According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 247 will have no significant fiscal impact on the state. However, the bill does have some noteworthy fiscal effects, particularly on local governments and school finance.

At the state level, any reduction in property tax revenue for school districts—resulting from the exemption of property value increases due to border infrastructure—would slightly increase state costs through the school finance formula. Since the state helps offset losses in local revenue to maintain education funding levels, reduced property values would trigger greater state funding responsibility. Nonetheless, these costs are not expected to be significant.

At the local level, jurisdictions such as counties, cities, and special districts in the affected border counties could see a decrease in taxable property values if the exemption is widely used. This would likely lead to higher no-new-revenue and voter-approval tax rates under the Tax Code to maintain revenue levels. If these local governments do not increase their tax rates accordingly, local tax levies will decline. Alternatively, if they do increase rates, it would shift some of the tax burden to other property owners whose land is not exempt under this bill.

The fiscal note also points out that existing construction activity in several counties—such as Cameron, Starr, Zapata, Webb, Maverick, and Val Verde—suggests that the exemption could be immediately relevant to a non-trivial number of properties, adding some urgency and practical relevance to the policy proposal.

HB 247 represents a thoughtful balance between incentivizing voluntary participation in state and federal border security efforts and protecting the rights and financial interests of private property owners. The bill addresses a very specific policy concern—namely, the unintended property tax burden placed on landowners who install or permit the construction of border infrastructure. By creating a narrowly tailored property tax exemption, HB 247 aligns well with principles of limited government, private property rights, and individual liberty.

The Committee Substitute improves upon the originally filed version by introducing greater precision and administrative clarity. Notably, it defines a "qualified border security infrastructure agreement" and limits the exemption strictly to property in counties bordering Mexico. It also removes overly prescriptive or burdensome provisions from the introduced version, such as termination triggers for the exemption and rulemaking requirements for the Comptroller. These changes simplify implementation and reinforce the voluntary nature of the arrangement, thus minimizing regulatory overhead.

The bill has no significant fiscal implication for the state and only modest potential impact on local tax revenues, which could be mitigated through adjustments in local tax rates. The Legislative Budget Board and Comptroller anticipate minimal disruption to state finances, and the bill’s effective date is sensibly contingent on voter approval of a related constitutional amendment.

Given these factors, HB 247 supports private initiative and public safety cooperation while protecting taxpayers from unintended financial consequences. It adheres to core Texas values of limited government and respect for private property, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 247.

• ​Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by allowing property owners to voluntarily enter into agreements with the state or federal government to host border security infrastructure without incurring increased property tax burdens. It respects the autonomy of individuals to use their land as they see fit while protecting them from financial penalties that could otherwise discourage civic cooperation.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages property owners to actively participate in efforts to improve public safety, particularly border security, through voluntary partnerships. It exemplifies a model where citizens contribute to community and state objectives while maintaining ownership and control of their land, reinforcing a culture of personal initiative.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill doesn't directly regulate or deregulate market activity, it avoids interfering with economic decisions by ensuring that property tax exemptions apply only to voluntary improvements. This maintains a neutral stance toward economic liberty while avoiding disincentives that could chill property improvements beneficial to public infrastructure.
• Private Property Rights: A core element of the bill is its protection of property owners from unintended tax increases due to public infrastructure development on their land. It prevents the use of inflated government purchase prices in comparable sales analyses for appraisal purposes, further safeguarding property valuation fairness. This reinforces the principle that private property should not be devalued or penalized for serving a public good.
• Limited Government: The bill does not create new regulatory agencies, mandates, or enforcement powers. It creates a narrowly scoped tax exemption based on voluntary agreements and includes clear statutory boundaries. It avoids mission creep or expansive bureaucratic oversight, thereby respecting the role of minimal, purposeful governance.

• HJR 34 (Enabling for)