According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications for HB 124 indicate a significant cost to the state’s General Revenue fund. Over the biennium ending August 31, 2027, the estimated net impact is a negative $485.2 million. These costs stem from the proposed increases to the school safety allotment under the Foundation School Program (FSP), raising the per-student amount from $10 to $14 and the per-campus amount from $15,000 to $37,000.

In terms of annual impact, the bill is projected to cost $242.5 million in fthe iscal year 2026 and $242.8 million in the fiscal year 2027. The costs grow further in the out-years, reaching an estimated $351 million by fiscal year 2030. These figures include the expected decrease in revenue from recapture payments, which are projected to fall by $30.5 million in 2026 and $39 million in 2027, indicating that districts paying into recapture will retain more of their funds due to the increased allotments.

For local education agencies (LEAs), the fiscal impact is generally positive, as they stand to receive increased funding under the FSP. However, the bill does include a new administrative requirement: districts must annually report to the Texas Education Agency on how the school safety funds are used. While this could introduce minimal administrative costs for some LEAs, these are likely to be outweighed by the substantial increase in available funding.

Overall, while the bill represents a substantial investment of state resources, it is designed to enhance the safety infrastructure and preparedness of Texas public schools, and the fiscal note confirms that it would provide the legal foundation for future appropriations to support those goals.

HB 124 shares substantial similarities with SB 260, reflecting a bipartisan legislative consensus on the urgent need to strengthen school safety through increased funding under the Foundation School Program (FSP). Both bills were filed in response to feedback from school districts and education advocates following the passage of HB 3 during the 88th Legislature, which laid the groundwork for school safety protocols but left funding gaps that many local education agencies (LEAs) struggled to bridge.

While both bills propose significant increases in school safety funding, SB 260 doubles the per-student allotment from $10 to $28 and increases the per-campus allotment from $15,000 to $30,000. In contrast, HB 124 raises the per-student allotment to $14, a smaller increase, but proposes a larger per-campus amount of $37,000. This indicates a strategic difference: SB 260 emphasizes per-pupil equity, while HB 124 places greater focus on equipping campuses as physical safety units. The financial impact of both bills is comparable, with HB 124 estimated to cost approximately $485 million over the 2026–2027 biennium and SB 260 at $500.1 million. Despite these differences in allocation models, both bills are crafted to operate within the existing FSP framework and do not directly appropriate funds, instead creating the legal structure for future appropriations.

One important distinction that elevates HB 124 in terms of fiscal accountability is its inclusion of a new annual reporting requirement. Districts must submit a report to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) by December 1 each year, detailing how school safety funds were used. This provision is not present in SB 260 and adds a layer of transparency that ensures the increased funding will be scrutinized and aligned with legislative intent. While both bills preserve local control and avoid imposing rigid mandates, HB 124’s reporting requirement reinforces responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

In terms of policy alignment with core liberty principles, HB 124 offers strong support for individual liberty and personal responsibility by ensuring that students and teachers can operate in safer educational environments without increasing regulatory burdens. It affirms local control by giving school districts discretion over how to allocate safety funds while requiring them to be accountable to the public and the state. The bill also respects the principle of limited government, as it focuses spending on a core public function—education—and does not create new bureaucratic structures or taxes.

The Legislative Budget Board estimates that the bill would require a substantial increase in state expenditures, with annual costs beginning at $242.5 million in FY 2026 and growing to $351 million by FY 2030. Though this is a notable fiscal commitment, it reflects a targeted investment into one of the most pressing areas of concern for Texas families and educators. Importantly, the bill does not expand state mandates or reduce autonomy, which helps balance its cost with the preservation of local governance.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 124. It is a carefully calibrated legislative response to clear needs voiced by educators and local leaders, delivering enhanced funding with added transparency. Compared to SB 260, it offers a slightly more conservative funding model while increasing oversight, making it a fiscally responsible and liberty-respecting approach to improving school safety across the state. Both bills contribute constructively to the broader effort to safeguard Texas schools, but HB 124’s inclusion of accountability provisions gives it a distinct advantage in terms of governance and implementation.

• Individual Liberty: The bill reinforces individual liberty by ensuring that students and educators can engage in learning and teaching within safer school environments. A secure setting is a foundational precondition for exercising one’s rights to pursue education and self-development. Importantly, the bill does not impose new surveillance mandates, disciplinary procedures, or behavioral restrictions—it simply funds safety improvements. This enhances liberty without compromising civil rights.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal and institutional responsibility by requiring school districts to report annually how they use their school safety allotment funds. This measure introduces fiscal accountability without micromanaging local decisions. It ensures that districts are held responsible for implementing safety measures efficiently and transparently, reinforcing the idea that freedom must be accompanied by accountability.
• Free Enterprise: While not the central focus of the bill, the increased funding for safety initiatives could expand opportunities for private sector involvement in school security—such as contracts with safety consultants, construction firms, or technology providers. This could encourage free-market solutions to public safety challenges. However, because the bill does not mandate or prefer private sector vendors, its effect on this principle is indirect but potentially positive.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not infringe on or expand the state's power over private property. It does not authorize eminent domain, nor does it affect property ownership or land use regulations. The funds are directed toward school district operations, leaving private property rights untouched. Therefore, this principle is not meaningfully impacted by the bill.
• Limited Government: The bill increases state spending—nearly $485 million over the biennium—which could raise concerns under the limited government principle. However, the spending is narrowly targeted at a core governmental function: public education and student safety. The bill avoids new taxes, new regulatory burdens, or expansion of state authority. Moreover, it respects local control by allowing districts to decide how to use the funds while adding only a light-touch reporting requirement. In that context, the bill honors the spirit of limited government by funding essential services without unnecessary state expansion.

• SB 260 (Similar To)