According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 974 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the state government. The bill simply expands eligibility criteria for service on appraisal review boards (ARBs) by allowing public school teachers to participate. Since the bill does not mandate additional expenditures, create new programs, or require financial compensation for ARB members, no state budget adjustments are necessary.

Similarly, the LBB report states that there will be no fiscal impact on local governments. Appraisal districts, that oversee ARB operations, already have mechanisms in place for appointing and managing board members. The inclusion of teachers does not necessitate structural changes, additional staffing, or increased administrative costs. Additionally, appraisal review board members are typically unpaid or compensated with nominal stipends, meaning that the fiscal impact remains neutral for both the state and local taxing entities.

While SB 974 provides a practical solution to the shortage of qualified appraisal review board (ARB) members, concerns about potential conflicts of interest prevent a clear endorsement or outright opposition. The bill’s intent—to allow teachers to serve on ARBs—addresses a real need by leveraging their availability during the summer months when property tax protests peak. Additionally, teachers are not directly involved in setting school district budgets or tax rates, which helps mitigate—but does not eliminate—conflict concerns.

On the other hand, public trust in the fairness of property tax assessments is crucial, and permitting employees of a taxing unit to serve on a board that affects tax revenue raises questions about impartiality. While ARB members are appointed, not elected, and must adhere to existing ethics guidelines, the bill does not include additional safeguards, such as recusal requirements or enhanced transparency measures, that could further ensure objectivity.

Given these offsetting factors, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SB 974. The bill has merit in addressing ARB vacancies, but potential conflicts of interest remain a valid concern.