According to the Legislative Budget Board for HB 121, the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication for the state. The analysis assumes that any costs associated with implementing the legislation, such as commissioning peace officers through the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and updating school safety protocols, can be absorbed using existing agency resources. This suggests that the TEA is presumed to have the administrative capacity and funding flexibility necessary to carry out the bill’s provisions without requiring additional appropriations.

Similarly, the fiscal note indicates that no significant costs are anticipated for local units of government, including school districts. Although the bill imposes expanded safety and emergency planning requirements, such as psychological safety provisions, updated multihazard emergency operations plans, and regular safety drills, it is assumed that school districts either already engage in these practices or can implement the changes with minimal financial burden. Additionally, the bill’s sunset provisions for “good cause” exceptions provide districts with some flexibility in complying with mandates, potentially easing short-term cost pressures.

Overall, while HB 121 introduces substantial procedural and administrative reforms aimed at enhancing school safety, it is designed in a way that avoids triggering major new expenditures at either the state or local level. However, long-term costs could arise depending on the scale of law enforcement deployments and infrastructure improvements, particularly if demand for TEA-commissioned officers or school facility upgrades increases beyond anticipated levels.

HB 121, like its companion SB 1262, aims to enhance public school safety through a combination of expanded state oversight, local safety plan mandates, and procedural reforms. The bill authorizes the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to commission peace officers, modifies emergency operations planning requirements, and imposes reporting and compliance obligations on school districts. It also reconfigures the Texas School Safety Center board and outlines more prescriptive protocols for threat assessments and psychological safety. However, while these reforms reflect serious attention to the ongoing concerns around school safety, the bill as currently written raises significant issues from the standpoint of core liberty principles—particularly Limited Government, Individual Liberty, and Local Control.

The most substantial concern is the creation of a new law enforcement arm within the TEA. Authorizing a regulatory agency to commission peace officers, who would be empowered under state law as full peace officers, is a notable departure from traditional Texas governance models. The bill lacks statutory constraints on the jurisdiction, operational scope, and accountability mechanisms for these officers. Without clear provisions limiting their authority to school-related contexts or requiring external oversight and public reporting, the potential for bureaucratic mission creep and enforcement overreach is significant. This shift risks undermining community trust and eroding local decision-making authority in the sensitive area of school policing.

Moreover, the bill imposes uniform mandates on all school districts—many of which already maintain their own security personnel or have locally tailored safety strategies—without providing clear opt-out provisions or collaborative enforcement pathways. The absence of a statutory mechanism for districts to reject or limit TEA officer deployment if they can demonstrate adequate local capacity runs counter to Texas’s longstanding commitment to subsidiarity and community-specific governance. Additionally, while the Legislative Budget Board determined the bill would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local entities, this projection assumes implementation costs, particularly around peace officer commissioning and administrative overhead, can be absorbed with existing resources. That assumption may prove optimistic, particularly for smaller or rural districts.

Although HB 121 introduces valuable reforms, including trauma-informed training, emergency preparedness upgrades, and standardized reporting timelines, these do not outweigh the serious structural concerns introduced by the TEA law enforcement provision. Accordingly, a vote in favor of this legislation should be conditioned on critical amendments that limit the scope of TEA’s enforcement powers, introduce external oversight and transparency requirements, allow local opt-outs, and sunset the agency's new law enforcement authority.

Suggested Amendments:

1. Limit the Scope of TEA Peace Officer Authority
   Add language to Section 37.1031 of the Education Code specifying that TEA peace officers may only exercise enforcement powers:

   • On school property or at school-sanctioned events;

   • In response to violations of state education safety regulations;

   • Upon formal request by a local school district or law enforcement agency;

   • With written notice provided to local school board leadership.
     This ensures that TEA enforcement remains supportive—not duplicative or intrusive.

2. Establish Civilian Oversight and Transparency
   Create a statutory requirement for TEA to report annually on the activities of its peace officers, including:

   • The number and nature of deployments;

   • Any complaints filed;

   • Disciplinary actions or legal claims;

   • A breakdown of time spent assisting districts versus conducting independent investigations.
     This report should be submitted to the Legislature and made publicly available.

3. Add a Local Opt-Out or Override Provision
   Allow school districts to opt out of TEA enforcement and officer deployment by passing a resolution during a public board meeting.

   • The opt-out must be reported to TEA and remain valid for two years unless revoked.

   • Districts must certify that they have a valid alternative safety plan in place.
     This protects local control and encourages innovation.

4. Sunset the TEA Commissioning Authority
   Include a provision that sunsets Section 37.1031 after six years unless reauthorized by the Legislature.

   • Prior to reauthorization, TEA must submit an evaluation of the effectiveness, cost, and necessity of the program.
     This aligns with sound legislative oversight and ensures the program does not become permanent without review.

5. Clarify Use of School Safety Allotment Funds
   Amend Section 48.115 to prohibit the use of safety allotment funds for direct personnel or administrative costs associated with operating a TEA law enforcement division.

   • Funds should instead be earmarked for local facility improvements, mental health support, and emergency preparedness.
     This preserves the legislative intent behind school safety funding: to directly benefit schools, students, and teachers.

• HB 3351 (Same As)
• SB 1262 (Same As)