Austin ISD (AISD) is classified as a property-rich district under Texas’s school finance system (Chapter 49, formerly Chapter 41). This means a portion of its local property tax revenue is “recaptured” by the state and redistributed to property-poor districts – a mechanism often called the “Robin Hood” plan (Recapture | Austin ISD). AISD’s recapture payments have grown dramatically in recent years. Table 1 below summarizes AISD’s recapture payments each fiscal year 2020 through 2024 (roughly corresponding to school years 2019–20 through 2023–24):
| Fiscal Year | AISD Recapture Payment |
|---|---|
| 2019–20 | $639,599,384 |
| 2020–21 | $706,687,156 |
| 2021–22 | $765,741,768 |
| 2022–23 | $900,910,768 |
| 2023–24 | $664,839,391 |
Key observations: AISD’s recapture nearly doubled from about $540 million in 2017–18 to $900+ million in 2022–23 (Recapture | Austin ISD), reflecting rising property values outpacing increases in state funding. In 2022–23, AISD sent almost 60% of its local tax collections to the state (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard). Over the five-year period 2020–2024 alone, AISD paid roughly $3.7 billion in recapture to the state. Cumulatively since 2001, AISD has remitted over $8 billion in local funds through recapture (Recapture | Austin ISD). By 2023–24, more than 52% of every local property tax dollar in AISD was being sent back to the state (Recapture | Austin ISD).
AISD pays far more in recapture than any other school district in Texas. In fact, AISD has consistently been the #1 contributor under Robin Hood. Table 2 compares AISD’s recapture to other top-paying districts in Texas (using FY2021–22 data as an example):
| District (FY2021–22) | Recapture Paid | Comparison to AISD |
|---|---|---|
| Austin ISD | $791,389,490 | — (baseline) |
| Houston ISD | $302,746,565 | AISD paid ~2.6× more |
| Plano ISD | $207,239,972 | AISD paid ~3.8× more |
| Dallas ISD | $140,486,418 | AISD paid ~5.6× more |
| Midland ISD | $129,073,485 | AISD paid ~6.1× more |
| Eanes ISD (Austin area) | $106,468,805 | AISD paid ~7.4× more |
Figure: In 2021–22, AISD’s $791 million recapture payment exceeded the next highest district (Houston ISD) by roughly $488 million. Put another way, AISD alone paid more than the next three largest payers combined in that year. The gap widened further in 2022–23: AISD paid $624.5 million more than the second-highest payer in the state (Recapture | Austin ISD). In fact, AISD’s one-year payment for 2022–23 (~$901M) was on par with the total recapture paid by all other top-five districts combined.
AISD continues to be the single largest contributor to the state’s recapture pool by a wide margin.
Within Central Texas, AISD’s recapture obligation also dwarfs that of neighboring districts. In 2024, for example, AISD paid about $699 million in recapture – an amount 7× larger than the next-highest payer in the Austin area Eanes ISD at ~$95 million. Table 3 shows a comparison with several area districts:
| Central TX District (2024) | Recapture Paid | AISD Multiple |
|---|---|---|
| Austin ISD | $699 million | — (baseline) |
| Eanes ISD | $95 million | AISD ≈ 7.4× Eanes |
| Lake Travis ISD | $43 million | AISD ≈ 16× Lake Travis |
| Leander ISD | $12 million | AISD ≈ 58× Leander |
| Round Rock ISD | $10 million | AISD ≈ 70× Round Rock |
Even when comparing combined recapture of multiple districts, AISD’s contribution dominates. In 2022–23, AISD paid more in recapture than the top 10 recapture-paying school districts in the Austin region (Region 13) combined (Recapture | Austin ISD). Specifically, AISD’s payment was about $323 million higher than the sum of those 10 other districts’ payments (Recapture | Austin ISD). This highlights how heavily the state’s “Robin Hood” system leans on Austin ISD relative to its peers.
Recaptured dollars are intended to support property-poor districts that cannot raise enough local revenue to meet the state’s per-student funding formula. More than 150+ districts receive redistributed funding from the state’s recapture pot. In practice, these funds are folded into the state’s general school finance system to ensure poorer districts reach their entitled funding levels. Some of the largest beneficiaries (by need) are districts with low property values and high student counts – often inner-city or rural districts. For example:
Edgewood ISD (San Antonio): Edgewood is a historically property-poor district that helped spur the creation of recapture. Without state help, Edgewood’s local taxes would yield only about $2,300 per student. With state funding (largely financed by recapture from wealthier districts), Edgewood had roughly $11,000 per student in 2022 (A 50-year-old court case still shapes Texas school funding today | Texas Standard. In other words, state and federal aid multiplied Edgewood’s available dollars per student by nearly 5×, illustrating how critical recaptured funds are for its schools. (Even at ~$11k per pupil, Edgewood only approaches the state average and still struggles to meet all student needs.
San Antonio ISD: Another Central/South TX district with relatively low property wealth, San Antonio ISD relies heavily on state funding. Its neighboring wealthy districts (e.g. Alamo Heights ISD) pay into recapture, while SAISD receives more from the state to support its ~45,000 students.
Many other mid-to-large districts in urban areas – such as Fort Worth ISD, Edgewood ISD, Aldine ISD (north Houston), and numerous rural West Texas districts – are net recapture recipients, meaning they get significantly more state funding due to recapture than they contribute. The recaptured revenue (over $4–5 billion statewide in recent years (Texas school finance explained: What is recapture?) (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT)) is redistributed to equalize school funding across Texas. However, it’s important to note that under the current system, these poorer districts do not receive extra money beyond the basic formula – the recapture funds simply ensure they reach the state’s standard funding level, and the state’s own contribution is reduced when recapture inflows increase (Austin ISD Prop A Ballot Initiative | Austin ISD).
Ratio context: AISD’s situation is essentially the mirror opposite of a district like Edgewood. AISD’s property value per student is so high that it far exceeds the formula entitlement; the surplus is sent to the state. Edgewood’s property value per student is so low that state aid (funded by recapture from districts like AISD) makes up the majority of its budget. For instance, Edgewood ISD receives roughly 4–5 times its local revenue in state/recapture funds (A 50-year-old court case still shapes Texas school funding today | Texas Standard), whereas AISD only retains about 40–50% of its local revenue after recapture (2025 Budget Process | Austin ISD) (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard). In 2022, AISD ended up with about $10,500 per student to spend after recapture, which was roughly $2,000 less per student than the state average despite Austin’s wealth (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard). This contrast underscores the unequal positions of “donor” and “recipient” districts under Robin Hood.
Given the steep recapture obligations, AISD’s Board and community have explored ways to retain more local funds for Austin schools. Both realistic policy changes and more extreme measures have been considered:
Leverage “Golden Pennies”: Texas allows districts to adopt a portion of their tax rate as enrichment pennies (so-called “golden pennies”) that are not subject to recapture. AISD pursued a voter-approved tax rate change (Prop A in 2023) to add these pennies. Revenue from golden pennies is kept 100% by the district (Austin ISD Prop A Ballot Initiative | Austin ISD), which helped increase local funds for teacher pay and operations. For example, the 2023 Prop A tax increase is generating about $41 million in new annual revenue for AISD that the state cannot recapture (5 ideas Austin ISD has proposed to reduce its $92 million deficit | KUT Radio, Austin’s NPR Station) (Austin ISD Prop A Ballot Initiative | Austin ISD). This strategy – taxing slightly more on the “recapture-free” portion of the tax rate – helps AISD keep additional dollars locally. (Note: After Prop A, AISD now utilizes the maximum number of golden pennies allowed by law.)
Alternative Revenue Streams: AISD is also exploring non-property tax revenues and partnerships to supplement its budget. Examples include: grants, donations via the Austin Ed Fund, facility rentals, and partnerships with the City of Austin or Travis County. Money obtained from non-tax sources (for instance, a city paying for school crossing guards or joint parks) isn’t subject to recapture. While these sources are relatively small in scale, they can fund specific programs or offset costs. AISD’s budget task force has looked at measures like monetizing district real estate (selling or leasing unused properties) and expanding paid services (e.g. tuition-based pre-K, facility use fees) to bring in extra funds that stay with AISD. Every dollar raised outside of the property tax rolls is a dollar not subject to Robin Hood.
AISD’s most impactful long-term strategy is advocacy at the state level for school finance reform. Key policy or structural changes that could reduce AISD’s recapture burden include:
Increase the Basic Allotment: The state-set per-student funding level (basic allotment) has remained flat since 2019. Raising it would increase AISD’s entitlement, meaning more of AISD’s local tax revenue could be counted toward its own schools instead of being “excess.” AISD officials have urged lawmakers to tie the per-student funding formula to inflation so that state aid rises with costs (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard). This would automatically lower recapture percentages (since AISD would be allowed to spend more locally before hitting the excess threshold).
Adjust Recapture Formulas: AISD supports legislation to revise the Chapter 49 formulas to account for factors like cost of living and student poverty in property-wealthy districts. For example, creating an allotment or adjustment for districts with high living costs (like Austin) or high percentages of low-income students could let AISD retain more revenue for those needs (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard). In essence, AISD is advocating that the state recognize local cost pressures and district demographics so that “property-wealthy” districts that still serve many disadvantaged students are not forced to send away a majority of their funding.
Recapture Caps or Reductions: Another idea floated in the legislature is capping the percentage or amount of local revenue any district must pay. Lawmakers have proposed limits to “stop excessive Robin Hood theft” and reduce how much the state can take (Many see recapture as a villain. But lawmakers rely on it for schools | The Texas Tribune). If implemented, a cap could significantly lower AISD’s payment (for instance, capping recapture at, say, 50% of local revenue – AISD is currently above that). So far, such proposals have not passed, but AISD continues to lobby for relief.
State Funding for Special Costs: AISD also seeks more state funding for expenses that currently come out of its budget. For example, the state could fund teacher pension contributions or certain special education costs directly. Covering these would allow AISD to spend its local dollars on other needs without raising recapture (since recapture is purely tied to local tax revenue). Essentially, increased state investment in public education (especially if targeted to recapture-paying districts’ obligations) would let Austin keep more of its tax money at home.
Litigation/Constitutional Challenge: In extreme scenarios, districts (including AISD) could consider legal action to push the state into changing the system – similar to the Edgewood lawsuits that created Robin Hood. If funding levels continue to lag and recapture burdens grow, there is talk of a new school finance lawsuit for equity and adequacy. While this is a last resort, the threat of court intervention can pressure the legislature to revise the formulas.
Some more radical structural ideas have been mentioned to reduce AISD’s Chapter 49 status:
Consolidation or Detachment: Merging AISD with a neighboring property-poor district (or detaching a portion of AISD’s tax base) could, in theory, reduce the combined wealth-per-student. For example, if AISD absorbed a smaller low-wealth district, the larger student count against the tax base might lower the overall “excess” revenue. However, this approach is very complex and politically unlikely – and it doesn’t really “save” money so much as redistribute it internally. Similarly, carving out Austin’s wealthiest areas into a separate district would leave the remaining AISD with lower property wealth (potentially reducing recapture), but that new wealthy district would then pay recapture. These solutions are generally seen as impractical and would require state approval. Essentially, any redrawing of district boundaries to game the system is rare and heavily scrutinized by the state.
Chapter 313 Agreements (Tax Abatements): In the past, some wealthy districts used Chapter 313 economic development agreements to give tax breaks to large companies in exchange for “payments in lieu of taxes” that the district could keep. The reduced taxable value meant less recapture owed, while the district still got some revenue from the company outside of the school finance formula. AISD’s tax base is mostly residential and commercial (not heavy industry), so this hasn’t been a big factor for Austin. Moreover, Chapter 313 has expired (and any successor would depend on new legislation). Still, this illustrates creative financing where a district intentionally forgoes taxable value to limit recapture, while securing alternative funding streams that bypass the state formula.
Partnering with Charter Schools: Some have noted that when students leave for charter schools, AISD’s enrollment drops, which increases its per-pupil wealth (worsening recapture). One structural idea is for AISD to partner or even absorb certain charter schools or state-approved campuses to bring students back under AISD’s umbrella, boosting enrollment and reducing the per-student wealth metric. However, charters are state-funded and do not contribute to recapture; integrating them is complicated. (Notably, a significant portion of recapture statewide now effectively goes to fund charter schools – about $4 billion of recapture roughly equals the state’s $4 billion annual spending on charters (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT).) AISD’s main focus has been on regaining enrollment generally, since higher student counts mean a higher entitlement and less recapture.
A few districts have openly considered withholding their recapture payments in protest. In 2023, Spring Branch ISD (a property-wealthy district in Houston) made headlines by voting not to send its recapture payment to the state (Spring Branch ISD trustees say, “Enough is Enough,” about recapture payment | Featured News) (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT). SBISD’s board took this stand because the state was sitting on a $33 billion budget surplus while providing no new funding for schools, effectively forcing districts to cut budgets (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT). This “Enough is Enough” stance was symbolic – a way to draw attention to the strain recapture places on districts (SBISD noted 60% of its students are economically disadvantaged, yet it was required to send away local funds) (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT).
Consequences: Refusing to pay recapture is not a viable long-term solution because state law imposes stiff penalties. If a Chapter 49 district fails to remit recapture, the Texas Education Agency can forcibly detach a portion of the district’s taxable property or even merge the district with another to ensure the state gets the equivalent funds (SBISD Board of Trustees approves Chapter 49 Contract Option 3 | Featured News). Essentially, the state will “come and take it” by reassigning Austin’s tax base to another district if AISD does not comply. There are also more immediate penalties: the state can withhold other funding and potentially invalidate the district’s accreditation. In Spring Branch ISD’s case, after making their point, the board ultimately authorized the recapture payment contract a few months later to avoid property seizure or district annexation by TEA (SBISD Board of Trustees approves Chapter 49 Contract Option 3 | Featured News).
For AISD, outright refusal to pay is not realistically on the table – the risk of losing local control and community schools is too high. However, the Spring Branch episode sends a message. It highlights the growing frustration among Chapter 49 districts and adds pressure on lawmakers to revisit the system. AISD’s trustees have not taken the “nuclear option” of non-payment, but they are vocal in the media and at the Capitol about the need for recapture reform, often pointing out that the state’s reliance on recaptured funds has effectively made Chapter 49 districts a secondary state revenue source (Urban school districts in Texas struggle to make ends meet despite record property wealth | Texas Standard) (Texas AFT :Spring Branch ISD Trustees Withhold Recapture Payment to State ‣ Texas AFT).
While not directly reducing recapture, AISD is also examining cost-saving measures to ensure the dollars it does keep are used most effectively. The district convened a Budget Stabilization Task Force to find ways to close deficits without harming classrooms (5 ideas Austin ISD has proposed to reduce its $92 million deficit | KUT Radio, Austin’s NPR Station) (5 ideas Austin ISD has proposed to reduce its $92 million deficit | KUT Radio, Austin’s NPR Station). Efficiencies (like energy savings, staff reorganization, and school consolidations where appropriate) won’t change the recapture formula, but they can free up local dollars to cover needs that otherwise might be squeezed by recapture. In essence, stretching each retained dollar further is another strategy to cope with the recapture drain. Any savings can help fund programs or salaries instead of requiring new revenue (which would just be partially recaptured).
Summary: Austin ISD’s recapture payments from 2020–2024 were enormous – on the order of hundreds of millions annually, peaking near $900 million in 2023 (Recapture | Austin ISD). AISD pays significantly more than any other district in Texas into the Robin Hood system (2–3× the next highest, and more than many top-paying districts combined) (Recapture | Austin ISD) (Recapture per district). Compared to its Central Texas neighbors, AISD’s recapture is many times larger – for example, ~7× Eanes ISD and ~70× Round Rock ISD in recent years (Recapture in Texas: Push to reform school property tax revenue redistribution policy | FOX 7 Austin). On the flip side, property-poor districts (like Edgewood ISD) receive major infusions of funding thanks to recapture – often getting several times their local revenue in state aid (A 50-year-old court case still shapes Texas school funding today | Texas Standard) – though this only brings them up to basic funding levels.
For an Austin ISD school board looking at these figures, the takeaways are stark. Over half of local tax dollars are being sent away, even as the district faces budget deficits and struggles to pay competitive salaries. AISD’s leadership is pursuing every avenue to keep more money in local schools, from maximizing recapture-free revenue (golden pennies) (Austin ISD Prop A Ballot Initiative | Austin ISD) and pushing for legislative fixes, to considering bold steps like partnering with other entities or, in extreme discourse, protesting the system outright. The goal of these strategies is to reduce the recapture burden and ensure more of Austin’s tax wealth stays with Austin’s students – either by changing the rules of the game or by smartly navigating within them.
Tables and Graphs: The tables above provide a clear numerical comparison of AISD’s recapture vs. other districts. (If a graphical presentation were possible, one could imagine a bar chart showing AISD’s towering recapture bar next to much smaller bars for other districts – visually underscoring that AISD contributes a disproportionate share. Another chart could illustrate AISD’s recapture trend line skyrocketing after 2018. A map of Texas could highlight property-rich vs. property-poor districts, emphasizing how funds flow from districts like Austin to dozens of less wealthy districts statewide.)
In the absence of actual graphs here, the data in the tables and the ratio comparisons in the text serve to illustrate the scale of AISD’s payments and the inequities perceived in the current system. Each strategy listed is aimed at either mitigating those payments or drawing attention to them, with the ultimate aim of keeping more of Austin’s money in Austin’s schools for the benefit of its students and teachers.
Sources: