HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 09/26/1975 - SpecialMINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
September 26, 1975
3:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor Jason Luby
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Tipton
Commissioners:
Eduardo de Ases
Ruth Gill
Bob Gulley
Gabe Lozano, Sr.
Edward Sample
City Manager R. Marvin Townsend
Acting City Attorney Michael May
Assistant City Attorney Hal George
City Secretary Bill G. Read
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Tipton called the meeting to order in the temporary
absence of Mayor Luby.
City Secretary Bill G. Read called the roll of those in attendance.
Mayor Luby arrived during roll call.
City Manager Townsend announced that the purpose of this called meeting
was to discuss the status of the litigation involving the City with regards to
the Judge's decision on the suit against the City by taxpayers over the City's
policy of assessments. He explained that the City had not as yet received the
Court Order but that District Judge Noah Kennedy had handed down an oral ruling
from the bench.
Mr. Townsend explained that there was no connection with the tax suit
against the City and the present cash flow problems he had outlined to the Council
at last Wednesday's Council Meeting with regards to the October payroll but that
if the City were unable to send out its tax notices and begin receiving tax
payments the City's cash flow would be in serious difficulty for November and
December and it was imperative that we find some solution to the assessing methods
in order that tax statements may be mailed as soon as possible.
Mr. Townsend reiterated his previous statement that the City's tax
rolls were in better shape this year than they had been in the past two decades
but that the Judge had ruled unconstitutional the City's program for reevaluating
the City over a four-year period by zones or sections. The values placed on the
residences revalued are not in question; the only issue in the case is the
assessment system whereby portions of the city will be paying taxes on a higher
market value ratio than other portions.
Mr. Townsend explained that he had four alternatives for the Council's
consideration and pointed out that any action would be subject to the Judge's
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
September 26, 1975
Page 2
approval but he felt the Judge would go along with any fair and equitable
method the City might propose that would equalize the tax burden among the
residential property owners.
Mr. Townsend stated that commercial property, multiple -family dwellings
and personal property were not an issue in the case but that it was strictly
confined to residential or single-family structures and that the program presently
employed by the City to evaluate approximately one-fourth of the city annually
had resulted in approximately 28,000 single-family structures being revalued
in the past two years leaving about the same number being carried on the tax
rolls at a lower square foot value. This process, according to Judge Kennedy,
is unconstitutional since some taxpayers are having to share a greater portion
of the tax burden because their values are at the current level while others
are at a much lower rate.
The City Manager then proceeded to explain the four alternative
possibilities for Council consideration.
1--A simple change of the tax rate which is presently 60% of market
value assessment. In going back to the 1973 tax rolls this would result in
approximately 4% increase to produce the same income. Mr. Townsend pointed out,
however, that this would place an unfair burden on property owners whose valuations
are more current than others that have not been reevaluated and would fail to
accomplish the goal of equality throughout the city. He also explained that
if the tax rate were increased it would apply to owners of business property and
personal property which is reevaluated annually and is generally on the tax roll
at its market value or very near market value.
Alternative #2 would be to rework the balance of the residential
property in the city on an accelerated basis. This would involve an on -the -spot
inspection of some 28,000 residences by the staff and a change in the square
footage value from the 1954 to the 1974 values. This would result in a current
and equal evaluation of all single-family residences in the city.
Alternative 3 was to go back to the 1973 valuations that were in effect
before the so-called cycle program was begun and add the percentage of assessment
increase to residential properties only. This would alleviate the extra burden
placed on businesses and personal property taxpayers, but would leave inequities
in the residential areas since about half of the city has been reevalued while
the remaining one half has not.
- 1.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
September 26, 1975
Page 3
The fourth alternative would be to make a clerical change in all of
the values of the property that had not been reevalued in the past two years,
bringing them up to the 1974 square foot rates. He pointed out, however, that
this last alternative would not be equitable in that it would not include a
physical check of the properties and may not reflect their present condition.
The City Manager stated that it was the staff's recommendation to
use alternative #2 which would result in the reworking of the balance of the
single-family dwelling properties within the city, some 28,000, by reassigning
some 60 City employees into a task force to be supported by additional clerical
help and do a more complete job of reevaluation which would include individual
inspections of the properties in question.
Mr. Townsend pointed out, however, that if this plan were employed
the City would have to receive permission from the Judge to adopt the tax rolls
in sections rather than as a complete package so that the tax notices could begin
going out immediately. He feels that this can be accomplished by the middle or
latter part of December when the entire tax rolls can be completed. Hopefully
it can be completed by December 15 in time to get the tax notices out for the
taxpayers so that they may use the figures for income tax purposes for the year
1975.
He estimated the additional expenditures necessary to accomplish this
would amount to approximately $30,000, but he reiterated that the reassignment
of this many of the City employees would result in a slowdown of the other programs
of the City, but that he felt it would be better to use present City personnel
than to attempt to bring in outsiders for this purpose.
Mr. Townsend again pointed out that while it was not legally necessary,
the City had always mailed out notices when an increase was proposed on a piece
of property and he felt that this should be done in this instance also. This
would necessitate the Tax Board of Equalization to reconvene in special sessions
to hear complaints resulting from the new evaluations.
At this point Council Member Ruth Gill asked how many of the residences
were current as to their market value. The City Manager answered approximately
28,000, about 14,000 having been reevalued in 1973 resulting in an increased
valuation total of approximately $33,000,000. He pointed out, however, that
this first group represented the area of the city that had remained at a much
lower value for the longest period of time. In 1974 approximately 15,000 residences
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
September 26, 1975
Page 4
were reevalued and this resulted in an increased total evaluation of roughly
$18,000,000, this second group of properties having been the next oldest in
terms of reevaluation. The balance of the city which was planned to be evaluated
over the next two years having been the most recent in reevaluation would not
result in as much increase in total valuation because they were on the rolls
at a more current value than the previous two groups.
The City Manager pointed out that the reevaluation process being
proposed would result in a higher total evaluation of the City but not in proportion
to that as reflected in the first two years of the program. Commissioner de Ases
asked if the only charge made in the tax suit was that all of the residential
property was not oche rolls at an equal value. Assistant City Attorney Hal
George replied that this was the only complaint in the suit. Mr. de Ases then
asked what the thrust would be in the matter of appeal and if this was critical.
The City Manager answered that the question of appeal was not critical but could
be taken up at a later date.
The City Manager concluded his presentation with the recommendation
that the City adopt plan #2 and present it to the Judge for his considerations.
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Tipton, seconded by Bob Gulley, proposal 2 was
accepted, with Mayor Luby abstaining on the vote, all other members of the Council
voting "Aye".
Motion by de Ases, seconded by Tipton and passed, that the meeting be
adjourned at 3:50 p.m., September 26, 1975.
I, JASON LUBY, Mayor of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, certify that the
foregoing minutes, same being for the period of September 3, 1975 to September 26,
1975, inclusive, and having been previously approved by Council action, are by
me hereby approved, as itemized:
9/3/75, Regular Meeting
9/10/75, Regular Meeting
9/17/75, Regular Meeting
9/17/75, Special Meeting
9/24/75, Regular MeetingJ�y�.N 1i , Mayor
9/26/75, Special Meeting ity of Corpus Christi, Texas