According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1371 will have no significant fiscal implications on the state. The LBB specifies that any associated costs could be absorbed using existing resources, indicating that the operational changes proposed by the bill—such as exemptions for natural gas fuel taxation under limited circumstances and adjustments to transit authority governance—are not expected to require additional state funding or infrastructure.

Similarly, the bill is not projected to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. While the bill includes provisions that affect certain metropolitan transit authorities, including fuel tax exemptions and fare-setting oversight by metropolitan planning organizations, these are anticipated to have minimal financial effects on the authorities themselves or on municipal budgets. The narrow applicability of the tax exemption—limited to transit systems in cities under 320,000 population and only in emergency circumstances—further constrains any potential revenue impact on the state or local governments.

Overall, SB 1371 is structured to create regulatory adjustments without introducing new financial burdens or requiring new appropriations at either the state or local level.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1371 unless amended as described below, as the bill introduces a narrowly tailored set of exemptions and administrative changes that appear designed to apply to a single entity: the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority (CCRTA). While the bill addresses real needs—such as enabling CCRTA to supply emergency fuel, streamlining fare-setting processes, and clarifying term limits for board members—its selective scope violates the principles of equal treatment, free enterprise, and limited government.

The bill applies only to transit authorities operating under Chapter 451 of the Transportation Code in cities with populations under 320,000 and removes legacy provisions that previously excluded CCRTA based on its formation date (August 10, 1985). Combined with population and governance criteria, this structure makes it clear that CCRTA is the only authority currently qualifying under the bill—an approach often referred to as a "bracketed bill." Although technically general in language, the legislation creates a de facto special exemption for one authority, which can invite inequity and set a precedent for future carve-outs.

While the fiscal impact is minimal and the emergency response rationale is compelling, the bill’s method of implementation undermines broad-based policy consistency. Instead of narrowly tailored relief, the Legislature should consider amendments that extend such reforms to all similarly situated authorities or rethink the statutory framework more broadly.

• Individual Liberty: The bill indirectly supports individual liberty by enabling public transit to respond more effectively during emergencies. Expanding emergency fuel access and allowing more streamlined fare-setting could improve the availability and reliability of public transportation during crises, which benefits residents—particularly those without private transportation options. However, these benefits are administrative in nature and do not significantly enhance or diminish personal freedoms.
• Personal Responsibility: There is little direct impact on personal responsibility. The bill deals with institutional governance and interagency logistics rather than individual behavior. It neither imposes mandates on individuals nor creates incentives for self-reliance. That said, by improving emergency coordination it could reduce individual burdens in crisis situations, albeit indirectly.
• Free Enterprise: This is where the bill most clearly runs afoul of liberty principles. By creating a narrowly tailored exemption to state fuel taxes that applies only to a single transit authority (CCRTA), it interferes with competitive neutrality. Businesses or agencies outside the scope of this exemption must continue paying taxes on the same fuel, even if they serve similar public functions or emergency roles. This selective favoritism distorts the market and undermines fair competition.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly involve land use, eminent domain, or property seizures. Therefore, it does not affect private property rights in any meaningful way.
• Limited Government: By crafting a law that benefits a single public entity through narrowly bracketed criteria, the bill violates the spirit of limited government. Instead of applying uniform rules, it expands governmental discretion and fosters special treatment. This kind of legislative carve-out opens the door to more government micromanagement and erodes the principle that laws should apply generally, not selectively. Additionally, giving veto power over fare changes to unelected MPO policy boards further distances decision-making from direct accountability.

• HB 5192 (Same As)