According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2807 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis assumes that any costs associated with establishing and operating the Statewide Intellectual and Developmental Disability Coordinating Council could be absorbed within existing appropriations and resources available to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and other participating state agencies​.

The fiscal note suggests that while the bill may entail administrative duties such as organizing council meetings, preparing strategic plans, and coordinating across multiple agencies, these responsibilities can be managed without additional appropriations. This implies that the agencies already have infrastructure or staffing sufficient to support the new council's functions.

Additionally, there is no projected fiscal impact on local governments. The bill does not impose new mandates or financial obligations on municipalities or counties, nor does it create or shift service delivery costs at the local level. This positions HB 2807 as a low-cost reform focused primarily on improving governance and coordination across existing state-level programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

HB 2807, as substituted in committee, establishes a Statewide Intellectual and Developmental Disability (IDD) Coordinating Council to develop strategic plans and improve collaboration among state agencies that serve individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The bill’s stated goals—enhancing service quality, reducing fragmentation, and improving navigation across agencies—are worthy aims. However, the approach it takes raises substantive concerns under several core liberty principles, particularly those of limited government and free enterprise.

While the bill does not impose direct regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses, nor does it currently project a significant cost to the state, it nonetheless creates a new, standing governmental council with a broad and growing mandate. The council is tasked not only with producing a recurring five-year strategic plan, but also with reviewing funding sources, assessing workforce development, identifying system gaps, and potentially influencing long-term state policy across multiple domains, including healthcare, education, housing, and criminal justice. This structural expansion—without clear limits on authority or scope—represents a material increase in the size and scope of state government.

Crucially, the bill does not require the council to explore or prioritize non-governmental coordination alternatives, such as private nonprofits, local community-based initiatives, or faith-based organizations. It assumes that coordination must be led by the state itself, housed within HHSC, rather than evaluated for potential outsourcing or market-based partnerships. This omission undermines the principle of free enterprise and foregoes opportunities for innovation, efficiency, and responsiveness found in private-sector solutions.

Furthermore, the bill lacks performance metrics, fiscal safeguards, or public accountability provisions. There is no requirement for the council to publicly report the measurable impacts of its strategic plans, nor is there a mechanism to ensure its recommendations are grounded in cost-benefit analysis or aligned with private-sector capacity. While the council is subject to the Sunset Act, this alone is insufficient to guarantee it will not drift into mission creep or develop into a de facto centralized planning authority in the disability services space.

For these reasons, the vote recommendation is NO; AMEND. The underlying bill does not sufficiently align with limited government or free enterprise principles. However, if the legislature adopts specific amendments—such as: Requiring the council to prioritize private-sector and nonprofit collaboration, Mandating cost-benefit analysis for all major recommendations, Requiring transparency and performance metrics tied to strategic outcomes, and Applying stricter limits on scope and duration through a pilot phase or sunset clause, then the bill could be reassessed for support on final passage. Until such amendments are made, HB 2807 represents an unnecessary expansion of government coordination authority and should not be supported in its current form. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO; Amend on HB 2807.

• Individual Liberty: The bill is intended to improve how state agencies coordinate services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), which could reduce bureaucratic obstacles and help individuals more easily access needed supports. In that sense, it may indirectly enhance personal autonomy and dignity by making systems easier to navigate. However, because the council is state-led and lacks mechanisms to give individuals with IDD or their families meaningful decision-making power, its support for individual liberty is limited. The council serves a planning and advisory role—not one that directly empowers affected individuals or expands their choices.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither encourages nor discourages personal responsibility. It does not create new entitlements or expand individual rights in a way that would undercut personal accountability, but it also does not contain provisions to promote self-determination or community-based solutions that empower individuals or families to take ownership of care pathways. The council's top-down, agency-centered structure maintains the current paradigm without shifting more initiative to individuals or local actors.
• Free Enterprise: HB 2807 assumes that coordination of IDD services must occur within a state-led framework, managed through a permanent government council. It makes no requirement—or even suggestion—that the council consider whether private, nonprofit, or faith-based entities might better facilitate coordination or service delivery. There is no mandate to explore public-private partnerships, competitive outsourcing, or market-based models. This omission sidelines innovation and entrepreneurship in favor of a centralized, bureaucratic solution, which weakens the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve land use, eminent domain, or regulatory actions that would affect ownership or use of private property. As such, it has no clear or measurable impact on this liberty principle.
• Limited Government: While the fiscal note asserts no significant cost and the council is subject to sunset review, the bill nonetheless creates a new state body with broad authority, open-ended duties, and permanent strategic planning responsibilities. This represents a clear expansion of the size and scope of state government, particularly within the Health and Human Services Commission. The bill does not include language to restrict mission creep, control costs over time, or sunset the council unless specifically reauthorized. Without clear checks and limitations, the council could become a permanent fixture of centralized planning in IDD services—a clear departure from the principle of limited government.