According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1851 is projected to have a negative impact of $9.36 million on General Revenue over the 2026–27 biennium, with a continued annual loss of $4.68 million thereafter. This cost arises from the diversion of surplus vehicle sales from state auctions to donations to school districts in economically disadvantaged areas, as authorized by the bill.

Under current law, the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) sells surplus DPS vehicles through the State Surplus Program. TFC retains a 12% commission on the sale price, while the remaining proceeds are split: 25% goes to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for vehicle replacement, and 75% returns to General Revenue. If vehicles are transferred instead of sold, as would be the case under this bill, only a flat handling or transfer fee of $1,000 is collected, with no revenue returned to DPS or the state treasury.

The fiscal projection assumes that all 597 surplus DPS vehicles currently sold each year (at an average of $13,500 each) would instead be transferred to school districts. This change would result in a yearly General Revenue loss of $4.68 million and a combined loss in Appropriated Receipts of $2.11 million per year, split between TFC and DPS. The TFC loses approximately $620 per vehicle in commissions, and DPS loses about $2,970 per vehicle in replacement funds.

Despite the projected loss in state revenue, local school districts benefit financially by acquiring vehicles at significantly reduced cost, which could be particularly valuable in under-resourced communities. Neither the Texas Education Agency nor DPS expects a significant fiscal impact from implementation, aside from the foregone revenue from vehicle sales.

HB 1851 proposes to expand existing surplus property transfer authority by allowing the Texas Facilities Commission to provide retired DPS vehicles and law enforcement equipment to public school districts in economically disadvantaged areas. While well-intentioned and framed around improving school safety and aiding under-resourced communities, the bill ultimately functions as a redistributive policy that conflicts with principles of limited government, equal treatment under the law, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer-owned assets.

Under current law, surplus vehicles are sold through the state’s auction system, generating revenue that supports the General Revenue Fund and DPS vehicle replacement. HB 1851 diverts these assets away from the public marketplace and instead transfers them, at low or no cost, to select recipients, bypassing the competitive process. According to the Legislative Budget Board, this would result in a recurring revenue loss of $4.68 million per year in General Revenue and $2.11 million in Appropriated Receipts. While the state avoids direct new spending, this represents a substantial opportunity cost and weakens long-term budget flexibility.

Philosophically, the bill departs from a neutral role for government by adopting a Robin Hood-style model, where the state reallocates physical assets not based on operational need or merit, but on the economic status of the recipient. This selective generosity, however well-meaning, undermines market fairness and could create precedent for further property-based redistribution to other favored entities.

Moreover, the bill lacks appropriate guardrails: it does not define the scope of eligible “law enforcement equipment,” impose a cap on transfers, or require transparent reporting. Without such limits, there is potential for mission creep, equipment misuse, or unmonitored growth in property giveaways—all outside legislative appropriation or oversight.

Though improving school safety is an important policy goal, it should be pursued through transparent appropriations or local decision-making, not through off-budget redistribution of state-owned assets. For these reasons, and in defense of taxpayer equity and fiscal discipline, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1851.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly infringe upon individual freedoms or civil liberties, but by expanding government discretion in redistributing property to select groups, it reinforces a system where the state decides who benefits, rather than allowing free individuals and markets to determine resource allocation. Over time, this kind of policy can subtly erode the expectation of equal treatment under law and fair access to state assets.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill may incentivize dependency on state resources by providing school districts with free or discounted equipment instead of encouraging local decision-making and budgeting for law enforcement needs. While these districts are under-resourced, the bill sidesteps the principle that communities should take ownership of their own public safety investments, rather than relying on state redistribution.
• Free Enterprise: The bill disrupts the surplus vehicle resale market by removing the supply that would otherwise be sold to private buyers at auction. This denies individuals and businesses the opportunity to compete for those assets, favoring non-market allocation over open competition. It also represents lost commercial activity and pricing signals that would typically come from a free and open market.
• Private Property Rights: This principle isn’t directly impacted, since the property in question is owned by the state. However, by shifting away from monetization through auction and instead granting assets to certain recipients, it could be seen as diminishing the return of public assets to the private sector, which many would view as a preferable outcome from a property rights perspective.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the discretionary power of the state, specifically the Texas Facilities Commission, to decide which public entities receive valuable resources based on subjective standards like “economic disadvantage.” While the bill doesn’t grow the size of government on paper, it increases its role as a redistributor and manager of winners and losers, which moves away from a strictly limited government philosophy. It also creates a new category of recipients for public goods without clear limits, caps, or sunset provisions.