Texas Senate Bill SB412

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 4/4/11
• Introduced: 1/25/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/14/11
• Refer: 2/2/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/29/11
• Report Pass: 4/4/11
• Voted on by House: 5/19/11
• Engrossed: 4/14/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 4/26/11
• Report Pass: 4/28/11
• Enrolled: 5/20/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to payment of costs of improvements of a public improvement district designated by a municipality or county.

Impact

The enactment of SB412 would significantly impact the financing mechanisms available to public improvement districts, thereby influencing local infrastructure projects at the municipal level. By providing multiple avenues for cost recovery, the bill may enhance the ability of these entities to undertake necessary improvements without imposing immediate financial burdens on general funds. This is particularly relevant for communities looking to improve public amenities such as parks, transportation, and utilities while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Summary

SB412 addresses the payment of costs associated with improvements made in public improvement districts designated by municipalities or counties in Texas. The bill amends existing provisions under the Local Government Code to clarify and streamline the methods by which these costs can be financed. Specifically, it details various avenues for financial reimbursement, including installment sales contracts and reimbursement agreements, allowing for flexibility in how municipalities manage these costs. This is aimed at making the process more efficient for local governments undertaking infrastructure projects.

Contention

While the bill aims to enhance local governmental flexibility in financing public improvements, it may face scrutiny from groups concerned about fiscal accountability and transparency. Opponents may argue that allowing the assignment of reimbursement agreements without oversight from municipalities could lead to complications or mismanagement in local projects. Furthermore, the implications of financing mechanisms on local taxation and residents’ financial burdens could be a subject of contention, particularly in communities where public funds are already under pressure.