According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2722 are expected to be minimal at the state level. No significant fiscal impact is anticipated for the state government. This conclusion is based on the assumption that any revenues collected or costs incurred as a result of enforcing the bill’s provisions, such as the civil penalties imposed for misuse of toll revenue or the administrative burden on state agencies like the Attorney General's Office or the State Auditor, would be negligible.

For local governments, however, particularly Harris County (the only county currently meeting the bill’s population threshold), the fiscal impact could be more pronounced. The bill imposes restrictions on how toll revenues can be used, which could limit the county's budgetary flexibility. Additionally, if the county is found to be in violation of the bill’s spending restrictions, it could face significant civil penalties imposed by the Attorney General, amounting to 100% or 110% of the misused funds, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offense. These penalties must be paid from the county’s general fund, further tightening local finances.

While these fiscal consequences are potential rather than guaranteed, they underscore the bill’s emphasis on accountability and transparency in the use of toll revenues. The overall intent is to ensure that these funds are reinvested into transportation-related infrastructure and services, rather than diverted to unrelated expenditures. The fiscal constraints imposed by the bill could therefore encourage more disciplined and focused use of local transportation funds.

SB 2722, while well-intentioned in seeking to restrict the misuse of toll revenues in Harris County, ultimately fails to address the fundamental problem of perpetual tolling. By allowing the continued accrual and redirection of surplus toll funds even after a toll road's debt has been repaid, the bill effectively entrenches "forever tolls". This contradicts the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 26, which prohibits perpetuities.

Although SB 2722 improves accountability by ensuring toll revenue is used for transportation infrastructure, it does not require tolls to be removed once the original financial obligations are fulfilled. Instead, it allows toll revenues to be permanently diverted—albeit for road-related purposes—which obscures taxpayer oversight, undermines truth in taxation, and enables the ongoing exploitation of toll-paying drivers to subsidize other road users. This creates a system where a subset of drivers continues paying user fees for the benefit of others—an outcome that resembles socialized infrastructure funding rather than equitable, limited government.

For these reasons, and in alignment with core liberty principles—including limited government, individual fairness, and taxpayer protection—Texas Policy Research has revised its original Yes; Amend position to instead recommend that lawmakers vote NO. The Legislature should instead prioritize comprehensive toll cessation legislation that applies equally across the state and puts an end to indefinite tolling.

• Individual Liberty: The bill allows toll roads—funded by user fees—to remain in place indefinitely, even after the debt is paid off. This creates a system where individuals are continually charged without a clear end, effectively turning a fee-for-service into a perpetual tax, eroding the liberty of drivers. The lack of a defined toll sunset undermines public trust and the principle that government should only collect money for a necessary, time-limited purpose.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages local governments to spend toll revenue more responsibly, which appears to promote accountability. However, it fails to hold toll authorities accountable for ending collections once debts are satisfied. By allowing the continuous accumulation of surplus revenue, it removes the natural financial incentive to complete projects efficiently and eliminate unnecessary fees. This undercuts the very principle of responsible governance that the bill claims to reinforce.
• Free Enterprise: Tolls, when misused or left in place indefinitely, create distortions in transportation costs that disadvantage toll-paying drivers and freight companies. The bill permits this inequity to persist by not requiring toll cessation. This undermines market fairness and the idea that users should pay only for what they use, not to subsidize unrelated projects or infrastructure they don’t benefit from.
• Private Property Rights: The bill doesn't directly impact landowners or eminent domain, but it supports continued toll collection on roads that have long since been paid for, potentially decreasing economic freedom and access for property owners and businesses near toll roads. When tolls are perpetual, they create an artificial burden on mobility and location-based decision-making.
• Limited Government: While the bill puts some guardrails on how local officials can spend toll revenue, it does not limit the government's ability to collect revenue indefinitely. Instead, it institutionalizes government overcollection, allowing the state and county to use toll roads as ongoing revenue streams. This violates the core limited government principle that the state should only collect what it needs, for as long as necessary, and no more.

• HB 5177 (Same As)