The Legislative Budget Board in cooperation with the Water Development Board (TWDB) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), has determined the following:

Subject to a confirmation election the bill would create the Imperial Redevelopment District with the powers and duties of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) governed by Water Code Chapters 30, 49, 50 and 54. Creation is subject to the City of Sugar Land’s consent.

1) Population- The City of Sugar Land is expected to grow from 63,328 in the year 2000 to 72,500 in 2010. Fort Bend County is projected to grow from a population of 354,452 to 490,072 in the same period.

2) Location & Size- The proposed district appears to be located within the City of Sugar Land and Fort Bend County. No boundary description was provided within HB 3554.

3) Powers- As with general law MUDs, the District would have the power to provide water, wastewater, and drainage services. The District would also have the powers of a road utility district pursuant to Chapter 441, Transportation Code, and the powers of a municipal management district pursuant to Chapter 375, Local Government Code.

4) District Finances- Consistent with general law for municipal utility districts. The District may issue tax and/or revenue bonds, levy a maintenance tax, and set fees and rates. The District may issue bonds, notes or other obligations secured by revenues other than ad valorem taxes without an election. Bonds issued for road improvements cannot exceed 1/4 of the District’s assessed valuation.

5) Board of Directors- The District is to be governed by a board of five directors appointed by the City of Sugar Land. Of the initial directors, two terms will expire on September 1, 2010 and three terms will expire on September 1, 2012. Future directors will serve staggered 4-year terms.

6) Eminent Domain- Same as general law districts, the District will have the power of eminent domain under Texas Water Code Chapter 49.

7) Ability to Tax- Yes, for bonds and maintenance purpose, subject to voter consent, which is consistent with general law for MUDs.

8) Ability to Exclude Property-No data available.

9) Overlapping Services- An adequate boundary description and location map was not provided for the proposed district. Therefore, an overlap check could not be performed.

10) Adequacy of Boundary Description- No boundary description was provided in the Bill; therefore, a closure computation could not be performed.

11) Comments on Powers /Duties Different from Similar Types of Districts- The District has the powers of a road utility district including the power to contract with an organization created under Chapter 431, Transportation Code, for a joint road or facility. The District has the power authorized for a tax increment reinvestment zone operating under Chapter 311, Tax Code, all or any part of the District is eligible.

12) TCEQ’s Supervision- As with general law districts, the TCEQ will have general supervision authority, including bond review authority and review of audit reports. For road projects and bonds, TCEQ’s review is limited to the financial feasibility of such projects and bonds.

13) State Water Plan Objectives-Water Use: The district, as described in HB 3554 appears to be very similar to the Management Districts created in the regions: promoting employment, commerce, transportation, housing, tourism, etc. For this reason, the creation of this district does not appear to conflict with State Water Plan objectives.