SB 1951 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the State of Texas. According to the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note, the requirements introduced by the bill—specifically, mandating certified mail for penalty notifications and itemizing penalties separately on tax bills—do not impose additional state costs or generate new revenue for state coffers​.

However, the bill has localized fiscal implications. It repeals the provision in current law that mandates tax assessor-collectors to remit 5 percent of penalties collected for late property renditions to the appraisal districts. Eliminating this 5 percent remittance could lead to indeterminate revenue losses for appraisal districts, as they would no longer receive a share of these collected penalties. At the same time, local taxing units (such as cities, counties, and school districts) would retain a larger portion of those penalties, resulting in an offsetting revenue gain for these entities.

While the overall financial effect on local governments is neutral at the aggregate level, the distribution of funds among local entities would shift, with appraisal districts potentially facing tighter budgets. The degree of fiscal impact will depend on the volume of penalties collected in a given appraisal district and how significant the 5 percent share has been to their operating budgets.

SB 1951 presents a well-intentioned effort to increase transparency and fairness in the enforcement of penalties for late filing of property rendition statements. As outlined in the bill analysis, SB 1951 responds to taxpayer concerns that some appraisal districts have levied these 10% penalties without providing adequate or timely notice. In certain cases, penalties have been embedded within total tax bills without separate itemization, resulting in taxpayers unknowingly paying penalties they may not even owe. The bill seeks to correct this by requiring certified mail for penalty notices and mandating a clear, separate line-item listing of the penalty on tax bills.

Furthermore, the bill removes the financial incentive for appraisal districts to impose penalties by eliminating their entitlement to retain 5% of collected penalties. This change aligns with the principle of limiting potential conflicts of interest and aims to ensure penalties are assessed strictly for compliance, not revenue generation. These reforms enhance procedural integrity and strengthen taxpayer protections—advancing goals that support personal responsibility and a more transparent local government process.

However, the bill also repeals subsection (d) of Section 22.28 of the Tax Code, which currently grants chief appraisers discretion to waive penalties under certain circumstances. Eliminating this discretion removes a valuable tool for offering relief in cases of honest error or extenuating hardship. Without any waiver mechanism, SB 1951 risks becoming overly punitive, particularly toward small businesses or property owners unfamiliar with appraisal procedures. From the standpoint of protecting individual liberty, property rights and fostering limited government, this removal of flexibility is a significant concern.

Thus, while SB 1951 introduces positive transparency and accountability reforms, it should be amended to reinstate or modify the waiver authority, allowing limited discretion for penalty relief under reasonable conditions. This would bring the bill into fuller alignment with the principles of liberty, fairness, and administrative balance. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1951 and also strongly encourages lawmakers to consider amendments as described above.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill improves transparency for taxpayers by mandating certified mail notifications and clearer itemization of penalties on tax bills, it also repeals a key protection: the chief appraiser’s discretionary authority to waive the penalty for late filings under certain circumstances. This change removes a potential safeguard for individuals who, due to legitimate hardship or inadvertent error, miss filing deadlines. The elimination of this discretionary relief limits the government's flexibility to account for individual circumstances, and as such, can restrict individual liberty by imposing mandatory penalties without recourse—even when justifiable reasons exist.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle of personal responsibility by ensuring that property owners are notified in a clear and traceable way (via certified mail) when they fail to file required documentation. It also separates the penalty from the overall tax bill, making it more visible. These measures promote accountability and informed decision-making by ensuring that property owners are fully aware of their obligations and any resulting penalties.
• Free Enterprise: For businesses, especially small ones, navigating property rendition requirements can be complex. By removing the appraisal district’s ability to waive penalties, the bill could disproportionately penalize businesses that make good-faith errors or face resource constraints. Without a path to relief, this inflexibility could burden economic activity and discourage fair participation in the marketplace—particularly for new or less-resourced business owners—thus modestly infringing on free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not change ownership rights or property use but does affect the administrative process tied to property taxation. Mandating separate penalty disclosures and improving notice procedures enhances a property owner's awareness and control over tax obligations. However, the removal of discretionary waivers could increase the financial burden on property owners for procedural violations, thereby impacting their financial autonomy in managing their property obligations.
• Limited Government: The bill’s removal of the chief appraiser’s discretion to waive penalties represents a step away from locally responsive, limited government. Discretionary authority allows local officials to make context-sensitive decisions based on individual circumstances. By centralizing enforcement in a rigid, one-size-fits-all penalty regime, the bill undermines the idea that government power should be applied with restraint and responsiveness to local needs. Additionally, though it removes a financial incentive for districts to issue penalties, which supports integrity, it does so at the cost of flexibility.

• HB 3258 (Same As)