The seven proposition issues are:
- Tweaks to the property tax exemption for disabled veterans or their widowed spouses
- Tweaks to home equity loans
- Limits the service of certain officeholders past the end of their term.
- Requires notice to the Attorney General when a trial judge considers a constitutional challenge to a state statute.
- Tweaks the requirements of charitable raffles conducted by the charitable foundations of sports franchises.
- Tax exemption for the surviving spouse of a first responder killed in the line of duty.
- Authorizing financial institutions to award prizes based on chance to promote savings.
- Explanatory Statements for the Constitutional Amendments
- Condensed Analysis of the Constitutional Amendments
- Full Analysis of the Constitutional Amendments
- League of Women Voters Guide
- Study in advance. The ballot will not give you enough information from which to make an informed decision. The State Constitution is far more micro-managing than our US Constitution, so the issues that must come before the voters can be surprisingly detailed.
- If you don't know, vote NO. They are asking to change your State Constitution. Don't support propositions you don't understand.
- Take the time to make sure you know. Constitutional Amendments on your ballot passed the Legislature by at least 2/3 votes in both chambers. That wide support does not mean that you should vote to approve, but it does mean they are worthy of your attention.
- Feel free to disagree with me. My analysis is provided below to help you get your head into the issues. If after doing so, you weigh things differently than I do, fair enough.
- I support the disabled veteran tax exemption. We as voters have implemented and expanded this exemption several legislative sessions in a row. First, we allowed the exemption to disabled veterans or their surviving spouses as long as they remained unmarried. Then we expanded it to include exemption on homes fully donated to the veteran. Now this seeks to close a further loophole so that homes only partially donated also qualify for the exemption.
- I oppose the home equity loan changes. The Texas Constitution has historically protected homesteads from creditors except in certain narrow situations. The public interest served is to protect the stability of one's home from economic uncertainties or even irresponsible financial decisions. We eroded that protection by voting to permit home equity loans in the first place, an amendment I opposed back in the 1990's. This amendment seeks to expand home equity loan availability into agricultural homesteads, removes certain protections, and allows a back door where the home equity loan can be converted into another type of loan, further eroding the Constitutional safeguards in my view. If you originally supported the availability of home equity loans, you might support this amendment. Because I originally opposed it, I also oppose its expansion.
- I support fixing a date certain when an officeholder's service will end. This is a relatively narrow-purpose amendment. When an officeholder is unpaid, Governor appointed, and requires Senate confirmation, the Constitution requires them to continue serving past the end of their term until a new qualified candidate can be installed. Theoretically, that is indefinitely. This fixes a particular date by which their hold-over service ends, forcing either a vacancy or a more timely replacement.
- I support notice to the Attorney General when the constitutionality of state statute is challenged. The State has an interest in defending the constitutionality of its own statutes. This amendment would require judicial notice to the Attorney General when a state statute is challenged, allowing the Attorney General an opportunity to decide whether to get involved. This permits the State to take a position before the trial judge rules in the matter.
- I oppose the proposed tweaks to the charitable sports franchise raffles. Texas law generally outlaws gambling, including raffles and other games of chance, except in limited circumstances. Recently, Texas voters created a new exception (which I opposed) allowing charitable foundations of sports franchises already in existence as of January 1, 2016, to conduct raffles during home game venues for charitable purposes. Now this seeks to expand the sports teams that may take advantage of this and remove the limitation their foundations be already in existence before 2016. I did not favor expanding gambling in Texas, and don't favor this expansion, either. Also, I don't favor having a general rule that applies to all, then creating a specific exception for a select group (in this case, sports franchises).
- I support the property tax exemption for surviving spouses of first responders killed in the line of duty. This is similar to the tax exemptions we have offered disabled veterans and offers it to the surviving spouses of first responders killed or fatally wounded in the line of duty. This is the first time we have considered such an exemption. Lessening the tax burden of the dependents of those who have sacrificed their lives for us seems to be the least we could do.
- I oppose the amendment permitting financial institutions to use games of chance to promote savings. This is yet another expansion of gambling in Texas into non-charitable areas. By this line of thinking, if Texans support any good cause, we should expand gambling to promote it. I disagree. Also, it creates yet another special exception for a select group (in this case, financial institutions).
Bastrop ISD School Bond - $88.5 million bond
Residents of the Bastrop school district must decide whether to borrow $88.5 million dollars and pay higher taxes to repay the debt.
Considerations that come to my mind when determining to vote for or against the bond include:
- The list of projects BISD will get for the money (value), and the extent to which the entire proposal represents necessary improvements, unnecessary expenditures, and the best price and plan for the included projects
- The local effect on housing costs - If you own your home, your tax bill will be impacted. If you rent your home, your landlord will pass the expense of higher taxes on to you through rent increases.
- The effect of a higher tax rate on business - rates must be low, or competitive with the surrounding area, to draw business to Bastrop County. The more business comes, the less residents bear the tax burden alone.
- The cumulative effect on the taxpayer of higher tax appraisals, and an increased tax rate if the bond is approved. Keep in mind that the District's sample calculation does not factor in any property value increases you might have experienced. So do the math on real numbers as it affects you.
- The amount of debt we are presently carrying in BISD (and for how long?)
- The amount of progress we have made on prior debt (are we borrowing at a faster rate than we are paying back?)
- How long we will carry this new debt and how that impacts our ability to address future needs
- The actual cost of borrowing, when paid back with interest over time
- What projects the District intends to ask voters for additional money to address in the next decade (we rejected a $75 million bond proposal just last November proposed by BISD)
- The extent to which this $88.5 million in projects overlaps with the $75 million in projects we declined just a year ago (or in other words, the extent to which our elected officials are or are not listening)
- If we decline, the District's alternatives to address the educational needs and the cost of those alternatives
Reject the rhetoric that you are anti-children, anti-education, or anti-BISD if you oppose the bond, or anti-business, anti-community or anti-taxpayer if you approve it. Instead, study the facts carefully and come to an informed judgment about whether this is a right proposal for the community as a whole. We all have a vested interest in the success of our community and its educational systems. A diverse community has multiple needs in tension with each other. We should all strive to find the right balance of those needs.
Review the above considerations, study the below resources, ask lingering questions of your board members if you can, and cast an informed vote.
Review the above considerations, study the below resources, ask lingering questions of your board members if you can, and cast an informed vote.
Study aids:
- Proponent View: Bastrop ISD's web page on the bond
- Proponent View: Bastrop ISD's presentation on the bond
- Opponent View: opposition web site
- Statesman article
- KXAN article
- Superintendent's clarifications
- Opposition editorial
Emergency Services District #1 Annexation
Residents of ESD #1 will vote whether to allow certain excluded rural territories on the western edges of the county into the district. And residents of those territories will vote whether they want to come in. Both groups must vote to approve the annexation for it to occur.
Joining the District means the new residents will be included in the tax for the District, and it also means they are included in receiving the emergency services the District provides. Those residents currently have no emergency services serving their area.
Proponents argue that the additional tax will be offset by the decrease in homeowners insurance premiums that come by being in such a District, and that the value of having emergency service outweighs any drawback of being in a new taxing district. Residents of the new proposed territory will have to assess for themselves the real-life impact of coming into the District and whether the insurance adjustments and service benefits are justified in their view.
I am personally a resident of the ESD #1 territory. I will be voting in favor of including the new territory. That creates the option for the new territory to come in if the residents so choose, but does not in fact require them to come in or impose any tax on them. It is for residents of the proposed territory to be annexed to make the decision as to whether that is right for them.
Additional resources:
WCID #2 (Tahitian Village) Road Bond - $7.5 million bond
Residents of WCID #2 in Tahitian Village must consider whether to borrow $7.5 million dollars for road improvements in Tahitian Village. It is not expected that there will be any increase in current road/water fees or any property tax increase to repay the debt.
Considerations discussed in the BISD bond analysis have similar application here.
The Board of Trustees have proposed alternative plans: a 3-year plan to improve the roads if residents approve the bond plan, and a 10-year plan if they do not.
Under the 3-year plan (requiring bond approval by a 2/3 vote) road/water fees are projected to stay the same, and no property tax is levied to repay the debt. Existing road/water fees are estimated to be adequate to repay the debt because costs to maintain the decaying roads are estimated to significantly drop. But if the unforeseen occurs, and existing road/water fees do not cover debt-repayment costs along with other operational costs, then those fees can be increased before a property-tax assessment is considered. The language of the bond proposal on your ballot will read "and the levy of the tax in payment thereof" because that language is required by law, but no road/water fee increases or property tax levies are expected.
Under the 10-year plan (requiring bond rejection) road/water fees will be increased approximately $100 per lot to raise the revenue from which to perform improvements on a cash basis. Because maintenance costs don't diminish drastically under this plan, operation costs will continue to require existing road/water fees, and increasing those fees becomes necessary to raise the needed revenue.
I support the bond because, without raising our taxes, it merely shifts what we are spending on: construction of new roads, rather than maintenance of crumbling ones. Also, because the county will take over maintenance two years after the roads are built, it narrows WCID2's long-term responsibility to water, waste water, and drainage, allowing them to allocate more dollars to those projects in the future. In short, is solves many dilemmas this community has struggled with for decades, which in turn may allow road/water fees to eventually come back down.
I personally deeply appreciate as a voter receiving alternative plans to compare, free of marketing rhetoric that implies I oppose my community or its roads if I oppose a bond proposal.
Additional resources:
Elgin City Council, Ward 3 - Special Election
Residents of City of Elgin, Ward 3, will vote in a special election to fill a Ward 3 council seat. Candidates include:
- James Mark Jones
- Daniel Lopez
Resources:
An additional resource for all things electoral is Bastrop County's Election web site at www.bastropvotes.org.
Albert L. Ellison, Founder
Bastrop County Republican News
