Lawmaker files bill to move state agencies out of Austin, save taxpayers money
During the first ever Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency, committee members discussed cost savings from rental and government owned properties.
'We have tried to eliminate unnecessary contracts,' said Brian Guthrie, director of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. 'We have also eliminated lease space. We have purchased new headquarters outside of the downtown area.'
Some committee members questioned why some buildings couldn't be moved outside of the Austin though.
'Is there any reason y'all did not look any further outside of Austin? In Waco, or Huntsville, Houston?' said State Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park.
These same questions have crossed Sen. Mayes Middleton's mind as well and that is why he filed SB 1004 to move state agencies out of Austin.
'Change is coming': Texas DOGE hosts first meeting
'For a long time I have had this idea,' Middleton said. 'Why not move them to lower cost real estate around the state?'
Middleton said the move could save taxpayers millions and create opportunities for people living in different regions of the state.
'It would create jobs in rural Texas that are not there right now,' he said.
Middleton said lawmakers would determine if the agency needs to move when the agency comes before the Sunset Advisory Commission for review.
'And as they come up we would determine how much they are spending either in rent or the value of the office building they are in here near the capitol,' he said. 'Then compare that to moving them outside of Austin and what that rent, or buying real estate in a lower cost area would be.'
At the end of the day he said it's all about cutting costs and saving taxpayers money, but also giving more opportunities to those living outside the Capital city.
'We have had an incredible difficulty attracting state workers to work for our state agencies and I think it would resolve that issue,' Middleton said.
The bill will now be reviewed by the Business & Commerce committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Former Austin mayoral candidate sues over TRE ballot language
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A former Austin mayoral candidate is challenging the city over how it is presenting a tax rate election to voters in November. Last week, Austin City Council approved its budget for next fiscal year and set a property tax rate, which is high enough that it triggers a tax rate election, or TRE, in November. Council members also approved an ordinance ordering that special election to be held on Nov. 4. Austin signs off on $6B+ budget, triggering property tax rate election If voters approve the new tax rate, the average homeowner's property tax bill will go up by a total of $302.14 annually. The ordinance council members passed, ordering the TRE, lays out the rules of the election and what will appear on the ballot for voters. According to the ordinance, the TRE will be under Proposition Q on November's ballot, and it will say, 'this is a tax increase,' and describe what the money will go toward. However, Jeffery Bowen, a candidate in the 2024 Austin mayoral race, filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the ballot language as described in the ordinance doesn't make it clear that the property tax hike would be recurring, and that the ballot's description of what taxpayers would get out of the increase is not clear enough. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, who defeated Bowen for the seat of city mayor last November, provided KXAN with the following statement: 'The City of Austin is confident the ballot language is appropriate and meets all legal requirements. We also have confidence in the court system and will respond in that venue.' The full lawsuit can be viewed below. Original Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with App_1755530250Download According to the ordinance, the ballot will be prepared to permit voting 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' Proposition Q, which will state the following: CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSITION QTHIS IS A TAX INCREASE Approving the ad valorem tax rate of $0.574017 per $100 valuation in the City of Austin for the current year, a rate that is $0.05 higher per $100 valuation than the voter-approval tax rate of the City of Austin, for the purpose of funding or expanding programs intended to increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness; improve parks and recreation facilities and services; enhance public health services and public safety; ensure financial stability; and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025 -2026 budget as approved or amended by City Council. Last year, the ad valorem tax rate in the City of Austin was $0.4776 per $100 valuation. According to Bowen's lawsuit, Bowen hand-delivered a letter to the city council on Aug. 13 that outlined the deficiencies in the ballot language, and demanded that the council 'fulfill its nondiscretionary duty to adopt ballot language for the tax increase election that does not mislead voters about the tax increase proposition.' The lawsuit alleged that, 'instead, the Austin City Council prescribed its own ballot language for the tax increase proposition that will grossly mislead voters and promote its passage.' The first issue the lawsuit alleged was that city council violated Texas law that was set forth by the Texas Supreme Court in Dacus v. Parker (Tex. 2015) because the ballot language does not explain the 'purpose' of the tax increase in definite and clear terms. The lawsuit specifically pointed out the phrase of the ballot that states, 'and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025-2026budget as approved or amended by City Council,' alleging that several parts of the phrase 'mislead' voters. It also said the ballot language fails to meet Dacus standards because 'several of the program descriptions are misleading for vagueness and non-neutral advocacy.' The other issue the lawsuit alleged was that the ballot is also too vague to establish an enforceable 'contract with the voters,' because it does not describe exactly how the current council and future councils could spend the money. The lawsuit said that because the tax increase would be a 'forever tax,' the ballot language should be 'definite and clear and become the foundation on which voters and taxpayers can rely—if the proposition passes—for how this huge tax increase will be spent, not only by this City Council but by all City Councils in the future.' Bowen's suit, which was filed in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, asks the court to 'issue a writ of mandamus ordering and compelling the Mayor and City Council of the City of Austin to promptly hold a validly called meeting of the Council to adopt ballot language that corrects each the deficiencies in the Council-adopted ballot language noted above so as to have accurate language on the November 4, 2025 ballot.' In other words, Bowen is asking the court to force the mayor and city council to change the ballot language for the proposition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
These Central Texas school districts have called bond elections for November 2025
AUSTIN (KXAN) — KXAN is keeping track of which local school districts have called bond elections for November 2025. We'll update the map and list below as new elections are called by districts. Elections will take place on Tuesday, Nov. 4. The deadline to register to vote is Monday, Oct. 6. Manor ISD Voters in Manor ISD will decide on a three-proposition bond package, totaling $385 million. The package will not result in a tax rate increase. Prop A: $359,500,000 for campus renovations, new buses, new and additional security cameras, access badge system upgrades, network infrastructure updates to support panic buttons and capacity increases at Manor New Tech High School. Prop B: $8,500,000 for new technology devices for students and staff districtwide. Prop C: $16,500,000 for performing arts additions at the Manor High School Complex. Taylor ISD Voters in Taylor ISD will decide on one bond proposal, as well as a VATRE. The bond will result in a tax rate decrease because of the retirement of old debt and an increased homestead exemption under new legislation. Prop A: $147,000,000 for renovations and additions to Taylor High School's multipurpose facility, modernization upgrades at Taylor Middle School, creation of STEM spaces for students in PK-8, purchasing land for future school signs, replacement of aging buses and vehicles, safety and security upgrades and capital improvements to HVAC, roofing and other infrastructure. Prop B: Voter Approved Tax Rate Election, which would generate about $650,000 annually in additional operating funds to maintain and enhance academic programs, classroom instruction, STEM programs, fine arts programs, extracurricular activities, CTE programs and other student programs. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Texas state senators take first step toward redistricting
State senators in Texas launched a public hearing Sunday on a bill to redraw congressional voting districts in the state, a move that could win Republicans five more seats in the House if the GOP plan works perfectly. The public hearing is a required step before a bill can advance for a vote on the state Senate floor, Nexstar's KXAN reported. Democrats fled the state earlier this summer to prevent Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republicans from having the legislative quorum necessary to pass legislation. But Democrats are expected to attend the new special session after garnering attention with their walkout, and triggering more redistricting efforts around the country. 'We did exactly what we said we needed to do, and that is bringing a spotlight on this issue,' State Rep. Josey Garcia (D-San Antonio) said in an interview with KXAN one day before Abbott called the second special session. Most notably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading an effort to change district lines in his state to make up for any potential losses for Democrats in Texas. Democrats released their proposed map on Friday evening. Newsom (D) is vying to hold a special election this fall on a ballot measure that would suspend the state's independent redistricting commission until the end of the decade in an effort to keep up with Republican gerrymandering. Newsom has stressed that bypassing the commission, which Californians approved back in 2008 and 2010, would be temporary, and that redrawing the lines would only be triggered by redistricting in red states. 'They do five seats, we do five seats,' Newsom has said. KXAN reported that Texas House leaders expect that the House will have enough members present Monday to conduct legislative business. GOP State Sen. Phil King told KXAN that the new mapy would be legal and will perform better for Republicans in the state. 'We heard a lot of testimony that the current map had a number of districts that were not compact, were not close together, were not tight, in in their in their design, and in this map, listening to that testimony, we applied it, and this map also is much more compact than the current congressional redistricting map.' The proposed changes target five districts in areas around Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, creating Republican-leaning seats. The Texas push was directed by President Trump, who has also been pushing other states where Republicans are in control of government to look at redistricting to gain Republicans seats. The states considering such options include Missouri and Indiana. Trump was impeached twice in his first term after Democrats regained control of the House. Because the GOP has a very narrow majority in the House and the president's party typically loses seats in the midterm elections, the possibility of Democrats regaining the House majority is a real possibility in 2026.
