2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB3093

HB3093 changes tax-rate calculations for taxing units located wholly or partly in a Gulf of Mexico county with fewer than 500,000 people.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the calculation of certain ad valorem tax rates of a taxing unit for a year in which a property owner provides notice that the owner intends to appeal an order of an appraisal review board determining a protest by the owner regarding the appraisal of the owner's property.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Villalobos. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB3093 changes tax-rate calculations for taxing units located wholly or partly in a Gulf of Mexico county with fewer than 500,000 people. It excludes qualifying disputed taxable value from the “current total value” used in the calculations. It does not erase the property from the tax roll, decide an appraisal appeal, or automatically reduce anyone’s tax bill. Final law.

The exclusion concerns filed or intended court appeals by a property owner or associated businesses, including subsidiaries, over appraisal-review-board decisions on property value. At least one property involved must satisfy both tests: its prior-year taxable value was among the 20 highest in its appraisal district, and its current-year taxable value is more than 125% of its uncontested taxable value. The qualifying litigation can involve multiple parcels; the excluded amount is the contested portion of the aggregate value of property in the taxing unit included in that litigation, not every property the owner owns.

“Contested taxable value” is the difference between the current taxable value and the value the owner asserts in the appeal—or a good-faith estimate of the value the owner will assert if the appeal has not yet been filed. Current value comes from the review-board order, or, if no order has issued, the most recent appraisal notice. The balance is called uncontested value for this rate-calculation purpose.

Deadlines and submissions: By July 1, each affected taxing unit’s designated official must notify owners of properties meeting the prior-year top-20 test that the requirements may apply. An owner or associated business intending a qualifying appeal must provide each affected taxing unit with the total uncontested value of the covered property in that unit and a written statement of intent to pay tax on that amount. Submission is due by the earlier of August 7 or the 21st day after the first protest hearing for any property included in the litigation.

Public documentation: Tax-rate calculation forms must support an addendum containing evidence for the exclusion and the owners’ payment-intent statements. The addendum accompanies the forms sent to county assessor-collectors, posted on county websites and incorporated into appraisal-district property-tax databases. The chief appraiser must make the database information and forms, including applicable addenda, public by the third business day after incorporation. The reported “uncontested” value may be used only to calculate the rate; it is not an admission that the value is undisputed in the court appeal. Separate appeal and payment requirements still matter. Court-appeal payment statute.

The act became law without the governor’s signature on May 24, 2025, with immediate effect. Because it received the necessary votes, its changes apply beginning with the 2025 tax year, not the fallback 2026 date. Official history.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill used the 10 highest-valued properties in the taxing unit. The House committee substitute changed that to the 20 highest in the appraisal district, added the more-than-125% test, and separately defined current-year taxable value. It also changed the notice provision to match the top-20 district test.

The House-passed, Senate and final versions retain the substitute’s substance. The amendment index lists no floor amendments. Text versions.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Affected taxing units can calculate rates without relying on the qualifying disputed portion of a major property’s value. That may reduce revenue uncertainty while litigation is pending. Owners face additional reporting, and officials must document and publish the adjustment. Other taxpayers can be affected: lowering the value used in a rate formula can raise the calculated rate, all else equal. The governing body’s actual adopted rate and each property’s value still determine the bill; this is not a guaranteed tax cut. Rate formulas.

The May 1 fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal impact, but does not provide a dollar estimate for local revenue or taxpayer effects. Its explanatory narrative still refers to the older top-10 test and describes the owner submission inconsistently. The enacted text controls: top 20 in the appraisal district, the added 125% test, and submission of uncontested value. The act makes no appropriation.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.