Local property owners who seek disannexation as a solution to property taxes were given notice by the Salado Board of Aldermen that the Village reaction to disannexation would be to release those properties from the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the Village.

Aldermen voted unanimously at a special called meeting Aug. 22 “authorizing the release or transfer of any disannexed areas from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village and recognizing the statutory requirement that property owners disannexed or released from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village will still be responsible for the indebtedness of the Village incurred while property was within the territorial limits of the Village.” 

By the unanimous vote on a motion put forth by Fred Brown and receiving a second from Frank Coachman, the Board of Aldermen also authorized the city administrator to take appropriate action on the step.

The board also voted unanimously to pursue an “interlocal agreement transferring property located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the Village to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a neighboring municipality”. To understand more about the property transfer visit website here.

The two actions came as the deadline to call for a November 8 election for the disannexation of a large portion of the residential areas of Salado passed without action by Mayor Skip Blancett.

The petition was presented to City Secretary Mary Ann Ray at the beginning of the Aug. 18 board of aldermen meeting by John Newman, a resident of the proposed disannexation area.

According to state law concerning elections, the Village had five business days in which to respond to the petitioner about the validity of the petition. The deadline for the Village to respond to the petitioner is Aug. 25. The deadline for the Mayor to call for the November 8 election is Aug. 22. The Mayor did not call for the election on Aug. 22.

On the face of it, the petition appears to fail to meet the legal standard for a valid petition. First, the petition does not have the metes and bounds description required by state law. View the PETITION in full.

The state law referred to in the petition states: “Sec. 43.143.  DISANNEXATION BY PETITION AND ELECTION IN GENERAL-LAW MUNICIPALITY.  (a)  When at least 50 qualified voters of an area located in a general-law municipality sign and present a petition to the mayor of the municipality that describes the area by metes and bounds and requests that the area be declared no longer part of the municipality, the mayor shall order an election on the question in the municipality.”

Secondly, the petition did not include the birth date or the voter registration numbers of the signers. According to the Texas Election Code Chapter 277 Petitions (Sec. 277.02): “(a)  For a petition signature to be valid, a petition must: (1) contain in addition to the signature: (A) the signer’s printed name; (B) the signer’s; (i) date of birth [and residence address]; or (ii) voter registration number and, if the territory from which signatures must be obtained is situated in more than one county, the county of registration; [and] (C) the signer’s residence address; and (D) the date of signing; and (2) comply with any other applicable requirements prescribed by law.

Whether or not the petition meets the legal qualifications to force a November election or not, it should be an alarm for the Mayor and Aldermen, all of whom live in the proposed area of disannexation, of the anger at the village government.

The argument for disannexation is laid out in a document that was shared by the petition organizer John Newman on the social media APP “Nextdoor” and delivered to the Salado Village Voice after this reporter spoke with him just two hours before the petition was presented.

Salado Village Voice first posted on our website the news story of the plans to present the petition about an hour before the Aug. 18 meeting, when this reporter learned of the plans after receiving phone calls from area residents.

“If voted upon favorably, Salado will remain an incorporated village and the disannexed portion will remain a part of the ETJ, insulating the disannexed area from being forcibly annexed by Belton,” the disannexation document states.

“The village government has increased our taxes from 12 to 18 to 34 to 54 cents per $100 valuation and taxpayers have seen little in return,” according to the disannexation document.

“A sewer system is being built upon the backs of taxpayers for Sanctuary who will never benefit from it – while our roads crumble and the Stagecoach sits dormant, absent of meaningful progress,” the disannexation document states. “The village government has beholden itself to both while failing to meet the needs of the citizenry.”

“On August 14, the mayor himself stated that: “A million dollar budget will not pay for roads, police, maintenance and other items”….but it does pay for lucrative incentives to prop up property values for landowners who can flip alleged developments (Sanctuary, Stagecoach, Next in line?),” according to the disannexation document.

“The 19.9 cents you currently pay in village taxes and city taxes for your cable bill, utilities, cellphone, landline will all be eliminated,” the disannexation document states.

While property owners would not be liable for the maintenance and operation tax portion of the overall property tax for the Village ($0.1999 per $100 valuation), they will have to continue to pay for the indebtedness of the Village due to the voter-approved bond. That tax rate is expected to increase from $0.13960 to more than $0.32 per $100 valuation.

Property owners who are disannexed will still have to pay the property tax for the indebtedness for the lifetime of the bond. That debt would transfer to any new owners of the said property.

Salado Village Voice reached out to the State Comptroller and to Bell County Tax Appraisal District with several questions concerning the property taxes of homeowners in the area proposed for disannexation.

Chief Appraiser Marvin Hahn told Salado Village Voice that Bell County Appraisal District attorneys were investigating the questions brought forth.

Chief among those questions is this: Will homeowners who are disannexed lose the local homestead exemptions and local tax freeze?

The state statute is clear on the debt of the Village at the time of the disannexation: Sec. 43.143. (c)  If the area withdraws from a municipality as provided by this section and if, at the time of the withdrawal, the municipality owes any debts, by bond or otherwise, the area is not released from its pro rata share of that indebtedness.  The governing body shall continue to levy a property tax each year on the property in the area at the same rate that is levied on other property in the municipality until the taxes collected from the area equal its pro rata share of the indebtedness.  Those taxes may be charged only with the cost of levying and collecting the taxes, and the taxes shall be applied exclusively to the payment of the pro rata share of the indebtedness.  This subsection does not prevent the inhabitants of the area from paying in full at any time their pro rata share of the indebtedness.”

“I read that section of the statute,” Hahn told Salado Village Voice, “and believe me it is one of the most confusing parts of the law that I have ever read.”

It is unclear whether property owners would be taxed at the levels they paid at the time of disannexation.

It is unclear if homeowners would have any exemptions or tax freezes after disannexation.

If disannexation happens, Hahn told Salado Village Voice that his staff would have to “work on new formulas to determine the tax rates in those areas.”

Chris Brown with the public information office of the State Comptroller’s office responded to inquiries from Salado Village Voice that staff attorneys were investigating the property tax ramifications  stemming from disannexation.

The Village of Salado receives $44,763.10 in property taxes from homeowners who are over 65 and have claimed the exemptions and tax freeze. According to the 2016 certified values from Bell CAD for Salado, there are 393 property owners who claim the exemptions and tax freeze for over 65. The assessed values of those properties is $88,370,662. The taxable values (after exemptions) of those 393 properties is $49,387,033. The average tax rate paid by those over 65 homeowners whose taxes are frozen is $0.1113 per $100 valuation.

Salado Village Voice examined the petition for  the addresses. We compiled the property taxes paid for those addresses by mining information available through bellcad.org.

There were 82 signatures on the petition presented to the Village of Salado last week.

The 82 signatures were from 55 valid home addresses. Two signers had invalid (according to Bell County Appraisal District information at bellcad.org) or missing address information.

Of those homes, the total property market value is $13,155,915. There is a total taxable value of $9,264,615 due to local exemptions.

Total property taxes paid to the Village of Salado in 2015 from the properties on the petition are $22,820.15.

According to the residence addresses on the petition, the smallest amount of property taxes paid  by one taxpayer to the Village of Salado in 2015 was $12.86. The largest amount of taxes paid to the Village of Salado in 2015 was $2,290.84.

If the properties are disannexed and if they lose the applicable local homestead exemptions and tax free, those properties will pay a total of $44,993.22 based on the published proposed debt service tax rate of $0.3420.

This totals $22,173.07 more than the property owners paid in total taxes to the Village of Salado in 2015.

If these homes are disannexed from the Village and then released from the ETJ of Salado, some would automatically be in Belton’s one-mile ETJ. Belton is a Home Rule city and has the power of unilateral annexation. As such, Belton has annexed south to the northern boundary of Salado’s ETJ at FM 2484. A map of the boundaries and ETJ boundaries of Bell County cities can be found at www.saladovillagevoice.com with our online story.

See our related story on Belton Annexation, this edition and online.

The disannexation document continued with arguments for disannexation, including these outlined below:

“County would take over roads and offer 24X7 county sheriff deputy protection instead of 19X7 village police coverage,” the document states.

Salado and Bell County have a mutual aid agreement for law enforcement, meaning that if an emergency call goes into the 911 center, the closest available officer will respond.

According to County Commissioner Tim Brown, “the Sheriff’s regular patrol force probably averages no more than four officers on duty per shift for the entire county.” Bell County is 1,088 sq. miles in size, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Emergency Services (fire & ambulance) would remain the same,” the disannexation document states.

“Disannexed voters wouldn’t have to worry about the lack of transparency and disclosure, or secret meetings and negotiations,” the document states.

“Salado was incorporated to Save us from Belton,” the document states. “We need to disannex to save us from ourselves.”

“The sewer that supposedly was to benefit Main St. turns out to be mostly for Hanks Jr’s Sanctuary,” the document states.

“Our reserves have been depleted and a year of interest was squandered on a prematurely issued sewer bond,” the document states.