HEMPSTEAD, Texas (Covering Katy News) — Waller County Judge Trey Duhon agrees with Gov. Greg Abbott that Texans need property tax relief.
But the Republican county judge says there is something missing from the Republican governor's argument: Austin requires counties to provide services without always providing enough money to pay for them.
That leaves local property taxpayers picking up much of the bill.
Duhon raised the issue in a Facebook post responding to Abbott's campaign advertising on property taxes. Abbott has emphasized that Texas does not levy a state property tax and has blamed rising property taxes in part on local government spending.
Duhon said Abbott is correct about the first part. Texas does not levy a state property tax. Counties, cities, school districts and other local governments do.
But Duhon argues that doesn't tell taxpayers the whole story.
Counties pay for services the state requires
Counties perform numerous functions required by state law, ranging from operating courts and jails to conducting elections and providing attorneys for defendants who cannot afford one.
The state helps pay for some of those responsibilities, but local governments frequently bear much of the cost.
Duhon pointed to indigent defense as an example during a Sept. 16 Waller County Commissioners Court meeting.
"We spend over a million dollars," Duhon said of Waller County's indigent-defense costs.
State funding covers only a small portion of that expense. Waller County received approximately $51,000 in state indigent-defense grant funding, leaving local taxpayers responsible for most of the cost.
The issue is not unique to Waller County. The Texas Association of Counties has long argued that state and federal unfunded mandates impose billions of dollars in costs on Texas counties and their property taxpayers.
Duhon's argument is straightforward: If Austin requires counties to provide a service but does not fully fund it, county officials still have to find the money somewhere.
In Texas, much of that money ultimately comes from local property taxes.
Duhon says the state cannot have it both ways
Duhon has been making that argument for months.
In April, while discussing proposals in Austin to further restrict local government revenue, he said counties already operate under substantial limits on how quickly property-tax revenue can grow.
"They've already restricted us to 3.5%," Duhon said.
Under Texas law, most counties and cities generally face an election if property-tax revenue from existing properties grows beyond the state's voter-approval threshold, although the law contains exceptions and special provisions for certain expenses.
Duhon said the state should not simultaneously restrict local revenue and require counties to absorb expenses created in Austin.
"Using counties as a no limit credit card is not OK," he said.
The dispute does not fit neatly into a Republican-versus-Democrat storyline.
Abbott and Duhon are both Republicans.
The disagreement is instead over who should pay when the state requires local governments to provide services.
Abbott wants tighter limits on local governments
Abbott has made property-tax relief a major part of his agenda.
His proposals include tighter local spending limits, greater voter power to roll back tax increases, changes intended to make property appraisals more predictable, a two-thirds voter-approval requirement for tax increases and additional limits on appraisal growth.
Earlier proposals presented by Abbott's office also included imposing a debt limit on local governments and requiring two-thirds voter approval for new bond authorizations. The precise debt limit and how it would operate have not been established.
That could become particularly important for fast-growing counties.
Counties frequently use voter-approved debt to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
Depending on how lawmakers structure any future debt limit, it could restrict how quickly rapidly growing counties can finance mobility projects needed to keep pace with development.
That does not mean a debt limit would necessarily stop road projects. The details will matter.
But it adds another question to the property-tax debate: If the state further restricts how much counties can spend, collect or borrow, how will rapidly growing counties pay for state-required services and infrastructure?
Harris County shows the other side of the argument
There is also another side to the debate.
Not every increase in county spending can be blamed on Austin.
Harris County provides an example of why state leaders argue that local governments also need to control their own spending.
The county has faced repeated budget shortfalls while also approving significant spending increases. Its combined county and flood-control tax rate is about 67 cents per $100 of taxable value, and county officials projected a budget deficit of more than $180 million.
The county has also faced substantial costs associated with law-enforcement compensation and other priorities.
In September, Harris County commissioners approved salary increases for several elected officials, raising those salaries to approximately $305,000. County Judge Lina Hidalgo and the four commissioners were excluded from those increases, and County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth later declined her raise.
Commissioners Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia and Lesley Briones supported the measure, while Hidalgo and Commissioner Tom Ramsey opposed it.
Those decisions illustrate Abbott's side of the argument: Local elected officials make spending decisions, and taxpayers ultimately bear the consequences.
But Harris County also illustrates why applying the same restrictions to every county can be complicated.
Texas has 254 counties with vastly different populations, tax bases, growth rates and responsibilities. A restriction aimed at counties state lawmakers believe are spending too much would also apply to counties facing rapid population growth, expensive infrastructure needs or substantial state-mandated costs.
The argument is really about who controls the bill
Duhon is not arguing that counties should be exempt from scrutiny or that every local spending decision is justified.
His argument is that the property-tax debate should account for both sides of the equation.
Local governments decide how to spend substantial amounts of taxpayer money.
But state government also decides what services counties must provide — and how much freedom counties have to raise the money necessary to provide them.
Texas has confronted this issue before. Abbott himself called for an end to unfunded mandates on cities and counties in his 2019 inaugural address while simultaneously advocating property-tax limits.
As lawmakers prepare for another debate over property taxes, local spending and potentially county debt, Duhon's challenge to Austin is essentially this:
If the state wants to further limit what counties can spend, collect and borrow, should the state also assume more responsibility for paying for the services it requires counties to provide?
For taxpayers, the distinction matters because who sends the property-tax bill and who helped create the expenses behind that bill aren't necessarily the same thing.
ALSO READ: Fort Bend County lowers tax rate as Wong pushes affordability, business message