Relating to the creation and operation of a science park district in certain counties that may impose assessments, fees, and taxes.
SB 2828 would create a new local government entity called a science park district in certain large or adjacent counties. The district could be formed only on petition by owners of at least 1,000 contiguous acres, and only if the Texas Economic Development and Tourism Office finds the site meets specified infrastructure and location criteria, including reliable high-capacity electricity, abundant water, and access to major transportation. The bill states the district’s purpose is to promote scientific research, technological innovation, technology company growth, workforce development, collaboration with higher education and government, and supporting infrastructure.
The bill establishes a temporary board appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker, followed by a nine-member elected board. The district would have broad authority to plan and develop projects, adopt bylaws, enter partnerships with universities, public agencies, and private companies, accept gifts and grants, and impose assessments. It could also seek voter approval to levy ad valorem taxes and issue bonds backed by taxes, revenues, grants, or a combination of sources. The district would be prohibited from using eminent domain and would be required to file annual reports, transmit records to the comptroller, and hold quarterly public meetings for input on major projects.
If enacted, the bill would add Chapter 398 to the Local Government Code and create a new special-purpose district framework for science and technology development in qualifying counties. It would authorize the district to finance infrastructure and development through assessments, voter-approved property taxes, and bonds, while also allowing participation in tax increment reinvestment zones and tax abatement reinvestment zones. The bill would affect property owners, local governments, developers, universities, technology firms, and potential investors in the district area by creating a new governance and financing structure for large-scale research and innovation projects.
The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or floor debate, and no votes are listed, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed as an economic development measure with accountability features such as reporting, public meetings, and voter approval for taxes and tax-backed bonds. The overall tone of the legislation is pro-development and pro-innovation, with an emphasis on infrastructure, workforce, and research collaboration.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the creation of a new taxing and bonding authority, the scope of the district’s powers, and the fact that the district can be formed over large tracts of land in high-growth counties. Property owners and local taxpayers may be concerned about assessments, ad valorem taxes, and the use of public financing tools, while local governments may scrutinize how the district interacts with existing zoning, tax increment, and tax abatement mechanisms. The bill also includes a restriction on collaboration with companies owned by citizens of countries designated as countries of particular concern, which could raise questions about implementation and eligibility for private partnerships.