HB 2853, as introduced, is expected to have no fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill authorizes the University of Texas System Board of Regents to increase the student union fee at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), with graduated caps reaching up to $150 per long semester and $75 per short term. According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), while the fee will generate significant additional revenue for UTEP, this revenue is categorized as “Institutional Funds.” As such, it does not fall under general revenue and therefore does not affect the state budget directly​.

The University of Texas System estimates that this fee increase will generate approximately $0.9 million in fiscal year 2026, rising to $4.1 million in fiscal year 2027, and leveling off at around $5.5 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2028. These revenues are intended exclusively for the financing, construction, operation, maintenance, and potential demolition of the existing student union building at UTEP. Since these funds are collected from student fees and not from state appropriations, the policy shifts the burden to the student body rather than taxpayers​.

Furthermore, there is no significant fiscal implication expected for local governments. The legislation is narrowly focused on a specific public institution and does not involve any local subsidies, grants, or infrastructure obligations that would affect city or county budgets. Overall, HB 2853 is fiscally self-contained at the institutional level, with no material effect on broader governmental budgets.

Students already face significant costs for tuition, housing, and living expenses, HB 2853 increases the financial burden on students at The University of Texas at El Paso by substantially raising mandatory student union fees . Adding an additional fee of up to $150 per semester—five times the current cap—moves higher education even further out of reach for many Texans. Even though the bill phases in the increase, the financial impact is real and immediate for students, many of whom are already struggling to afford a college education.

This legislation also grows the size and authority of a public university by expanding its power to mandate fees without requiring ongoing consent from future student bodies. Students who did not vote in the 2024 referendum will still be bound to pay these fees, creating a durable financial obligation that outlasts the original approving voters.

Passing HB 2853 sets a concerning precedent for other public institutions to seek large fee increases, contributing to the overall trend of escalating costs in higher education. Rather than pursuing more responsible alternatives like alumni fundraising, private donations, or internal budget reprioritization, the university would be shifting costs directly onto students — the least financially empowered group involved.

Finally, the bill undermines broader efforts to make college more affordable and accessible in Texas. At a time when there is bipartisan recognition of the need to reduce barriers to higher education, HB 2853 moves in the wrong direction by normalizing higher fees and greater student debt.

For these reasons — protecting affordability, respecting financial responsibility, and limiting unnecessary government expansion — Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2853.

• HB 2853 diminishes individual liberty by mandating a significant fee increase on all students enrolled at UTEP, without giving them the ability to opt out. Even though a student referendum approved the fee initially, future students who had no say in the original vote will still be required to pay. This forces individuals to financially support a project they may neither want nor use, limiting personal financial freedom and choice.
• While investing in campus facilities could be framed as a responsible use of funds for future students, HB 2853 shifts the burden of responsibility for funding infrastructure improvements from the institution onto individual students. Instead of managing costs through budgeting, private fundraising, or alumni donations, the bill compels students—regardless of individual means—to underwrite major capital projects. This weakens the principle that institutions should manage their own finances prudently without defaulting to mandatory charges.
• By funding the student union exclusively through compulsory fees, the bill crowds out private sector alternatives (such as privately run study spaces, lounges, or event centers). Students are forced to fund a university-provided service rather than choose how to spend their resources in a competitive, open marketplace. This undermines consumer choice and bypasses free-market mechanisms that might yield more efficient or innovative alternatives.
• The bill does not involve a direct government taking or infringement of private property rights in the traditional sense. However, it does compel the use of students’ private funds for a public project, which is a soft infringement on their control over their own financial resources.
• HB 2853 expands the financial reach and regulatory authority of a public institution, allowing it to impose significantly higher mandatory fees. This represents a growth in the scope of quasi-governmental power without corresponding new checks or limits. Even though the Legislature isn't expanding state bureaucracy, it is expanding a public university’s ability to extract more money from citizens by statute, which conflicts with the principle of keeping government (and government-backed institutions) limited.

• SB 1016 (Same As)