Photo by Noah Dawson
After the two-day trial earlier this month in businessman Alex Fairly’s lawsuit against the City of Amarillo over non-voter approved anticipation tax notes to fund renovations to the Civic Center, Judge William Sowder today ruled in favor of Fairly, declaring the ordinance authorizing the anticipation tax notes void.
“After considering the pleadings on file, all evidence properly before the Court, and arguments of counsel, the Court herby finds and declares that judgement shall be entered for Plaintiff and intervenor Alex Fairly,” reads the last sentence of the first page of the ruling.
Sowder found that the TIRZ #1 Board meeting on May 5th, the Amarillo City Council meeting on May 10th, and the Amarillo City Council meeting on May 24th failed to give the public “sufficient notice” of the items relevant to the Civic Center project under Section 551.041 under the Texas Government Code, thus making those items void under Section 551.141 of the Texas Government Code.
Sowder also found that the tax anticipation notes, which, under Section 1431.004 of the Texas Government Code must only be used for public works, were invalid “as the new construction of the civic center complex is not a public work.” This is likely due to the fact that Mayor Nelson, during her testimony at the trial, admitted that there had been talks about bringing in an anchor tenant for the new arena.
Sowder also ruled that the tax anticipation ordinance was subject to Article II, Section 23 of the Amarillo City Charter, which allows for citizens to petition to repeal ordinances. The City of Amarillo’s legal team argued during the trial that ordinances authorizing debt issuances were exempt from petitions, though Sowder disagreed.
Fairly has also been awarded attorney’s fees of $376,613.82, with a possible additional $80,000 in the case of an appeal.
Update 5:31 pm: Alex Fairly has released a video via Inspire Amarillo responding to the decision and expressing thanks to those who supported him and for the system which allowed him to challenge the tax notes. the video is embedded below.
To read the full decision, click the button below.