In an attempt to deliver on a major campaign promise to cut property taxes, the Texas House of Representatives this week approved two bills aimed at lowering the burden for homeowners. But while both measures moved forward, one of them — Senate Bill 10 — left the chamber in a form so altered, and with such a glaring drafting mistake, that lawmakers now face the task of untangling the mess before it can become law.
The House’s decisions highlight a core tension in Texas property tax policy: how to balance the desire for relief with the practical needs of cities, counties, and school districts that rely on tax revenue to provide services.
Senate Bill 10: From Senate Consensus to House Turbulence
Senate Bill 10 was originally designed as a relatively narrow adjustment to the state’s voter-approval tax rate (VATR) — the legal cap that determines when local taxing entities must seek voter permission before raising tax rates.
Under current law, if a city or county raises its property tax revenue by more than 3.5% from the previous year, it must put the increase on the ballot for voter approval. School districts already operate under a stricter limit of 2.5%.
The Senate version of SB 10, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), sought to align city and county governments with school districts by lowering the VATR for jurisdictions with populations greater than 75,000 residents. “It’s time to take another step and rein in growth of city and county tax bills,” Bettencourt said in a news release after the Senate passed the measure.
But once SB 10 reached the House floor, the relatively focused Senate plan unraveled into a far more sweeping and complicated bill.
Pushback From All Sides
In the House, the bill was carried by Rep. Morgan Meyer (R-University Park), who shepherded it unchanged through committee. But when the measure hit the floor, it faced sharp criticism from members of both parties.
Some Republicans argued that the plan didn’t go far enough. Rep. Mitch Little (R-Lewisville) said the savings would be so minimal for the average homeowner that they would barely notice. “The people in my district who have calculated this tax relief anticipate that it’s going to be roughly equivalent to an annual Starbucks run,” Little said. Meyer countered that the actual relief would vary by jurisdiction, and he maintained that the bill provided meaningful progress.
Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the lowered threshold applied unfairly by targeting only large cities and counties. They pointed out that smaller municipalities also levy taxes that impact families, yet the House plan would have left those areas untouched. Meyer responded that smaller jurisdictions operate on tighter budgets and argued that it would be impractical to hold elections over what might amount to very small increases.
A Wave of Amendments
Despite Meyer’s defense, House Republicans succeeded in rewriting much of the bill through a series of amendments.
Rep. Brent Money (R-Greenville) won approval for an amendment applying the lower VATR not just to large cities and counties, but to every taxing jurisdiction in the state. “We should treat every taxpayer the same,” Money said. “Every city the same.” His amendment broadened the bill’s impact from a small fraction of municipalities to nearly all of them.
Rep. Andy Hopper (R-Decatur) then secured support for including municipal utility districts (MUDs) in the scope of the bill. These districts, which provide water, sewer, and other critical infrastructure to suburban and rural areas, often levy significant property taxes of their own.
Finally, Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco) successfully pushed through an amendment lowering the VATR even further, to just 1%, though it exempted spending on public safety — including police, fire, jails, and emergency medical services.
It was Patterson’s amendment, however, that introduced the most serious problem.
A Costly Drafting Error
Because Money’s amendment had already removed the population threshold that distinguished between large and small jurisdictions, Patterson’s amendment inadvertently applied the 1% cap without any exemption for public safety in small towns and rural counties. That would mean many small communities could not raise sufficient revenue for law enforcement, firefighting, or emergency services without triggering expensive and time-consuming elections.
Patterson attempted to fix the mistake with a “perfecting amendment” that would have removed the 75,000-population requirement altogether, ensuring the public safety exemption applied everywhere. But the correction failed by a single vote, leaving the flawed version in the final bill.
As it stands, the House-passed version of SB 10 would impose a 1% VATR on virtually every city, county, and utility district in the state, with exemptions for public safety only in larger jurisdictions.
That outcome has already raised alarm among lawmakers and local officials who argue it could hamstring small-town governments. Because of the discrepancy between the Senate’s narrowly tailored version and the House’s sweeping rewrite, the bill is now almost certain to go to a conference committee, where a small group of lawmakers from both chambers will attempt to reconcile the differences behind closed doors.
House Bill 17: Transparency Through Notice
The House also approved House Bill 17, another property tax-related measure authored by Meyer, which focuses on transparency rather than tax rates.
The bill would require school districts to mail detailed notices to homeowners when proposing new tax rates. The notices would have to include:
Current and proposed tax rates
Enrollment growth figures
The statewide inflation rate
The estimated amount of additional revenue the district would collect
Supporters say the measure will give taxpayers clearer information before rates are adopted, empowering them to engage with their local boards.
But Democrats warned that the proposal imposes an unfunded mandate on districts already struggling with rising costs. Rep. Chris Turner (D-Grand Prairie) said one district in his area estimated it would spend $30,000 just to send out the notices. Meyer countered that the benefit of giving taxpayers transparency outweighed the administrative expense.
What Comes Next
Both HB 17 and SB 10 passed largely along party-line votes, with Republicans backing the measures and Democrats opposed. HB 17 is expected to advance more smoothly, but the future of SB 10 is far less certain.
The Senate and House versions are so different that negotiators will likely spend weeks ironing out details. Bettencourt, who spearheaded the original bill in the Senate, has withheld comment until he can review the House’s version.
For Gov. Greg Abbott, who called the special session in part to address property tax relief, the bills represent progress but also illustrate the difficulty of turning campaign slogans into practical legislation. Texans consistently rank property taxes as one of their top concerns, but lawmakers remain divided on how best to deliver relief without undermining critical local services.
The Larger Debate
At its core, the fight over SB 10 is not just about percentages and exemptions — it reflects deeper debates about local control, fairness, and the balance of power between state government and local jurisdictions.
Supporters of the stricter limits argue that runaway property taxes have become unsustainable and that requiring more elections for increases ensures taxpayers have a direct say.
Opponents warn that the measures tie the hands of cities and counties, particularly small ones, and could erode funding for police, fire, and infrastructure.
The error introduced in the House version only adds urgency to these concerns, forcing lawmakers to revisit whether their fixes created more problems than they solved.
Conclusion
Texas lawmakers left the Capitol this week having checked off part of the governor’s to-do list — advancing bills meant to provide property tax relief and transparency. But instead of a straightforward victory, the Legislature now faces a complicated negotiation over how far to push tax limits and whether small towns and utility districts should be treated the same as large urban counties.
