Recapture in Texas: Push to reform school property tax revenue redistribution policy
There is a push to reform the way funds are redistributed among school districts in Texas.
The practice is known as "recapture" or "Robin Hood".
Some district leaders say the amount they're paying to help other districts is leaving their own students at a disadvantage.
AUSTIN, Texas - Education is dominating the debate at the Texas Capitol this session, from school choice to teacher pay to increasing public school funding.
However, there is also a push to reform the way money is redistributed among districts though a policy known as "recapture" or "Robin Hood".
What we know
Recapture is a state policy designed to share the wealth among school districts.
In general, districts with high property values have to pay money back to the state, to help districts with less of a tax base.
By the numbers
Last year, Austin ISD's recapture payment was $699 million—the highest in Texas.
Other neighboring school districts didn't shell out quite that much, but still sent back millions in school property tax revenue to the state in 2024, including:
Eanes ISD - $95 million
Lake Travis ISD - $43 million
Leander ISD - $12 million
Round Rock ISD - $10 million
What they're saying
"I look around the state and I don't feel like Austin is so much more wealthy than some of these other areas," said state Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D-Austin).
"We want to do our part and we realize that we're a fortunate district," said Eanes ISD Superintendent Jeff Arnett. "But does it need to be two thirds of our local property tax revenues? There seems to be a significant imbalance there that we would certainly like for the legislature to revisit."
"People are rightfully upset about that," said Goodwin. "When a district is running a deficit, when a district is having to create larger class sizes and not being able to do all the things that they need to do to have the best education possible, and we're sending money away."
Goodwin questions where that money is actually going, and suggests funding districts in need should be up to the state, not other districts.
"You know, there's a big bucket of money. The state isn't paying its share, in our opinion," said Goodwin. "Honestly, if we weren't paying recapture, the state could make up that difference."
The other side
Roger Falk of the Travis County Taxpayers Union argues Robin Hood is necessary.
"The Constitution requires equal funding for all the school systems in Texas," said Falk. "It's like we're the billionaires saying, 'I don't like to pay that tax bill'."
Falk argues money coming from places like Austin is a vital lifeline for other districts.
"You look at like El Paso," said Falk. "It has a small fraction of the tax base, and consequently they need some help."
Local perspective
"When you talk about redistributing people's money, there's pros and cons to that," said taxpayer Ryan Waguespack.
People we spoke to in Austin say it may be time to rethink recapture.
"If they're not making enough money to cover their expenses and you're sending it out, that doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense," said Waguespack.
"I do own a home here and I pay high property taxes," said Stephanie Woo, an Austin homeowner. "I think we need to have some more being distributed here."
What's next
Goodwin says she's optimistic some changes can be made to lessen the burden.
"I'm absolutely hopeful. I have heard from Rep. Tom Oliver that he's putting forth a bill on the idea," said Goodwin. "I look forward to seeing that and I think it's a great idea. I think we should have a commission meet and talk about how we can improve our school funding formula."
The Source
Information in this report comes from reporting and interviews by FOX 7 Austin's 7 On Your Side reporter John Krinjak.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
6 hours ago
- Fox News
Federal oversight in Washington – a special case as old as America itself
The District of Columbia is a special case in American governance. Which is why President Trump has distinctive authority to dispatch federal agents and National Guard troops to patrol the city's streets for at least a month. It's in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States." That's a reference to what would become the District of Columbia. The Founders wanted the home of the federal government somewhat cloistered – and protected – from local whims and danger. The precursor to the present Congress convened in Philadelphia. But Continental Army soldiers staged what was known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, claiming the "Congress of the Confederation" owed them back pay. The incident prompted Alexander Hamilton to suggest that the Congress vacate Philadelphia. It wasn't clear that local authorities could protect the incipient Congress from the mutineers. So they abandoned Philadelphia for Princeton, New Jersey. Scarred by what happened in Philadelphia, the Founders etched out a quirky "federal district" which didn't exist in a state. The Founders felt Pennsylvania was lax at guarding the original Congress. So developing their own "capital city" for Congress – with the government in control – would grant them security. The 1st Congress adopted the "Residence Act." It established what became Washington, DC. There was a compromise that the new nation would initiate the seat of government anywhere from what is now Hagerstown, Md., to its present location. But the law gave President George Washington authority to determine the exact location. Washington's residence was along the Potomac at Mount Vernon. So they carved out a "District of Columbia" from territory which was otherwise part of Maryland and Virginia – on opposite sides of the Potomac River. Congress forked over the parcel of land on the "western" shore of the Potomac to Virginia in the 1840s. Stone markers still mark the old District of Columbia boundaries in and around Alexandria, Va. So Congress was in charge of the District of Columbia until 1973. That's when lawmakers approved the Home Rule Act for DC. DC gained a non-voting delegate to the House (similar to those from U.S. territories) a few years earlier. But now Washington, DC would feature a mayor and a city council. But under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress would maintain ultimate authority over the city. The House and Senate presided as a sort of "super city council." Lawmakers periodically infused themselves into Washington's local affairs beginning in the late 1980s – and mostly at the behest of Republicans. Congress blocked the legalization of medical marijuana in DC in 1998. The House and Senate also bigfooted a new criminal justice system for the city in 2022. That's because the local law diminished punishments for serious crimes like carjacking. Republicans won control of the House in 1994 and promptly discussed dialing back home rule for Washington, DC. Republicans made their mark by blocking a needle exchange program for drug abusers. The U.S. ratified the 23rd Amendment in 1961. That granted the city three electoral votes. However, Washington lacks a vote on the floor of the House or two votes in the Senate – even though its citizens pay federal income taxes, serve in the military and are subject to the draft. That's why the city festooned license plates with the moniker "Taxation Without Representation" in the 1990s. Democrats have largely championed the plight of DC. A bill to make DC a state failed in 1993, 277-153. However, the House passed a statehood bill for DC in 2020, 232-180. The bill would convert most of the present city into "Douglass Commonwealth," named after abolitionist Frederick Douglass. So the city wouldn't be a state, but a "commonwealth" like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky and Massachusetts. That bill would chisel out a swath of land, encompassing the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, the National Mall and many federal buildings. Supporters of the legislation argued that this would be the new "seat" of government as prescribed by the Constitution. But the measure never got a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate. And statehood is unlikely any time soon for DC. The city is overwhelmingly Democratic. The new state or commonwealth would likely elect a Democratic U.S. Representative and two Democratic senators. Republicans would never abide that as it would tip the balance of power in Congress. Note that Alaska and Hawaii entered the union virtually together as part of a compromise. One would be the "Democratic" state. The other would be the "Republican" state. Therefore, the admissions created political balance in Congress. Ironically, Alaska was supposed to be the "Democratic" state and Hawaii the "Republican" state. However, the prevailing politics of both of those states mostly flipped over the years. Moreover, it's hard to see how any plan for statehood could overcome a Senate filibuster requiring 60 yeas. That's why some progressives pushed Senate Democratic leaders to abolish the filibuster several years ago. But it was unclear if DC even had the votes to become a state when Democrats controlled a slim Senate majority. So this brings us to present day and President Trump's use of the 1973 Home Rule Act to take over the local police department in Washington. The law says Congress must approve such action within a month. One can bet that the GOP-controlled House and Senate will consider such a measure in September. Prospective passage is always tight in the House because of the narrow majority. However, such a plan is likely subject to a filibuster in the Senate. Most Republicans are eager to follow the lead of President Trump. Moreover, Congressional Republicans would embrace the opportunity to dare Democrats to vote no on a renewal – and portray them as opposing order in the streets. For his part, the president said he expected Congress to act "very quickly." But Mr. Trump observed that "we can do it without Congress" if he deems it a national emergency. President Trump also characterized the potential for statehood as "ridiculous" and "unacceptable." So this unique political construct for the nation's capital is what grants Congress – and the president – authority over the District of Columbia. It's in the Constitution. And unless Congress blocks him, President Trump can likely administer DC as he sees fit.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
`Who is Kim Davis? Kentucky Clerk Seeks to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Speculation of whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take a case to overturn same-sex marriage at the federal level is mounting after embattled Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis pushed the effort as far up the legal chain as possible. Davis's attorney, Matthew Staver, previously told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will again rule on Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, previously wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek that he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Why It Matters Obergefell v. Hodges, as part of a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in June 2015, guaranteed that same-sex couples can marry by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Prior the Court's ruling, equal rights and protections for same-sex marriage was already established in 36 states by statutes, court rulings, or voter initiatives. Davis made national headlines just two months after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision when she defied a U.S. federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. After being elected clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, in 2014, she was defeated by Democratic challenger Elwood Caudill Jr. in 2018. Rowan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis (R) stands with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (L) in front of the Carter County Detention Center on September 8, 2015 in Grayson, Kentucky. Rowan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis (R) stands with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (L) in front of the Carter County Detention Center on September 8, 2015 in Grayson, To Know Where is Kim Davis From? Davis was born in September 1965 in Morehead, Kentucky. As of 1991, she served as chief deputy clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, reporting to her mother, Rowan County Clerk Jean W. Bailey. In 2014, when Bailey didn't run for reelection, Davis filed as a Democrat and defeated Elwood Caudill Jr., then a deputy clerk in the Rowan County property valuation administrator's office, by 23 votes in the party primary. In the general election, she defeated Republican John Cox, who implied nepotism was at play in the results. Who is Dwain Allen Wallace? Dwain Allen Wallace was Kim Davis's first husband, whom she wed in the 1980s when she was 18 years old, according to CBS News. The couple divorced in 1994, with facts coming out later showing Davis's infidelity and court records indicating she had given birth to two children in 1994 with another man. Kim Davis' Marital History: How Many Times Was She Married? Davis has been married four times to three different men. In 1996, Kim Davis married Joe Davis for the first of two eventual marriage ceremonies. They divorced in 2006. The next year, at age 40, Davis married Thomas McIntryre, but that union lasted less than one year. By 2009, she re-married Joe Davis—who told CBS News in September 2015 that he and Kim had been together 19 years but declined to say how much of that time was spent while married. "Four and a half years ago, Kim Davis was a completely different person," Davis's attorney, Matthew Staver, told CBS News at the time. "She made a lot of mistakes. She regrets many of the decisions that she made, and she loves the Lord, and she doesn't want to be disobedient." What People Are Saying Eric Subin, trial attorney, in an email to Newsweek: "As a preliminary matter, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant the writ of certiorari and even hear the case at all. In fact, the Supreme Court grants less than 1 percent of all of the writs of certiorari filed each year. "Since there is a well-established principle that public officials acting under color of state law, as Kim Davis was in this case, are not shielded from liability by the First Amendment there is virtually no compelling legal reason to grant the petition. Even in the very unlikely event that the Supreme Court did grant the petition, it is again extremely unlikely that Davis would prevail on the merits. In order for her to succeed, the Supreme Court would have to completely upend longstanding First Amendment doctrine as well as overturn established precedent." Freedom From Religion Foundation on X: "Concerned about the 'sanctity' of marriage? Gay male couples actually divorce less than straight couples. But, Kim Davis's four marriages are really helping to skew the numbers in their favor." Congressional Equality Caucus on X: "Kim Davis—who illegally denied same-sex couples marriage licenses—asked SCOTUS to overturn marriage equality as she seeks to avoid paying damages to those whose rights she violated. The Justices should not take this case, because marriage equality should NOT be up for debate." What Happens Next While the Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months, there's been no indication yet of whether it intends to do so.
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
Donald Trump: Purse snatcher?
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben Anxiety is rising across Washington as Capitol Hill and the courts wonder: Is DONALD TRUMP snatching Congress' power of the purse? In recent days, several federal judges have warned that the Trump administration's bid to withhold funding authorized by Congress — for foreign aid, clean energy and other programs disfavored by the White House — could distort the balance of power in government. The administration attempted to 'cut the Congress's purse strings,' warned Judge KAREN HENDERSON, a GEORGE H.W. BUSH appointee, in an appeals court ruling Saturday that ordered the Trump administration to stop concealing spending data meant to reveal potential violations of lawmakers' spending power. 'The public interest is best served by maintaining the separation-of-powers balance struck by the Constitution,' Henderson wrote, adding, 'when it comes to appropriations, congressional power is at its zenith.' But a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today — also authored by Henderson — sharply narrowed the ability of interest groups to challenge Trump's authority to withhold funds, leading to a round of celebration from Trump's top budget aides. At the heart of the matter is the presidential power of 'impoundment,' the ability to withhold spending required by Congress under a limited set of circumstances. Trump contends he can pause some spending to help effectuate his administration's priorities. A 1974 law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes clear that the Executive Branch needs congressional approval for any long-term withholding or cancellation of funds — usually by sending a so-called rescission request to Capitol Hill. But as DOGE ran roughshod across the federal government, axing contracts by the thousands and laying off workers in even greater numbers to facilitate restructuring or elimination of entire agencies, the fear that Trump would test his power to simply withhold the funding — without congressional authorization — has grown. In another recent case, U.S. District Judge DABNEY FRIEDRICH, a Trump appointee, said it appeared the administration had violated appropriations laws by obstructing $100 million meant for the National Endowment for Democracy. The Government Accountability Office — a fiscal watchdog housed in Congress — has repeatedly accused the Trump administration of flouting federal law by withholding funds for programs authorized by lawmakers. In the D.C. Circuit ruling today, Judge FLORENCE PAN warned in a dissenting opinion that the administration's incursions on Congress' power of the purse threatened 'the very structure of our government.' 'It is our responsibility to check the President when he violates the law and exceeds his constitutional authority,' Pan, a JOE BIDEN appointee, wrote. Notably, however, Pan was on the losing end of a 2-1 ruling that may have helped Trump sidestep challenges to his management of congressional funding. And it was Henderson — the champion of Congress' power of the purse just four days earlier — who delivered the dagger. Henderson, joined by Trump appointee GREGORY KATSAS, wrote that a challenge to Trump's withholding of billions in foreign aid funding could only be brought by the head of the GAO, currently Comptroller General GENE DODARO. That meant despite concerns that Trump might be defying Congress' intent, the groups aggrieved by canceled spending could not sue over the purported violation of the Impoundment Control Act. Trump allies celebrated the ruling — which could still be appealed to the full bench of the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court — saying it would dramatically reduce the ability of outside interest groups to raise legal challenges. 'No flood of suits = no flood of injunctions,' JAMES BURNHAM, an attorney who helped lead DOGE for the first six months of Trump's term, posted on X. RUSS VOUGHT, Trump's budget director, cheered the ruling as a 'big win.' 'Radical left dark-money groups have been using the court system to seize control of U.S. foreign policy,' an OMB spokesperson told West Wing Playbook. 'Today's decision stops these private groups from maliciously interfering with the President's ability to spend responsibly and administer foreign aid in a lawful manner and in alignment with his America First policies.' Vought, Trump's chief strategist on matters related to appropriations and impoundment, has long sought to test the limits of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought has also been on a mission to make permanent the cuts DOGE sought to inflict in the first chaotic weeks of the administration, and he's also been quietly prepping contingency plans if he's unable to get Congress onboard. The Vought-led Office of Management and Budget has started to withhold funding that's already been appropriated for some 200 programs across agencies for this fiscal year. Allies believe he is ultimately laying the foundation for an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take up a case involving the president's ability to impound funds. He's also floated the use of so-called pocket rescissions — having the White House transmit a rescission request so late in the fiscal year that the funds expire before Congress acts. GAO, so far, is circumspect about whether it will take the lead on legal pushback to Trump's withholding of funds. Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report. MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER Who called ABRAHAM LINCOLN 'two-faced'? (Answer at bottom.) Agenda Setting WITH OR WITHOUT YA: The president suggested today that he does not need the approval of Congress to extend the 30-day deadline for federalizing the Metropolitan Police Department, and will seek 'long-term' extensions of the police takeover, our GISELLE RUHIYYIH EWING reports. He also said that if necessary, he would declare a national emergency to bypass Congress. 'We're going to be asking for extensions on that — long-term extensions because you can't have 30 days,' Trump said at the Kennedy Center this afternoon. 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.' PARTY EVERY DAY: Trump today announced this year's Kennedy Center honorees — the first since his takeover of the institution — further molding Washington's iconic performing arts center in his image, our CHEYANNE M. DANIELS reports. This year's awards will be presented to: musician GEORGE STRAIT, actor and comedian MICHAEL CRAWFORD, actor SYLVESTER STALLONE, singer GLORIA GAYNOR and rock band KISS. Trump insisted he personally approved the honorees and rejected other nominees. 'I would say I was about 98 percent involved. They all went through me,' he said. 'I turned down plenty. I had a couple of wokesters.' 'UNDERLYING MOTIVES': Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, E.J. ANTONI, has made a name for himself in MAGA circles for being a BLS critic and defender of the president. But he's left some economic experts skeptical he has the professional or managerial expertise to run an agency of more than 2,000 staffers and produce economic reports critical to public policy and business decisions, our NICK NIEDZWIADEK and SAM SUTTON report. 'The issues that are most important for BLS commissioners to be dealing with really don't have anything to do with these partisan policy concerns,' said ERICA GROSHEN, who led the bureau during the BARACK OBAMA years. That will make it more difficult for him to make necessary changes at BLS, she said, adding 'people are more likely to be suspicious that there are underlying motives.' WILLIAM BEACH, who was Trump's nominee to lead BLS during his first term, said that his and Antoni's nominations have a lot of parallels, but that Antoni needs to 'state from Day 1 what his goals are, and it should not be to make the data better for President Trump.' Antoni did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Treasury Secretary SCOTT BESSENT defended Trump's nominee on Bloomberg as 'incredibly qualified.' In the Courts GO AHEAD: A U.S. district court judge agreed Tuesday to narrow an injunction that had blocked the administration from firing hundreds of CDC employees, our SOPHIE GARDNER reports. The decision, from Judge MELISSA R. DuBOSE, a Biden appointee, had originally blocked HHS from terminating any CDC employees, but her order Tuesday revises the injunction to protect only six of the agency's centers from layoffs — opening the door for the Trump administration to begin firing CDC employees in other centers. The centers still blocked from terminations include the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention; the Division of Reproductive Health; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the Office on Smoking and Health; National Center for Environmental Health; and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Musk Radar DUFFY V. ELON: Transportation Secretary SEAN DUFFY gave an inside look into his relationship and dispute with ELON MUSK today, focusing on the tech billionaire's push to dismantle his department, New York Post's RYAN KING reports. Duffy told the Post's MIRANDA DEVINE in a podcast that the final straw was Musk's 'ham-handed' attempt to fire so-called safety-critical positions, including air traffic controllers. 'Elon — or no one else — is the Secretary,' Duffy said. 'I am. The Senate confirmed me.' WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT NASA EXODUS: NASA is losing more than 3,700 personnel as part of the administration's effort to trim the government, according to data obtained by our SAM SKOVE and ROSEMARY IZAGUIRRE. That will reduce the agency by at least 32 percent by January and could limit its ability to manage missions, such as flights to the moon and Mars. Employees are exiting under a slate of incentives offered by the administration, including participation in a deferred resignation program, early retirements and buyouts. More employees could be headed out the door, as the White House's goal is to reduce NASA's staff by more than 5,000 people. What We're Reading Donald Trump Took Over DC's Police. Why Is the City's Mayor So Zen? (POLITICO's Michael Schaffer) Why Trump's War on the Drug Cartels Is Bound to Backfire (POLITICO's Nahal Toosi) Inside the 13-year search for Austin Tice, the journalist who disappeared (WaPo's Souad Mekhennet, Ellen Nakashima, Joanna Slater and Aaron Schaffer) Can You Gerrymander Your Party to Power? (NYT's Ella Koeze, Denise Lu and Charlie Smart) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER In the famed debates of 1858 between Lincoln and Illinois Sen. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, the senator accused Lincoln of being two-faced. But the 16th president took that insult in stride, replying, 'Honestly, if I were two-faced, would I be showing you this one?'
