According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3093 is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication for the state. The bill primarily affects local taxing units and amends several provisions in the Tax Code related to the calculation of property tax rates in cases where large property owners plan to appeal appraisal values. Because the bill does not alter state-level revenues or appropriations, its financial effect on the state budget is considered minimal or neutral.

However, the fiscal impact for local governments—specifically "affected taxing units" in Gulf Coast counties with populations under 500,000—could be more pronounced. These units will be allowed to exclude “contested taxable value” from their tax base when calculating the no-new-revenue and voter-approval tax rates. This could temporarily reduce the taxable base used for budgeting purposes, potentially prompting these units to adopt higher tax rates to generate sufficient revenue from remaining uncontested property values. While this may help prevent budget shortfalls due to later appraisal reductions, it could shift a larger tax burden onto other taxpayers in the short term.

Administrative costs for local governments may increase slightly due to the bill’s procedural requirements. Affected taxing units must notify the top 10 property owners by July 1 about the litigation reporting requirements and receive documentation by early August. They must also incorporate an addendum with supporting documents into their tax rate calculation forms and make these publicly accessible. While these are relatively modest responsibilities, they may require updates to administrative processes and systems, particularly in smaller jurisdictions with limited staffing or technical capacity.

In summary, while the bill carries no significant fiscal implications for the state, local taxing units could experience moderate effects—both revenue-related and administrative. The practical outcome will depend on how many property owners pursue appeals and the scale of the contested valuations in each affected jurisdiction.

HB 3093 responds to a clear policy problem: when large commercial property owners appeal high appraisals, local taxing units must still include those disputed values in their tax base, risking budget shortfalls if the appeals ultimately succeed. The bill offers targeted relief by allowing certain coastal taxing units to exclude these “contested taxable values” when calculating property tax rates. This helps local governments avoid overestimating revenue, as demonstrated by the high-profile valuation dispute in Nueces County that led to a $30 million revenue shortfall. From a governance perspective, the bill promotes more accurate fiscal planning and risk management for affected jurisdictions​.

However, the bill raises concerns related to equity, transparency, and the concentration of benefits. The relief mechanism is available only to a small subset of high-value property owners in specific geographic areas, creating the potential for perceived preferential treatment. While it reinforces private property rights and ensures that owners are not prematurely taxed on values they are actively contesting, it may result in a greater tax burden for other property owners within the same taxing unit if overall rates must be adjusted upward to compensate.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3093 but also suggests that they consider amendments as described below. The bill addresses a valid issue and includes procedural safeguards—such as documentation requirements and deadlines—to mitigate abuse. Nonetheless, it would benefit from amendments to broaden access to similar relief mechanisms for more property owners, strengthen accountability provisions, and ensure that the tax burden is not unfairly redistributed. With those improvements, HB 3093 could more fully align with principles of limited government, fairness, and responsible taxation.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill does not directly infringe upon individual rights, it indirectly affects individuals—particularly small property owners or residents—by enabling high-value commercial properties to be temporarily excluded from the tax base during litigation. This exclusion may result in higher tax rates on other taxpayers to meet the same revenue goals, effectively redistributing the tax burden without offering the same procedural benefit to the broader population. Thus, while individual liberty isn't overtly limited, the principle is strained by a perceived inequity in treatment.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill could be seen as discouraging personal responsibility by allowing large commercial property owners to delay their full tax obligations through the anticipation of litigation. While appeals are a legal right, the bill creates a financial incentive to dispute valuations aggressively, potentially using legal action not solely for fairness but as a strategic tool to reduce tax liability. This may promote behavior that prioritizes avoiding tax responsibilities rather than resolving them cooperatively or transparently.

• Free Enterprise: On one hand, the bill can be viewed as protecting businesses from government overreach in the form of inflated appraisals, thereby encouraging a healthier investment climate in areas prone to large-scale property tax disputes. On the other hand, by limiting the relief to only the top 20 high-value properties in certain coastal counties, it skews the playing field in favor of large enterprises over smaller ones. This selective application introduces a distortion in the competitive business environment, undermining the equal application of market principles.

• Private Property Rights: This is the strongest area of alignment with liberty values. The bill reinforces the principle that property owners have the right to contest government-determined valuations and should not be financially penalized while doing so. By enabling tax rate calculations to account for contested values, the bill ensures that owners are taxed only on what they believe to be accurate and lawful, protecting their financial interests during due process.

• Limited Government: While the bill attempts to prevent over-taxation and mitigate revenue volatility for local governments, it adds procedural complexity and introduces a new carve-out for a specific group of taxpayers. This increases the administrative burden and the overall intricacy of the tax code, moving away from the principle of a streamlined and minimally intrusive government. Moreover, the bill's narrow application—based on geography and property value—may be perceived as governmental favoritism, weakening the ideal of equal protection under the law.

• SB 1052 (Same As)