Austin – The former mayor of Austin’s mayor’s candidate challenges the city on how to submit the tax rate elections to the voter in November.
Last week, the Austin City Council agreed to its budget for the coming fiscal year and set the property tax rate, which is high enough to lead to the tax rate, or Tre, in November. Members of the Council also Agree on a decree Request these special elections to be held on November 4.
If the voters agree to the new tax rate, the property tax bill for the owner of the house will rise in the amount of a total of 302.14 dollars annually.
The members of the Decree Council approved, ordered TRE, set the rules of elections and what will appear in voters. According to the decree, the TRE will be under the Rotion Q in the November polling, and he will say: “This is a tax increase,” describing what the money will go to.
However, Jeffrey Bowen, the candidate in the 2024 Austin mayor’s race, filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the polling language, as shown in the decree, does not show that lifting the tax on property will be repeated, and that describing the polling to what taxpayers will get from the increase enough.
The mayor of Austin Kirk Watson, who defeated Bowen for the seat of the city’s mayor last November, presented the following statement:
“The city of Austin is confident that the polling language is appropriate and meets all legal requirements. We also have confidence in the court system and we will respond in this place.”
The full lawsuit can be seen below.
According to the decree, the polling will be prepared to allow the vote “or” against “the proposal q, which will be mentioned the following:
Austin is a proposal
This is a tax increaseApproval of the advertising courage tax rate of 0.574017 dollars per 100 dollars in the city of Austin for the current year, which is a higher rate of $ 0.05 per 100 dollars from the voter tax evaluation in the city of Austin, for the purpose of financing or extensive programs aimed at increasing the ability to housing costs; Improving gardens, facilities and entertainment services; Enhancing public health and public safety services; Financial stability guarantee; Providing public maintenance expenses and general operating expenses included in the fiscal year 2025-2026 as approved or modified by the city council. Last year, the advertising courage tax rate in Austin was 0.4776 dollars per $ 100.
According to Bowen’s lawsuit, Bowen delivered a message to the city council on August 13, which defined the shortcomings in the polling language, and called on the council “to fulfill its non -deadly duty to adopt the polling language to increase taxes that do not mislead voters about the increase in tax supply.”
The lawsuit claimed that “instead, the Austin City Council described its voting language to provide a stark tax that will prestigious voters and enhance their approval.”
The first issue that the lawsuit claimed is that the city council violated the Texas Law set by the Supreme Court in Texas in Dacus V. Parker (Tex. 2015) Because the polling language does not explain the “purpose” of the tax increase in specific and clear terms.
The lawsuit specifically indicated the voting term.Providing public fund expenses and operating expenses listed in the fiscal year 2025-2026
The budget is also approved or amended by the city council“Claim that several parts of the phrase“ misleading ”voters.
He also said that the language language fails at the meeting Dakos Criteria because “many of the program’s descriptions are misleading and unresolved call.”
The other case that claimed the lawsuit was that the polling was very mysterious to create a “implementable contract with voters”, because it does not describe exactly how the current council and future councils can spend money.
The lawsuit said that since the tax increase will be a “tax forever”, the polling language must be “and clear and become the basis that the voters and taxpayers can rely on – if the proposal succeeds – how to spend this huge tax increase, not only by the city council but by all the city councils in the future.”
Bowen’s lawsuit, which was filed in the third court of Appeal in Austin, requires the court that “issuing an order from Mandamos and the town of the mayor and the city council of Austin to raise the council’s meeting immediately to adopt the language of voting that makes all of the shortcomings in the polling language that the council revolves around.”
In other words, Bowen asks the court to compel the mayor and the city council to change the polling language for the proposal.