City of San Antonio officials are forecasting a $13.2 million budget surplus for fiscal year 2018, but recommended to City Council on Wednesday to save that money for next year.
In previous years, these mid-year budget adjustment conversations led Council members to choose to fund a struggling or new program, as they did in May 2017 by funding legal help for immigrants and other vulnerable residents and May 2016 with a $375,000 boost to San Antonio Pets Alive, an animal rescue organization.
While the economy and City revenues are relatively strong now, save for a slight-yet-unexpected dip in sales tax revenue, that could change by the end of the fiscal year, said Assistant City Manager Maria Villagomez.
Council agreed and discussed a wide range of priorities for fiscal year 2019. Those goal-setting meetings begin on May 30 and are open to the public. The City also has launched its SASpeakUp campaign, online and in the community, to capture public input on which services should receive more, less, or the same level of funding.
Property taxes were the subject of much of the conversation Wednesday. The average home value in Bexar County increased by 8.8 percent this year, according to preliminary estimates by the Bexar Appraisal District – but some homeowners may experience as much as a 40 percent jump in valuations, triggering higher tax bills.
Councilmen Clayton Perry (D10) and Greg Brockhouse (D6) suggested that the city should provide relief by adding a homestead exemption for San Antonians’ primary residences in addition to the exemption the State provides. Perry and Brockhouse initially suggested such an exemption during budget discussions last year.
The cities of Houston, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, and Corpus Christi offer tax exemptions that range from 1 to 20 percent, Brockhouse said, adding that he’s “embarrassed” that San Antonio does not offer one.
Those cities have different budgets, tax rates, and other discounts than San Antonio, said Ben Gorzell, the City’s chief financial officer. San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Corpus Christi, for instance, offer a tax freeze for senior and disabled residents.
The benefit to the taxpayer could be anywhere from $27 annually, on a $100,000 home valuation with a 5 percent exemption, to $558 per year, for a home valued at $500,000 with a 20 percent exemption, Gorzell said. Homeowners could save between $2.25 per month and $46.50 per month. Meanwhile, the city would forgo substantial funding for its administrative and public services – $6 million to $44 million, he said.
“I don’t see that as a reason to hold back offering help for people in San Antonio,” Perry said. He argued that any tax relief, no matter how small, would help. It’s the “number one” issue that his Northside constituents come to him about, he said.
The City collects 22 cents of every property tax dollar; the rest is collected by Bexar County, the Alamo Colleges District, independent school districts, the San Antonio River Authority, and other agencies. The City has no control over school district tax rates, said City Manager Sheryl Sculley, that continue to rise to make up for lost revenue from the State.
Mayor Ron Nirenberg and council members Roberto Treviño (D1), Rebecca Viagran (D3), Rey Saldaña (D4), Shirley Gonzales (D5), Ana Sandoval (D7), Manny Pelaez (D8), and John Courage (D9) spoke against the local homestead exemption. Councilman Cruz Shaw (D2) did not attend the meeting.
“If they want tax relief, let’s be honest about where you can truly find that,” Saldaña said, noting that would be at the state level. “It’s the folks that have 500,000 homes that really get the biggest relief” from homestead exemptions.
Alternatives to homestead exemptions include neighborhood empowerment zones where residents can receive a rebate for improvements made to their homes, or other more targeted property tax discounts, but the latter would require changes at the state level, Gorzell said.
Viagran and others said they would like to see the City advocate for those changes.
City staff took notes during the discussion, which included conversations about increasing the street repair budget, incentivizing residential use of smaller trash bins, sidewalks, and other budget issues. Those notes will guide staff’s preparation for the budget meetings in May.
Ummm…why not put the tax surplus into the city’s affordable housing program? focus the monies on building affordable mixed use developments near transit corridors and high opportunity areas
Just listened to TPR’s “Northeast Corridor: What Next?” from ‘The Source’. Yes!, a little more affordable mixed use development along Perrin-Beitel, especially south of Wurzbach Pkwy., and maybe more permanent relief for the currently struggling Soap Factory residents (we lament and wring our hands about “economic segregation”, yet are we-the-Citywide-public ready to put up some of this local dough for struggling elderly and single-parent households, already established in residences and neighborhoods?)
Yes, throw it down a rat hole as usual.
City, County, and other government entities get tax income based on property valuations by the Bexar County Appraisal District.
Last year I protested my increase in property valuation of my lot-portion of my home with the Bexar County Appraisal appeal board, and, with an arbitrator. Neither would give me a copy of the rule used for valuation of my neighbors lot, which is at half the rate of my lot. My lot is valued at about $300,000 per acre and my neighbors lot (which is about 6 times larger than mine), is valued at about $150,000 per acre.
This discrepancy is fine with me if it is based on the fact that my neighbor’s lot is much longer than mine and has more unusable back yard. But the public has a right to get a written copy of the rule for valuation of the land portion of homes. Not revealing the methods for valuation leads to distrust of government entities.
Agreed, there is no “national security issue” at stake, this seems like an easy case for more transparency on how property’s get valued here in Bexar County.
When the city buys property from someone they pay per square foot. That is how the Voelker Ranch was valued when they sold it to the city for Hartberger Park. A few years ago I saw where the TX state law (from the Comptroller’s Office) stated that it was required to land to be valued as unimproved property, without utilities and roads I believe. You could check how it is currently, but I would protest and make them provide written documentation of a duly authorized procedure and criteria for valuing the land. Commercial property is valued per square foot. I’ve heard the yokels at the appraisal district say that it depends upon the appraiser, which to me means they have no standardization. Take it to appeal, then take it to court. You don’t have to do any arbitration. If they can’t show how the did it – what their standards are – then they lose by default, because without standards they cannot insure uniform – thus fair – evaluations. Folks don’t question them, so they get away with it.
Here’s a crazy idea:
What if in lieu of “property tax relief” the City simply removed the Federal Stormwater fee from the SAWS bill and took that out of revenue generated by property taxes? Your SAWS bill would then be water delivery and sanitary sewer ONLY.
The “surplus” would disappear, but all SAWS ratepayers would see immediate bill reductions.
The monthly stormwater fee is based on the impervious cover of a parcel which is related to improvements to real property (like other property-tax based items) and has nothing to do with SAWS.
If you are a low-income renter who pays for water, you have no control of this “fee” but you pay it every month, on behalf of your landlord.
This fee raises your monthly utility bill by $5-10 per month, but does not pay for utilities. Your water could get cut off, or be subject to late charges, if you don’t pay this city “fee” every month. If it were sourced from property taxes, that’s a larger annual out-of-pocket savings than a proposed annual homestead exemption.
If you’re a property owner and the monthly “fee” were to be included in your property taxes, you could deduct them from your Federal return. Currently you can’t do that because it’s part of a utility bill.
The City would still get its “Federal Stormwater Fee” revenues – only via property taxes; occupants of ALL incomes would see lower SAWS bills (it’d be expense neutral for owner/occupants); and property owners would keep a Federal deduction.
Don’t give me bogus “tax relief” but continue to charge me high fees on my water bill based on the size of my roof and my driveway. That is just silly and a sneaky way to implement a property tax by a different name.
If you dig deep enough, you’ll find that the “Federal Stormwater Fee” is NOT “FEDERAL” at all. It’s fake and is merely adopted by City Council as another revenue generating scheme for city coffers.
What I don’t understand is that I am a senior citizen who is disabled but when I turned 65, I could no longer claim the disability exemption but only the homestead and over 65 exemption which supposedly gave me a better exemption. Just because I turned 65 does not mean I am no longer disabled. Why can’t I have all exemptions? I am definitely not wealthy.