BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 3241

By: Harris Davila

Ways & Means

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Under current law, only specific municipalities are eligible to receive and pledge certain tax revenue derived from hotel and convention center projects. The bill author has informed the committee that this tax mechanism has proven effective in catalyzing local economies, attracting visitors, and creating sustainable jobs in eligible municipalities, but that many other growing or strategically located communities are excluded from this opportunity. C.S.H.B. 3241 seeks to reflect community growth and the need for updated investment tools by expanding the applicability of the authorization for certain municipalities to receive certain tax revenue derived from a hotel and convention center project and to pledge that revenue for the payment of obligations related to the project.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 3241 amends the Tax Code to include among the municipalities entitled to receive certain tax revenue derived from a hotel and convention center project and authorized to pledge or commit certain tax revenue for the payment of obligations related to the project a municipality that is the county seat of a county that has a population of 600,000 or more and is adjacent to the county that contains the State Capitol.

EFFECTIVE DATE

On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 3241 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute omits the provision from the introduced that entitled a municipality that is the county seat of a county that has a population of 600,000 or more and is adjacent to the county that contains the State Capitol to receive the sales and use tax and, if applicable, mixed beverage tax revenue derived from qualified restaurants, bars, retail establishments, swimming pools, and swimming facilities owned or operated by the related qualified hotel that are located in the municipality.