Bill would make it harder for Texas cities, counties to raise property taxes
Despite opposition from cities, Texas lawmakers are considering making it more difficult for cities and counties to raise property taxes.
The latest version, as passed by the Texas House of Representatives on Monday, Aug. 25, says cities and counties must go to voters to raise property taxes more than 1%.
The legislation, Senate Bill 10, is in a conference committee, where lawmakers from both chambers will hash out differences between versions to come up with a compromise bill. Legislative records showed that a conference committee report had been filed in the Senate as of late Thursday afternoon. The text was not immediately available online.
Currently there’s a 3.5% increase threshold before rate increases must go to voters as a result of legislation passed in 2019.
“That reform gave taxpayers more control and required an election if local governments sought to raise taxes beyond the threshold,” said Rep. Morgan Meyer, a University Park Republican. “But despite these protections, Texans are still seeing their city and county tax bills climb.”
Meyer made those remarks at the start of the Monday debate on the bill. But the version that advanced from the House was different from the version he initially presented to his colleagues, after a series of amendments overhauled the legislation.
The bill as it arrived in the House was limited to cities and counties with 75,000 or more people and lowered the threshold requiring a vote to 2.5% increase. It was expanded through a floor amendment to include all cities and counties, regardless of population. It was also expanded to include Municipal Utility Districts, governmental entities that provide their own services, like water and drainage.
The details of the compromise version are still to come, but some lawmakers and cities have raised concerns about the proposal.
While an ultimate goal of the legislation is property tax relief, Rep. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican, questioned how much Texans would ultimately see in savings.
“My concern is that everyone in my district who has calculated this suggests that this bill roughly equates to a Starbucks run in tax relief,” Little said.
Meyer later said there are too many variables to generally calculate estimated savings.
Rep. Chris Turner, a Grand Prairie Democrat, was among House lawmakers who raised concerns about how the proposal could affect public safety services, such as fire and police departments.
Public safety costs sometimes take up more than half of a city’s budget, Turner said.
“I don’t see how there’s not a public safety hit that our local governments are going to take, and then they’re going to have to go to the voters every year simply to approve maintaining existing fire and police staffing levels,” Turner said.
That shouldn’t have to happen if cities and counties “plan accordingly,” Meyer said.
“They should know how much property tax revenue they received the year before,” Meyer said. “They should know what their budget looks like, and they should plan accordingly.”
An amendment was added to the bill that exempts spending for public safety from the election requirement.
Officials from several North Texas cities opposed the bill while it was in the House committee phase, including Fort Worth, Carrollton, Irving, Lewisville, Flower Mound and Frisco.
While they didn’t testify, officials from Dallas, McKinney, Garland, Grand Prairie and Denton marked themselves as being against the legislation while it was in the House Ways and Means Committee.
Fort Worth Assistant Finance Director Brady Kirk used road repairs as an example of how the city could be negatively impacted by the proposed legislation. Fort Worth is investing heavily in street maintenance by using operating dollars, he said.
“We’re doing that because maintenance prevents much more expensive debt funded reconstruction, but with a lower cap, that could sideline the preventative maintenance,” Kirk said, turning his attention to Turner, who serves on the committee.
“So, Rep. Turner, you asked if public safety’s not going to give, what is going to give? Preventative maintenance might be one of those things, and we don’t think that’s going to save taxpayers’ money. We think that’s going to cost taxpayers money,” Kirk said.
He offered lawmakers a few alterations to make the bill more agreeable, including an exception for cities that have had flat or decreasing tax rates and an adjustment for for cities that are rapidly growing.
This story was originally published August 28, 2025 at 4:42 PM.
