Relating to the dissolution of the Rose City Municipal Utility District.
Summary
HB 3810 is a local bill that dissolves the Rose City Municipal Utility District. It directs the district’s board of directors to wind up the district’s affairs, including filing any required dissolution documents with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The bill provides that, on the 60th day after the act’s effective date, the district is dissolved and the directors’ terms expire.
The bill also repeals Chapter 7958 of the Special District Local Laws Code effective on the 61st day after the act’s effective date, thereby removing the district’s enabling statute from the code. The bill includes standard findings that notice and procedural requirements were satisfied, including publication of notice and submission to TCEQ, and it provides for immediate effect only if it receives the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each house; otherwise, it takes effect on September 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 3810 changes Texas law by eliminating the Rose City Municipal Utility District as a legal entity and repealing the special law that created or governed it. This affects the district’s board, any district operations or obligations, and any residents or property owners within the district who were subject to its authority. It also triggers administrative dissolution steps involving TCEQ and removes the district’s chapter from the Special District Local Laws Code.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 133-0 on third reading and the Senate 31-0, with no recorded opposition in the available votes. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded debate suggests the measure was treated as a routine local-government dissolution bill rather than a contested policy proposal.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record. The only procedural issue reflected in the voting history is the suspension of the three-day rule in the Senate, which is a timing/expediency matter rather than substantive opposition. Because the bill dissolves a municipal utility district, any potential concerns would likely center on local governance, outstanding district obligations, or service transition, but no such objections are documented in the provided materials.