According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1086 is not expected to have any fiscal implications for the State of Texas. This is because the legislation pertains solely to the authority of local governments—in this case, a narrowly defined set of counties—to impose a local hotel occupancy tax. The bill does not involve any state-level expenditure, revenue impact, or administrative obligations.

At the local level, the bill enables commissioners courts in eligible counties to adopt a hotel occupancy tax ordinance, which could result in new revenue streams for county governments. The amount of revenue generated would depend on the volume of hotel activity within the unincorporated areas of the qualifying counties. Importantly, SB 1086 exempts hotels located in municipalities that already levy a tax under Chapter 351 of the Tax Code, limiting the geographic scope of potential revenue collection.

Overall, while the bill grants new taxing authority to specific counties, it is permissive rather than prescriptive. Therefore, any local fiscal impact would be contingent on whether a county chooses to implement the tax and the level of hotel commerce in its jurisdiction. The bill offers a tool for local revenue enhancement without imposing new costs or mandates on the state budget.

SB 1086 proposes to authorize the commissioners court of a narrowly defined Texas county—Childress County—to impose a local hotel occupancy tax (HOT) on accommodations located outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Childress. While this measure may appear limited in scope, it raises substantive policy concerns that warrant a vote against the bill on principle and precedent.

First, the bill expands the authority of local governments to levy taxes on private commercial activity. Although municipalities in Texas may already impose HOT taxes, counties must receive express legislative authorization. SB 1086 does just that, providing new taxing authority without requiring direct voter approval or demonstrating fiscal necessity. This runs contrary to the principle of limited government and contributes to the incremental growth of local taxation powers.

Second, the bill risks undermining free enterprise. By applying a new tax to lodging operators outside municipal limits, it potentially increases the cost of doing business for small or rural hotel owners. These added costs may discourage investment, limit competitiveness, and ultimately reduce consumer choice. In practice, hotel occupancy taxes—often characterized as revenue from non-residents—can have negative spillover effects on the local economy by deterring tourism, discouraging extended stays, or shifting business to untaxed areas.

Third, SB 1086 sets a concerning legislative precedent by creating bracketed authority based on geographic characteristics (i.e., counties bordering Oklahoma and bisected by U.S. Highway 62). While intended to target a single jurisdiction, this method invites further carveouts in tax law that reduce uniformity, increase complexity in the Tax Code, and foster special-interest-driven policymaking. Legislative efficiency and fairness are best served through broad, statewide standards, not patchwork laws tailored to specific counties.

Moreover, the structure of the bill does not require any local referendum or public consent. Instead, it vests decision-making power in the commissioners court, placing the burden of a new tax on visitors and businesses without community buy-in. This approach limits transparency and raises concerns about local accountability.

While supporters may argue that tax revenue would be used for tourism promotion and local development, the underlying mechanism remains a targeted tax on private business transactions. Such a measure should be weighed against the long-term consequences of growing non-transparent local tax bases.

For these reasons—expansion of local tax authority, infringement on free enterprise, legislative inconsistency, and lack of voter consent—Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1086. A vote against this bill affirms a commitment to restrained governance, sound tax policy, and respect for property rights and market freedom.

• Individual Liberty: Although the tax targets hotel stays, the principle of individual liberty is impacted indirectly. Taxes on commerce—especially those levied without voter consent—limit individuals' ability to transact freely. Guests choosing to travel, stay overnight, or engage in local tourism will be subject to increased costs imposed by government action. The liberty to travel and spend one’s resources without government interference is modestly but clearly eroded by the imposition of this new tax.
• Personal Responsibility: This bill does not promote or reinforce personal responsibility; instead, it shifts fiscal burdens onto visitors to fund county priorities. It allows local officials to bypass difficult budgetary trade-offs or efficiency improvements by generating new revenue through taxation, rather than through prudent financial stewardship or voter-approved measures. By making outside consumers pay, the bill removes financial accountability from the county and its residents.
• Free Enterprise: The bill directly infringes upon free enterprise by increasing the cost of doing business for lodging operators in rural, unincorporated areas. Taxes on short-term accommodations discourage market activity, reduce competitiveness, and make it harder for small or independent hotel owners to attract visitors compared to areas without such a tax. Any tax that creates artificial pricing distortions interferes with the voluntary transactions that underpin free markets.
• Private Property Rights: Imposing a tax on how property (such as hotels, motels, or cabins) is used for lawful business activity dilutes the full autonomy of property owners. Owners lose a measure of control over their pricing and operations due to the forced government surcharge. Moreover, the unequal application—taxing only hotels outside municipal boundaries—could foster uneven competition and reduce the value of certain properties solely because of their location.
• Limited Government: This is the most clearly violated principle. The bill expands government taxing authority without a public vote and without structural safeguards. The bill brackets this new power narrowly to one county, adding to a growing list of piecemeal exceptions in Texas law that allow local tax expansion by legislation rather than by statewide policy or public accountability. It reflects a philosophy of expanding local government finance tools without requiring improved transparency, budget discipline, or direct voter engagement.

• HB 2404 (Same As)