According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 4029 would have a negative impact of $11.4 million on General Revenue Related Funds for the 2026–27 biennium. The projected state cost is $5.6 million in fiscal year 2026 and $5.8 million in fiscal year 2027, rising annually to $6.4 million by fiscal year 2030. The bill does not itself make an appropriation, but the LBB states that it could provide the legal basis for future appropriations to implement the new supplemental retirement benefit structure.

The main fiscal driver is the bill’s creation of a supplemental program retirement fund within the Teacher Retirement System of Texas for certain law enforcement officers. Eligible members would receive an additional 0.5 percent of salary per year of service in their retirement benefit and could begin receiving the full retirement benefit at age 57 with 25 years of service. The supplemental fund would also cover certain occupational disability benefits. To finance this, the LBB states that the state contribution rate would increase by 1.5 percent of member salary, in addition to the existing 8.25 percent state contribution rate for eligible TRS payroll.

A key uncertainty is the treatment of past service for current active peace officers in TRS. The LBB states that the bill is unclear on whether those members would receive credit for past service for benefits and retirement eligibility, so the fiscal implications to the TRS pension fund cannot be determined. However, TRS estimates the actuarial value of that past service at $88 million. Without a lump-sum appropriation in the first fiscal year, that liability could require additional contributions or future supplemental appropriations. The LBB anticipates no fiscal implications to units of local government.

HB 4029 grows the size and scope of government by creating a new supplemental retirement benefit structure within the Teacher Retirement System of Texas for certain law enforcement officers. The bill does not simply clarify existing benefits; it creates a new supplemental program retirement fund, establishes new benefit formulas, authorizes enhanced service retirement benefits, creates supplemental occupational disability and survivor benefits, and gives the Teacher Retirement System board of trustees rulemaking authority to administer the program. The bill expressly grants rulemaking authority to the TRS board and requires TRS to administer supplemental service credit, benefit calculations, fund management, and employer reporting.

The bill increases the taxpayer burden. The LBB estimates a negative impact of $11.4 million on General Revenue Related Funds for the 2026–27 biennium, with annual General Revenue costs rising from $5.6 million in fiscal year 2026 to $6.4 million in fiscal year 2030. The bill also creates a larger unresolved pension risk because the treatment of past service for current peace officers is unclear. TRS estimates the actuarial value of that past service at $88 million, and the LBB notes that, absent a lump-sum appropriation in the first fiscal year, the liability could require additional contributions or future supplemental appropriations.

The bill does not impose a broad regulatory burden on private individuals or private businesses. It does not create new private-sector licensing requirements, business mandates, civil penalties, or criminal offenses. However, it does impose new administrative duties on public employers participating in TRS. Employers would have to identify and certify covered employees, transmit information TRS determines necessary for crediting service and financing benefits, and deduct an additional contribution from covered members’ compensation. The burden is therefore primarily governmental and administrative rather than a general private-sector regulatory burden.

The core objection is structural. Texas should not expand taxpayer-supported defined-benefit pension obligations, particularly within TRS, by creating another preferential retirement tier and supplemental fund. Even if school-based law enforcement officers perform hazardous duties comparable to those of other peace officers, the bill responds by deepening reliance on a public pension model that exposes taxpayers to long-term liabilities, actuarial uncertainty, and future appropriation pressure. A policy concern about benefit parity does not justify creating a new open-ended obligation within an already large taxpayer-backed retirement system.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4029. The bill expands government, increases state fiscal obligations, adds administrative complexity, and creates a risk of future taxpayer exposure for unclear past-service liabilities. Lawmakers should reject HB 4029 rather than expand TRS. A more limited approach would examine compensation or portable defined-contribution alternatives without creating a new supplemental defined-benefit entitlement or additional taxpayer-backed pension liability.

The bill does not impose broad new regulations on private businesses, does not create private-sector licensing barriers, and does not directly distort a private market through grants or subsidies to private firms. The main free-enterprise concern is indirect: expanding public-sector retirement benefits can distort labor-market competition between government and private employers by increasing taxpayer-funded compensation advantages in the public sector.

The bill has little to no effect on private property rights. It does not authorize eminent domain, takings, land-use restrictions, asset forfeiture, or new property-based compliance obligations. The additional payroll deduction for covered members affects compensation, but it is not a private property-rights issue in the traditional land, asset, or ownership-control sense.

The bill weakens personal responsibility by expanding reliance on taxpayer-supported defined-benefit retirement promises rather than encouraging portable, individually owned retirement savings. Even though the bill responds to hazardous law enforcement work, it addresses that concern through a new public pension enhancement rather than through current compensation, voluntary savings, or defined-contribution alternatives. It further entrenches the expectation that retirement security for public employees should be guaranteed through state-managed benefits.

This is the bill’s most serious liberty concern. The billexpands government by creating a new supplemental retirement fund, adding enhanced retirement, disability, and survivor benefits, increasing state contribution obligations, and granting TRS additional administrative and rulemaking responsibilities. The LBB estimates an $11.4 million General Revenue cost for the 2026–27 biennium and identifies an unresolved potential past-service liability valued by TRS at $88 million. That combination of expanded bureaucracy, recurring taxpayer cost, and long-term pension exposure weighs heavily against the bill.

The bill does not directly restrict private conduct, create new criminal penalties, expand surveillance, or impose coercive rules on the general public. Its liberty impact is narrower: covered members would be placed into a supplemental state-administered retirement structure and would be subject to an additional payroll contribution for that program. That is a modest individual-liberty cost, but not the bill’s central defect.