According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1681 would have no significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. According to the fiscal note issued on April 15, 2025, any costs associated with the bill’s implementation by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) are expected to be absorbed within existing agency resources. Thus, the state would not require additional appropriations or staffing to handle the new reporting requirements established by the bill.

For local governments, the fiscal impact is also expected to be minimal. The bill mandates that counties and municipalities regulating boarding home facilities must submit annual reports detailing certain standards, policies, and data. However, the LBB projects no significant fiscal implication for units of local government, suggesting that the reporting duties would not substantially burden local budgets​.

While administrative tasks will increase at both the state and local levels, the expectation is that these can be integrated into current operations without the need for new funding. Nevertheless, smaller municipalities or counties with limited administrative staff might experience minor administrative strain that is not captured in the LBB’s high-level assessment.

SB 1681 proposes to require counties and municipalities that regulate boarding home facilities to submit detailed annual reports to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). These reports must include local standards for boarding homes, how accommodation requests are handled, complaints and enforcement actions, reasons for facility closures, and any local support activities. The bill also grants HHSC rulemaking authority to oversee this new reporting structure​.

While protecting vulnerable boarding home residents is a worthy goal, this bill grows the size and scope of government unnecessarily. It expands state bureaucracy by creating a new permanent administrative function for HHSC and mandates an annual reporting process that would impose new duties on local governments. It represents a clear encroachment on local control, with the state telling cities and counties how to manage and report on their own local operations. Even though the Legislative Budget Board projects no significant fiscal impact at the state level​, the administrative burden on local governments, particularly smaller or rural jurisdictions, could be meaningful and costly over time, effectively imposing an unfunded mandate on local taxpayers.

Moreover, the bill increases the regulatory burden indirectly on small boarding home operators. Although it does not impose direct new regulations on businesses, it pressures local governments to gather extensive compliance-related data, which will almost inevitably lead to stricter local ordinances, heightened inspections, and additional enforcement measures. This could raise operating costs for small boarding home providers and reduce affordable housing options for vulnerable populations — the very people the bill claims to protect.

There is also a broader principle of limited government at stake. SB 1681 sets a precedent that the state can require detailed annual reporting on private-sector-adjacent activities any time it feels more information is needed, even without evidence that existing local oversight is failing. Over time, this could lead to additional mandates across other industries, increasing bureaucracy without delivering real results for public safety or welfare. Simply collecting paperwork will not solve the deeply rooted issues of abuse or neglect in poorly operated boarding homes.

In short, SB 1681 expands government, imposes new costs on local communities, risks overregulating small businesses, and offers no clear guarantee of improving the conditions it seeks to address. Lawmakers committed to protecting taxpayers, local control, small business freedom, and limited government should oppose this bill.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1681.

• Individual Liberty: The bill is intended to protect vulnerable individuals living in boarding homes by ensuring there is more information about facility conditions and operations. In that sense, it indirectly supports the safety and dignity of individuals. However, it does so by expanding government bureaucracy rather than enhancing individual rights directly. No new rights are created or expanded for residents themselves.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does little to promote personal responsibility, either for boarding home operators or for local governments. Instead of encouraging local authorities and facilities to self-regulate responsibly, it forces compliance through mandated reporting, shifting accountability to paperwork and state oversight. It treats symptoms through data collection rather than fostering a culture of local stewardship or personal ethical behavior in facility management.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not impose direct new regulations on businesses, it indirectly increases regulatory pressure. Boarding home operators could face more local inspections, reporting requirements, and ordinance changes as municipalities seek to comply with the state’s new expectations. This creates a chilling effect on small business operators, discourages new entrants into the boarding home market, and may ultimately limit options for affordable care.
• Private Property Rights: Private boarding home operators, though not explicitly targeted, will likely see increased intrusion into the operation of their property through tighter local regulations driven by the state’s mandatory data collection. Over time, property owners who operate boarding homes could lose flexibility in how they use and manage their own assets. Additionally, the burden of demonstrating compliance could be costly and burdensome, infringing on owners' ability to freely manage their business.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope and role of government at both the local and state levels. It gives HHSC new rulemaking authority and forces all regulated cities and counties into a permanent annual reporting regime, regardless of whether problems have actually occurred in their jurisdiction. It imposes administrative burdens without additional funding and opens the door to future micromanagement of local governance. It sets a precedent for state overreach into areas traditionally reserved for local control.