SB1079

The new section 263.1521 provides a specific destruction route despite the ordinary disposal provision in section 263.152. Under the older section’s destruction-as-worthless route, the county had to try to sell the property and receive no bids. The new sensitive-device route instead turns on the device’s status and the court’s information-protection findings; it does not require that unsuccessful sale first. Other disposal options already existed, so this is not a claim that all county disposals previously required an auction. Local Government Code 263.152, subsection (a); Final law.

The introduced bill, Senate committee report, engrossed bill, House committee report and enrolled law have the same operative provisions. The official amendment index lists no amendments; there is no adopted floor change to attribute to an offerer. Introduced text; Text versions; Amendment index; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Counties gain another way to dispose of qualifying equipment when the required findings support destruction. People whose regulated information was stored on those devices could benefit from reduced risk of accidental disclosure during disposal. That is the purpose of the authority, not a guarantee that every data breach will be prevented. Counties still must make the required determinations and comply with applicable records obligations. Final law; Local Government Code 202.001; Local Government Code 202.002.

The March 28 fiscal note anticipates no state fiscal implication and no significant local fiscal implication. It does not quantify destruction costs, forgone sale proceeds or avoided data-breach losses. The act provides authority, not a new appropriation or a promised dollar saving. Fiscal note; Final law.