Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
As Austin’s sky-high housing costs put increasing pressure on renters and homeownership out of reach for many working Austinites, a yearslong fight over what kind of housing the city should allow could be at a turning point.
Austin has long been the epicenter of the state’s housing affordability crisis, but the problem reached new heights in the pandemic era amid massive population and job growth.
The crisis — along with the rise of a new political bloc calling for reform — has given Austin leaders a renewed mandate to tackle the problem. After the collapse of big housing reform proposals in recent years, the Austin City Council is embarking on a new push to ease city restrictions on how much housing can be built and where.
The current restrictions, the thinking goes, impede the city’s ability to build enough homes to meet the crushing demand for housing — resulting in higher home prices and rents.
“We have a significant affordability crisis, and it is an emergency,” Austin Mayor Kirk Watson told The Texas Tribune. “We’ve got a supply and demand problem, and we’re going to have to come up with unique and different ways than we’ve thought of in the past to solve it.”
City leaders have proposed a number of measures to try to stimulate more and denser housing, like allowing more single-family homes on smaller lots and taller apartment buildings near single-family homes, as well as doing away with mandates that require developers to set aside a certain amount of land for tenants to park their cars.
But these reforms will probably run into some familiar obstacles. For decades, efforts to loosen the city’s land-use regulations have run into opposition from homeowners fearful of neighborhood change, old-school environmentalists and anti-gentrification activists — even as policymakers increasingly backed the idea and the city’s housing woes mounted. A group of homeowners, deftly wielding state law to their advantage, persuaded a judge in 2020 to kill a major overhaul of the city’s land development code that would have allowed denser housing.
But as musicians, teachers, police officers and firefighters struggle to find affordable housing within city limits, Austin’s housing crisis is increasingly seen as an existential one.
“Without change, where do you think this will go? What are you preserving at that point?” said Dianne Bangle, CEO of the Real Estate Council of Austin. “Is this an Austin for everyone, or is it just for people who want to maintain their large home and neighborhood?”
An unignorable crisis
An organized and steadily growing activist movement is backing — and pushing — city officials to allow more housing to be built.
On a morning in late August, dozens of demonstrators crowded the steps of the Travis County Civil and Family Courts Facility in downtown Austin to protest a court challenge by a group of homeowners seeking to kill a popular affordable housing program and other housing initiatives. Demonstrators held signs that read “Support affordable housing” and “Housing is a human right.”
Anoosh Razian, a 34-year-old Austin therapist, saw the effects of the city’s housing shortage while working for a nonprofit that helps single mothers experiencing homelessness regain their footing. Often, she said, the women would hesitate to move out of supportive housing because they couldn’t find homes they could afford.
“There’s nowhere to go if they had to,” Razian said. “If they want to move out of supportive housing, they would have to move out of the city.”
Her husband, Edgar Handal, an engineer at a tech company and a board member at AURA, an Austin organization that advocates for denser housing, said they can afford a home in East Austin but some of their friends have had to move far outside of the city.
“I’m here because I care that other people have housing, my family and my friends,” Handal said. “It shouldn’t be that you need to be so lucky to have a high-paying job to be able to afford a home in Austin.”
Housing costs in the Austin area rose dramatically in the past decade as the region transformed into a major tech hub and companies like Apple, Google and Oracle ramped up their presence in the city. The market kicked into overdrive during the COVID-19 pandemic as more than 120,000 people moved to the region and millennials sought to buy homes, sparking fierce bidding wars for limited housing supply.
For several months last year, the typical home in the Austin-Round Rock region sold for more than $500,000, pricing droves of would-be first-time homebuyers out of the market. Nearly half of the region’s renters spend so much of their income on keeping a roof over their heads that they struggle to pay for other expenses like child care, groceries and transportation.
Housing unaffordability dominated Austin’s most recent citywide election, which brought new faces to the Austin City Council and solidified its pro-housing bloc. Observers say the City Council and Watson, who also took office this year, got a clear signal from voters to do something about the city’s housing crisis. Over the summer, council members gave their first stamp of approval to a slew of housing reforms.
“I think people are seeing the hurt, the pain, the frustration, and it’s unfortunate that it took so long to get to this point,” said Austin City Council Member Zohaib “Zo” Qadri, one of the new members.
Housing advocates place much of the blame for the crisis on the city’s land development code, which governs how land is used. The code hasn’t had a substantial overhaul since 1984, when Austin’s population was less than half its current size. Each time the city has tried to give it a significant makeover, homeowner groups have successfully killed those efforts.
One of the biggest criticisms targets the limits on the kind of housing that can be built. Much of the city’s residential land can only be used to build single-family homes. On top of that, Austin requires most single-family homes to sit on at least 5,750 square feet of land — a restriction known as a minimum lot size that research has linked to higher home prices. Those kinds of restrictions, real estate and housing experts say, lead to fewer homes and apartments being built — and higher housing costs as a result.
“When we don’t allow densification, that means we have a lower supply of housing units, which in general increases the price of all housing units in the area,” said Adam Perdue, a research economist at the Texas Real Estate Research Center at Texas A&M University.
An older home in a single-family neighborhood displays a large orange sign reading “END CONSTRUCTION” on Sept. 16, 2023. Newly built duplex units are visible in the car mirror.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
First: A tree provides shade in the yard of a newly-constructed duplex near downtown Austin on Sept. 16, 2023. Last: A placard displayed on a wall during an open house in Austin describes the ecological benefits of infill building, or the construction of new housing in existing neighborhoods.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
The restrictions, critics say, have made it tough for Austin builders to meet housing demand.
The Austin-Round Rock region routinely ranked among the country’s busiest markets for housing construction during the pandemic years, according to A&M data. Even so, construction hasn’t kept pace with the growth in the number of households, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows.
“We have tenants whose rents are skyrocketing, [would-be] first-time homeowners who cannot enter the market, people who want to age in place and they’re not able to move to a home that better fits their housing needs,” said Awais Azhar, who’s with the advocacy group HousingWorks Austin.
The city is short nearly 152,000 homes considered affordable enough for two-person middle-income households, a recent report from the Austin Board of Realtors shows — a shortage that’s even more drastic for families of four at that income level.
“People like EMS workers, teachers and firefighters want to be able to live in the community that they’re serving and really can’t,” said Emily Chenevert, Austin Board of Realtors CEO.
Austin-Travis County EMS medic Claudia Cadena and her husband bought a two-story home on San Antonio’s Far West Side in 2019 for about $180,000. The house is close enough to Cadena’s parents, who live in nearby Lytle and often watch their children, but the decision to buy a home in San Antonio was also because they couldn’t afford one in the Austin area, she said.
“It was either afford child care or afford a house,” said Cadena, who makes the two-hour drive from San Antonio to her post near Austin-Bergstrom International Airport at least twice a week.
Claudia Cadena, a medic with Austin-Travis County EMS, stands in the EMS garage bay at the end of a shift on Sept. 14, 2023.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
Cadena in her car at the end of a shift before commuting back to her home in San Antonio.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
Commuting long distances is a relatively common experience for Austin-Travis County EMS employees, some of whom live as far as Killeen, about 70 miles north of Austin. Nearly one in five of employees live outside of the immediate Austin-Round Rock region, Chief Robert Luckritz said, partly because medics and other EMS staff can have a hard time finding nearby housing they can afford.
That distance can make it difficult to quickly call people in an emergency — and for workers to build camaraderie and develop a relationship with the community they serve, Luckritz said. The Austin region’s high housing costs, he said, also get in the way of hiring new recruits and filling vacancies.
The distance has taken its toll on Cadena. Years of long drives, with often sleepless 24-hour shifts in between, have left her exhausted. Cadena has stuck with the job for the benefits — and because she wants to help people.
Cadena may not endure the drives much longer. Her husband recently obtained his electrician license, which Cadena said will let her leave her Austin job and focus on getting her fledgling tattoo practice off the ground.
“I thought this was the place I was going to retire from,” Cadena said of Austin-Travis County EMS. “If the drive wasn’t so long, I definitely would, but I can’t imagine being here for another 30 years.”
More density, more homes
The housing crisis is not unique to Austin. By various estimates, the country needs to build millions more homes to meet the nation’s housing demand and slow the steep rise in housing costs.
A growing body of research has tied strict land-use rules to high housing costs — a conclusion embraced by the Biden administration as well as state and local policymakers across the country who have loosened zoning rules to try to juice their housing supply.
In recent years, cities like Minneapolis and Portland found some success in slowing down the rampant rise of housing costs. In 2018, Minneapolis officials enacted a series of zoning reforms — like allowing duplexes and triplexes to be built in areas previously reserved for single-family homes and getting rid of minimum parking requirements for new developments — that helped the city keep a tight lid on rental cost growth during the pandemic era, according to a recent study by The Pew Charitable Trusts. According to a recent Bloomberg report, the changes have even helped the city beat back inflation.
Meanwhile, states like California, Oregon, Washington and Montana have enacted statewide reforms to local zoning laws in order to increase housing production and short-circuit local opposition from elected officials and neighborhood groups.
Republicans in the Texas Legislature this year flirted with relaxing cities’ housing restrictions, to allow more homes to be built amid the state’s housing crunch, though those efforts ultimately failed. As GOP state lawmakers increasingly sap authority from the state’s bluer urban areas, some Austin leaders fear if they don’t loosen restrictions on how much housing can be built and where, state lawmakers will finish the job when they return to the Capitol in two years.
Now, the year after Austin became the 10th-largest city in the nation, city officials are pushing for similar solutions.
Perhaps the most sweeping proposals — and the ones likely to draw the most heat from opponents — would allow more kinds of housing units to be built in areas currently reserved for single-family homes and nearly halve the amount of land the city requires to build housing on those lots.
The idea, pitched by Council Member Leslie Pool, would allow up to three housing units to be built almost anywhere single-family homes are currently allowed. It would also reduce Austin’s minimum lot size in the city’s three most common single-family zoning categories to 2,500 square feet. More than half of the cost of a single-family home in Austin comes from the land, according to a recent city-commissioned study. If would-be homeowners don’t have to buy as much land, the ultimate cost of the home won’t be as high, advocates argue.
Austin’s zoning restrictions don’t just limit what kind of housing can be built and where, homebuilders say — they make it more difficult for that housing to be built quickly, which also adds to the cost of a home.
It took Austin homebuilder Scott Turner three years to build four homes on roughly a quarter of an acre in the neighborhood of South Manchaca. Even with that much land, the plot’s zoning wouldn’t allow for more than two units. So Turner opted to subdivide it — a process that took the city two years to approve, he said.
Had Pool’s proposal been in place, Turner said he would have built three homes instead of four — but they wouldn’t have taken him as long to build, which would have reduced the total cost of the project. The longer local governments take to approve housing projects, the more money homebuyers and renters also have to ultimately pay for that housing, studies show.
“You want somebody to buy a house? Don’t make it expensive,” said Turner, past president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin.
Austin officials are eyeing other ideas to allow for more housing construction. A proposal pitched by Qadri would get rid of city rules that require new developments have a set amount of parking, which studies show lead to fewer housing units and drive up housing costs.
Another idea would ease the city’s “compatibility” requirements that limit how tall apartment buildings can be depending on how close they are to single-family homes. Austin has the strictest compatibility rules among peer cities, which “significantly restrict the development capacity for high-density residential housing throughout Austin,” a recent city analysis found.
Proponents argue relaxing the land-use restrictions will at least help slow the growth of the city’s housing costs and give more middle-class families a better shot at homeownership. Nearly three-quarters of households in the Austin region can’t afford a home going for the median sales price, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
“If [this proposal] can keep families in Austin and attract younger families to raise their families in Austin, that’ll be a net plus,” Pool said.
Council members advanced Pool’s proposal and the parking and compatibility initiatives over the summer, but they haven’t taken effect. City staff first must figure out the nuts and bolts of each idea and bring the plans back to the council for final votes, the first of which is expected in December.
A staunch opposition
Some Austin homeowners have been fiercely opposed to any policies that would allow denser housing, saying they would radically alter their neighborhood’s character.
They have successfully blocked every recent attempt to change the city’s land development code to allow denser housing, including a proposed zoning overhaul in 2018. When the Austin City Council tried again to make changes the next year, a group of homeowners won a court battle to stop them.
For Frances Acuña, the homeowner at the heart of the legal battle against the changes, fighting the city on the proposed zoning reforms means making sure she and her neighbors aren’t priced out of their homes. Acuña has lived for more than a decade in her home in Dove Springs, the predominantly Latino neighborhood in Southeast Austin where she raised her three sons.
Home prices in the area have accelerated sharply during that time: The typical home went from less than $126,000 in the early 2010s to almost $400,000 in January, according to Zillow data. A 2018 report from the University of Texas at Austin deemed her neighborhood “more vulnerable” to gentrification and displacement because of its higher proportions of people of color, residents without higher education and renters, among other factors.
“I’m 52 years old,” said Acuña, a climate advocate and organizer with Go Austin/Vamos Austin, a community health coalition. “How long before I am not able to work and I don’t have a home? Where am I going to go? How am I going to survive?”
Frances Acuña stands in the front yard of her South Austin home on Sept. 16, 2023.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
In 2019, Acuña joined forces with 18 other Austin homeowners — many of whom have owned their homes for decades and some of whom have seen their home values climb north of $1 million amid the region’s hot housing market — to sue the city of Austin.
Austin officials, the homeowners alleged, broke state law by failing to formally notify homeowners of the citywide zoning overhaul — the same way they would have to if a nearby property owner wanted to rezone their land. The city also ignored a state law that requires a supermajority of the City Council to approve a rezoning if enough neighbors protest the change, they said. Lawyers for the city of Austin argued neither law applies when a city overhauls its land development code.
In a ruling that will undoubtedly complicate any other Texas city’s efforts to overhaul its zoning code, a Travis County judge sided with the homeowners — a decision later upheld by an appeals court. Ensuing efforts at the Texas Legislature to peel back the laws the neighborhood groups cited in their lawsuit have failed.
Since then, Austin officials have picked away at smaller zoning reforms intended to stimulate housing supply. Last year, council members greenlit new rules that allow developers to build housing in commercial areas and denser housing along transit corridors.
However, the same group of landowners that blocked past citywide rezoning efforts has set their sights on those changes — as well as a city affordable housing program the council passed in 2019 that has produced thousands of lower-cost units.
Dubbed Affordability Unlocked, the program eases rules like height restrictions, minimum lot sizes, parking requirements and density limits if builders set aside half of a development’s units for households making less than the city’s median family income. The program has proved to be an effective driver of affordable housing and is already helping produce more units than other local affordable housing programs, according to a recent report from the Urban Institute. Of the nearly 7,700 ownership and rental units approved under the program since it began in 2019, the report found, more than two-thirds are affordable for households making 80% of the median family income and below.
Motorists commute northbound along Interstate 35 in South Austin on Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2023.
Credit:
Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune
Despite the program’s virtues, the effort to block it and the other initiatives is about making sure the city isn’t violating homeowners’ rights, said Austin ethics lawyer Fred Lewis, one of the landowners suing the city.
“For most working-class and middle-class people who own a home, the biggest asset they will ever own is their home,” Lewis said. “And their home is not only an asset, it’s their stake in their community and their neighborhood, and it should be respected.”
For some, blocking rules that would allow more housing development is about protecting their neighborhoods from gentrification and displacement.
After witnessing the gentrification of East Austin over the past decade, some fear that clearing the way for more housing construction will accelerate that process in the city’s low-income neighborhoods and oust Black and Latino residents who live there. There remains deep skepticism that allowing the market to produce more housing will moderate housing costs — despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary.
“This is a gentrification provision,” one resident critical of Pool’s proposal told the Austin City Council at a July meeting. “It will increase the number of luxury condos, and it will absolutely not increase affordable housing.”
Whether allowing more market-rate construction leads to displacement of low-income homeowners and renters has been difficult for researchers to prove. Recent research shows that allowing more market-rate housing eases housing costs around that development and across the broader region. Allowing more construction means the crushing demand for housing in the region won’t fall just on existing homes; more housing units mean more places for demand to go, thus moderating prices, research shows.
“When people get mad and they see a giant fancy condo building going up, they should just reflect on the fact that that building is absorbing a lot of buyers with a lot of money who might otherwise be unleashing their spending power on existing houses or the existing housing stock,” said Jake Wegmann, an associate professor at UT-Austin’s School of Architecture who studies housing affordability.
Building market-rate housing in a gentrifying neighborhood could contribute to displacement in cities like Austin with high housing demand, a shortage of housing and strict rules on what kinds of housing can be built and where, experts say. Allowing greater density across a city — including in single-family neighborhoods that aren’t as vulnerable to gentrification — and building cheaper housing like townhouses and duplexes would lower that risk, said Claudia Aiken, director of new research partnerships at the NYU Furman Center and Housing Solutions Lab.
“Having sufficient housing is critical to preventing displacement,” Aiken said. “To do that, we have to build housing. It’s just a question of where and how.”
What’s more, loosening citywide zoning restrictions could shield low-income neighborhoods from gentrification and displacement. A recent Furman Center paper found that in the decades after Houston relaxed land-use restrictions to allow more housing units on smaller lots, the places where townhouses replaced traditional single-family homes mostly took place in wealthier neighborhoods or in parts of town that already had gentrified, though some of that development has taken place in poorer neighborhoods like the Fifth Ward.
“It’s not like you change the zoning and then overnight, the entire city gets torn down and replaced with townhouses,” said Wegmann, the paper’s author. “That’s just not how it works. It’s much, much more gradual.”
Proponents of the Austin proposals are quick to point out: the displacement that East Austin experienced happened under the current code.
Housing affordability advocates at the August protest were outraged at the attempt to end the Affordability Unlocked program.
U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Austin, center, joins protesters gathered in support of affordable housing at the Travis County Civil and Family Courts Facility in Austin on Aug. 28, 2023.
Credit:
Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune
“Opponents of affordable housing couldn’t win this fight in the court of public opinion,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, an Austin Democrat who authored the Affordability Unlocked proposal when he served on the Austin City Council, noting that the program passed unanimously. “So now they’re trying to use the courts to try to block the overwhelming majority of Austinites who want to see housing prices come down in the city.”
Nicholette Lindsay, a 41-year-old Army veteran who lives in one of the affordable units made possible by Affordability Unlocked, said the opposition to the program was hurtful.
Her landlord evicted Lindsay in 2015 after a Microsoft supplier laid her off and she couldn’t pay rent, forcing her and her son to stay at a Salvation Army shelter. With the help of a city program to rehouse homeless veterans, they moved into a new apartment the following year.
This year, she and her son moved into a housing complex created through the Affordability Unlocked program. The complex’s affordability has helped her stay in the city while she runs a private security company, she said.
“If [program opponents] understood how much of a lifeline affordable housing was for individuals … it’s not just a lifeline, it’s life-saving,” Lindsay said.
Disclosure: Apple, Google, HousingWorks Austin, Microsoft, Texas A&M University and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
The Texas Tribune Festival is almost here! Join us Sept. 21-23 in downtown Austin for 125+ unforgettable conversations featuring nearly 300 speakers. Be there for Texas’ biggest politics and policy event when you buy your tickets today.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
FORT WORTH — In a new attempt to save Fairfield Lake State Park, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department filed a petition to condemn and seize the 5,000-acre property south of Dallas through eminent domain.
The petition was filed in Freestone County District Court Friday morning, after months of unsuccessful negotiations with Dallas-based developer Todd Interests, which plans to turn the former park into a high-end gated subdivision.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wrote in an email that this step was “necessary to pursue acquisition at fair market value to preserve Fairfield Lake State Park and Fairfield Lake for all Texans.”
A spokesperson for Todd Interests said Shawn Todd, the company’s CEO, was unavailable to comment. In a previous interview, Todd said his company purchased the land legally and he is not selling.
Eminent domain experts say Texas can seize the land because the property serves a public purpose as a park.
The battle over the park’s ownership has been brewing for years.
The park opened in 1976 on land the state leased from the energy company Vistra Corp. at no charge. Since then, the state said it has invested about $80 million into renovations and improvements to the park.
In 2018, Vistra shut down the coal-fired power plant it operated across the lake from the park and notified the state that it planned to sell the property and terminate the state’s lease.
The state hoped to buy the 1,820 acres that included the park. Vistra, which didn’t want to sell the land in parts, said it encouraged the state to submit a bid to buy the entire property. The state did not.
Earlier this year, the state parks department announced that the park, in Freestone County, was closing after Vistra announced that it planned to sell the property to Todd Interests.
Texans were quick to urge state leaders to save the park.
The department commissioners voted in June to allow the agency to condemn the property, but the agency held off doing so hoping that Todd Interests would agree to sell the land.
The department made two attempts, as required by Texas law, to buy back the park for $103 million, according to documents obtained by The Texas Tribune. Todd Interests denied both offers for the same amount.
The state Legislature appropriated $125 million earlier this year to the department for statewide park acquisitions.
A state appraiser concluded total compensation for the park was valued at $85 million, but the department said in the offer letter that they were willing to offer more than what was concluded in the appraisal report. Todd Interests bought the property for $110.5 million.
Since the developer’s acquisition, the company has begun construction by building roads at the former park and spending about $1 million a month on construction.
Now that the petition has been filed, the county’s district court judge will need to appoint a panel of local landowners tasked with setting a fair market value for the property. Those landowners will hold a hearing to take testimony on fair market value from witnesses.
If the state pays that amount for the land, it can take immediate possession of the former park. If either party appeals the valuation, then the court conducts a civil trial.
“TPWD and its commissioners remain steadfast in their commitment to reopen a public resource…” the department said in an email. “Fairfield Lake State Park rightfully belongs to the people of Texas who have expressed overwhelming support for saving the property for future generations of public use.”
Disclosure: Texas Parks And Wildlife Department has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
The full program is now LIVE for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 21-23 in Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations coming to TribFest. Panel topics include the biggest 2024 races and what’s ahead, how big cities in Texas and around the country are changing, the integrity of upcoming elections and so much more. See the full program.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
ALPINE — For the Alpine Independent School District, being $200,000 short of a balanced budget this school year meant dipping into its savings again. It meant one more year of using plywood sheets to separate classrooms in its elementary school and looking for cheap parts on eBay to fix the middle school’s aging fire alarm system.
The yawning gap between the money the small West Texas school district needs and the funds it gets could lead to bankruptcy in a few years, Superintendent Michelle Rinehart said.
“That math doesn’t work out very well for us,” she said. “In terms of longevity, how long can you sustain that?”
Like most Texas school districts, Alpine ISD is facing critical operational challenges like stagnant student enrollment, rising operations costs and teacher shortages. But for Alpine and about 200 mostly rural districts, a kink in the state’s school funding system is worsening their financial troubles.
Whenever state and county officials disagree over local property value appraisals — which determine how much money schools should get from property taxes — school districts can end up with big holes in their budgets. It would cost the state about $700 million a year to fill those gaps in funding, said Josh Sanderson, deputy executive director of the Equity Center, which represents more than 600 school districts in the state.
The way Rinehart sees it, her district should have received about $1 million more in state funding this year. Not getting it was “a huge funding loss for us,” she said.
Lawmakers tried to temporarily address the issue during this year’s regular legislative session through an omnibus school finance proposal that would have given those school districts the money they’re missing. But the bill ultimately died as part of a dispute between the Texas Senate and House over whether to adopt a school voucher program. The session ended without a compromise on vouchers or new money for schools.
Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call for a special session on education later this year, but it’s unclear whether helping these districts will be part of the agenda.
“It’s a problem that the Legislature could solve and only they can solve,” Rinehart said.
Texas’ pursuit of equitable school funding backfires
Texas guarantees every school district receives a certain amount of funding for each student they have, which is currently $6,160. Districts receive additional money if a student is bilingual, comes from a low-income family, attends special education classes or has certain other educational needs.
To cover their base budgets, districts are required to first raise the money through local property taxes. The state then gives school districts additional money based on the demographics of their student population.
The first step is for county appraisal districts to make an annual estimate of how much each property in school districts’ jurisdictions is worth. Property-owning Texans pay taxes based on the estimated value of their properties.
Most of those taxes usually go to pay for school districts’ maintenance and operation costs. The more money school districts get from property taxes, the smaller the state’s contribution will be, and vice versa.
But pinpointing the exact value of properties in a district is not an easy task — and problems arise when the state doesn’t agree with appraisal districts’ estimates.
Desks in a classroom at Alpine Elementary School. Students and teachers in the district’s single elementary school are still using decades-old books and furniture.
Credit:
Sarah M. Vasquez for The Texas Tribune
At least once every two years, the Texas comptroller’s office is tasked with making its own determination about the total taxable value of properties within each school district. Then, as required by law, the Texas Education Agency uses the comptroller’s figure to calculate how much state money each school district is entitled to get.
The comptroller has been double-checking appraisal districts’ estimates since the 1970s to ensure that every school district gets a fair share of state funding. In the past, the comptroller’s office says, many county appraisers were valuing property under market value, leading some school districts to receive more state funding than they were supposed to. In some cases, property-rich school districts would get larger cuts of state funding than property-poor districts that needed the money more.
Now, the comptroller’s office says the vast majority of county appraisal districts are valuing property in their jurisdiction within market value, leading to a more equitable distribution of state funds.
But the state’s effort to provide more equitable funding has had the opposite effect for school districts like Alpine, where the comptroller’s office believes property values are higher than the local appraisal district does. It’s a lose-lose situation for school districts in those cases: School districts get less state funding because the comptroller’s office believes local property taxes will cover a larger portion of their budget — but they can only levy taxes based on appraisal districts’ lower property value estimates, so they actually get less money from property taxes.
Property value estimates from the comptroller’s office sometimes differ from county appraisal districts’ figures because the comptroller’s office usually determines property values a year after local appraisal districts do their evaluations, which can allow it to gather a more complete set of data.
Most of the school districts affected by this discrepancy in property value appraisals are in small, rural areas of the state. Sanderson, with the Equity Center, said he believes this is happening because appraisal districts in rural counties tend to have fewer resources to help them estimate property values accurately, and they might be more inclined to try keeping taxes low to appease property owners in their jurisdictions, who might be unused to the steep rises in property values as population growth and housing demand have gone up in recent years.
The state gives school districts a two-year grace period in which they can continue getting state funds based on the appraisal districts’ estimates before the TEA starts using the comptroller’s figures. But school districts like Alpine find themselves in trouble if appraisal districts don’t raise their property values closer to what the state believes they should be within that time.
Mounting needs, no new money
For Rinehart at Alpine ISD, getting that extra $1 million in state funding that her local appraisal district believes her schools should get would not only let her balance the school district’s budget — it would also leave her with an $800,000 surplus that could be used to raise teachers salaries for the first time in years and renovate the district’s oldest campuses.
The district’s fuel, construction, health insurance and food service costs have steadily gone up in the last four years, Rinehart said. Students and teachers in the district’s single elementary school are still using decades-old books and furniture. The building doesn’t have a universal lock system and the key fob used to open doors doesn’t always work. Outside, the playground hasn’t been upgraded in years and it may need to shut down because the district can’t afford to put landing mats as required by state law.
Renovating the high school football field also weighs on Rinehart’s mind. The turf was installed more than 12 years ago and it’s starting to show signs of patchiness and looseness. These kinds of fields need maintenance every decade, she said.
Recent renovations have been financed through bonds, grants and donations. The school district built a new high school after a more than $20 million bond passed a couple years ago. The elementary school’s library is getting new carpet after a former student who owns a carpeting company gave the district a discount.
While bonds have helped address some funding woes, Rinehart said it would be a hard sell to ask taxpayers to put the district into debt once again after recently passing a multimillion-dollar bond.
Credit:
Sarah M. Vasquez for The Texas Tribune
Fort Davis ISD, located about 30 miles north of Alpine, has been passing deficit budgets for the last nine years. It started this school year with a $500,000 hole, and with just as much money left in the bank, Superintendent Graydon Hicks predicts the small district of fewer than 200 students will run out of money by next year.
Hicks has not given a pay raise to his teachers since 2019, and the district has been running on the minimum requirements needed to operate. It no longer has a cafeteria, or art or tech programs. Hicks said there is nothing left to cut.
In Orange Grove ISD, located about 40 miles west of Corpus Christi, Superintendent Eddie Hesseltine said his district faces the same issues. The district has had a budget deficit of $750,000 for the last two school years. Hesseltine calculates the district would have an extra $4.5 million a year if it weren’t for the difference between local and state property valuations.
Hesseltine said the situation is dire and the district could burn through its savings in the next couple of years. Substantial raises for teachers are also out of the question.
“Our people are professionals and they do a lot for our kids and I love to be able to give back but right now I’m just trying to keep the school running the day-to-day operations,” he said.
A looming special session
Abbott is expected to call lawmakers back to Austin in the upcoming months for a special session on education after one of his legislative priorities, school vouchers, didn’t get approved earlier this year.
Some legislators hope the special session will provide another chance to pass proposals public education advocates say are desperately needed, like raising teacher salaries and school funding to account for inflation.
But it’s unclear whether fixing the funding gaps created by the discrepancies between state and local appraisers’ property valuations will be part of the agenda.
Sanderson said the quickest solution would be for the state to simply cough up the cash.
“It’s really not new money that they’re giving those districts,” he said. “It’s just ensuring that those districts are getting what current law says they are entitled to.”
Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, a former superintendent of New Boston ISD, said the state’s efforts to make sure property values are appraised accurately help distribute state funds equitably among most school districts, but he acknowledged it’s also having unintended consequences for Alpine ISD and many other districts, including five in his rural East Texas region.
VanDeaver, a member of a special committee created by House Speaker Dade Phelan to recommend education proposals ahead of the special session, said he and several other lawmakers believe the issue needs to be addressed sooner than later. He said one possible solution could be to provide more data to local appraisal districts.
Brent South, chief appraiser for the Hunt County Appraisal District and chair of the legislative committee for the Texas Association of Appraisal Districts, said the more data that appraisal districts have, the more accurate their property valuations will be.
Getting property sales data would help, he said. In Texas, real estate agents are not required to provide sales data, something South said his organization has been advocating to change at the Legislature. But that will likely be a hard change to make.
“In Texas, we have such a high value on confidentiality, property rights and owner’s rights to not have to disclose information to the government, and I get that,” South said.
Mary Lynn Pruneda, an education policy adviser for the public policy think tank Texas 2036, said lawmakers have a chance to tackle the property valuation discrepancies in the upcoming months.
A swamp cooler is the only equipment to cool the shop room at Alpine Middle School. The yawning gap between the money the small West Texas school district needs and the funds it gets could lead to bankruptcy in a few years, Alpine ISD Superintendent Michelle Rinehart said.
Credit:
Sarah M. Vasquez for The Texas Tribune
“In crafting solutions to the problem, the state has to walk a fine line. Balancing the tensions between maintaining accurate property valuations and ensuring that districts aren’t harmed by under- or over-appraisal is a difficult one and will be the focus of much conversation this special session,” she said.
Worries also remain that the debate over school vouchers could either pull attention away from funding concerns or hold any new money hostage to the approval of a voucher program.
“How are we even talking about vouchers when we have districts like ours that aren’t even receiving their full allotment?” Rinehart said. “We should be fixing that first.”
Disclosure: Equity Center, Texas 2036 and Texas Association of Appraisal Districts have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
The full program is now LIVE for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 21-23 in Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations coming to TribFest. Panel topics include the biggest 2024 races and what’s ahead, how big cities in Texas and around the country are changing, the integrity of upcoming elections and so much more. See the full program.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The wooden welcome sign and the brick columns at the front gate are gone. So is the green ticket office where visitors would buy entry passes for Fairfield Lake State Park. In their place is a poster with a rendering of a gated golf course community by Todd Interests, the park’s new owner.
The Dallas-based developer has begun construction at the former state park and is building roads at the site. Shawn Todd, the company’s founder and CEO, said the company is spending about $1 million a month on construction.
Meanwhile, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department — whose commissioners voted in June to allow the agency to condemn the 5,000-acre property and seize it through eminent domain — is still holding out hope that Todd Interests will agree to sell the land to the state despite months of unsuccessful negotiations.
Texans first learned the state park’s future was in jeopardy when Texas Parks and Wildlife announced that the park, in Freestone County, about 100 miles south of Dallas, was closing in February because it was on leased land and the owner was selling the property to Todd Interests.
The agency has yet to file paperwork to initiate condemnation in court.
“I can’t speak to what [Todd Interests is] thinking is at the moment, but I can say from our side that we would certainly like to come to an agreement and avoid having to move through that [court] process,” said Cory Chandler, the agency’s deputy communications director.
As required by Texas law, TPWD said it sent Todd Interests two offer letters since commissioners gave the agency authority to use eminent domain. The final letter was sent Aug. 3, and the company had two weeks to respond.
The agency did not disclose how much it offered for the land, but Chandler said it was “not any less than fair market value.” The state Legislature appropriated $125 million earlier this year to the agency for park acquisition statewide.
If the company doesn’t agree to sell, Chandler said, TPWD would need to decide whether to move forward with condemnation.
In an interview, Todd said his company purchased the land legally and he is not selling.
“The money appropriated for buying parks was from willing sellers. And we’re not a willing seller,” Todd said.
Since the purchase, Todd has held several press conferences, including one in front of the Freestone County courthouse where he said the state is abusing his private property rights.
“This is much broader than my business transaction. That’s taking people’s property,” Todd said during a radio interview in July.
Eminent domain can be used for a “public purpose”
David Yoskowitz, TPWD’s executive director, said in a July letter to Freestone County Commissioners that the agency “remain[s] willing to negotiate with the new property owner and optimistic for a mutually beneficial outcome.”
If Todd Interests doesn’t agree to a sale, eminent domain experts say Texas can seize the land because the property serves a public purpose as a park.
Andrew Morriss, a Texas A&M law professor who specializes in eminent domain, said the first step would be a petition for condemnation filed in a Freestone County court, which would then appoint a panel of local landowners tasked with setting a fair market value for the property. The state would have to pay that amount for the land.
Either party could appeal the valuation and leave the final decision on the price to a judge.
“In this case, it’s definitely better to be Parks and Wildlife than the developer,” Morriss said.
“Eminent domain is, in general, pretty favorable to the condemning agency.”
State didn’t bid on park property initially
Welcoming more than 80,000 visitors in 2022, Fairfield Lake State Park is known for its towering elm, pecan and ash trees, as well as its lake that drew anglers trying to catch catfish, largemouth bass and other fish.
The battle over the park’s ownership has been brewing for years.
The park opened in 1976 on land the state leased from the energy company Vistra Corp. at no charge. Since then, the state said it has invested about $80 million into renovations and improvements to the park.
In 2018, Vistra shut down the coal-fired power plant it operated across the lake from the park and notified TPWD that it planned to sell the property and terminate the state’s lease.
The state hoped to buy only the 1,820 acres that included the park. Vistra, which didn’t want to sell the land in parts, said it encouraged the state to submit a bid to buy the entire property, but the state did not.
In February, Vistra announced that it planned to sell the property to Todd Interests for $110.5 million.
As visitors said their goodbyes on the park’s last day, TPWD and lawmakers at the Capitol scrambled to try to save the park.
In May, Parks and Wildlife offered Todd Interests $25 million to give up the company’s contract so the state could purchase the property directly from Vistra, but the company declined, saying in a letter to the agency that the company has “spent millions of dollars in due diligence and months of planning.”
Both sides lobbying local leaders
The public battle over the land has seen Todd question TPWD’s authority to use eminent domain and accuse the chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Arch H. “Beaver” Aplin III — who is the founder and president of Texas-based Buc-ee’s stores — of abusing his authority.
“Buc-ee’s beavers restrooms might be clean but I’m gonna tell you this, [Aplin’s] leadership and his appointed leadership is dirty and he is absolutely wiping private property rights away in his room,” Todd said during a radio interview in July.
Morriss, the Texas A&M law professor, said Todd’s arguments “would be great arguments to make to the Legislature to change eminent domain law, but I don’t think they work as a legal argument to stop the state doing what it has the power to do.”
Freestone County commissioners have sided with Todd Interests and sent a letter in June to the state calling the use of eminent domain an “abuse of power and government overreach.”
At a meeting in July, county Commissioner Lloyd Lane said Parks and Wildlife “look[s] a little greedy” for wanting to seize the former park property. He said Todd’s proposed development could bring an estimated $20 million of annual tax revenue to the county and the school district.
“I hate for us to miss out on a tax base and I hate for us to see a violation of property rights,” Lane said at the meeting.
Yoskowitz, the TPWD executive director, responded to the letter in July, saying he was taken aback by the commissioners’ “dramatic change in position” after their initial support to save the park. He wrote that the agency’s vote to seize the land was done “reluctantly, knowing that these types of actions should be used sparingly.”
Fort Worth native Misti Little, who visited the park as a child each spring and biked along its nature trails, is now a member of the Save Fairfield Lake State Park group. She said Todd’s ongoing construction is causing environmental damage that can’t be easily repaired.
“We are concerned that [Todd Interests] is going to make it much harder for Texas Parks and Wildlife to recover from this,” Little said. “You can’t get rare prairies back or old-growth forests back. That’s the aggravating part.”
Disclosure: Texas Parks And Wildlife Department has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
The full program is now LIVE for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 21-23 in Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations coming to TribFest. Panel topics include the biggest 2024 races and what’s ahead, how big cities in Texas and around the country are changing, the integrity of upcoming elections and so much more. See the full program.
If voters approve the new cuts, entrepreneurs who own the property their businesses occupy would see their school M&O taxes decrease by 10.7 cents per $100 valuation.
In addition, commercial properties valued at less than $5 million would be protected from excessive year-over-year value upsurges with a 20% cap on how much a property’s appraisal can go up. The cap would be in place for the next three years until lawmakers and voters decide whether to renew it.
It wouldn’t be necessary for a business to be headquartered in Texas in order to get the property tax breaks; any land it owns within the state would qualify to receive the benefits if it doesn’t exceed the value limit.
Here’s an example. A businessman in Corpus Christi saw the value of his office on a prime parcel of waterfront downtown increase by 18% from 2021 to 2022 — and then by 48% from 2022 to 2023, according to tax records. In fact, since 2019, his property has nearly doubled in value.
The property is now worth $638,000. Because that amount is under $5 million, the proposed appraisal cap would apply to his building — and it would take $123,000 off his valuation this year.
Property that doesn’t increase in value more than 20% this year won’t see any benefit from the cap.
Business owners who rent the property they use would not be able to take advantage of the proposed school tax cuts or the 20% appraisal cap, unless they are in a commercial lease that ties rent to property taxes.
But they could take advantage of some of the franchise tax savings, just like businesses that own the property they’re on.
The tax-cuts package would also double the amount of revenue a business could make before it has to start paying franchise taxes from $1.24 million in a year to $2.47 million. The move would remove roughly 67,000 additional small-to-medium businesses from the franchise tax rolls.
Businesses that don’t meet the new threshold for franchise taxes would no longer be required to file $0 tax returns, saving them administrative and labor costs.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Gov. Greg Abbott has signed an $18 billion tax cut for Texas property owners, sending the proposals to voters for their approval later this year.
The package puts $12.6 billion of the state’s historic budget surplus toward making cuts to school taxes for all property owners, dropping property taxes an average of more than 40% for some 5.7 million Texas homeowners and offering brand-new tax savings for smaller businesses and other commercial and nonhomesteaded properties.
On Saturday, Abbott added his signature to Senate Bill 2, the property tax cuts bill, and Senate Bill 3, a franchise tax relief bill, which were passed by Texas lawmakers two weeks ago after months of negotiations between the state’s top Republicans.
A third measure, House Joint Resolution 2, will go before voters in a constitutional election in November. Voters would need to approve the package for the cuts to take effect this year.
At a time when the state has some of the nation’s highest property taxes and lawmakers face massive political pressure to ease the financial suffering of their constituents, the initiative was a cornerstone of Abbott’s 2022 reelection campaign and that of most state lawmakers.
The package’s marquee item is a $5.3 billion expansion of the state’s homestead exemption, the amount of a home’s value that can’t be taxed to pay for public schools, from $40,000 to $100,000. The new exemption combined with school tax cuts would save homesteaders — Texans who live in a residence they own — an average of $1,300 a year in property taxes, said state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, who sponsored the package of legislation in the Senate.
It also offers additional cuts for seniors and property owners with disabilities, averaging about $170 more in savings per year, Bettencourt said.
The most novel part of the plan, an idea introduced publicly for the first time on Monday, is a first-ever temporary 20% cap on appraisal increases for properties valued at $5 million or lower that aren’t considered homesteads. Those would include second homes, vacation properties, rental houses or commercial retail or business properties.
Including more than $5 billion approved four years ago, the legislation also allocates nearly $12.6 billion to reduce the school property tax rate by 10.7 cents per $100 valuation for all homeowners and business properties.
Those billions are being sent to school districts so they can cut their taxes for all property owners and shift a portion of their maintenance and operations costs to the state. But the package would give no new funding to schools, a sticking point with critics who note that, compared to other states’ spending, Texas is ranked near the bottom in per-student funding for education.
Targeted tax relief for the state’s 3.7 million renter households has been left out of proposals that have passed both chambers.
House Democrats unsuccessfully tried to push their own versions of tax relief, including a tax-cut package sponsored by Dallas state Rep. John Bryant that would’ve given tenants a cash refund equaling up to 10% of the rent they paid the previous year. It also would have made the homestead exemption $200,000, doubling the exemption in the current bill, and would have included a teacher pay raise and added more school funding.
Join us for conversations that matter with newly announced speakers at the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, in downtown Austin from Sept. 21-23.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
A landmark $18 billion tax cut for property owners in the state is headed to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk late Thursday, ending a monthslong stalemate among the state’s top Republicans with a deal that drew near-unanimous support from legislators.
Both chambers adjourned sine die Thursday evening, ending the second special session Abbott had called this summer to hammer out an agreement on property tax relief.
“We knew … the most contentious issue that we faced was how to return these dollars to the taxpayers,” House Speaker Dade Phelan told House members after they approved the bills Thursday evening. “Congratulations to you, but more importantly, congratulations to the taxpayers of Texas. They are the big winners.”
During floor debate Thursday, Democrats attempted to insert benefits for renters, teacher pay raises and more money for public education into the tax-cuts package in a series of floor amendments but were unsuccessful.
A cheer went up on the chamber floors upon the passage of the three bills that make up the package: Senate Bill 2, which details the proposed property tax cuts; Senate Bill 3, a franchise tax relief bill; and House Joint Resolution 2, a constitutional amendment required to authorize the tax cuts.
“We now have a record-setting plan that will affect every family, every individual, every business, every operation in this state pretty much, for the next several decades,” said Houston Republican Sen. Paul Bettencourt, an architect of the package. “Every Texan deserves it because it’s their money.”
The package puts $12.6 billion of the state’s historic budget surplus toward making cuts to school taxes for all property owners, dropping property taxes an average of more than 40% for some 5.7 million Texas homeowners, and offering brand-new tax savings for smaller businesses and other commercial and non-homesteaded properties. The voters would need to approve the package in November for the cuts to take effect this year.
At a time when the state has some of the nation’s highest property taxes and lawmakers face massive political pressure to ease the financial suffering of their constituents, Abbott said he will sign the legislation — a cornerstone of his 2022 reelection campaign and that of most state lawmakers for several cycles now.
“The Texas House and Senate fulfilled our promise with an agreement that delivers a comprehensive, long-lasting solution to increasingly burdensome property tax bills,” Abbott said in a statement after the bills passed. “I thank my partners in the Texas Legislature for coming together to honor the best interests of hardworking Texans who want to own their property—not rent it from the government.”
The package’s marquee item is a $5.3 billion expansion of the state’s homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000. Bettencourt said the new exemption combined with the school tax cuts would save homesteaders — Texans who live in a residence they own — an average of $1,300 a year in property taxes.
It also offers additional cuts for seniors and property owners with disabilities, averaging about $170 more per year, Bettencourt said.
The most novel part of the plan, an idea introduced publicly for the first time on Monday, is a first-ever temporary 20% cap on appraisal increases for properties valued at $5 million or lower that aren’t considered homesteads. Those would include second homes, vacation properties, rental houses, or commercial retail or business properties.
Leaders have referred to that part of the bill as a “circuit breaker” program, but it’s somewhat of a misnomer. Unlike programs in other parts of the country with the same name, the Texas proposal does not calculate property taxes based on a person’s income or ability to pay, nor does it specifically seek to benefit lower-income taxpayers.
School funding and other issues
Including more than $5 billion approved four years ago, the legislation also allocates nearly $12.6 billion to reduce the school property tax rate by 10.7 cents per $100 valuation for all homeowners and business properties.
Those billions are being sent to school districts so they can cut their taxes for all property owners and shift a portion of their maintenance and operations costs to the state.
But the package would give no new funding to schools, a sticking point with critics who note that, compared to other states’ spending, Texas is ranked near the bottom in per-student funding for education.
$4 billion in new public education funding has been tied up since the regular legislative session amid an ongoing political battle over school vouchers. In response to the calls for more money for schools and raises for teachers, senators proposed a one-time teacher pay bonus late last month as part of their tax-cut legislation. But that proposal ultimately didn’t end up in the final compromise, with House members saying teacher pay should be considered in separate legislation.
The idea was intended to pacify an increasingly angry and impatient public school community — who have been expecting a pay raise since last year’s campaign season — until lawmakers can agree on an education package in another special session expected for later this year.
The passage of the tax-cuts package this week without any nod to new school funding — which depends mostly on property taxes in many districts — triggered criticism from public education advocates inside and outside the Capitol dome, who said there’s more than enough money in the state surplus to bump up the district’s funding.
While the plan won applause from a variety of advocacy groups and organizations across the political spectrum, few agreed it was a perfect plan.
“There is no bill that is perfect, but this one is pretty damn good,” state Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo, said Wednesday.
And while businesses applauded the overall lowering of taxes, some taxpayer groups and conservative economists said the resulting share of the tax burden would be even larger now for businesses.
The plan shifts the school-tax burden by about three percentage points toward businesses, raising the share of the school property taxes paid by businesses from 52% to 55%, while homeowners’ share drops from 48% to 44.8%, said Jennifer Rabb, president of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.
“At the same time, everybody’s getting a tax cut so I’m not here to look a gift horse in the mouth,” Rabb told the House Ways and Means committee Wednesday. “But I do think it’s important for you to understand that this shift is occurring. Texas businesses already pay a high property tax or rather tax burden overall relative to other states.”
Targeted tax relief for the state’s 3.7 million renter households has been left out of proposals that have passed both chambers.
House Democrats last week unveiled their own tax-cut package, sponsored by Dallas state Rep. John Bryant, that would’ve given tenants a cash refund equaling up to 10% of the rent they paid the previous year. It also would have made the homestead exemption $200,000, doubling the exemption in the current bill, included a teacher pay raise and added more school funding. Their proposal did not make it into the final package.
Bryant tried to replace SB 2 on the floor with his plan on Thursday, but the plan’s authors said it would jeopardize the deal the House made with the Senate. Bryant said that while the owners of “skyscrapers and refineries and oil wells and other big business” would be bringing home thousands in tax cuts, homeowners wouldn’t see enough of a cut on a monthly basis to make any real impact — and renters would see none at all.
“I urge you to join me in doing something meaningful,” Bryant told his colleagues.
The effort failed on a 51-79 vote.
Republicans and some tax policy experts argue that renters, who include about 3.8 million households in the state, will benefit from lower school taxes because landlords who benefit from the tax cuts won’t pass as much in property taxes onto their tenants — thus resulting in smaller rent increases.
But skeptics of that idea say demand for the state’s red-hot rental market and a dearth of supply to meet that demand, not property taxes, have driven rent increases in recent years — a problem that a tax cut will not remedy.
Disclosure: Texas Taxpayers and Research Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Join us for conversations that matter with newly announced speakers at the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, in downtown Austin from Sept. 21-23.
A previous version of this article misspelled the name of the president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. She is Jennifer Rabb, not Jennifer Raab.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
COMAL COUNTY — Facing a two-lane highway about 13 miles west of New Braunfels, a 546-acre ranch hugging the west fork of Dry Comal Creek has caused a stir in the community.
Behind a small gate, hills dotted with live oaks and a few freely roaming horses can be seen. But neighbors and environmentalists worry it won’t remain this way.
Doug Harrison, a retired entrepreneur, and his wife have lived and raised their family on the ranch for the past two decades. But late last year, Harrison filed an application with the state to build a wastewater treatment plant on the property large enough to serve a 1,400-lot subdivision.
The permit would allow 600,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into the west fork of Dry Comal Creek, which connects to the Comal and Guadalupe rivers — the most popular tubing destinations in the state.
The ranch also sits over the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer, a vast underground lake that’s the source of drinking water for more than 2 million people. And that has many local residents and Texas environmentalists concerned about wastewater and runoff from a potential subdivision on Harrison’s property — even though the couple hasn’t yet put the ranch up for sale.
It’s another example of a conflict that has played out across Central Texas for generations between the rights of property owners to do what they want with their land — and maximize their profit when they sell it — and the desire of environmentalists and many locals to protect aquifers, rivers and the bucolic character of their communities.
The property would likely draw a lot of interest from developers: Comal County was the ninth fastest-growing county in the country last year and the fourth fastest-growing in the state, according to the U.S Census Bureau. The county’s population jumped from just over 108,000 in 2010 to an estimated 188,642 in 2022.
A cow and a calf walk on farmland near the Harrison property in Comal County about halfway between New Braunfels and Bulverde.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
People float down the Comal River on tubes in New Braunfels. Kristopher Bolstad, owner of Comal Tubing, is among the residents who raised environmental concerns after Doug Harrison submitted an application for a wastewater treatment plant on his property near Dry Comal Creek, which feeds into the Comal River.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
Harrison said the sketch of the 1,400-lot subdivision he included with his permit application was just a way to show the maximum number of homes that could fit on the property and the kind of water treatment system that would be needed if a developer bought the ranch.
“If a developer were to buy from us — and that really, truly is our last preference — they may do something like this and they may do something entirely different,” Harrison said. “I’m not a developer, and so I can’t really speak to what they would or wouldn’t do”
Harrison said he is considering selling the ranch in 10- or 20-acre lots to lower the density, but said he needs to see “how much money is being left on the table” with that option. Selling to a developer is likely the most profitable option.
Harrison’s application included a request for a “domestic reuse authorization,” which would allow treated wastewater to be used to water medians, parks and other common areas rather than discharging it into Dry Comal Creek.
Residents packed the Smithson Valley High School cafeteria on June 8 and told representatives from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that they were concerned about possible pollution, flooding and harm to local tourism if the Harrisons’ application was approved.
The people who come to Comal County to float the rivers were on Kristopher Bolstad’s mind as he addressed a TCEQ panel.
“What am I supposed to tell my customers when all of a sudden someone says or posts something that says there are 600,000 gallons of wastewater that flows down towards the Comal [River]?” said Bolstad, who owns Comal Tubes in New Braunfels. “I operate off of tourism. And while it might not seem like a big deal to y’all, New Braunfels is a very tourist-orientated place.”
Bolstad added, “We all live here. We’re going to have to deal with all this no matter what, and you get to go back to your homes. Just keep that in mind.”
A new subdivision under construction between New Braunfels and Bulverde.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
Battling to keep development at bay
Four miles from the Harrisons’ ranch on a triple-digit June afternoon, Milann Guckian cleaned out her small pool overlooking the rolling, tree-covered hills between San Antonio and Austin. She and her partner bought the 5-acre lot in 1996 as their retirement place, and after Guckian retired from Valero, where she worked as a lead technician for refinery operator crews in Corpus Christi, they moved into their custom-built home in 2017.
“We love it here, we built this house to grow old in. It would be a shame if we couldn’t age here,” said Guckian, 65.
But it hasn’t been the retirement oasis they dreamed of.
First came the quarry project. The same year that Guckian and her partner moved to Comal County, her neighbor sold his 1,500-acre ranch to a real estate investment group from Alabama. That summer, an 18-by-24-inch sign appeared on the fence announcing the land would be a quarry operated by Alabama-based Vulcan Material.
That inspired Guckian to found Preserve Our Hill Country Environment, and she rallied 86 affected parties, including nearby residents, businesses, the Comal school district and environmental groups to duel things out in court with Vulcan Material, a battle that has stretched for the past six years.
Guckian said Harrison was involved with the fight against Vulcan Material from the beginning, even donating money so the new organization could hire lawyers. Now her focus has shifted to fighting Harrison’s wastewater permit application with another coalition of locals.
“We only have finite resources, especially when it comes to water,” she said. “Look across the United States of America right now. And look how much trouble people are having with water. Texas is not immune to that.
“This is something that everybody needs to take responsibility for,” Guckian added. “That includes developers, industry and citizens.”
Guckian is hopeful that if their efforts to stop a high-density development on Harrison’s land fall short, the community can rally like they did a year before she moved to Comal County.
Milann Guckian, president and founder of Preserve Our Hill Country Environment, on her property in Comal County. Guckian, who bought the property 27 years ago as a place to retire, is among the residents who raised environmental concerns after Harrison submitted an application for a wastewater treatment plant on his nearby land.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
In 2016, Comal County residents reached an arbitration agreement with TCEQ, a developer named Randolph Todd and property owner Franklin Meyer about how the wastewater for Meyer Ranch, a 1,600-home, 700-acre subdivision, would be handled.
The settlement called for wastewater to be treated and reused on site, and the developer added a water retention pond to hold stormwater and reduce flooding in surrounding areas.
Ed Harris, a neighbor of Meyer Ranch who led the charge against the original subdivision plans and founded an organization called Friends of Dry Comal Creek, said the situation with the Harrisons’ ranch feels similar to the Meyer Ranch fight.
“When a property owner receives a permit for a wastewater treatment facility,” Harris said, “that means that their property is more valuable and a developer is willing to buy it.”
If the TCEQ grants the wastewater treatment permit to the Harrisons and a developer purchases the land, the new owner could use the same permit, according to the TCEQ. The agency said a new owner can apply to make amendments to the permit and wouldn’t be required to reuse treated wastewater on the property. In other words, they could discharge it into Dry Comal Creek.
The TCEQ said it is still responding to comments it has received about Harrison’s application. Commenters have 30 days after receiving a reply to request a contested case hearing, which is similar to a civil trial and is overseen by an administrative law judge. The judge would make a recommendation to TCEQ commissioners, who would make the final decision on the permit.
Jamie Miller, the wastewater engineer for Harrison’s project, said the technology to treat and reuse wastewater would be similar to what’s used at Meyer Ranch but would have even higher standards.
Miller said the treated wastewater would be tested daily to make sure it meets federal and state standards and that information would be available to the public.
“It is really important to us to be good stewards of our environment,” Miller said.
Horses graze on Harrison’s property in Comal County between New Braunfels and Bulverde. Harrison’s application to the state for a wastewater treatment plant was accompanied by a sketch of a potential 1,400-lot subdivision.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
Mounting concerns about the Edwards Aquifer
Guckian called the reuse application a big step in the right direction. But it hasn’t alleviated many residents’ concerns about the prospect of a big subdivision on Harrison’s ranch.
During the June TCEQ meeting, Brandon Kuhn, a Comal County resident and avid cave explorer, asked the panel how many caves and sinkholes were on Harrison’s ranch. His question was met with a few seconds of silence before the panel disclosed that caves aren’t considered during the application process. That was followed by a gasp from attendees.
Kuhn and others noted at the meeting that many of the caves and sinkholes in Comal County are connected to the same cave system as Honey Creek, the longest known cave in Texas, and Natural Bridge Caverns, the largest commercial cavern in Texas and a major New Braunfels tourist attraction.
“They’re like arteries and veins of the human body. If you dump things, it’s kind of like each sinkhole and cave is almost like an injection site.” Kuhn said in an interview with The Texas Tribune after the meeting.
Brandon Kuhn, a local cave explorer, outside a cave near the Harrison property in Comal County.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
First: Daddy long-legs spiders crawl on the roof of a cave near the Harrison property in Comal County. Second: Kuhn walks along the caves.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
Annalisa Peace, executive director of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, is also worried about how a new subdivision on Harrison’s land could impact the aquifer.
Harrison’s ranch lies a couple thousand yards from the aquifer’s recharge zone — where groundwater can enter the aquifer — and sits on top of the contributing zone, where runoff can make its way into rivers and streams.
“For that site, this is just way too dense,” Peace said as she paced around her San Antonio office with Hairpin, her scruffy 17-year-old terrier, following at her heels. “There are caves there, this is on the contributing zone, it’s very near the recharge zone. A lot of that [waste]water would be going directly into the aquifer through these recharge features with no filtration.”
Peace said that because of state law, TCEQ does not have to consider geological features on the property until after a permit has been granted.
Peace is also concerned about adding more impervious cover in the area — roofs, roads and driveways that cause runoff during storms that can lead to flooding or polluted stormwater making its way into rivers and creeks.
Annalisa Peace, executive director of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, at the nonprofit’s headquarters in San Antonio. “The Edwards is one of the most prolific water systems in the world,” Peace said, adding that it’s also “incredibly vulnerable to pollution.”
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
Annalisa Peace, executive director of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, discusses concerns about impervious cover and downstream flooding while pointing to a map of the Edwards Aquifer at the nonprofit’s headquarters.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
“These areas are getting a lot of development, and with the increases in impervious cover, you’re going to see increased flooding in these communities downstream, which tend to be lower income.” Peace said. “They’re bearing the brunt of land-use policies up here.”
Harrison’s neighbor Erin Bell lives with her family on Big Heart Ranch, where she breeds horses and offers clients lessons in dressage, a form of competitive horse riding. She’s also worried about how a subdivision would affect her business.
“I don’t think developers are thinking about us. They don’t know how much they’re going to affect us,” said Bell, whose family bought the 34-acre ranch in 2012. “I’ve already started fencing my property to protect myself a little bit.”
Bell is also frustrated with what she calls Harrison’s lack of transparency.
“He’s a businessman before he’s anything else. Whenever we moved here, he said he had no intention of ever selling,” she said. “Later he said he was maybe going to sell it to someone who would keep it the way it is. And that keeps changing.
“That’s why when he says his intentions are this or that, I don’t really believe him.”
Erin Bell, owner of Big Heart Ranch and a horse dressage company, unlocks a gate on her property with her horses, Posey, left, and Joy.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
First: Erin Bell, owner of Big Heart Ranch and a horse dressage company next to Harrison’s property, explores a cave on her land in Comal County. Second: Bell’s 2-year-old, James, runs across the backyard as she and her dog, Lacey, watch.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
“A lot of people want to live here”
Following the TCEQ meeting, Harrison said he was inspired by the number of people who attended and shared their concerns. He added that he would try to communicate more with the community about his plans for the ranch.
But he also said his neighbors need to have more realistic expectations about development in the area.
“New Braunfels has just exploded and is going to continue doing that. It’s a beautiful part of the world. And a lot of people want to live here,” Harrison said. “One of the things I see over and over is once somebody gets here, they go, ‘Hey, I’m here now, let’s close the gates and keep everybody else out.’ It’s just not realistic — there will be more developments.”
Harrison said he fondly remembers being on the same side as Guckian and admires the way she has managed to halt the quarry’s opening for the past six years. They won in a lower court before an appeals court reversed that decision and allowed the TCEQ to issue a required air quality permit, and now they’re asking the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case.
A barbed wire fence along pastureland in Comal County.
Credit:
Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune
“I’ve been on both sides of the table, right?,” Harrison said. “I’ve been with my neighbors and have helped fund my neighbors in these exact kinds of meetings about Vulcan quarry. I’ve experienced some of these same kinds of frustrations.”
Guckian said even though she and Harrison are on opposite sides of this fight, “he’s a nice guy, very family oriented. He’s a good man when it comes to it. The next time I see Doug, I’ll hug his neck.”
But Guckian believes the Hill Country’s land and resources need to be carefully preserved.
“I’m not against development,” she added. “I just want responsible development that takes our natural resources into consideration.”
Disclosure: Valero has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Join us for conversations that matter with newly announced speakers at the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, in downtown Austin from Sept. 21-23.
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that a 3rd Court of Appeals ruling allowed the Vulcan quarry to begin operations. The ruling allows the TCEQ to issue the company an air quality permit, but other permits are required before the quarry can operate.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
After a monthslong standoff among Texas’ top Republicans, state GOP lawmakers finally struck a deal Monday on how to cut Texans’ property taxes.
The $18 billion compromise — which includes more than $5 billion approved for relief in 2021 — between the Texas House and Senate would give increased tax relief for the state’s 5.7 million homeowners and create a tax-credit pilot program for non-homesteaded properties. It would also cut taxes to small businesses and send billions of dollars to school districts so they can cut their tax rates across the board, according to details made public by state leaders Monday.
The proposal must clear both chambers before it heads to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.
“Reducing property taxes, providing relief to small-business owners, and reforming our appraisal system will ensure economic growth and prosperity, and this agreement is a significant victory for all Texans,” Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan said.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the last week of negotiations among himself, Phelan and members of both chambers “made the difference.”
“It has been a long road, but this is a great day for all property owners,” Patrick said. “It may have taken overtime, but the process has produced a great bill for homeowners and businesses.”
According to Phelan’s office, the legislation, expected to be passed this week, includes more than $12 billion to reduce the school property tax rate for homeowners and business properties; an increase to the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000; and savings on the franchise tax for small businesses. It would also include a so-called “circuit breaker” program for residential and commercial properties valued at $5 million and under. The program would be piloted for three years.
The new property tax relief bill, the franchise tax relief bill and the constitutional amendment required to enact the cuts will be filed later Monday, Phelan’s office said in a statement.
Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The deal marks the end of a stalemate among the state’s top Republicans that lasted nearly seven months as they butted heads over how to dole out $12.3 billion in new tax breaks budgeted by lawmakers earlier this year.
Republicans came to Austin this year with a nearly $33 billion surplus and big promises to use a big chunk of it to provide tax relief to Texas property owners, who pay some of the highest property taxes in the nation. But for most of the year, the heads of the House and Senate — Phelan and Patrick — couldn’t come to terms on how to do it.
The main dividing line came over whether homeowners or business owners would get a bigger tax break. Phelan and House lawmakers wanted to send the entire $12.3 billion to school districts to lower their tax rates, a kind of tax cut referred to as “tax rate compression.” Doing that would result in across-the-board cuts for all property owners, but it would most benefit business owners.
Abbott and conservative tax-cut warriors saw the proposal as a way to put the state on a path to eventually eliminating the school maintenance and operations tax, the bulk of the school property tax that pays for day-to-day school expenses like teacher salaries. But as the weeks dragged on, Abbott’s support for a compression-only tax-cut proposal seemed to wane as he encouraged House and Senate leaders to come to a deal and send him a bill.
Patrick and Senate tax-cut writers agreed with the House on allocating $12.3 billion for property tax cuts but wanted to use only 70% of that amount for tax rate compression so they could use the rest to pay for a boost to the state’s school district homestead exemption, the amount of a home’s value that can’t be taxed to pay for public schools. Patrick and state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican and Patrick’s lieutenant on the tax-cut issue, pushed for raising the exemption from $40,000 to $100,000.
Join us for conversations that matter with newly announced speakers at the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, in downtown Austin from Sept. 21-23.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
After humming under the surface of conservative politics for nearly three decades, a bold question has emerged front and center in this year’s legislative tax cut debate: Can Texas eliminate school property taxes altogether?
An influential conservative think tank floated the idea at the beginning of this year’s legislative session, ranking that goal among its top 2023 priorities. Gov. Greg Abbott has jumped on the bandwagon, too, declaring on Twitter this month that “Texans want to OWN their property, NOT rent it from the government.”
But the excitement around the idea has also generated opposition from places expected and unexpected. School districts fear loss of independent authority over their finances — the foundation for the creation of the districts in 1875 — if the only reliable way to collect local taxes is removed. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has rarely met a tax cut he doesn’t like, has derided the notion as a “joke” and a “fantasy.”
That the debate has sparked such contention among Republican leaders who are usually aligned in their anti-tax views shows how complicated the art of funding schools is in Texas. While property taxes are unpopular in Texas, the alternatives — such as sales tax or income tax — don’t have much support, either.
Legislative leaders plan to spend at least $12.3 billion on new property tax cuts, no matter what plan they eventually agree upon. A massive state $32.7 billion surplus this year will allow them to do that while still growing per-student funding over the next two years. But worries persist about whether the strategy of slowly shrinking school property taxes — or phasing them out entirely — will bleed school districts dry in the long-term.
“All this talk about compressing tax rates is great, you know, folks need property tax relief. That’s an obvious need in this state,” said Brian Woods, superintendent of Northside Independent School District in San Antonio. “But it doesn’t put a single dollar into a teacher’s salary. It doesn’t put a single dollar in a classroom for supplies or materials or programs for kids.”
Many have tried
As home values in Texas have skyrocketed in recent decades, the pressure on lawmakers to reverse property tax growth has been immense. But two factors complicate attempts to address the issue. First, those taxes are levied at the local level. Second, there are few attractive options to get the money elsewhere.
School taxes make up the largest portion of property tax bills, and the maintenance and operation taxes — the source of districts’ money for teacher salaries and other operating costs — make up the biggest share of those.
Each individual district has its own M&O tax rate. But state law requires districts to have access to essentially equal funding on a per-student basis. That’s where the state steps in. The property values in each district vary widely — from the downtown towers and expensive homes in Austin ISD to rural districts with few commercial properties like Boles Independent School District in North Texas.
To address that inequity, the state has sent extra money from the “property rich” districts to the “property poor” ones, a system derided as “Robin Hood” by critics. To cut down on property tax bills, the state has pumped in more money from taxes it collects to offset some of those differences — a process called “compression.”
But property tax rates in Texas remain among the highest in the country — in large part because there’s no state income tax to help fund schools. Ideas to reduce that burden are frequently raised in the Legislature.
In 1997, Talmadge Heflin, a Republican state representative from Houston at the time, introduced a bill and a constitutional amendment to eliminate property taxes and replace them with an expanded sales tax on unprepared foods, services and other items.
Heflin said it was the inclusion of the sales tax expansion, an idea later disparaged by opponents as the “tortilla tax,” that blocked its passage on the House floor. The constitutional amendment needed 100 votes in the 150-member House to advance. It got the support of every Republican in the House but garnered fewer than 70 votes.
In 2006, lawmakers cut schools’ M&O taxes by a third and sought to replace that revenue from the state’s franchise tax, tobacco taxes and motor vehicle sales taxes. Those new sources didn’t bring in as much revenue as expected, however. And the Great Recession soon followed, forcing the state to cut $5.3 billion from schools in 2011. Districts had to increase class sizes, cut essential programs, reduce bus routes and cut staff to keep the lights on.
In 2019, state leaders tried to tackle the issue again. Abbott, Patrick and then-House Speaker Dennis Bonnen proposed increasing the state sales tax by 1 percentage point and using that revenue to buy down school property taxes. That proposal, like Heflin’s more than 20 years earlier, failed to pick up sufficient support.
Instead, lawmakers used surplus funds to compress school M&O taxes in a way designed to be continuous and self-funding. The formula uses surplus tax collections from rising property values, which are sent by districts to the state after their budgets are met, to fund the compression — easing the burden on local taxpayers and creating a self-perpetuating mechanism for continuous tax relief.
The fix stabilized the rates and addressed several inequity issues. But when the pandemic hit, the economy took a financial beating while an unexpected rise in property values resulted in less tax relief than expected.
“Tax compression is about lowering tax rates as property values increase, with the goal that taxpayers will see lower — or at least stabilized — tax bills,” said Mary Lynn Pruneda, who oversaw school finance policy for the governor when that bill was passed and now serves as public education finance adviser for the advocacy group Texas 2036. “In 2019, the Legislature paired a tax rate buydown with a structural change that would automatically compress tax rates over time as values rose. But when property values rose faster than expected in recent years, it can still take some time for tax rate compression to catch up.”
Without the limits the Legislature placed on tax revenue growth in 2019 and an accompanying buy-down at the time, tax bills would be much higher. But in a rapid property-value-growth scenario, that relief is harder to feel. Pressure to address property taxes in a more noticeable way, along with the need for a few other updates to the 2019 plan, are likely “what led us to where we are today,” Pruneda said.
Surplus creates opportunity
After leaving the Legislature, Heflin joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a well-financed Austin-based think tank with close ties to Abbott and other state leaders. As the 2023 legislative session was getting started, the organization listed eliminating property taxes as its No. 2 priority for the year. But this time, its proposal didn’t include raising other taxes. Instead, the group argues, Texas’ growing economy is creating regular state surpluses. Committing surplus dollars to buying down school taxes and keeping a lid on state spending would make phasing out property taxes possible in potentially a decade without raising other taxes, the group says.
The timing is good to make such an argument. A booming Texas energy sector, increased consumer spending driven by federal COVID-era stimulus and higher prices due to inflation created unprecedented amounts of sales tax revenue ahead of 2023. The state’s $32.7 billion surplus offers a convenient way to pay for major property tax cuts, without needing a tax increase elsewhere for now.
Heflin said a “backup plan” such as a broadening of the sales tax, as he proposed decades ago, is still worth considering. But even though Heflin believes lawmakers would raise taxes in the future if the schools are threatened, he said, a replacement tax stream is an apparent nonstarter this time.
“I haven’t heard anybody talking seriously about increasing a tax to replace the property tax,” Heflin said. “It’s just using the surplus, and that’s a much easier sell.”
But cutting taxes has proven to be more difficult than expected, thanks to fighting between the House and Senate. The Republican leaders agreed on how much to spend on tax cuts, but wrapped up the regular session without settling on how. They have remained at odds ever since Abbott called them back for an immediate special session, bickering over Twitter and calling each other out in interviews.
Abbott has been clear on what he wants — to spend all the $12.3 billion on compression. He has urged lawmakers to “use the TPPF roadmap to end property taxes.” The House under Speaker Dade Phelan has signed on, approving a bill that aligns with Abbott’s request. But Patrick insisted on a plan that diverts 30% of the money to an increase the homestead exemption, the part of a home’s appraised value that is exempt from property taxes.
That proposal would concentrate a higher share of the savings on homeowners, while the House plan would ensure that homeowners and commercial property owners would see the same percentage cuts.
At the heart of Patrick’s argument: Eliminating school property taxes is unrealistic without a substantial increase in the sales tax.
“If you’re going to eliminate all property taxes, you have no money left to do anything,” Patrick told reporters last week. “There would be no funding for education, no funding for health care, no funding for law enforcement.”
Scared school leaders
Many school officials from across the state share Patrick’s concern. And some stress that they already don’t have enough money to attract teachers, repair facilities or even run all of their bus routes.
Scott Muri is superintendent of Ector County Independent School District, a “property rich” West Texas district. In his 906-square-mile district, Muri said, it’s been difficult to pay staff high enough wages to compete with nearby oil and gas companies. Bus drivers have been hard to retain, for example — and they’re a huge necessity in his sprawling district.
Even now, with the state flush, officials in many of the districts — including Muri’s — are passing deficit budgets because lawmakers have yet to set their funding levels for the fiscal year that starts in September.
“There’s a lot of attention being paid to [eliminating school taxes] right now,” he said. “Anytime you are removing the decision-making power from the local authority — in this case, school boards — and replacing that with state authority, that’s a concern. Our state is not designed to operate like that. And yet, that’s what seems to be happening.”
And school leaders say they worry that cutting taxes without finding any other kind of revenue source will leave them vulnerable to major cuts when the economy takes its next downswing.
Woods, the Northside ISD superintendent, said that with no continuing increase in funds to address soaring costs for schools caused by inflation, the additional spending power lawmakers had given to schools in 2019 has been “wiped out.”
In 2011, his San Antonio-area district was forced, like other districts, to cut about 10% of its budget.
Because his large district spent 87% of its money on teachers and other staff, human resources was the only place to make meaningful cuts — which they did through attrition, trimming staff by what he estimated was between 5% to 7%.
Measures of student achievement have shown a “pretty dramatic flattening of progress” among Texas students since those budget cuts were implemented, he said.
“The big concern is that you not do something that you cannot afford when times are less good,” Woods said. “Because then just like you did in 2011, you cut schools to balance your budget, and you balance your budget on the backs of children.”
Advocates fear that the goal is to eliminate public education altogether and place it in the hands of private, unregulated entities. They point to the other big public education issue likely to dominate the next few months: Abbott’s push to allow parents to use state funds to pay for private school tuition.
With the notion of killing property taxes gaining steam, lawmakers have the means, and are currently creating a motive, for shutting down the system entirely — a move that would destroy access to quality education for all but the wealthiest people, said Chandra Villanueva, director of policy and advocacy at the left-leaning nonprofit Every Texan.
“This is all just smoke and mirrors about defunding our schools. That’s the end goal,” Villanueva said. “The wealthy families will be fine, they’ll always have options, but poor families are going to end up in University of Phoenix elementary schools that will open up in a storefront near you.”
Heflin, the former state representative, said he didn’t see that happening.
“I do not believe that there is a legislative body in the future that would starve education,” he said. “Let’s just say they did fully eliminate the [school tax]. I think they would come in if they had to and increase a tax at the state level to keep it funded. I think they would.”
Starving public education of funding “was never a thought of mine when I was pushing that idea,” he said.
But he believes that some kind of deal on property tax cuts is coming.
“Too many people have made commitments to just let [property tax cuts] die,” Heflin said. “Something will get done.”
Disclosure: Every Texan, Texas 2036 and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Go behind the headlines with newly announced speakers at the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, in downtown Austin from Sept. 21-23. Join them to get their take on what’s next for Texas and the nation.