Paris council debates tax rate as appraisals rise; asks manager to seek revenue‑neutral budget
Loading...
Summary
At a Sept. 3 special meeting, Paris residents and council members pressed the city about an apparent blanket 8% increase in Lamar County appraisals and whether the city should keep its tax rate; council directed the city manager to try to return a budget that is revenue‑neutral for existing properties.
The Paris City Council held a special meeting Sept. 3 to conduct the first public hearing on the city’s proposed 2019–20 tax rate and to receive public comment on the city manager’s proposed budget. Chair opened the hearing and invited discussion.
Steve Ekstrom, a Paris resident, said he and his wife recently appealed their property appraisal and were told by an appraisal‑board volunteer that appraisals across Lamar County had been increased a blanket 8% at the comptroller’s instruction. “Has anyone seen this in writing?” Ekstrom asked, saying he had not seen a signed directive and urging the council and legal staff to investigate whether the change was lawful. Ekstrom added: “This just does not smell good to me.”
Why it matters: Council and staff explained that keeping the tax rate unchanged while appraised values rise will increase city revenue — staff estimated the effect of higher appraisals at roughly $560,000 in additional revenue for the city. Council members and residents disagreed about whether to keep the rate to fund capital needs (for example, equipment and downtown renovation) or to seek a revenue‑neutral approach for existing properties so taxpayers are not effectively paying more.
City manager Gene (as identified in the meeting) described the legal requirement for two hearings when revenue would increase and provided budget context: the transcript records total city funds at about $43,000,000, with a general fund near $24,000,000 and water/sewer around $11,000,000 (figures discussed on the dais). Staff pointed to several capital items in the proposed budget, including an asphalt roller and vehicle replacements, as drivers of some of the additional spending.
Council reaction and direction: Some council members said they would not support another year that effectively increases taxes on existing homeowners; others argued keeping the rate could accelerate downtown work or pay down debt. After discussion, the council reached a working consensus to instruct Gene to return with a revised budget that is revenue‑neutral for existing properties (excluding new development/new property growth) or to present options that earmark any proposed increase for specific priorities such as downtown renovation or debt reduction. Staff noted that any future increases would still require public notice and hearing requirements under state law.
Public‑facing details and next steps: Residents and council members asked staff for clearer line‑item explanations and suggested small efficiencies (postage, ordinance streamlining, lease versus purchase analysis) as potential savings. The public hearing was closed; the manager will return to a subsequent meeting with the requested budget options and the council will decide whether to adopt the proposed rate or adjust it based on the revised budget.
Ending: The council closed the public hearing on the tax rate and continued budget deliberations by directing the city manager to pursue a revenue‑neutral budget and to return to the council with options at a future meeting.
