The letters are similar. A portion of the Odessa letter said:<\/p>\n
\u201cOn 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. \u2026 SB 1851 authorizes the attorney general to determine whether a city complied with municipal auditing requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Odessa responded<\/a> saying Paxton\u2019s office reached a conclusion before doing any investigation \u2013 and that Paxton\u2019s office misapplied the new law.<\/p>\n What\u2019s at stake<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Lubbock adopted $0.472191 per $100 of taxable value. The no-new-revenue rate would have been $0.461938, according to the city\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the new law<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t see \u2026 anything the least bit objectionable about SB 1851,\u201d Atkinson said.<\/p>\n The analysis on the Texas Legislature\u2019s website<\/a> said, \u201cS.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 \u2026 \u201d<\/p>\n Atkinson said, \u201cSenate Bill 1851 went through the most recent session without a lot of fanfare and really with a lot of support \u2013 and rightfully so. Senate Bill 1851 says, \u2018You local governments \u2013 you are going to provide the financial reporting that you should be doing. You\u2019re going to give it to your governing body. You\u2019re going to make it available to the public.\u2019 In my mind, we were always under that.\u201d<\/p>\n Lubbock provided a copy of its most recent financial disclosures to Lubbock Lights \u2013 which are also on the city\u2019s website<\/a> for anyone to see.<\/p>\n What the email demands of 1,000 cities<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s 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 \u2013 what is the auditor\u2019s opinion? \u2013 showing that you filed it \u2013 that you brought it to your governing body,\u201d Atkinson said.<\/p>\n The email said in part, \u201cOur office does not seek any information that is confidential or otherwise excepted from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.\u201d<\/p>\n Cities were given permission to withhold anything that might be confidential without having to go through the normal public-records review process.<\/p>\n \u201cWe appreciate your cooperation to ensure transparency and accountability in local finances and governance,\u201d the email concluded.<\/p>\n
![\"Facebook](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/1765827787_851_facebook_yellow_350x350.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/volunteer_activism_96dp_000000_FILL0_wght400_GRAD0_opsz48.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n