Texas House Bill HB67

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/15/25
• Filed: 8/18/25

Summary

HB 67 would change how Texas handles certain surplus general revenue at the end of each state fiscal biennium. Beginning with the biennium that starts September 1, 2027, the comptroller would be required to deposit into the property tax relief fund an amount equal to one-half of any general revenue that exceeds the comptroller’s biennial revenue estimate at the end of the biennium. The bill is aimed at directing a portion of unexpected surplus revenue into a dedicated fund rather than leaving it available for general use. The bill also limits how that deposited money may be spent. Funds deposited under this new formula could be appropriated only to the Texas Education Agency and only for property tax relief through a reduction in the state compression percentage, which is a mechanism used to lower school district maintenance and operations property taxes. In practical terms, the bill ties surplus state revenue to school property tax relief rather than to broader state spending priorities.

Impact

HB 67 would amend Section 403.109 of the Government Code to create a mandatory transfer of surplus general revenue into the property tax relief fund and to restrict the use of those funds to the Texas Education Agency for school property tax compression. It would not directly change local tax rates in statute, but it would affect the state’s budget process and the flow of money used to support reductions in school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes. The bill applies beginning with the fiscal biennium starting September 1, 2027, and takes effect on the 91st day after the legislative session ends.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a policy to provide automatic property tax relief using surplus state revenue. The overall tone of the bill is fiscally targeted and pro-tax-relief, with a clear emphasis on directing excess revenue toward lowering school property taxes. No contrary testimony, amendments, or recorded opposition are available in the provided materials, so the public sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s stated purpose.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the mandatory earmarking of surplus general revenue. Supporters would likely favor the bill because it dedicates unexpected state revenue to property tax relief, while critics could object that it reduces legislative flexibility by locking surplus funds into a single use. Another possible area of debate is the formula itself—using one-half of revenue above the comptroller’s estimate—which could raise questions about how much surplus should be reserved for other state needs versus returned to taxpayers through school tax compression. No specific committee or floor objections are included in the record provided.