According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 111 would result in a net negative fiscal impact of approximately $1,015,090 to General Revenue over the 2026–2027 biennium. The primary driver of this cost is the implementation of reporting and publication requirements by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which must aggregate and post legal fee information submitted monthly by school districts involved in special education legal disputes.

Specifically, TEA anticipates information technology (IT) expenses of $323,102 in fiscal year 2026 and $691,988 in fiscal year 2027 to establish the infrastructure and systems necessary to receive, process, and display the data collected under the bill’s provisions. Ongoing costs for maintaining the system and compliance activities are projected at $119,632 annually starting in fiscal year 2028.

On the local level, school districts would incur additional administrative costs. Each district would be required to compile monthly legal spending reports for any special education due process complaint where legal fees exceed $10,000, and then submit the report to TEA and post it on the district’s website. These costs will vary by district depending on the frequency and complexity of applicable legal proceedings, but the fiscal note does not quantify their aggregate financial impact. Nonetheless, the requirement to redact personally identifiable student information and ensure compliance with FERPA introduces additional labor and compliance burdens on local education agencies.

Overall, while SB 111 does not appropriate new funds, it creates the statutory foundation for TEA and school districts to absorb new recurring administrative and IT expenditures to implement the mandated transparency measures.

SB 111 seeks to increase fiscal transparency and accountability by requiring public school districts to report monthly on legal fees spent in special education due process proceedings that exceed $10,000. Districts must publish this information on their websites and submit it to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which is then required to compile and publish statewide and district-level summaries. This approach provides taxpayers, policymakers, and stakeholders greater visibility into how public funds are being used in what are often protracted and costly legal disputes over special education services.

The bill strongly supports the liberty principles of government transparency and personal responsibility. It empowers parents, advocates, and taxpayers with access to real-time financial data that has historically only been accessible through delayed and burdensome public information requests. It also fosters greater accountability by potentially deterring excessive legal expenditures, encouraging school districts to seek earlier and more collaborative resolutions when possible.

However, the bill does introduce new administrative responsibilities and recurring costs at both the state and local levels. TEA is projected to incur more than $1 million in General Revenue costs through the next biennium to build and maintain systems for processing and publishing this data. School districts—especially small or rural ones—may experience new burdens as they work to comply with monthly reporting mandates and ensure compliance with federal privacy laws like FERPA. These burdens are real, but they are largely procedural rather than ideological, and they do not violate the core principles of limited or efficient government. Importantly, the bill does not create new regulations for individuals or private entities.

To better align with the principle of limited government, the bill would benefit from clarifying or strengthening amendments. Suggested improvements could include raising the $10,000 reporting threshold to a more meaningful level to reduce bureaucratic overhead, shifting from monthly to quarterly reporting to ease administrative strain, or consolidating TEA’s publication requirements to avoid duplicative data handling. These changes would reduce the implementation burden while preserving the bill’s intent and impact.

In conclusion, SB 111 meaningfully advances the cause of public accountability and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The structure and purpose of the bill are fundamentally sound and consistent with liberty-oriented governance. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 111 but also consider amending the bill as described above to improve its efficiency and reduce compliance costs.

• Individual Liberty: The bill respects and safeguards individual liberty by explicitly requiring compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which protects students' personally identifiable information. By mandating anonymized public reporting, the bill ensures transparency without infringing on the privacy rights of students or families. This careful balance allows the public to scrutinize government activity without compromising individual rights.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility in the public sector by requiring school districts to publicly disclose how they spend taxpayer funds on legal disputes related to special education. This fosters greater accountability from school administrators and legal counsel who might otherwise litigate aggressively or inefficiently without oversight. Increased transparency may also encourage more thoughtful, cost-effective resolution of disputes, aligning with a culture of prudent decision-making.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly affect private businesses or the operation of the free market. However, legal service providers that contract with school districts could experience indirect effects if districts become more conservative in initiating or continuing litigation. Still, the legislation imposes no new restrictions or regulations on the private sector.
• Private Property Rights: There is no direct effect on private property rights. The bill does not alter ownership, use, or compensation related to property and does not involve eminent domain or regulatory takings.
• Limited Government: The bill promotes a key goal of limited government—transparency in the use of public funds—by shining light on previously obscure legal expenditures. However, it also expands the administrative duties of both the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and local school districts. TEA is required to build, maintain, and regularly update a new statewide reporting system, while districts must track and submit legal fee data monthly. This administrative expansion is projected to cost over $1 million during the initial biennium and introduces a recurring regulatory function. While these administrative burdens are modest in scale and targeted in scope, they should be carefully weighed against the benefits. Amendments that raise the reporting threshold or reduce reporting frequency could reduce this impact while still achieving the bill’s transparency goals.

• HB 3170 (Same As)