According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3 is expected to have a negative fiscal impact of approximately $5.75 million on General Revenue-related funds for the 2026–2027 biennium. The bill does not directly appropriate funds but establishes the legal framework for future appropriations related to the creation of the Texas Interoperability Council, a new grant program for interoperable emergency communication infrastructure, and new operational responsibilities for the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM).

The bill’s primary fiscal driver is the establishment and operation of the council and its strategic planning functions. To support implementation, TDEM would require 11.3 new full-time employees statewide, including a leadership position in Austin and systems support specialists in each region. These positions are projected to cost approximately $1.5 million annually in salaries and benefits, with an additional $800,000 per year in operating costs. A one-time capital outlay of $1.1 million in fiscal year 2026 is also estimated for infrastructure and equipment. These amounts do not include potential costs associated with actual grants awarded under the council’s grant program, which will depend on available funds and are currently unspecified.

The Office of the Governor is assigned responsibility for reviewing local radio communication system purchases until 2027, after which this role will transfer to the new council. These activities are expected to be absorbed within the Governor’s existing resources. No significant fiscal impact is anticipated for local governments.

In the long term, the projected annual cost of the program continues at a similar level through fiscal year 2030, reflecting an ongoing commitment to staffing and operational support necessary to fulfill the interoperability goals established under the bill.

HB 3 seeks to address a recognized and serious problem in Texas’s emergency response infrastructure: the lack of interoperable communication systems among first responders. This issue was acutely demonstrated during the Smokehouse Creek Fire and Hill Country floods, where incompatible communication equipment impeded coordination and delayed emergency response efforts. The bill proposes to resolve this by creating the Texas Interoperability Council under the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), tasked with developing and executing a statewide strategic plan for emergency communications, managing a grant program, and ultimately overseeing and approving certain local equipment purchases.

While the bill’s policy objective, improving interoperability and communications during disasters, is well-intentioned and responds to real-world failures, its structural and governance framework substantially conflicts with several core principles of limited government, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. The proposed council would be a new permanent bureaucratic entity, empowered with broad rulemaking authority, discretion over a state-administered grant program, and decision-making power over local public safety radio purchases. This represents a meaningful and ongoing expansion of state government.

Of significant concern is the bill’s exemption of the council from the Texas Administrative Procedure Act and certain open meetings requirements. These exemptions limit public oversight over decisions related to grant allocation, infrastructure development, and emergency response policy. The bill allows the council to deliberate and make decisions affecting local jurisdictions and statewide infrastructure behind closed doors. While protecting sensitive security information is a valid concern, the current language lacks sufficient guardrails to ensure transparency is preserved when national security interests are not directly implicated.

The fiscal implications of HB 3 are also notable. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill will result in a projected $5.75 million net negative impact on General Revenue over the next biennium, excluding the unknown cost of future grants. This includes new permanent staffing at TDEM (11.3 FTEs) and one-time capital expenditures. While improving emergency preparedness has budgetary merit, HB 3 commits state funds to a program that lacks clear limits, performance metrics, or sunset provisions, raising the risk of bureaucratic entrenchment and mission creep.

The bill also imposes state-level oversight on local public safety communication purchases. From 2026 to 2027, the Governor must approve local radio system procurements. Beginning in 2027, this authority shifts permanently to the council. This centralized review process not only delays local decision-making but may also discourage innovation and vendor competition by prioritizing narrow, top-down technical standards. These restrictions may burden local governments with compliance obligations that reduce autonomy and limit responsiveness to local needs.

In its current form, HB 3 creates a permanent and powerful state structure with broad discretion over funding, procurement, and policy, without adequate transparency or fiscal guardrails. The bill should be amended to sunset the council’s authority, limit its regulatory reach, require transparency and open decision-making to the fullest extent possible, and prioritize voluntary coordination mechanisms. Without these reforms, the bill’s potential to centralize authority and expand bureaucracy outweighs the benefits of its intended emergency communication improvements.

Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3 unless amended as described above. The bill conflicts with key liberty principles unless it undergoes meaningful revision to limit state overreach, enhance transparency, and preserve local responsibility and discretion.

• Individual Liberty: The bill's goal of improving emergency communication systems could, in practice, protect individual life and liberty during disasters by enabling faster and more effective responses from first responders. Timely communication can reduce loss of life, improve evacuation coordination, and facilitate mutual aid between jurisdictions. However, the bill creates broad exemptions from the Texas Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act, allowing the council to deliberate grant decisions and emergency planning in closed sessions. These exemptions reduce transparency and public oversight, which are foundational to safeguarding individual liberty. While some confidentiality may be warranted for security purposes, the bill lacks clear limitations or requirements for public disclosure after the fact.
• Personal Responsibility: By establishing a state-run grant program to subsidize local governments’ acquisition of communication equipment and infrastructure, the bill shifts financial responsibility away from local jurisdictions. This undermines the principle that communities should manage their own emergency preparedness according to local needs and resources. Instead, it creates a dependency on state-managed funds, which can disincentivize local planning and self-reliance.
• Free Enterprise: The grant program and strategic plan will likely lead to the adoption of uniform technical standards, which can create predictability and scale in the market for emergency communications equipment. This could benefit some vendors, especially those already aligned with state specifications. However, the bill also empowers the council to approve or deny local equipment purchases based on whether they meet statewide interoperability goals. This gatekeeping role may restrict competition by favoring certain technologies or vendors, effectively excluding innovative or lower-cost alternatives that don’t align with council-defined standards. It introduces a level of regulatory control that distorts natural market forces and reduces local flexibility in procurement.
• Private Property Rights: The bill allows grant funds to be used for the acquisition of land necessary to build communication infrastructure. While it does not create new eminent domain authority, the potential for grant-supported land acquisition related to public infrastructure projects may still raise concerns for affected property owners. These impacts depend on how implementation unfolds, but the risk is worth noting.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill raises the most significant concern. The bill creates a new permanent council with rulemaking authority, adds over 11 full-time state employees to TDEM, establishes a grant-making mechanism funded by “any available funds,” effectively a standing subsidy pipeline, transfers regulatory authority from the Governor to the council by 2027 for reviewing local purchases, and operates outside normal administrative rulemaking procedures. Collectively, these provisions constitute a structural expansion of state government, with long-term budgetary and administrative implications. Rather than integrating emergency communications coordination into existing agencies under legislative oversight, the bill builds a new layer of unelected bureaucracy with minimal public accountability.