Texas Senate Bill SB1204

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 4/23/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/5/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/13/09
• Voted on by House: 5/27/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/28/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to the powers and duties of the Bastrop County Water Control and Improvement District No. 2.

Impact

The legislation directly affects state laws concerning funding for local infrastructure projects within Bastrop County. By establishing a framework for revenue generation via monthly charges, the bill empowers local governance to address the repair and maintenance of public roads more effectively. Additionally, it permits the allocation of funds specifically designated for administrative purposes, ensuring that a significant portion of collected fees is funneled directly into critical maintenance activities rather than bureaucratic overhead.

Summary

SB1204 relates to the governance and operational duties of the Bastrop County Water Control and Improvement District No. 2. The bill allows the district's board to impose a monthly charge for the maintenance of public infrastructure, specifically targeting the upkeep of streets and roadways. The charge can be up to $15 per lot or tract, with an annual increase cap of $3. This financial structure aims to ensure a steady funding stream for essential public services.

Conclusion

Overall, SB1204 aims to enhance the operational efficiency of the Bastrop County Water Control and Improvement District while also attempting to protect specific demographic groups from financial strain. The success of this bill relies heavily on effective implementation and the community's acceptance of the imposed charges, particularly in maintaining a transparent and fair approach to public resource management.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention surrounding SB1204 is the provision for exemptions from the monthly charge for certain individuals, specifically those aged 65 and older or individuals with disabilities. While this measure seeks to alleviate financial burdens on vulnerable populations, it raises questions regarding the adequacy of funding from higher-charging property owners, potentially leading to disputes about equitable cost-sharing among residents of the district.