Texas House Bill HB2363

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/7/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/14/11
• Voted on by House: 5/12/11
• Refer: 3/10/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/19/11
• Report Pass: 4/7/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/25/11
• Engrossed: 5/12/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/12/11
• Report Pass: 5/19/11
• Enrolled: 5/27/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the creation of the Bearpen Creek Municipal Utility District of Hunt County; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain.

Impact

The bill's enactment carries significant implications for state laws regarding utility districts, particularly in facilitating the development of local infrastructure. By empowering the newly created district to raise funds through taxation and bond issuance, the bill aims to address infrastructure needs, potentially improving water and sewage services for residents in the area. Additionally, the bill defines procedures around compliance with municipal regulations and construction standards, aiming to maintain safety and efficiency in developing community resources.

Summary

House Bill 2363 aims to establish the Bearpen Creek Municipal Utility District in Hunt County, Texas. This legislation provides the district with authority to impose taxes and issue bonds, essential for funding infrastructure projects such as road paving and drainage systems. Central to the bill is the delegation of governance to a board of five elected directors, reinforcing democratic management of the district's functions. The successful creation of the district requires the consent of involved municipalities, showcasing a collaborative approach to regional governance.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 2363 include concerns over the limited power of eminent domain as outlined in the bill. Although the district has the authority to levy taxes and issue bonds, it is restricted from exercising eminent domain beyond its borders unless approved under specific conditions. This limitation may incite debate among stakeholders regarding property rights and the desire for expanded utility services, as some property owners might view the district's authority as an infringement upon individual property rights.