Municipal Corner

Keeping Your Local Option Homestead Exemption Rate Until 2027. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0507 (2026[LK1.1]).

The Village of Salado asked the Attorney General about reducing a local option homestead exemption that was adopted and in place in 2022.

The Texas Constitution authorizes municipalities to exempt a percentage of a residence homestead’s market value from taxation, commonly known as the local option homestead exemption. The Legislature enacted Tax Code § 11.13(n) to allow taxing units to adopt this exemption. In 2023, the Legislature added subsection (n-1), which provides that the governing body of a school district, municipality, or county that adopted a local option homestead exemption for the 2022 tax year may not reduce or repeal the exemption. This provision expires December 31, 2027.

Accordingly, a municipality that adopted a local option homestead exemption for the 2022 tax year must maintain that exemption at or above the 2022 level through the end of the 2027 tax year. There is no exception if voters approve a reduction in the ad valorem tax rate. Therefore, a governing body may not reduce the exemption below the 2022 level for fiscal year 2025–2026, even if voters approve a reduction in the entity’s ad valorem tax rate.

Understanding Quorums Under the Texas Open Meetings Act. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0511 (2026).

The Mayor of the City of Conroe asked the Attorney General whether three council members, excluding the mayor, constitute a quorum under the Open Meetings Act. The Mayor also asked how the Act applied to three councilmembers meeting outside a properly noticed meeting to discuss city business.

The Texas Open Meetings Act (the Act) applies to meetings of a governmental body. The City of Conroe charter defines a quorum for conducting business as two-thirds of the qualified members of the city council, including the mayor and councilmembers.[LK2.1] Because the City has five councilmembers and one mayor, there are six qualified members, and a quorum is four. It is immaterial that the mayor does not always vote, because the City’s charter on which the Act relies expressly includes the mayor in determining a quorum.

A gathering of fewer than a quorum of a municipality’s governing body does not ordinarily trigger the Act, but it may do so in certain circumstances. A governmental body may not avoid the Act by meeting in groups smaller than a quorum. Additionally, a committee composed of fewer than a quorum may still be subject to the Act if it independently qualifies as a governmental body with rulemaking or quasi-judicial authority. Walking quorums are also prohibited under the Act.

Adopting, Amending, and Filing a Budget. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0512 (2026).

Promoted by Zavala County’s budget process for the fiscal year 2024-2025, the Zavala County Attorney asked the Attorney General whether a commissioners court can rescind or readopt a different county budget after the annual budget is approved. If the answer to that question is no, the Zavala County Attorney asked whether commissioners subject themselves to legal liability by adopting a new budget. Finally, the Zavala County Attorney asked who has the duty to file the approved budget and whether a county auditor who fails to file the budget commits an offense under Texas Local Government Code Section 111.012.

Chapter 111 of the Texas Local Government Code governs the budget adoption process, while Chapter 152 governs the process for setting the salaries of elected county officers. A commissioners court may amend the budget to authorize an emergency expenditure or to transfer funds from one budgeted item to another. A commissioners court is not authorized to wholly rescind and adopt a different county budget after final approval of the annual budget. A commissioners court’s decision to ignore its attorney’s legal opinion (in this case, to not adopt a new budget) may potentially be introduced as evidence to support the prosecution of a criminal offense.

A county commissioners court can only change an elected officer’s salary at a regular meeting during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings. Therefore, once the budget hearing and adoption proceedings are complete and a budget is approved, the commissioners court may not reduce the salary of an elected officer for that budget year.

Under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Section 111.009(a), the commissioners court, not the county auditor, must file the approved budget with the county clerk, and it is unclear how a county auditor would run afoul of this chapter by refusing or failing to file the approved budget with the county clerk.

Performance and Payment Bonds. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0514 (2026).

Sterling County contracted with a road construction company to build roads in phases and required performance and payment bonds for each phase. When the company became insolvent and failed to complete the project, the County sought another entity to finish both the bonded phase and the remaining phases without requiring additional bonds. The county asked whether it must require each contractor for a road or bridge project to carry a performance or payment bond.

Historically known as the McGregor Act, Tex. Gov’t Code § 2253 governs performance and payment bonds for public works contracts. Under § 2253.021(a), a governmental entity must require a prime contractor to execute performance and payment bonds. Although the Act does not specify a statutory penalty for noncompliance, the performance bond requirement is considered mandatory because it serves the public interest by protecting a governmental entity during the execution of a public works contract. A payment bond, by contrast, is solely for the protection and use of payment bond beneficiaries, such as subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. It helps ensure these individuals are paid for their labor and materials, as they generally do not enjoy the same lien rights on public projects as they do on private projects.

Therefore, Tex. Gov’t Code § 2253.021(a) obligates a county to require a prime contractor to execute performance and payment bonds.
Authority of State Inspectors and Poll Watchers in Texas Elections. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0519 (2026).

The Honorable Bob Hall, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Administration, asked the Attorney General for clarification on whether state inspectors are prohibited from taking photographs or videos while observing election activities and whether poll watchers are prohibited from observing the counting of mail-in ballots and other activities related to mail-in ballots.

Under the Election Code, the Secretary of State may appoint state inspectors who are responsible to the Secretary and subject to the Secretary’s discretion. These state inspectors are permitted to take photographs or videos while observing election activities. The Election Code prohibitions of recording at or near a voting station do not apply to an election officer conducting the officer’s official duties. State inspectors are empowered to take reasonable steps to obtain evidence of the way a function or activity is being performed at a variety of election locations. Photographs and videos would be included in this evidence.

Texas law does not prohibit poll watchers from observing activities related to mail-in ballots. Under the Election Code, a watcher is entitled to observe any activity conducted at the location at which the watcher is serving. Watchers have specific grants of authority to observe certain unique activities relating to mail-in ballots. Watchers are generally not allowed to be present in a voting station with a voter, but watchers can observe in this private setting when a voter is being assisted by an election officer.

Lisa Silveira is an Associate in the Firm’s Districts and Water Practice Groups. If you would like additional information, please contact Lisa at 512.322.5880 or lsilveira@lglawfirm.com.