Amendments deal with franchises, changes to charter
BY PHIL REYNOLDS SOUTH JETTY REPORTER

Editor's note: This is the last in a series of four articles explaining the propositions that will be on the Port Aransas city charter amendment election on May 12. While the ballot will contain the language of the amendment, the series seeks to put the proposals in the context of the entire section of the charter to which they apply.

Proposed amendments that will appear on the ballot have been recommended by the charter review commission and approved by the city council. Originally, the commission recommended 28 amendments; the council dropped one that would have required only two public readings to make an ordinance instead of the current three readings.

Previous parts of the series have dealt with amendments affecting the city council and city administration, city elections, citizen petitions, municipal finance, tax administration, the library board and the planning and zoning commission. The final part of the series deals with city franchises and the city council's ability to change the charter.

FRANCHISES

26. Powers of the city. Currently, the city charter is restrictive as to what the city can do about franchises. This would change that so that the city could handle franchises such as utilities in any way the council wishes as long as that isn't contrary to state or federal law.

In effect, it takes the 10 sections of the charter that deal with franchising and combines them into one section. It eliminates separate charter sections on granting and transferring franchises, the rights of the city to regulate franchises, consent of neighboring property owners for a franchise easement, regulation of rates and granting of licenses.

CHARTER CHANGES

27. Rearranging and renumbering. The city council is now required by the charter to pass a separate ordinance - and often, to submit it to voter approval - simply if changes in state or federal law make provisions of the charter illegal. This amendment would give the council the authority to amend the charter on its own, but only "to the extent reasonably required to eliminate or remove said illegality."

CONSTITUTION

An item on the May 12 ballot that has not received much publicity is a proposed Texas constitutional amendment that would affect the limit on school property taxes paid by older homeowners.

Texas homeowners who are 65 years of age or older, or who have a disability, are eligible to receive a ceiling on the amount of school property taxes they will owe on their residence homestead based on the amount they owed the year they qualified for the ceiling.

When the 79th Legislature passed school property tax cuts in their 3rd Called Session in 2006, those elderly and disabled Texans whose school property taxes were already frozen did not receive a corresponding reduction in their school property taxes. Therefore, in order for elderly and disabled Texans to receive a proportional reduction in ad valorem taxes, there must be an allowance for such a reduction in the Texas Constitution and a statutory change in law.

This constitutional amendment would provide such a reduction for the 2006 and 2007 tax years.

This amendment will expire Jan 1, 2009, which means that school tax reductions after the 2007 tax year would require another constitutional amendment.

Proponents of the amendment argue that:

+ Since other taxpayers were granted this reduction in school taxes by the state legislature it's only fair that those over 65 and the disabled receive the same proportionate reduction.

+ Many elderly and disabled citizens are on a low and/or fixed income and need lower taxes.

Those who oppose the amendment say:

+ The intention of the 2006 bill was to reduce taxes for those Texans whose property values have had large hikes in recent years. Seniors and the disabled had their taxes frozen so that they did not experience the same rise in taxes as others and therefore they should not receive another discount.

+ Seniors and the disabled already get a significant tax break by having the amount of their school taxes frozen the year they qualify for this ceiling and therefore should not receive additional reductions on their school taxes.