Honorable Joan Huffman, Chair, Senate Committee on State Affairs
FROM:
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
SB4 by Perry (Relating to the enforcement by certain governmental entities of state and federal laws governing immigration and to the duties of law enforcement agencies concerning certain arrested persons.), As Introduced
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would amend the Local Government Code to prohibit a municipality, county or special district, employees of certain local entities and a district attorney or criminal district attorney from adopting rules, orders, ordinances, or policies that prohibit enforcement of state and federal immigration laws. Under the provisions of the bill, a local entity may not prohibit an individual employed or under the direction of the agency from participating in certain activities associated with the immigration status of certain individuals. The bill would deny state grants to an entity for the following year after a court finds that the entity adopted such rules or policies or prohibited the enforcement of immigration laws.
Any citizen residing in the jurisdiction of an entity described above would be allowed to file a complaint with the attorney general. After finding a complaint valid, the attorney general may file a petition for writ of mandamus or apply for other equitable relief to compel the entity to comply with the provisions of the bill. The attorney general may recover reasonable expenses incurred in the legal proceedings.
According to the Office of the Attorney General, any legal work resulting from the passage of the bill could be reasonably absorbed with current resources.
According to the Office of Court Administration, the bill provisions are not anticipated to have a significant fiscal implication on the workloads of the judiciary.
According to the Department of Public Safety the bill provisions are not anticipated to have a fiscal impact.
According to the Comptroller of Public Accounts the provisions of the bill would have no revenue implications.
Local Government Impact
There could be a fiscal impact to local governmental entities depending on if the entity has such rules, ordinances, or policies relating to provisions in the bill, the number of complaints filed by individuals and the number of complaints investigated and pursued by the Attorney General.
According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), the cost of the bill cannot be determined.
According to the City of Houston in fiscal year 2016 the city received $43.7 million in state grant funds. If the city was deemed to be in violation of the bill, the result could be a forfeiture of the grant funds. Houston also noted that the processing time for increased number of arrests and housing detainees in secure correction facilities could have a cost but the cost could not be determined.
According to the City of Austin in fiscal year 2017 the city has received $9.7 million in state grant funding and $11.8 million in pass through federal funding. It is unclear to the City of Austin how the provisions of the bill would apply to these sources of grant funding.
According to the City of El Paso the additional arrests and processing requirements would cost the city an estimated $130,000 each fiscal year.
According to Bexar County, Denton County, El Paso County, and the City of Galveston no significant fiscal impact from the bill is anticipated.
Source Agencies:
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 302 Office of the Attorney General, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts, 405 Department of Public Safety, 407 Commission on Law Enforcement