According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2559 is anticipated to have no fiscal implications for the State. The legislation focuses on modifying procedural requirements for municipalities when imposing moratoriums on property development, without creating new programs, agencies, or requiring additional state expenditures.

At the local level, the bill is expected to have no significant fiscal impact on municipalities. While the legislation imposes additional requirements for public notices, hearings, and procedural steps before enacting a moratorium, these actions are considered to be routine administrative tasks for local governments and are not expected to impose meaningful additional costs. Municipalities already conduct public hearings and issue public notices for various regulatory actions, and HB 2559 simply modifies the timing and structure of those requirements.

Overall, the fiscal analysis concludes that HB 2559 provides regulatory clarification without introducing unfunded mandates or creating financial burdens for state or local government entities.

HB 2559 strengthens transparency, accountability, and fairness in how Texas municipalities impose moratoriums on property development. The bill addresses inequities in current law, where procedural requirements differ between residential and commercial development, sometimes allowing municipalities to impose moratoriums with minimal notice and limited due process. HB 2559 corrects this by requiring earlier notice (30 days instead of 4), mandating two public hearings spaced 30 days apart, and setting a higher bar for adoption with a three-fourths supermajority vote. These changes ensure developers and property owners are treated with greater fairness and respect for their rights.

Crucially, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It places new limits and stricter conditions on municipal powers rather than expanding them. There is no increase in the burden on taxpayers, as the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note confirms there are no fiscal implications to the state and no significant fiscal impact to local governments. Additionally, the bill does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses; instead, it reduces uncertainty and strengthens property rights by preventing municipalities from enacting surprise or indefinite development freezes without substantial public oversight.

HB 2559 strongly aligns with core liberty principles: it protects individual liberty, private property rights, and free enterprise while promoting limited government. From a regulatory and fiscal standpoint, it represents a responsible and needed reform that rebalances local authority with individual rights.

In conclusion, HB 2559 embodies thoughtful, liberty-centered governance reform without expanding government, raising taxes, or burdening businesses, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by protecting the rights of property owners and developers to use and improve their land without sudden, arbitrary interference from government. By requiring more notice, more public hearings, and stronger approval standards, it ensures that individuals have a meaningful chance to defend their interests before government action restricts them.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by holding city governments accountable for their actions. Municipal leaders must now carefully justify any decision to halt development and cannot casually impose moratoriums without public engagement and solid evidence.
• Free Enterprise: The bill protects free enterprise by reducing the risk that businesses, especially in construction, real estate, and development, will face unexpected and costly delays due to government action. It ensures that the marketplace for land and building projects remains predictable, fair, and open.
• Private Property Rights: This is the bill’s strongest area of impact. The bill directly enhances private property rights by limiting the government’s ability to temporarily strip away a property owner’s right to use, build on, or develop their land. It requires municipalities to follow a transparent, rigorous process before infringing on these rights, respecting the principle that property ownership includes the right to reasonable use.
• Limited Government: Finally, the bill clearly promotes limited government. Rather than giving cities more power, it restricts their authority by setting tighter rules for when and how they can impose moratoriums. It ensures that government interference in private development happens only when absolutely necessary — and only after clear justification and public scrutiny.

• SB 1882 (Similar To)