Lubbock was one of 17 Texas cities mentioned in a press release from the Attorney General’s office, saying Ken Paxton was launching a statewide investigation of nearly 1,000 Texas cities to “ensure municipal transparency and stop illegal tax increases.”
LubbockLights.com asked Jarrett Atkinson, city manager if the situation is as bad as it sounds.
“Just speaking for Lubbock, I really don’t think that it is,” Atkinson said.
LubbockLights.com got a copy of a November 21 email state officials sent Lubbock. We compared the email to the press release and found differences.
The press release said, “Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched a major initiative to ensure the hardworking people of Texas receive municipal budget transparency and that municipalities do not engage in unlawful tax increases.”
It also said Paxton requested financial documents from nearly 1,000 cities “… and that number will continue to grow.”
For comparison, the email said, “The Office of the Attorney General is reaching out to municipalities across Texas to confirm compliance,” the email said.
Atkinson described the email as a routine compliance check rather than a mass departure from state law.
Almost every city in Texas
The Comptroller’s website said Texas has more than 1,200 incorporated cities.
“They range in size from Houston, with more than 2.3 million residents, to over 400 towns with populations of fewer than 1,000,” the website said.
Which unlawful tax increases?
Four cities were singled out both in October and again in the recent press release. They are La Marque, Odessa, Tom Bean and Whitesboro. All four are on record saying they complied with state law.
The letters are similar. A portion of the Odessa letter said:
“On September 23, 2025, the Odessa City Council approved a property tax increase that is above the no-new-revenue rate. As you are no doubt aware, during the 89th Legislative session, the Legislature passed and Governor Abbott signed SB 1851 into law. … SB 1851 authorizes the attorney general to determine whether a city complied with municipal auditing requirements.”
It goes on to say if the attorney general determines the city did not comply then anything above the no-new-revenue rate is prohibited.
Odessa responded saying Paxton’s office reached a conclusion before doing any investigation – and that Paxton’s office misapplied the new law.
What’s at stake
Lubbock also set property taxes higher than the no-new-revenue rate in September. Atkinson thinks Lubbock will be just fine with any compliance check.
Lubbock adopted $0.472191 per $100 of taxable value. The no-new-revenue rate would have been $0.461938, according to the city’s website. If a standard homestead exemption is taken into account, the difference (for the city portion of the tax bill) would be less than $30 per year for a $300,000 home.
Here’s the new law
“I don’t see … anything the least bit objectionable about SB 1851,” Atkinson said.
The analysis on the Texas Legislature’s website said, “S.B. 1851 will hold municipalities accountable by establishing a penalty for noncompliance of an audit or annual financial statement as required by [state law]. This penalty involves not allowing the municipality to raise property taxes above their no-new-revenue tax rate … ”
Atkinson said, “Senate Bill 1851 went through the most recent session without a lot of fanfare and really with a lot of support – and rightfully so. Senate Bill 1851 says, ‘You local governments – you are going to provide the financial reporting that you should be doing. You’re going to give it to your governing body. You’re going to make it available to the public.’ In my mind, we were always under that.”
Lubbock provided a copy of its most recent financial disclosures to Lubbock Lights – which are also on the city’s website for anyone to see.
What the email demands of 1,000 cities
“It’s just a short series of questions. Send us a copy of your two most recent audits, your prepared annual financial statements, documentation showing when you did it – what is the auditor’s opinion? – showing that you filed it – that you brought it to your governing body,” Atkinson said.
The email said in part, “Our office does not seek any information that is confidential or otherwise excepted from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.”
Cities were given permission to withhold anything that might be confidential without having to go through the normal public-records review process.
“We appreciate your cooperation to ensure transparency and accountability in local finances and governance,” the email concluded.
Related
Related posts