According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1022 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the state. The legislation enables Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College to offer lower-division undergraduate courses but does not mandate the immediate creation of new infrastructure, programs, or personnel requiring additional appropriations. As such, it is anticipated that the Texas State University System can implement the change within its existing resources or through future strategic adjustments in resource allocation.

Similarly, the bill carries no fiscal implications for local governments. Since the operation and oversight of Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College are under the purview of the state-level Texas State University System and not local entities, there are no anticipated new costs or funding shifts at the local government level.

The assessment by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Texas State University System suggests that the expansion in course offerings is a governance-level authorization rather than a directive requiring immediate implementation of costly programs. Future costs, if any, would likely be incurred at the discretion of the university system and phased in based on student demand and strategic planning.

HB 1022 proposes to expand the mission of Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College by authorizing it to offer freshman and sophomore-level coursework, transitioning the institution from an upper-level college into a full four-year university. This policy is aimed at addressing limited access to higher education in the Middle Rio Grande region, where many students currently leave their communities to complete degrees—often without returning. The bill intends to support regional development, student opportunity, and long-term talent retention.

However, despite its worthy objective, the bill raises concerns related to the principle of limited government and responsible fiscal stewardship. While the Legislative Budget Board notes no immediate fiscal impact, the shift in academic structure will likely necessitate future funding for faculty, facilities, student services, and program development. These additional costs are not addressed in the bill and would add to an already sizable investment the state makes in higher education. Without safeguards, performance measures, or requirements for efficiency, the bill represents a policy commitment that carries future financial implications not yet defined or constrained.

The legislation does support some liberty principles, including individual liberty and personal responsibility, by expanding access to education and the opportunity to succeed locally. Yet, from a fiscal conservative perspective, the lack of specificity regarding future costs and the state’s already extensive financial role in higher education argue for caution. The absence of built-in accountability makes it difficult to endorse the bill unequivocally.

In light of these considerations, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on HB 1022. The bill offers potential value but carries a latent cost burden that is not addressed in the legislation. A more defined implementation framework or fiscal guardrails would strengthen the case for support.

• Individual Liberty: By allowing Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College to offer a full four-year degree program, the bill enhances individual liberty by expanding access to educational choice. It gives students in underserved, often rural areas the freedom to pursue a complete bachelor's degree close to home. This reduces reliance on costly relocation or commuting and increases autonomy in educational decision-making.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill aligns with the principle that individuals should have the tools to better themselves through education and effort. By making higher education more accessible, especially in regions with limited options, the bill enables residents to take more control over their economic and professional futures. It encourages upward mobility through local opportunity, a key tenet of a responsibility-driven society.
• Free Enterprise: A better-educated local workforce can support small businesses, attract investment, and drive innovation in regions that often struggle with economic stagnation. In theory, the bill lays a foundation for enhanced participation in the market economy. However, these benefits are indirect and dependent on how effectively the expanded offerings are implemented and aligned with workforce needs.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not address or impact private property in any direct way. It neither restricts nor enhances property rights, as it strictly pertains to the administrative structure of a public higher education institution.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly challenges a core liberty principle. Although it does not immediately expand government spending, it sets the stage for future public investment without clear limits, efficiency mandates, or performance metrics. In a policy area—higher education—that already receives substantial state funding, this bill may contribute to long-term growth in government obligations. It assumes expansion without reform and adds to the state’s fiscal exposure, which raises concern from a limited government standpoint.

• SB 1085 (Same As)