According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the estimated net cost to General Revenue-related funds is projected to be $3 million for the 2026–2027 biennium. This cost is expected to continue at a rate of $1.5 million annually through at least fiscal year 2030.

The fiscal analysis anticipates that TEA will fulfill the bill’s requirements primarily by contracting with a third-party vendor, which is considered more cost-effective than building the system in-house. The estimated annual cost of such a contract is $1.5 million. These costs encompass both the development and ongoing maintenance of the database infrastructure necessary to collect, store, and publicly present the detailed financial and project data mandated by the bill.

At the local level, school districts will bear the administrative responsibility of supplying the required data to TEA. While the fiscal note does not assign a specific monetary impact to districts, it acknowledges that they will incur operational obligations to report information about bonds, taxes, and election outcomes. This could involve data collection, formatting, and submission tasks, but is not expected to require significant new expenditures under the assumptions provided.

In summary, while the bill does not itself appropriate funds, it establishes the legal basis for a new state-funded system estimated to cost $1.5 million annually. This expenditure reflects a policy choice to prioritize public transparency in school finance, with relatively modest long-term costs relative to the scale of education-related borrowing and taxation in Texas.

SB 843 is a clear step toward increased financial transparency and public accountability in the management of school district bonds and taxes in Texas. The bill requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to develop and maintain a centralized, publicly accessible database that includes detailed data on school district bond propositions, election results, tax rates, and capital projects funded by bonds. By creating this tool, the bill directly addresses a significant information gap that currently prevents taxpayers, policymakers, and local communities from easily tracking and understanding the fiscal impacts of school district decisions.

The bill’s fiscal implications, while amounting to a projected $3 million over the next biennium and $1.5 million annually thereafter, are modest when weighed against the potential value it brings in promoting fiscal discipline, informed public participation, and efficient school district operations. TEA's ability to contract with third-party vendors ensures a cost-effective implementation strategy, while school districts are tasked with supplying information they already generate, minimizing the additional burden on local governments.

The bill also empowers the commissioner of education with rulemaking authority to implement the database, ensuring flexibility in its design and allowing for refinements over time. Critically, the database is not merely a repository of financial data—it includes functions for disaggregated reporting and public suggestions for updates or corrections, fostering a dynamic and responsive tool for civic oversight.

Given the strong alignment with the principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility—as well as its consistency with bipartisan calls for transparency and accountability in public finance—Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 843. The benefits of long-term oversight, trust-building, and public engagement justify the initial investment and underscore the value of this policy initiative.

• Individual Liberty: The bill empowers citizens, especially taxpayers, parents, and voters, by giving them easier access to detailed information about how school districts plan and spend public money. By making bond and tax data publicly available in one central place, it enhances the public’s right to know and strengthens democratic participation in local school finance decisions.
• Personal Responsibility: When voters are better informed, they can more responsibly participate in elections, particularly those that approve or reject school bond proposals. School districts are also held to a higher standard of stewardship, knowing their financial decisions will be visible and subject to public review.
• Free Enterprise: The bill doesn’t regulate businesses or change how private enterprise operates, but it may have an indirect benefit. Transparency in school construction and capital projects could create a more level playing field for vendors and contractors by exposing favoritism or inefficiency, which supports a healthier competitive market.
• Private Property Rights: School bonds often lead to increases in local property taxes. By showing how those bonds are structured and how the money is used, the bill supports property owners’ ability to understand and, if necessary, challenge financial decisions that impact their tax burden.
• Limited Government: Although the bill creates a new responsibility for the Texas Education Agency, it does so for the purpose of checking local government behavior. It doesn't expand regulatory power or increase control—it simply improves public oversight over existing financial mechanisms. That makes it a transparency tool, not a new layer of bureaucracy.

Mixed Results on Bond Propositions Statewide, Have Taxpayers Wised Up to Perpetual Debt?

• HB 2053 (Same As)