Relating to compensation and employment benefits for law enforcement personnel in certain counties.

Contracts

• Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs): Existing Meet-and-Confer or Collective Bargaining Agreements that allow for disparate pay scales between similar classes are effectively preempted. Legal counsel must review these agreements for voidable clauses under Section 2 of the bill.
• Vendor Agreements: Private entities contracting with Harris County must review "Non-Appropriation of Funds" clauses. Because the county is statutorily prohibited from reducing law enforcement budgets to fund these raises, the risk of the county terminating *non-public safety* contracts to preserve liquidity has increased.

Hiring/Training

• Classification Audit: County HR must immediately reclassify District Attorney Investigators and Fire Marshal enforcement personnel as "Police Officers" under Local Government Code Chapter 174.
• Recruitment Strategy: Private security firms competing for talent against the county must adjust wage forecasts. The county’s inability to offer targeted raises means broad-spectrum wage inflation is likely across the local public safety sector.

Reporting & Record-Keeping

• Parity Ledgers: The County Budget Office must generate a "Parity Impact Statement" for every proposed raise. This document must prove that a raise for Group A was calculated and applied in the "same amount" to Groups B, C, and D.
• "Class" Definitions: The county must create a written, defensible matrix defining which roles constitute a "class" to defend against inevitable employment litigation.

Fees & Costs

• Budgetary Multiplier: There is no direct fee on business. However, the cost of a single raise is now multiplied across the entire law enforcement spectrum.
• Tax Liability: To fund these mandates without cutting law enforcement budgets (as prohibited by the bill), the county may be forced to raise revenue through other channels, potentially impacting property tax rates or permit fees.