Texas Senate Bill SB901

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/23/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/28/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/7/11
• Refer: 3/8/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/18/11
• Report Pass: 3/28/11
• Voted on by House: 5/23/11
• Engrossed: 4/7/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 4/28/11
• Report Pass: 5/16/11
• Enrolled: 5/23/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to approval from the Department of State Health Services for disposal of ambulances purchased with certain grant funds.

Impact

The proposed changes in SB901 have substantial implications for state laws relating to health services and emergency response infrastructure. By requiring state approval for the disposal of ambulances funded through grants, the bill aims to maintain oversight regarding vital public resources. This could enhance accountability and ensure that communities retain essential emergency services for the duration intended when these resources were funded through taxpayer money.

Summary

SB901 seeks to amend the Texas Health and Safety Code concerning the disposal of ambulances that have been purchased using specific grant funds. The bill mandates that a grant recipient must obtain prior approval from the Department of State Health Services before disposing of an ambulance if the purchase was entirely funded through grants awarded under the sections mentioned in the bill. This rule applies to any disposal within four years of receiving the grant. The intent of this legislation is to ensure that ambulances, often essential for public health and safety, are adequately managed and not prematurely disposed of, which could affect service delivery in communities.

Contention

There may be points of contention surrounding the bill, particularly regarding the administrative implications for grant recipients. Some may argue that requiring state approval before disposal can create bureaucratic delays, potentially hindering the ability of local entities to manage their resources efficiently. Opponents of stringent oversight may argue that local contexts must dictate the disposal processes for such equipment, rather than a one-size-fits-all state requirement. Concerns over the potential burden on smaller grant recipients with fewer resources to navigate the additional regulatory requirements may also arise during discussions.