday need to bring with them their current voter registration card, driver’s license, Social Security card or a utility bill in their name in order to vote.

Although there are no Cherokee County items on the Nov. 3 ballot, the Texas Legislature’s proposed 11 amendments to the Texas Constitution could affect people in this area, if passed.

Propositions 1, 2 and 3 all affect land ownership and values.

Proposition 1

Proposition 1 would allow a city or county to issue bonds and notes to purchase buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military bases, according to the Texas Secretary of State Web site. The areas purchased would be used to protect or promote the mission of the military base through infrastructure construction or to prevent encroachment. If passed, cities and counties can then increase ad valorem taxes to repay the bonds and notes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”

For: Supporters of this amendment say the authority of a county or city to purchase buffer areas around military bases has been questioned in the past, and this amendment would settle such questions. The amendment would also allow counties and cities to prevent development of areas surrounding the bases in an effort to protect the installations. In some cases, supporters say, the activities of the base can conflict with surrounding development, such as in the case of homes or schools. Such conflicts could lead to closure of bases, which are often the cornerstone of local economies.

Against: Opponents believe that although protecting military bases is a commendable goal, cities and counties should not be given any additional reasons to increase property taxes.

Not only does the amendment give the local entities the authority to raise ad valorem taxes in order to pay for the purchase of the buffer areas, the land would then be considered publicly owned property and would no longer be subject to taxation, thus removing the land’s tax revenue from the entities coffers, placing additional burden on private landowners to make up for the lost revenue.

Proposition 2

Homestead value vs. commercial value is the crux of Proposition 2. If passed, the amendment would base a residence homestead’s property based only on the property’s value as such, rather than potential value if used as commercial property, regardless of whether the commercial value would be higher.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”

For: The doubling or tripling of property appraisals based on best use of the land values for Texas homeowners would be a thing of the past if this amendment is passed, supporters say. The amendment would require county appraisers to value a homestead property based strictly on its homestead value, rather than on what the property would be worth if used for other purposes.

The amendment is not a drastic departure from current property tax practices and resembles current legislation regulating the valuation of agricultural and open-space land. This amendment and would offer homeowners the same type of protection against drastic changes in property value based on best use value. The amendment would only apply to primary residences and not vacation homes, second homes or investment properties, such as apartment complexes.

Against: Reduction of taxable property values based solely on its current use and not highest or best value, opponents say, which would result in a decrease in tax revenue. Such decreases would have to be counteracted by an increase in local taxes or spending cuts.

The 10-percent annual limitation on property tax increases allowed homeowners is already a substantial benefit, plus they receive other value exemptions and tax freezes for which other types of property are not eligible. Decreases in the amount of taxable properties on a local level results in the state having to subsidize school districts’ budgets under the Foundation School Program’s equalization formulas — making already tight funding spread even more thin.

Proposition 3

State regulation of the standards and procedures for property appraisal would be allowed if Proposition 3 passes. The amendment would authorize the Texas Legislature to establish and enforce laws requiring local appraisal districts to follow best practices and standard procedures in the appraisal process.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”

For: Supporters say this amendment is necessary because direct state-level involvement in the valuation process for property appraisal is the only way to achieve statewide uniformity and equity. Claims of inequitable increases in property values from county to county would be settled with this amendment. Property in one county would be valued the same as similar property in another county. The amendment would allow the state to directly get involved in unequal or inconsistent property appraisals.

Against: Proposition 3 would be an unnecessary amendment, opponents say. Training of appraisers and the annual tax study conducted by the Comptroller’s Office already allow the state control over property appraisals.

Also, local appraisers know markets and economics on the local level better than state officials do. This amendment would enforce the same standards on all areas would not produce the most accurate property valuations for each area.