Home Blog Page 80

Criminal Complaint Hits Commissioner Daugherty

Save Our Springs Alliance files complaint a day before vote to fund State Highway 45 project

Gerald Daugherty
Gerald Daugherty

The Save Our Springs Alliance filed a criminal complaint with the Travis County Attorney’s Office today, alleging that Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty had violated the Texas Public Information Act by not turning over his correspondence related to the proposed controversial State Highway 45 Southwest. (See: SOS Alliance Criminal Complaint re: Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty)

The complaint came the day before the Travis County Commissioners Court could vote to approve an initial payment of $2.5 million to help pay for design and construction of SH45 SW and to be obligated to pay an additional $12.5 million by October 30.

The SOS Alliance has long opposed the construction of SH45 SW over the sensitive recharge zone of the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer. Daugherty has spearheaded efforts to get SH45 SW built.

The timing of the vote is important, given the recent Democratic Primary election. Former Travis County Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt is the Democratic nominee for county judge, and former City Council Member Brigid Shea is the party’s nominee for the Precinct 2 county commissioner’s seat that Eckhardt vacated to run for county judge. Both are unlikely to support the new highway.

In the November 2014 general election both have Republican opponents: Eckhardt faces Mike McNamara and Shea faces former Travis County Sheriff Raymond Frank.

Bill Bunch
Bill Bunch

The complaint, signed by William G. “Bill” Bunch, executive director of the SOS Alliance, alleges that Daugherty failed to turn over correspondence related to SH45 SW that the Alliance had asked for in a public information request May 10, 2013.

Commissioner Daugherty told The Austin Bulldog the criminal complaint “is nothing more than a rehash of the allegations they brought in the civil suit. I don’t put anything past Bill Bunch or the SOS organization to thwart the will of the people,” he said, referring to efforts to halt construction of SH45 SW.

County Attorney David Escamilla, to whom the SOS Alliance’s complaint was addressed, confirmed that he had received the complaint but could not comment.

Randy Leavitt
Randy Leavitt

Attorney Randy Leavitt of the Law Office of Randy Leavitt confirmed that he is representing Daugherty in this matter.

Leavitt was one of three attorneys hired to represent the City of Austin when the mayor and City Council members were being investigated by the Travis County Attorney’s Office for violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act exposed by The Austin Bulldog’s investigative report of January 11, 2011.

Civil lawsuit against Daugherty

The SOS Alliance filed a lawsuit November 12, 2013, Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003876, alleging that Daugherty failed to provide requested records, for example e-mails related to the SH45 SW project that had been exchanged on the commissioner’s personal account.

Bunch and SOS attorney Adam Abrams deposed Daugherty on February 20, 2014, in the presence of a court reporter. The commissioner was represented by Assistant County Attorneys Anthony Nelson and Andrew Williams. (See: SOS Alliance v. Daugherty Oral Deposition.) The deposition is not final, however, until Daugherty and his attorney have reviewed it and had the opportunity to make corrections, Leavitt said.

The criminal complaint states that Daugherty admitted in the deposition that he uses his personal cell phone account for county business, that he used a laptop computer for county business and donated the computer without saving messages on it, that he deleted messages from his Travis County e-mail address relevant to SH45, and that he deleted text messages referencing county business.

The deletion of messages required to be kept is permissible only if copies are stored elsewhere and made available in response to a public information request, subject to exceptions provided for in the Texas Public Information Act.

The Local Government Records Act establishes a retention schedule for such records. The SOS Alliance claims Daugherty, who is the official records custodian for his office, has not retained the records for the required two years.

The SOS Alliance’s criminal complaint states that Daugherty has violated the Local Government Records Act by not retaining correspondence concerning county business and has thereby allegedly committed a misdemeanor punishable by Section 552.351 of the Texas Public Information Act.

Section 552.351 states “a person commits an offense if the person willfully destroys, mutilates, removes without permission as provided by this chapter, or alters public information. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor publishable by: a fine of not less than $25 or more than $4,000; confinement in the county jail for not less than three days or more than three months; or both the fine and confinement.”

Special prosecutor possible

A couple of past cases may foreshadow how the SOS Alliance’s complaint against Commissioner Daugherty might be handled.

David Escamilla
David Escamilla

In August 2004, County Judge Sam Biscoe was arrested for driving while intoxicated. DWI offenses are normally prosecuted by County Attorney Escamilla’s office. But because the County Commissioners Court chaired by Biscoe approves the county attorney’s budget, Escamilla recused himself from the case. At that point it’s up the courts to appoint a special prosecutor. (The charge was ultimately dismissed based on Biscoe’s medical condition.)

Last November, the SOS Alliance filed a criminal complaint against Judge Biscoe for failing to file his personal financial statement. Failure to file a statement on time is a Class B misdemeanor. Once again the county attorney’s office was recused. Biscoe filed the statement after the complaint was filed.

Public information case has precedents

Although no criminal complaints were filed in two other cases in Central Texas, the lawsuit against Daugherty is based on the same grounds: failure to turn over communications about government business conducted on private devices or private accounts.

The Austin case—On March 1, 2011, The Austin Bulldog sued Mayor Lee Leffingwell, each City Council member, and the City of Austin over the citys’ refusal to turn over messages the elected officials exchanged about city business on private e-mail accounts between January 1, 2010, and January 27, 2011.

The city maintained that it did not collect, assemble, or maintain e-mails exchanged on private accounts and did not have legal access to those e-mails. The claim seemed inappropriate on its face given that The Austin Bulldog’s public information request for those records was addressed to the elected officials as well as the city. These elected officials are the official custodians of the records in their offices.

In the wake of The Austin Bulldog’s lawsuit and during the county attorney’s open meetings investigation the elected officials individually turned over widely varying numbers of e-mails they had exchanged about city business on their private e-mail accounts during the 13-month period.

In addition, a Council Resoluton Adopted April 7, 2011 ordered reforms to the City Council’s own electronic communications policies. Further, the resolution ordered the City Manager to reform e-mail practices for the city’s 12,000 employees and ordered the City Clerk to reform practices for the appointed members of the city’s boards and commissions.

The Austin Bulldog’s lawsuit is still pending in the Third Court of Appeals to resolve the issue of whether the public officials’ private e-mail addresses legally can be redacted, or blacked out, as they were in the messages the mayor and council members had exchanged about city business on private e-mail accounts. The appeal argues that allowing those e-mail addresses to be obliterated when responding to a public information request prevents discovery of whether elected officials participated in an illegal quorum discussion about city business using their private e-mail accounts—a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Bexar County case—The San Antonio Express-News requested e-mails about county business that Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson had sent or received on his personal e-mail account. The county requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General, who ruled the e-mails were subject to the Texas Public Information Act and must be released.

Adkission refused and instead sued the attorney general in Adkisson v Abbott, Cause No. 03-00535-CV. The trial court confirmed the attorney general’s opinion and ordered release of the commissioner’s e-mails. Adkisson then filed an appeal with the Austin-based Third Court of Appeals.

George Hyde
George Hyde

Adkisson’s appeal was argued before the court in October and the decision is still pending, said attorney George Hyde of the Austin law firm Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal Hyde & Zech PC, who represents Commissioner Adkisson.

Legislative action—In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1368 and the governor signed it into law in June.

The bill requires that in responding to public information requests, public officials must provide e-mails about government business that are sent or received on private devices unless the subject matter otherwise qualifies to be withheld. In other words, electronic communications relating to official business will be accessible by law to the public, even if sent from a private e-mail account or mobile device.

Daugherty was elected to county commissioner in November 2012 and took office in January 2013.

SB 1368 became effective September 1, 2013.

This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help sustain The Austin Bulldog’s reporting by making a tax-deductible donation.

Related Bulldog coverage: This is the 43rd story covering local government agencies’ problems and progress in dealing with open government issues.

Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues: Key issue is whether it is permissible to redact officials’ private e-mail addresses, June 7, 2013

Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws: Attorneys criticize criminal penalties and public access to elected officials private e-mail accounts, April 24, 2013

Social Media’s Impact on Open Government: Few government organizations have dealt with how Facebook, Twitter use affects compliance, April 23, 2013

City Hosts Open Government Symposium: Lawyers attending for education credits abound, much of the day had little to do with city practices, April 22, 2013

City Spent $157,636 to Defend Council Violations: Payments for private lawyers for mayor, council members in criminal investigation, April 8, 2013

City Hosting Open Government Symposium: Follows county attorney’s investigation of City Council open meetings violations, March 19, 2013

Deferred Prosecution Ends Open Meetings Investigation: Mayor and five current council members sign agreements waiving the statute of limitations and requiring major reforms, October 24, 2012

Austin Board and Commissions Get E-mail Policy: Fifteen months after City Council ordered changes, board and commission members to be assigned city e-mail accounts, August 23, 2012

Open Meetings Investigation a Year Old Today: County attorney says investigation of whether City Council violated Open Meetings Act is still ongoing, January 25, 2012

City of Austin Moving, Slowly, Toward Greater Transparency in Electronic Communication: New system for board and commission members targeted for first quarter 2012, October 27, 2011

Employee E-Communication Policy Drafts Show Each Revision Weakened Rules: Policy that was near fully compliant on first draft crippled by changes, September 13, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Second Lawsuit Against City of Austin for Withholding Records: City not responsive to open records request concerning water treatment plant construction, September 1, 2011

City Manager Establishes Policy for Employees’ Electronic Communications: Open government legal experts say policy is seriously flawed, but it’s an important start, August 10, 2011

City of Austin Dragging Its Feet on Implementing Lawful E-mail Practices: City employees, board and commission members still not covered by city policies, July 13, 2011

E-mails Exchanged by Council Members Expose Private Deliberations and Political Maneuvering: More than 2,400 pages of e-mails published here in searchable format, July 6, 2011

Taxpayers Footing Big Bills to Correct City of Austin’s Open Government Issues: $200,000 spent on attorneys so far and no end in sight, June 24, 2011

Treasure Trove of Public Documents Made Available in Searchable Format: E-mails, text messages, meeting notes obtained through open records, lawsuit, May 12, 2011

County Attorney’s Office ‘Cannot Determine’ City of Office Committed Alleged Violations: Bulldog’s complaint was the first presented for violation of the Texas Public Information Act, April 22, 2011

Council Staff Training Lapsed from 2007 Until Lawsuit Filed: Only one current staff member had taken training, city records show, April 20, 2011

Austin City Council Adopts Policy to Improve Compliance with Texas Public Information Act: Policy does not cover all city employees or all city board and commission members, April 15, 2011

City of Austin and Council Members File Answer to The Austin Bulldog’s Lawsuit: Answer challenges standing and claims requests for open records fulfilled, mostly, April 11, 2011

Call for Public Help in Analyzing City Council Members Private E-mails, Text Messages: Volunteers needed to review correspondence and provide feedback on any irregularities, April 9, 2011

City of Austin’s Records Retention Undermined by Lack of Controls Over Deletion of E-mails: Missing records likely more important than gossipy tidbits, April 6, 2011

Council Member Laura Morrison Releases E-mail on City Business from Gmail Account: Morrison second council member to turn over more e-mails responsive to The Austin Bulldog’s requests, March 30, 2011

Private E-mails About City Business May Be Pulled Into City of Austin Records Retention: City Council votes to consider policy draft at council meeting of April 7, March 29, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Civil Complaint Against City of Austin and Council Members: Travis County Attorney David Escamilla has legal authority to force compliance, March 23, 2011

Expired: The Austin Bulldog’s Offer to Settle Its Lawsuit with City, Mayor and Council Members: Does this mean these elected officials want to continue to violate state laws?, March 18, 2011

Council Member Spelman’s City E-mails on UT Account Will Not Be Provided: University of Texas will seek opinion from Texas attorney general to withhold, March 18, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Lawsuit to Compel Compliance with the Law: Mayor and city council members not in compliance with statutes for public information, records retention, March 2, 2011

Smoking Gun E-mail Shows Council Aide Advocated Evasion of Open Meetings Act: Provided detailed guide to allow chats with council members on dais but leave no trace, March 1, 2011

Council Member Bill Spelman Goes On the Record About Private Meetings, Fifth in a series of recorded question and answer interviews, February 20, 2011

Council Work Sessions Stir Concern Over Tying Up Staff for Two Meetings: City manager presents summary of options for council consideration, February 15, 2011

Mayor Claims Lawyers Okayed Private Meetings But City Won’t Release Proof: City pledges cooperation with county attorney’s inquiry but is withholding these key documents, February 13, 2011

County Attorney Asks City of Austin for Records Related to Open Meetings Complaint: Former Mayor Wynn and Former Council Member McCracken included, February 9, 2011

Council Member Randi Shade Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Fourth in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 9, 2011

City of Austin Commits $159,000 for Advice in County Attorney’s Open Meetings Act Inquiry: Three attorneys hired for $53,000 each, February 7, 2011

Council Member Chris Riley Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Third in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 6, 2011

Council Member Sheryl Cole Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Second in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 3, 2011

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: First in a series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 2, 2011

Will I Said Come On Over Baby, Whole Lot of Meetin’ Goin’ On: Council Member Chris Riley tops the chart with 256 private meetings, January 30, 2011

County Attorney Reviewing Complaint, Brian Rodgers Will Not Run for Council, January 25, 2011

Open Meetings, Closed Minds: Private meetings to discuss public business shows Austin City Council may be violating Open Meetings Act, January 25, 2011

Homestead Exemptions a Tax Loophole

Appraisal district processing relies mostly on homeowners statements, not scrutiny

Part 2 of a series
Data Research by Brandon Roberts

Two hundred eighty eight thousand dollars.

And counting.

That’s how much homeowners have been charged for back taxes so far as a result of The Austin Bulldog’s investigation of improperly granted residence homestead exemptions.

As important as it is to collect these back taxes, in the long run it may be more important to staunch the bleeding of tax dollars that would’ve gone on unabated had it not been for this investigation.

This investigation has spurred numerous actions by the Travis Central Appraisal District to validate existing homestead exemptions, but numerous significant barriers exist that prevent more effective screening of new applications. (More about that later.)

Homestead residence exemptions lower the taxable value of a home. (The amount of exemptions granted by local taxing entities were published in Part 1 of this series on December 20.) When improperly granted, these exemptions cause the homeowner to be under-billed for property taxes.

Texas law entitles homeowners to have a residence homestead exemption on only one home per tax year. The exemption is authorized for the home that is the owner’s primary residence on January 1.

Although nearly $300,000 has so far been billed for back taxes owed by homeowners who have managed to obtain more than one exemption, correcting the mistakes exposed by this investigation is very much still a work in progress for the Travis Central Appraisal District and Travis County Tax Collector’s office.

As reported by The Austin Bulldog December 20, 2013, several hundred homeowners have obtained homestead tax exemptions on more than one residence—and thus avoided paying the full amount of property taxes that would otherwise be due.

Some 165 of these property owners had more than one home located in Travis County that enjoyed a tax exemption. Additional taxes billed to these homeowners as a result of this investigation totals $143,716 to date. (For details, click on: Homeowners Who May Have an Improper Residence Tax Exemption in Travis County.) As indicated by the questions inserted in “Remarks” (Column Z of this database), not all of these improper exemptions have been removed. Even in those cases where improper exemptions have been removed, it appears that not every homeowner was billed for the correct number of years for back taxes.

Another 120 homeowners dodged taxes by obtaining exemptions in both Travis County and another Texas county. (For details, click on: Homeowners Who Had an Improper Residence Homestead Exemption in Travis County or Another County.) The Travis Central Appraisal District eventually removed the inappropriate exemptions and initiated billing for back taxes totaling $144,367 for these properties.

Appraisal District corrective action

To its credit, the Travis Central Appraisal District—upon receiving The Austin Bulldog’s public information requests for the applications these homeowners filed to obtain residence homestead exemptions—initiated action to remove many (but not all) inappropriate exemptions and notified the Tax Collector’s office to collect back taxes.

Denise Pierce, customer service director for the Appraisal District, said in a December 16 interview, “Once the (public information) request was filled, then we did go back over those property owners where exemptions should not have been in place. We did go back through and start removing exemptions.”

To date, these actions have resulted in additional property tax billings totaling more than $288,000. Stated another way, The Travis County Tax Collector has been able to initiate recovery of an aggregate total of 397 years of back taxes from these homeowners.

Based on The Austin Bulldog’s analysis, an aggregated 514 years of back taxes may yet be collected as the Appraisal District continues to follow through. The amount of back taxes that may be recouped from these additional collections is not clear at the moment.

What is clear is that more than 900 years of back taxes will never be recouped from these homeowners because the law permits collection of back taxes for a maximum of five years. Homeowners who had inappropriate exemptions longer than that cannot be billed for those years. Some have had improper tax exemptions for decades.

The homeowners who skated on paying their full share of property taxes and have finally been billed for back taxes will not be charged even one dime in penalties or interest if, once billed, they remit timely payment for the full amount due.

Inattention, systemic problems

Obviously it’s important to correct these longstanding problems with inappropriate homestead exemptions and collect as much of the back taxes as possible. The larger question is why these problems exist.

This investigation identified a number of significant factors, as follows:

Lack of identification—Legislation was enacted in 2009 to require that homeowners show identification consistent with the address of the home for which an exemption is sought. Before that the Travis Central Appraisal District’s scrutiny was minimal. In effect the applications were processed on an honor system by taking the application more or less at face value.

The 2009 legislation required residence homestead exemption applications to be accompanied by a driver’s license number (or personal identification certificate number or social security number), and a vehicle registration certificate in which the addresses were the same as the homestead address in the application. (In 2011, legislation deleted the requirement for applicants to provide vehicle registration documents.)

While furnishing a driver’s license or other proof of residency will help prevent the approval of improper residence homestead exemptions going forward, it does little to prevent granting a new exemption to a person who already has an existing exemption—because, Appraisal District officials said in an interview, most of their records do not contain driver’s license numbers associated with homesteads that already have exemptions.

Owners names inconsistent—The Appraisal District’s records reflect the names of property owners taken from deed records.

The Austin Bulldog’s investigation shows that of the nearly 300 improper residence homestead exemptions identified, a high percentage of the deed records do not reflect identical names on both properties. Properties that are owned by two or more individuals rarely list the owners’ names exactly the same way, or in the same order.

Even properties owned by a single person are sometimes not listed identically in deed records.

One common trait in deed records is for a couple’s name to be listed with the husband’s name first in one deed and the wife’s name first in the second deed. This is important because of limitations that currently exist in the Appraisal District’s software and search-engine limitations.

Software limitations—The Travis Central Appraisal District’s software, made by True Automation Inc., requires the names of all owners of a property to be entered all together in one field, regardless of the number of individuals with an ownership interest.

The owners’ names are routinely truncated because the number of characters allowed to be entered into the field is often insufficient.

Search engine limitations—The publicly available online search engine for locating the owners’ names is capable of finding only the name of the first-listed owner for a property.

This problem seems to be inherent in the software from vendor True Automation Inc., as the Bexar Appraisal District uses it too, and suffers the same shortcoming in searchability.

Travis Central Appraisal District officials said in an interview that these search limitations also hinder the staff’s ability to search internally.

If the Appraisal District’s software were modified to allow listing in separate fields the first, last, and middle names of every person with an ownership interest, that would help to prevent the granting of residence homestead exemptions to applicants who already have an exemption on another property in Travis County.

Application form revised—Homestead residence exemptions are granted upon application to the Appraisal District for the county in which the home is located. Although proof of residency has been required since the law was changed in 2011, tens upon tens of thousands of existing homestead residence exemptions in Travis County that were previously approved have never been required to furnish such proof.

The Application for Residence Homestead Exemption, Property Tax Form 50-114, has been frequently revised over the years by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Although the application was tightened in recent years by requiring a driver’s license (or other identification) with an address identical to the property for which an exemption is sought, the current form no longer contains key information that might prompt the exemption applicant to do the right thing.

For example, until the form was revised about 2005, it contained a check-box and a line labeled “DELETE EXEMPTION ON.” Space was provided to enter the address of a property for which an existing exemption should be removed when granting a new exemption.

Although there is no longer a place on the form to indicate that an existing exemption needs to be deleted, the homeowner nevertheless “has a duty to notify the chief appraiser when the applicant’s entitlement to the exemption ends,” per Property Tax Code Section 11.43(f).

The current edition of the form retains an important feature that requires the applicant to sign a statement “that you do not claim a residence homestead exemption on another residence homestead in Texas, and that you do not claim a residence homestead exemption on a residence homestead outside of Texas.” But it’s up to the Appraisal District to make sure that an applicant is truthful before granting an exemption. That’s a task that’s fraught with obstacles.

Application form unalterable—Travis Central Appraisal District officials stated in an interview that because the State Comptroller prescribes the content of the form, the district is not permitted to modify the form to require additional information from applicants for a residence homestead exemption, such as marital status.

Kevin Lyons, press secretary for Texas Comptroller Susan Combs, said in an e-mail that although Appraisal Districts are not required to use the model forms published by the Comptroller, the content of the forms used must comply with the most recently prescribed form, per Texas Adminstrative Code, Rule Section 9.415(c).

The marriage problem—Married homeowners are entitled to a only one, single residence homestead exemption, anywhere in the state or in the country. Application forms, however, do not require the applicant to state whether the applicant is married and, if so, to identify the spouse’s name and the date of the marriage.

In an interview with The Austin Bulldog, Travis Central Appraisal District officials conceded the Customer Service Department, which processes exemption applications, does not consistently check the Travis County Clerk’s website for marriage searches. And even if they did so, anyone married outside Travis County would not be found there.

Indexes of marriage license applications in Texas may be found by searching CourthouseDirect.com if those marriages occurred between 1966 and 2011, but that database, which is compiled from records maintained by the Vital Statistics Unit of the Texas Department of State Health Services, is not complete. Discrepancies are often noted when checking these records against the Travis County Clerk’s records, for example.

In addition, there is no free resource for finding records of marriages that took place outside Texas.

No statewide database—The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, which promulgates instructions for the administration of residence homestead exemptions, does not maintain a statewide database of residential properties that have obtained such exemptions.

Each Central Appraisal District annually submits a database to the Comptroller’s office, but those files do not include the names of property owners, the property addresses, or mailing addresses, James Nolan, associate deputy general counsel for the Texas Comptroller, stated in a January 3 e-mail.

An appraisal district in each of the state’s 254 counties maintains its own records. Most if not all districts publish a searchable online database of the properties in their county, and those records reflect any exemptions granted to the property owner. However, each Appraisal District selects its own software vendor and, as a result, the search capabilities vary widely from district to district.

Applications for a residence homestead exemption received by the Travis Central Appraisal District do not require the applicant to identify a previous residential address or disclose property owned elsewhere.

So even if the Travis Central Appraisal District chose to do research to identify applicants who already owned a home with an exemption in another Texas county, it would be impractical to do so.

Lack of criminal enforcement— As reported in Part 1 of this series on December 20, the Travis Central Appraisal District has never pursued an investigation to enforce criminal penalties for an applicant who may have submitted false information to obtain improper residence homestead exemptions.

Nor is the Texas Comptroller’s office aware of an applicant being charged or convicted for filing false information on an application, according to press secretary Kevin Lyons’ e-mailed response to The Austin Bulldog’s query.

This despite the fact that, when signing an application for a residence tax exemption, applicants are warned of the Penal Code provision and swear they have read and understand the penalty for making a claim containing false statements.

The toothless enforcement of criminal penalties for making false statements in applications for residence homestead exemptions constitutes an open invitation to abuse the system.

In actual practice, anyone caught with an inappropriate exemption will at most be billed for up to five years of back taxes and then go scot-free. They will not have to pay their full share of property taxes in any previous years in which inappropriate exemptions were enjoyed.

There’s neither a penalty nor a penny of extra interest for those who—once an improper exemption is discovered and cancelled—pay the bill for back taxes on time.

The Bulldog investigation

The Austin Bulldog’s investigation of inappropriate homestead residence exemptions involved going far beyond the kinds of research that’s routinely done by the Travis Central Appraisal District.

The Austin Bulldog’s investigation included extensive research to locate marriage records. In addition to online search engines hosted by the Travis County Clerk and CourthouseDirect.com, the investigation reading deed records, which may indicate whether the homebuyers were married at the time of purchase and, if so, to whom.

Voter registration records—The Austin Bulldog’s investigation included cross-checking property owners’ names through a database of registered Travis County voters purchased from the Travis County Voter Registrar’s Office and a similar database purchased from Williamson County. Voter registration records in Bexar, Dallas, Houston and Tarrant counties were checked either online or by calling the voter registrars in those counties.

Pinpointing the addresses where property owners are registered to vote provides a strong indication of where they may actually live—and that may not be in the home for which they have obtained an exemption.

Travis Central Appraisal District officials have conceded they do not consistently research voter registration records when reviewing applications for residence homestead exemptions.

Utility service customers—The Austin Bulldog’s investigation included cross-checking the addresses of properties located within the City of Austin with a residence homestead exemption against a database of the customers who purchase water and/or wastewater service from the city. That database was obtained through a public information request.

When utility records indicate that a non-owner pays for water and/or wastewater service at a residence for which the owner enjoys a residence homestead exemption, it raises a red flag that perhaps that exemption should be questioned.

The Austin Bulldog’s public information request for a database of Austin Energy customers was denied because under state law that information is permitted to be kept confidential for competitive reasons.

Tools used inconsistently

Marya Crigler
Marya Crigler

Chief Appraiser Marya Crigler and Customer Service Director Denise Pierce said in a December 16 interview that last summer the Appraisal District purchased user permits for three employees to have online access to the LexisNexis database.

Travis Central Appraisal District officials have conceded they do not consistently use LexisNexis data and have no written procedure to do so. Only a fraction of the customer service representatives who process applications for residence homestead exemptions even have access to LexisNexis.

Routine use of LexisNexis would greatly assist the process of screening applicants for residence homestead exemptions by providing information such as marital status, previous residential addresses, and related information that would help to identify leads for further research or raise questions about whether an exemption should be granted.

The bottom line is that tax exemptions should be granted only when due diligence indicates that an application meets the requirements of law. The results of this investigation indicate that in hundreds of cases the due diligence is lacking.

Further, taking action to cancel inappropriate exemptions would assist the Appraisal District in accomplishing its mission (as stated on its website) which is in part to “ensure that each taxpayer pays only their fair share of the property tax burden.”

By the same token, no taxpayer should pay less than their fair share. When a homeowner enjoys an undeserved exemption, it comes at the expense of those homeowners who pay taxes required by law.

Positive actions being taken

In a December 16, 2013, interview, Chief Appraiser Crigler said the Appraisal District has begun work to review some of the 171,000 properties with residence homestead exemptions in Travis County.

She said letters were being sent to owners of properties for which exemptions had been in effect for a long time. The letters ask the homeowners to reapply if they are still qualified for the exemptions. The chief appraiser is authorized to do this in accordance with Property Tax Code Section 11.43(c). If a homeowner fails to reply to a letter within the specified time limit the Appraisal District will cancel the exemption.

“This is the first time in my memory that the Appraisal District has ever done anything like that,” said Crigler, who has been employed by the Appraisal District since January 1990 and was appointed chief appraiser in November 2011.

But more trouble may be in store in the future, as Denise Pierce, the customer service director who supervises the employees who review exemption applications, said the Appraisal District was mailing applications for residence homestead exemptions to some 11,000 homeowners who might be eligible to apply.

Given the numerous limitations that currently hinder complete scrutiny of applications, a high volume of new applications may only invite further tax evasions.

Public help invited

Crigler closed the December 16 interview with some helpful advice and an appeal.

The helpful advice is for anyone who inherits a property that happens to have a property tax exemption—and particularly properties that have exemptions for an owner who was over the age of 65. School taxes are frozen for these seniors, resulting in significantly lower tax bills each year. Heirs should promptly notify the Appraisal District to have those exemptions removed.

But, if the exemptions are not detected until later, “It can be a significant burden to heirs for back taxes,” Crigler said. Allowing those exemptions to remain in effect until discovered by the Appraisal District could result in getting billed for tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes.

In addition, Crigler said, “If the public is aware of anybody claiming an exemption who should not be claiming an exemption, if you contact our office and let us know we will take it seriously and research it.”

Such reports may be e-mailed to [email protected].

This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help to sustain The Austin Bulldog’s reporting by making a tax-deductible contribution.

Related Bulldog coverage:

Homestead Exemptions Rife With Abuse: Honor system applications and inadequate scrutiny for hundreds of homeowners not billed for full taxes, December 20, 2013

Appraisal District to End Records Suppression: New policy will give property owners 45 days to qualify for confidentiality, November 22, 2011

Appraisal Records Hidden From Public View: Agencies suppressing online records the law doesn’t deem confidential, November 18, 2011

Celebration of Democracy Honors Achievements

But notes the challenges ahead with a City Council composed of district representatives

An extended standing ovation, completes with whoops and hollers, erupted Wednesday night when the League of Women Voters Austin Area’s Francis McIntyre announced to a crowd of some 125 people at the Green Pastures restaurant, “I present to you the first Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in the history of Austin.”

Each of the 14 members of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) was honored with an award as McIntyre called them one-by-one to step in front of the crowd. (See list of members below.)

The League’s State of the City 2014 dinner celebrated voter approval of Austin’s new form of city governance that will be launched following the first-ever election this coming November of council members from geographic districts that were drawn by the ICRC.

The Proposition 3 ballot measure to establish 10 council districts drew 146,496 votes in the November 6, 2012, election, besting by more than 24,000 votes the alternative plan put on the ballot by council members opposed to the 10-1 plan.

Steve Bickerstaff
Steve Bickerstaff

Featured speaker Steve Bickerstaff—the founder of the Bickerstaff Heath law firm and the attorney who drafted the initial plan that wound up as Proposition 3 on the ballot through the grass-roots petitioning of Austinites for Geographic Representation—called the victory “an extraordinary example of the ability of people to take control of government and an exercise in democracy.”

Bickerstaff praised Linda Curtis, the sparkplug campaign coordinator for Austinites for Geographic Representation; City Auditor Ken Mory, who was instrumental in implementing the application process for volunteers who wanted to serve on the ICRC; the CPAs who (during tax season) winnowed the 450 applications to form a pool of those best qualified to serve on the ICRC; and the ICRC members themselves for accomplishing the difficult task of holding together and drawing the boundaries of the 10 districts from which future council members will be elected.

“A lot of people thought it (the process) would crash and burn but the reality is, you did it,” Bickerstaff said. “The ICRC is extraordinary because the commissioners were willing to spend their own time and skills to make the process work.” He also noted that the ICRC’s mission was completed for less than $150,000.

While praising the ICRC’s accomplishments Bickerstaff also criticized the group for “failing to achieve transparency” in its final few weeks by not allowing oral comments and overusing closed executive sessions.

Bickerstaff noted the irony of his involvement in bringing about single-member districts, given his previous legal role in the 1980s to successfully defend in federal court the City of Austin’s at-large system of electing council members. He said he would have never endorsed the concept of single-member districts for Austin had the ballot measure not required that council districts be drawn by the ICRC—not the City Council.

“We have the distinct advantage of going to single-member districts through the elective process,” Bickerstaff said. “Most all cities move to single-member districts through the force of litigation or threatened litigation,” which creates resentment over being forced to change.

Challenges ahead in new system

But the future holds challenges for the new form of government under a 10-1 system in which only the mayor is elected by all citizens.

“A council member in a district can focus on the needs of the district,” he said, but a group of constituents may be able to elect a person of its choice and become so strong that the incumbent may not be responsive to the people of the district.

“A district could become a virtual fiefdom,” he warned.

An incumbent could also become more “accountable to the people who control the voter turnout” and that could “create extremism and lead to cronyism.” The result could be “gridlock and acrimony” Bickerstaff said.

“We can expect a tsunami of democracy and grass-roots efforts,” he said.

Bickerstaff said Austin’s system has the advantage of establishing term limits but the public should be wary of the possibility of an incumbent anointing a successor.

Another advantage that Austin has in going to single-member districts is that this city does not have the polarization that existed in other cities that went from at-large to district councils. “We have a reserve of good will and it’s important to keep that good will going forward.”

“This process will change what we expect from the mayor. It’s more important that the mayor has the ability to lead the council” and “create a consensus for decisions going forward.”

Groups that are looking to support mayoral candidates should keep these qualifications in mind, he said.

“There is no reason to underestimate the importance of what you have achieved,” Bickerstaff said. The chore of redrawing council districts again in 2021, after the next census, will be less difficult.

“The Austin model can and should be used all over the country,” he said, and Bickerstaff urged the League of Women Voters audience to make an effort to sell the idea of drawing council districts with an ICRC to other cities.

“We have the opportunity in Austin to move forward in a united way,” he said.

ICRC members honored

The ICRC members were: Magdalena Blanco, Catherine Cocco, TJ Costello, Mariano Diaz-Miranda, Rachel Farris, Stefan Haag, Harriet Harrow, William Hewitt, Henry W. Johnson, Carmen Llanes Pulido, Arthur Lopez, Ryan Rafols, Anna Saenz, and Maria Solis.

To see the final certified map of the 10 districts drawn by the ICRC, click here (warning: this document is extremely slow to load).

Related Bulldog coverage:This is The Austin Bulldog’s 51st article covering issues and activities pertaining to proposed and/or voter-approved changes to the Austin City Charter.

Austin Impact of Supreme Court Decision: Ruling on Section 5 of Voting Rights Act ends need for federal approval of council districts, June 26, 2013

What Can Austin Learn from California? Panel discussion focuses on how Golden State experiences inform city’s move to 10-1 council, May 6, 2013

Redistricting Veteran Shares His Wisdom: Member of California Redistricting Commission describes what to watch out for in Austin redistricting, May 2, 2013

Why Bother: Austin After 10-1: KLRU-TV taping draws more than 200 people for multifaceted discussion of what future holds, April 29 2013

Light Turnout for City Auditor’s Meetings: Five scheduled meetings drew fewer than ninety people, but keen interest shown among attendees, January 29, 2013

City Auditor Kicks Off Info Sessions: Drawing maps for 100 council districts attracts citizens who want to get involved, January 22, 2013

Bumpy Road to Implementing 10-1: Council refuses to pay for child care, mileage. Applications to serve taken Jan. 19 to Feb. 22, January 17, 2013

Massive Interest in Redistricting: City audtor’s forum draws standing-room crowd to brainstorm how to attract applicants, December 4, 2012

Proposed Districting Timeline Draws Flak: Redistricting expert says schedule does not allow enough time for federal approval process, December 4, 2012

Citizens Redistricting Forum December 4: City auditor invites public input for citizens redistricting panel and how best to identify applicant qualifications, November 27, 2012

Prop 3 Proponents to Monitor Implementation: Austinites for Geographic Representation form committee to help guide work on 10-1 system, November 25, 2012

City Hustles to Initiate Prop 3 Tasks: Auditor coordinating with proponents of the 10-1 plan to begin what will be a lengthy transition process, November 15, 2012

10- Plan to Rule Council Elections: Both propositions for geographic representation pass but grassroots group dominates election results, November 7, 2012

Mayor: My Commission Beats Your Commission: Mayor Lee Leffingwell lifts idea for citizens to draw council districts and undercut opposing proposition, November 2, 2012

Prop 3 Fundraising Outpaces Prop 4: Financial support for 10-1 far outstrip dollars donated for 8-2-1 hybrid, September 29, 2012

Proposition 3 Campaign Relies on Grass Roots: Austinites for Geographic Representation going door-to-door, running phone banks, and distributing info at polling places, October 21, 2012

Prop 3 Proponents Question Prop 4 Legality: Civil rights attorney and two minority groups say federal preclearance for 8-2-1 is unlikely, October 21, 2012

Poll Triggers Backlash from 10-1 Proponents: Proposition 3 advocates saying Prop 4 playing dirty with a misleading poll, Prop 4 denies the charge, October 17, 2012

Proposition 4 Campaign Reports Finances: Late report indicates $2685 raised in last three months but fails to provide details about campaign expenses, October 10, 2012

Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances: 10-1 campaign proponents raised more than $40,000, Proposition 4’s 8-2-1 advocates’ report not submitted, October 9, 2012

Proposition 3 Rally Draws 150-200 People: Crowd hears fiery speeches by proponents of the 10-1 system for electing council members, October 8, 2012

Attorney Bickerstaff Addresses Critics’ Concerns: His September 24 article drew numerous comments about the Proposition 3 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, October 5, 2012

Feisty Debate Over Electing Council Members: One panelist argues for no change to the at-large system of City Council elections, October 4, 2012

Proposition 3 and 4 Proponents Rev Their Campaigns: Raising money, organizing troops, and pushing plans for geographic representation on Austin City Council, September 28, 2012

Redistricting Need Not Be a Quintessentially Political Process: Independent redistricting commissions for U.S. states and cities, September 24, 2012

Barrientos Lampoons Prop 4 With a Fable: Other proponents of alternative plans for geographic representation push their points, September 14, 2012

Proposition 3 Advocates Falsely Accuse RECA: Group alleges ‘rumor’ of $100,000 pledge by Real Estate Council to defeat Proposition 3, but RECA says not so, September 12, 2012

No-Change Option Surfaces in Ballot Debate: Former Council Member Bob Binder opposes both options on the ballot for geographic representation, September 11, 2012

The Election Wars Have Begun: Interest in how council members elected running high, as face-off debates abound, September 9, 2012

Your Guide to Proposed City Charter Amendments: What’s on the ballot, what it will cost taxpayers, and details provided in the ordinances for each proposition, August 30, 2012

Loud Rally Follows Final Council Vote for 8-2-1: AGR’s Cries Foul Over Work Session Vote for Hybrid; Mayor Leffingwell Said Votes Driven by Ballot Deadline, August 7, 2012

Council Backers of 8-2-1 Plan Accused of Self-Interest: But Facts Don’t Seem to Substantiate Such a Claim, as Related Actions May Bar Most Incumbents From Reelection, August 6, 2012

8-2-1 Near Certain to Go on Ballot: City Council Votes on Second Reading to Put Competition Election Plan on Ballot, July 31, 2012

10-1 Plan Qualifies for November Ballot: Consultant Estimates That 22,435 Signatures Are Valid; Austinites for Geographic Representation Readies for Battle, July 26, 2012

Petition Completed for 10-1 Council Districts: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims 33,000 Signatures, of Which About 22,800 Are Considered Valid, July 16, 2012

Council Puts 10-1 Election Plan on November Ballot: Votes 5-2 on Three Readings to Adopt Petition Language, Votes 4-2 on First Reading to Also Put 8-2-1 on Ballot, June 29, 2012

Citizens Group to Make Final Petition Push: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims to Have 17,000 Signatures, and Shoots for 13,000 More, June 4, 2012

City Council Tackles Charter Amendments: Redistricting Expert, Charter Revision Committee Members, and Grass-roots Group Critical of Task Force Plan, April 26, 2012

Council District Backers Want Quick Ballot Decision: Big Press Conference, Big Pressure Promised, to Get Council Decision Before Council Elections, March 8, 2012

Hard Fought, Heartfelt Charter Decision: Charter Revision Committee Votes 8-7 to Back 10-1 Plan for Council Elections, February 3, 2012

New Restrictions Proposed for Lobbyist Fundraising: Lobbyists Can Only Give Candidates $25 But Can Collect Unlimited Contributions For Them, January 22, 2012

Committee Debates How to Elect Council: Charter Revision Committee Divided Over Pure Districts vs. Hybrid System, January 9, 2012

Thirteen Charter Changes and Counting: Charter Revision Committee’s Next Job: Tackle Plan for Geographic Representation, December 14, 2011

Council Confirms November 2012 Election Date for Charter Amendments: Resolution Ensures Citizens Initiative Won’t Force May 2012 Charter Election, November 3, 2011

Coalition Launching Petition Drive to Get on the Ballot for May 2012 Election, October 18, 2011

Broad Community Interest Focusing on How Mayor and Council Members Elected, October 4, 2011

Coalition Nearing Petition Launch for Grass-roots Council District Plan, August 24, 2011

Maps Prove Select Few Govern Austin: Forty Years of Election History Expose Extent of Disparity, August 4, 2011

City Council to Consider Proposal to Create Geographic Representation: Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution, April 27, 2011

Petition Launch Imminent to Force Election for Geographic Representation in City Elections, March 7, 2011

Homestead Exemptions Rife With Abuse

Honor system applications and inadequate scrutiny for hundreds of homeowners not billed for full taxes

Part 1 of a series
Data Research by Brandon Roberts

Pablo Ornelas Jr. is being hit this month with a sudden increase in property taxes totaling more than $18,000 that he must pay by January 31 or face stiff penalties and steep interest charges.

Still, it’s hard to complain when he enjoyed an improper tax break for 15 years on one of the homes he owns.

For Ornelas, it’s actually good news that the law restricts the collection of back taxes to just five of those 15 years (2008-2012).

Renea Deckard
Renea Deckard

While that adds up to a lot of money, he will not have to repay the additional $21,000 in taxes he was under-billed for in tax years 1998 through 2007, according to calculations provided by Renea Deckard, associate deputy for collections in the Travis County Tax Office.

The bottom line is that a single oversight by the Appraisal District has so far cost taxing entities some $39,000 in revenue that was due on a single house. As stated above, Ornelas is being billed for only $18,000 (46 percent) of that amount.

If not for this investigation—which triggered the Appraisal District’s action to initiate collection of back taxes from Ornelas, and upped the taxes for 2013 as well—this hemorrhage would have continued for the foreseeable future.

Not an isolated case

Ornelas is just one of more than 200 homeowners identified in this investigation who appear to have been under-billed for their full share of property taxes because they were granted more than the single residence homestead exemption authorized by state Property Tax Code Section 11.13(h) for their primary residence.

On Monday December 16, The Austin Bulldog provided a database to the Appraisal District with details about 165 Travis County homeowners who appear to have more than one residence homestead exemption—one of which may need to be cancelled. (Another database of 50 homeowners with a residence exemption in Travis County and a second residence exemption in another county will be provided to the Appraisal District later.)

The database provided not only indicates homeowners’ names and addresses for properties with exemptions but also identifies which owners are married, the addresses where owners are registered to vote, and, when the residence is connected to City of Austin utilities, who pays for water and wastewater service. The database also identifies in scores of cases the non-owners who are registered to vote and/or pay for utility service at these addresses.

Further, the database indicates the exemptions on each property, when they were applied for, the year in which the exemptions took effect, how many years the exemptions have been maintained, and the owners’ 2013 property tax savings enjoyed because of the exemptions.

The total estimated 2013 taxes under-billed on these homes for which exemptions are questionable is more than $125,000. Many of these homeowners have been under-billed for years—and in some cases for decades. Collection of back taxes will recover only a fraction of the total losses. And were it not for this investigation these losses would likely have continued indefinitely.

The Austin Bulldog asked Appraisal District officials to review the data and provide comments about the validity of these findings for this article.

“Because of the short turnaround we have not had an opportunity to review all of the data in your spreadsheet,” Chief Appraiser Marya Crigler wrote in an e-mail late Wednesday, adding, “We are committed to proper application of homestead exemptions and will continue to review the data provided and take appropriate action as needed.”

How could this happen?

By obtaining a homestead exemption for a primary residence, a homeowner pays property taxes on a taxable value that is substantially less than the appraised market value. This results in a smaller annual property tax bill.

Obtaining an additional over age 65 or older exemption is especially helpful because it freezes the amount of school taxes. School taxes generally account for more than half of a Travis County homeowner’s property tax bill. While property values generally rise over the years and tax rates tend to increase as well, the school-tax freeze staves off a good share of what otherwise would be ever increasing taxes for aged homeowners, many of whom are retirees living on fixed incomes.

2410 Glen Springs Way
2410 Glen Springs Way

In 1997, Pablo Ornelas Jr. applied to the Travis Central Appraisal District for an age 65 or older homestead exemption for a home at 2410 Glen Springs Way in Austin that he had owned since 1967, records indicate.

1209 Lost Creek Blvd.
1209 Lost Creek Blvd.

In 1998, Ornelas applied for a residence homestead exemption for a home at 1209 Lost Creek Blvd. in Austin that he and wife Ofilia Ornelas bought in January of that year, records indicate.

Because the state Property Tax Code permits a homeowner (defined as a single adult or a married couple) to receive an exemption on only one residence homestead in the same year, Ornelas’ Lost Creek application was flagged by Appraisal District personnel to indicate the exemption for the Glen Springs Way home was to be deleted when granting the new exemption.

This was not done.

Ornelas never notified the Appraisal District of the oversight.

Section 11.43(g) of the state Property Tax Code states, “a person who received an exemption that is not required to be claimed annually shall notify the appraisal office in writing before May 1 after this entitlement to the exemption ends.”

“I did not write them a letter that I had vacated the (Glen Springs Way) house,” Ornelas told The Austin Bulldog in a December 11 phone interview. “I was thinking the exemption was good for life or until I sold my property. That was my assumption.”

As a result, for 15 years Ornelas was allowed to maintain homestead and age 65 or older exemptions on both of his homes.

The Appraisal District did not notice this oversight until it responded to The Austin Bulldog’s multiple public information requests for copies of more than 550 applications for homestead exemptions filed by homeowners.

Denise Pierce, customer service director for the Appraisal District, and Chief Appraiser Crigler readily conceded in a December 16 interview that these public information requests triggered collection efforts for Ornelas and “quite a few” others.

After filling these public information requests, Pierce said, “We went over the property owners where (the exemptions) shouldn’t have been there.”

The Appraisal District sent Ornelas a certified letter November 13, 2013, notifying him the exemptions for the Glen Springs Way home had been cancelled. The letter advised he had the right to appeal within 30 days by filing written notice with Appraisal Review Board.

“After I got that letter I called them immediately,” Ornelas told The Austin Bulldog. “I apologized for not notifying them. … They are going back and recomputing the tax I owed and I will pay.”

On December 4, the Appraisal District notified the Tax Collector’s office to initiate collection of Ornelas’ back taxes and issue a revised tax bill for 2013, Associate Deputy Collector Deckard told The Austin Bulldog.

The Additional Tax Bill for 2410 Glen Springs Way boosted Ornelas’ taxes from the previously issued Travis County Tax Bills for the Ornelas Homes of $1,008.89 to $3,689.51 for 2013 and tacked on back taxes for 2008 through 2012 as well. The new tax statement for that home totals $18,081.27.

Ornelas one of many

Although the Appraisal District has begun to review many questionable exemptions as a result of The Austin Bulldog’s public information requests, it missed more than 170 cases identified in the database provided to the district Monday.

As a result, the homeowners listed in that database have not yet been notified by the Appraisal District that they may lose their exemptions and be billed for back taxes.

It’s not immediately clear how much each of these homeowners will be billed for increased 2013 taxes and back taxes for 2008 through 2012 if their exemptions are removed.

One of the cases pending notification by the Appraisal District involves homeowners Richard Fred Gautier and Jeanette Burkett Gautier.

8108 Hillrise Drive
8108 Hillrise Drive

Jeanette Joseph Burkett applied for an age 65 or older exemption for 8108 Hillrise Drive in Austin in 1995, records indicate.

Public records indicate that Richard Gautier married Burkett in February 1999.

Today, according to voter registration records, Jeanette Burkett Gautier and Richard Gautier live in the Hillrise home. This home is currently valued at $400,000 by the Appraisal District. The homestead and age 65 or older exemptions on this home saved the couple more than $5,200 in 2013 property taxes

2500 Deerfoot Trail
2500 Deerfoot Trail

In June 1999 Richard Gautier—a licensed Certified Public Accountant since 1964—applied for exemptions for 2500 Deerfoot Trail, based on being the surviving spouse of a person with an age 65 or older exemption.

Now, nearly 15 years later, both of these properties maintain homestead and age 65 or older exemptions.

The occupants of the Deerfoot Trail home are Brent R. Drake, Edward Turner Noland, and Joseph J. Ayala, according to voter registration records, and Drake is billed for Austin water and wastewater service.

None of these men have an ownership interest in this home, which, like the Hillrise home, is also valued at $400,000.

The Austin Bulldog notified Richard Gautier of these findings in a December 13 telephone interview. (Like Ornelas, he would not agree to be interviewed in person.) After hearing the facts, he said, “I agree. You’re correct.”

Later that same day Gautier left a voice message for The Austin Bulldog in which he said, “I want to thank you for informing me about my erroneous homestead exemption. I have called the Travis County Appraisal Office and (asked) what I need to do. I hope they will send me the information. Again, I want to thank you very much.”

The homestead and age 65 and older exemptions would have saved the Gautiers more than $5,300 in 2013 property taxes on the Deerfoot Trail home—if not for discovery in this investigation.

The Appraisal District has not yet notified the Tax Office that the exemption has been cancelled on the Deerfoot home, Deputy Collector Deckard said, so she cannot provide an estimate of increased taxes for 2013 and back taxes for 2008 through 2012.

But with the same methodology used by the tax office to compute Ornelas’ increased taxes, The Austin Bulldog calculates the Gautiers will see their 2013 tax bill for the Deerfoot Trail home jump by more than $4,500.

In addition, collection of back taxes for this home for five years will total nearly $23,000.

The Gautiers will be required to pay the total increase of about $27,500 in taxes due by January 31.

Bruce ElfantTravis County Tax Collector Bruce Elfant said that homeowners may work out payment plans for property taxes.

“We have to offer up to 12 months to pay,” he said in a November 27 interview (but) for anything delinquent beyond 21 days penalties and interest kick in.”

There are benefits to being in a payment plan, Elfant said.

“Once in a payment plan you’re locked in. We can never come and foreclose on the property. That gives the taxpayer protection. We encourage paying off as soon as possible so it does not add exorbitant amounts for penalties and interest.”

Problem is widespread

The Ornelas and Gautier cases are but two examples of the phenomenon exposed by this investigation.

Most of the owners named in these findings may have been under-billed for smaller amounts than these two examples, but the longer improper exemptions exist, the larger the cumulative under-billing.

The properties for which exemptions are questioned in this investigation have been in effect an average of 14 years.

Fifteen of these questionable exemptions have been in effect for 20 to 29 years.

Cancelling inappropriate exemptions would assist the Appraisal District in accomplishing its mission (as stated on its website) which is in part to “ensure that each taxpayer pays only their fair share of the property tax burden.”

By the same token, no taxpayer should pay less than their fair share. When a homeowner enjoys an undeserved exemption, it comes at the expense of those homeowners who pay taxes required by law.

About this project

The results of this investigation are based on careful analysis of data collected from a wide variety of public sources. (For details see How The Austin Bulldog Investigated Residence Homestead Exemptions.)

This data is anything but static. In the course of daily events properties are being bought and sold.

Residence homestead exemptions are being added and cancelled.

Property owners are getting married, or getting divorced and dividing their property.

Property owners die and exemptions must be cancelled and reapplied for, if appropriate, by surviving spouses or heirs.

All of these actions, and more, will affect the accuracy of these findings. By the time you read this article some of the records involved may have changed.

In publishing the results of this investigation and a database of questionable homestead tax exemptions, The Austin Bulldog is not alleging that anyone committed a crime.

Nevertheless this investigation points to problems that need to be addressed by the appropriate officials

How exemptions are obtained

A “residence homestead” is defined by the state Property Tax Code Section 11.13(j)(1), as a structure, together with the land (not to exceed 20 acres) and improvements used in the residential occupancy of the structure that is owned by one or more individuals, is designed or adapted for human residence, is used as a residence, and is occupied as the principal residence by an owner.

Residential property owners seeking exemptions in Travis County submit to the Appraisal District an Application for Residence Homestead Exemption, Property Tax Form 50-114. There is no charge to apply for a residence homestead exemption.

The form contains a warning in the space immediately above where the application is signed, which states:

“By signing this application, you state that the facts in this application are true and correct, that you do not claim a residence homestead exemption on another residence homestead in Texas, and that you do not claim a residence homestead exemption on a residence homestead outside of Texas.”

Property Tax Form 50-114 also states, “You have a duty to notify the chief appraiser when your entitlement to any exemption ends.”

The same form is used to apply for a variety of property tax exemptions, including: general residence homestead exemption, disabled person exemption, age 65 or older exemption, 100 percent disabled veterans exemption, and surviving spouse exemption.

Per state Property Tax Code Section 11.43(f), the application must be accompanied by information necessary to determine the validity of the exemption claim, to include the applicant’s name and driver’s license number, state-issued personal identification certificate number, or social security account number.

The need for an applicant to have identification that matches the residential address for which the exemption is sought did not exist until the law to require it was enacted in 2011.

How much are exemptions worth?

The value of homestead residence exemptions are expressed in either specific dollar amounts or as a percentage of the taxable property value determined by the Appraisal District. The total value of exemptions on a residence reduces its value and thus its property taxes.

Some exemptions are mandated by state law while others, called local-option exemptions, are allowed if granted by school districts, cities, counties, and other governmental entities entitled to levy taxes.

Exemptions for which all homeowners are eligible in their primary residence

  • State—$15,000 of the appraised value of an adult’s residence homestead is exempt from taxation by a school district per Property Tax Code, Section 11.13(b).
  • Austin Community College—One percent of the appraised value of an adult’s residence homestead is exempt from taxation with a minimum of $5,000.
  • Austin Independent School District—None.
  • Central Health (formerly known as the Travis County Healthcare District)—20 percent of the appraised value, with a minimum of $5,000.
  • City of Austin—None
  • Travis County—20 percent of the appraised value, with a minimum of $5,000

Additional exemptions for the primary residence of disabled or age 65 and older homeowners

  • State—$10,000 of the appraised value of the home owned by a person who is disabled, or is 65 or older, is exempt from taxation by a school district per Property Tax Code Section 11.13(c).
  • Austin Community College—$115,000.
  • Austin Independent School District—$25,000
  • Central Health—$70,000
  • City of Austin—$51,000
  • Travis County—$70,000

Back taxes not the only hazard

In addition to being charged for back taxes if an exemption is cancelled, Property Tax Code Section 22.29 provides that a 50 percent penalty may be imposed by a court if fraud or intent to evade a tax is proven.

Further, criminal charges could be pursued against homeowners who have filed an application for homestead exemption containing a false statement. Application forms for residence homestead exemptions require the owner to sign a statement acknowledging that fact:

NOTICE REGARDING PENALTIES FOR MAKING OR FILING AN APPLICATION CONTAINING A FALSE STATEMENT: If you make a false statement on this form, you could be found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor or a state jail felony under Section 37.10, Penal Code.

Your signature on this application constitutes a sworn statement that you have read and understand the Notice Regarding Penalties for Making or Filing an Application Containing a False Statement.

Although the criminal penalty exists, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts—which prescribes the application forms and requires it to include a notice of possible criminal penalties—was not aware of any cases in which a homeowner has been charged and/or convicted under this statute, Press Secretary Kevin Lyons stated in a November 26 e-mail, in response to The Austin Bulldog’s query.

Further, in a Wednesday e-mail responding to The Austin Bulldog’s question, Crigler stated, “I have checked with legal counsel and the district has not reported anyone to the Travis County Attorney nor are we aware of anyone charged or convicted of filing a false statement on a homestead application.”

In effect the toothless enforcement of criminal penalties for making false statements in applications for residence homestead exemptions constitute an open invitation to abuse the system.

In actual practice anyone caught with an inappropriate exemption will at most be billed for up to five years of back taxes and goes scot-free for avoiding payment of their full share of property taxes in earlier years.

There’s neither a penalty nor a penny of extra interest for those who—once an improper exemption is discovered and cancelled—pay the back taxes on time.

What’s next—Part 2 in this series will focus in greater detail on the Appraisal District’s methods of reviewing applications for residence homestead exemptions and outline significant obstacles that stand in the way of weeding out improper homestead tax exemptions.

The records

The following links allow readers to access source documents that support the findings outlined in this part of the investigation.

Travis County Homeowners Who May Have An Improper Homestead Exemption, an Excel spreadsheet reflecting data for 336 residential properties.

Pablo Ornelas Jr. and Ofelia Ornelas

Appraisal District Records for the Ornelas Homes, indicating the ownership; exemptions granted; valuations; taxing jurisdictions; estimated taxes due with and without the current exemptions; and deed history.

Exemption Applications for the Ornelas Homes processed by the Appraisal District.

Travis County Tax Bills for the Ornelas Homes originally issued for these two homes, which reflected the exemptions and amounts owed for 2013.

Travis Central Appraisal District Letter to Pablo Ornelas Jr. to Ornelas cancelling exemptions for 2008-2013 for the Glen Springs Way home.

Additional Tax Bill for 2410 Glen Springs Way totaling $18,081.27 for back taxes for 2008-2012 and the additional tax for 2013.

Voter Registration Records for occupants of these two homes.

Marriage Record for Thomas Ross Henry and Patricia Ornelas.

Richard Gautier and Jeanette Burkett Gautier

Appraisal District Records for the Gautier Homes, indicating the ownership; exemptions granted; valuations; taxing jurisdictions; estimated taxes due with and without the current exemptions; and deed history.

Exemption Applications for the Gautier Homes processed by the Appraisal District.

Travis County Tax Bills for the Gautier Homes, which reflect the exemptions and amounts owed for 2013 before the taxes are increased due to the anticipated cancellation of exemptions on the 2500 Deerfoot Trail home.

Voter Registration Records for occupants of these two homes.

Marriage Record for Richard Fred Gautier and Jeanette Joseph Burkett.

Richard Fred Gautier CPA License Record