Download the full July 21, 2017, Number 28 (PDF).
Texas Senate committees have wasted no time moving their anti-city agenda forward. The first special session began last Tuesday, and the Senate has set at least nine harmful bills for committee hearings this weekend. It is likely the committees (and later the entire Senate) will quickly move the bills, but interested city officials should come to Austin to testify.
The overall message to senators is that Texans don’t want to be told they must conform to one way of thinking or one way of living by overreaching big-government politicians – whether it comes from Washington or from Austin. Let Texans decide at the local level what’s best for their community.
If you can’t make it to Austin, you should call your Senator’s office to express your opposition, especially if he or she is on one of the committees.
The Senate Business and Commerce Committee will meet on Saturday, July 22, at 9:00 a.m., in the Capitol Extension Room E1.016 (PDF) to consider numerous preemption bills. Summaries of the bills and talking points in opposition are included on this page.
1S.B. 12 (PDF) (Buckingham) – Property Rights/“Super-Vesting”: would provide that: (1) a city or county may not enforce an ordinance, order, or other regulation that prohibits or restricts the use or development of real property that has been platted if the ordinance, order, or other regulation was not in effect on the date the owner of the property acquired title to the property; (2) the limitation in (1) does not apply to a parcel of land for which the owner has filed with the county clerk of the county in which the land is located a written waiver of the limitation; and (3) the bill applies only to a prohibition or restriction that is not subject to Chapter 245 (the “permit vesting” statute), including prohibitions or restrictions exempt from that chapter.
1S.B. 13 (PDF) (Burton) – Expedited Permitting/Occupational Vesting: would make various detrimental changes to the law governing permit issuance and vesting. With regard to the issuance of any permit required by a city to construct or improve a building or other structure in the city or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the bill would provide for detailed “shot clock” procedures. With regard to chapter 245 of the Local Government Code (the “permit vesting” statute), the bill would – among many other things – make engaging in an occupation subject to permit vesting.
Overriding Local Permitting Talking Points: City ordinances on the issuance of a wide variety of permits are adopted in an open and transparent process that seeks input from residents and businesses. The resulting rules are tailored to the needs and concerns of the local community. Any claims that cities have restricted economic growth through local permitting rules are simply absurd based on all the economic indicators that show Texas cities are booming. Three out of four new jobs in Texas are created in the state’s major urban areas because they provide the services, facilities and infrastructure businesses and their employees need to thrive. State government should not mess with the obvious success Texas cities have achieved in attracting and growing job-creating businesses.
1S.B. 14 (PDF) (Hall) – Tree Preservation Preemption: would provide that: (1) a city, county, or other political subdivision may not enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, or other regulation that restricts the ability of a property owner to remove a tree or vegetation on the owner’s property, including a regulation that requires the owner to file an affidavit or notice before removing the tree or vegetation; and (2) the bill does not prevent the enforcement of an ordinance, rule, or other regulation designed to mitigate tree-borne diseases as recommended by the Texas A&M Forest Service.
Banning Local Tree Protections Talking Points: Responding to citizen concerns about property values and maintaining attractive, livable neighborhoods, about 50 Texas cities have adopted local rules on the removal and replacement of larger trees. Many cities have chosen not to adopt tree preservation ordinances. The decision on whether to have local tree protection rules should be made at the local level by the citizens in each community and not by an overreaching centralized government in Austin.
1S.B. 15 (PDF) (Huffines) – Cell Phone Ban: would preempt a city from regulating or prohibiting the use of a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle.
Banning Local Safe Driving Ordinances Talking Points: It took the state legislature more than a decade to finally pass a statewide law this year on the use of cells phones while driving. During that time, citizens in many Texas cities pushed for adoption of local ordinances to deal with the increasing number of traffic accidents caused by distracted drivers. Many of those local ordinances are more comprehensive than the recently passed state law which contains a number of exceptions and loopholes. If Texans decide they want their community to have more safety precautions than provided by state law, they should be allowed to make that choice and not have their local traffic safety rules overridden by the state.
The newly-formed Senate Select Committee on Government Reform will meet on Saturday, July 22, at 11:00 a.m., in the Capitol Extension Auditorium (Room E1.004) (PDF) to consider revenue cap and other property tax reforms. Summaries of the bills and talking points in opposition are included below.
1S.B. 1 PDF) (Bettencourt) – Revenue Cap: this bill, known as the “Texas Property Tax Reform and Relief Act of 2017,” would make numerous changes to the process for calculating and adopting property tax rates. Of primary importance to cities, the bill would: (1) adjust the property tax rollback rate in the following ways: (a) define “small taxing unit” as a taxing unit other than a school district for which: (i) the maintenance and operations tax rate proposed for the current tax year is two cents per $100 of taxable value; or (ii) taxes of $10 million or less are imposed when applied to the current total value for the taxing unit; (b) maintain an eight percent rollback rate for all small taxing units (Note: this is the same as current law, although there would be a lowered petition requirement for a rollback election as detailed by (2), below); (c) for a taxing unit other than a small taxing unit, provide for a rollback rate of four percent; and (d) provide that the governing body of a taxing unit other than a small taxing unit may direct the designated officer or employee to calculate the rollback tax rate of the unit in the manner provided for a small taxing unit if any part of the unit is located in an area declared a disaster area during the current tax year by the governor or by the president of the United States; (2) provide that any adopted tax rate of a small taxing unit exceeding the rollback rate would subject the taxing unit to an election if a petition is signed by at least ten percent of the number of registered voters of the taxing unit who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election; (3) provide that any adopted rate of a taxing unit other than a small taxing unit exceeding the rollback rate would subject the taxing unit to an automatic rollback election held on the November uniform election date in the applicable tax year, at which the voters would determine whether or not to reduce the tax rate adopted for the current year to the rollback rate; and (4) make numerous calendar changes to the property tax appraisal, collection, and rate-setting process in order to have property tax rollback elections for taxing units other than small taxing units on the November uniform election date.
1S.B. 93 (PDF) (Bettencourt) – Revenue Cap: would lower the property tax rollback tax rate to five percent and make several other changes to the property tax notice process. Among many other things, the bill would requires cities to pay for non-voter approved debt supported by property taxes with the maintenance and operations portion of the tax rate instead of debt service. This provision will force cities that have issued certificates of obligation, tax increment bonds, and other formal debt instruments that are not approved by the voters to adopt tax rates exceeding the rollback rate just to finance their existing debt obligations.
1S.B. 96 (PDF) (Bettencourt) – Revenue Cap: this bill is essentially the same as 1S.B. 1, except that “small taxing unit” is defined to include taxing units that bring in property taxes of $20 million less when applied to the current total value for the taxing unit.
Revenue Cap Talking Points: Cities are not the cause of high property taxes in Texas because cities collect only 16 percent of the property taxes paid by Texans statewide. That is why imposing a state cap on city revenues will not provide any meaningful tax relief. The real problem is skyrocketing local school taxes caused by the state’s failure to adequately fund education. The burden of local school district taxes will continue to grow over the next two years. While trying to mislead Texans and shift the blame to cities, the legislature approved a state budget in May that calls for a 13 percent increase in local school property taxes.
Imposing a statewide cap on city revenues will not provide tax relief for homeowners but it will harm public safety, job creation and transportation funding. The largest item in every city budget is funding for police, fire fighting and emergency medical services – as much as 70 percent of the budget in some cities. Any state restrictions on city budgets will impact the ability to hire more personnel, improve salaries and benefits, upgrade technology and replace outdated equipment.
State restrictions on city revenues will reduce or eliminate discretionary spending on economic development incentives that help attract and retain job-creating businesses. Revenue restrictions will force cities to reduce or eliminate local funds that subsidize state highway construction projects which will increase traffic problems in urban areas.
1S.B. 18 (PDF) (Estes) – Expenditure Limit: would provide that: (1) a city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in a fiscal year may not exceed the greater of statewide changes in population and inflation, according to a formula provided in the bill, or the previous year’s expenditures; and (2) revenue received from the issuance of bonds approved by the voters or from a grant, donation, or gift is not considered an available source of revenue for the purposes of the bill.
Spending Cap Talking Points: Imposing a one-size-fits-all cap on the budget of every Texas city would be a disaster for Texans for many of the same reasons that apply to revenue caps. Texans should continue to decide at the local level what is best for their community. The level of services and spending desired by the residents of any community can vary significantly from one year to the next. In addition, city governments are large employers and service providers. Their expenditures for street repairs, heavy equipment, lawsuits and employee training, pensions and health insurance are vastly different from the expenditures of a typical household.
Cities in the Panhandle must budget for snow removal which can vary from year to year. Cities that attract a large number of visitors, like San Antonio and cities on the Gulf Coast, must provide services to more people than their resident population.
Setting one statewide spending cap that applies to every city in a state as vast and diverse as Texas is simply unworkable. The limitations on law enforcement, firefighting and emergency medical services would endanger public safety. Restricting spending for maintaining streets, parks and water, sewage and drainage systems would make Texas cities less livable and less attractive to potential employers and investors.
State legislators should trust Texans to make decisions on the level of services they want in their community and their neighborhood.
The Senate State Affairs Committee will meet on Sunday, July 23, at 1:00 p.m., in the Senate Chamber in the Capitol (PDF) to consider annexation limitations. A summary of the bill and talking points in opposition are included below.
S.B. 6 (PDF) (Campbell) – Annexation: would completely rewrite the Municipal Annexation Act to severely curtail the ability of cities to annex property. Of most importance, the bill would provide that: (1) a “Tier 1 county” means a county with a population of less than 500,000; (2) a “Tier 2 county” means a county with a population of 500,000 or more; (3) a “Tier 1 municipality” means a municipality wholly located in one or more tier 1 counties that proposes to annex an area wholly located in one or more tier 1 counties; (4) a “Tier 2 municipality” means a municipality: (a) wholly or partly located in a tier 2 county; or (b) wholly located in one or more tier 1 counties that proposes to annex an area wholly or partly located in a tier 2 county; and (3) a tier 2 municipality is authorized to annex an area with a population of 200 or more only if the following conditions are met, as applicable: (a) the city holds an election in the area proposed to be annexed at which the qualified voters of the area may vote on the question of the annexation and a majority of the votes received at the election approve the annexation; and (b) if the registered voters of the area do not own more than 50 percent of the land in the area, the city obtains consent to annex the area through a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the owners of land in the area.
Annexation Talking Points: Since the creation of home rule cities in Texas over 100 years ago, the process of municipal annexation has produced dynamic cities that are among the nation’s leaders in job creation and economic growth. The annexation process has proven to be the most effective and efficient way to deal with population growth and provide the essential services needed by residents and businesses. Legislation that would allow unincorporated subdivisions to veto annexation plans would effectively freeze the current boundaries of Texas cities and begin a process of urban decline that doomed cities in other states. When cities can’t grow, they die. When the city core begins to deteriorate, it affects the entire metropolitan region making it harder to attract and keep job-creating businesses. The slower job growth and lower incomes infect the entire state economy. A study conducted by the economic analysis firm, TXP, Inc. (PDF), last year found that states that restricted annexation had lower personal income and economic growth and lower municipal bond ratings. If the legislature had passed the proposed annexation restrictions 50 years ago, Texas today would not have cities that lead the nation in job growth and business relocations. We would not have cities with vibrant downtowns attracting people with commerce, the arts, entertainment, shopping and nightlife.
City official opposition to the bills above is vital to defeating the centralization of government in Austin. Please email Shanna Igo, TML Director of Legislative Services, with questions.
Representative Drew Darby is the TML Legislator of the Week for the First Called Special Session.
He represents House District 72, which includes San Angelo, Big Spring, Eden, and Ballinger.
First elected in 2006, Representative Darby is currently serving as Chairman of the House Energy Resources Committee and Chairman of the Select Committee on State and Federal Power and Responsibility. He is also a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Representative Darby previously served on the San Angelo city council, which gives him a unique perspective on the important issues facing Texas.
Representative Darby has filed probably the most insightful bill of the session. H.B.78 would repeal the dubious budget strategy of S.B. 1 (the state budget bill passed during the regular session) that counts on huge gains in school property taxes to mask the state’s ever-diminishing share of school funding (see “The Smoking Gun” article elsewhere in this edition for more details). While the prospects of a bill like 78 are probably grim in today’s environment, it’s refreshing to see a legislator highlight that real property tax relief won’t come from diversionary tactics like capping city and county taxes, but only through meaningful school finance reform.
78 are probably grim in today’s environment, it’s refreshing to see a legislator highlight that real property tax relief won’t come from diversionary tactics like capping city and county taxes, but only through meaningful school finance reform.
We hope city leaders across Texas, and particularly those in Representative Darby’s district, will express their appreciation to this outstanding leader.
The Texas Municipal League has long maintained that proposed revenue caps on cities and counties are just a smokescreen to hide the state’s mismanagement of school finance. High property taxes are caused by the state continuing to demand that school districts pay for an increasing share of education through local property taxes.
You read that right. To make up for reduced state money going to school funding, the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a budget dictating that property values – and the school property taxes derived from them – must go up by almost fourteen percent over the next two years. Can the state simply wave its magic wand and, presto, home values go up by a certain amount? Apparently so, especially if they’re intentionally under-funding schools with state dollars.
Now, consider that the mandated school property tax increases – 7.04 percent and 6.77 percent – are both higher than the four percent annual increase allowed for cities and counties under the Senate’s proposed revenue cap in S.B. 1 from the first special session. Will the state hold an election of the citizens to approve those two school property tax increases? Of course not.
Instead, some state leaders will attempt to pass a revenue cap on cities and counties during the special session now underway, hoping to shift the blame and divert attention from what’s really going on behind the school funding curtain.
“We would like the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the role cities play in attracting jobs and investments to support the prosperity of the State of Texas,” their letter (PDF) states.
The letter was signed by the mayors of Amarillo, Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Worth, Frisco, Galveston, Houston, Irving, Lubbock, McKinney, Plano, San Antonio, San Marcos, and Sugar Land.
(f) A municipality or region may not collect a permit fee, registration fee, administrative fee, or any other fee from an electrician who holds a license issued under this chapter for work performed in the municipality or region. This subsection does not prohibit a municipality or region from collecting a building permit fee.
[W]e further “presume the Legislature chose statutory language deliberately and purposefully.” We endeavor to interpret each word, phrase, and clause in a manner that gives meaning to them all. We accordingly read statutes as a whole so as to render no part inconsistent, superfluous, or devoid of meaning.
Moreover, the rules of statutory construction demand that when general words follow specific and particularized enumerations of powers, the general words are treated as limited and applied only to the same kind or class of powers as those expressly mentioned. This rule ensures that terms are not construed more broadly than the legislature intended. In addition, the meaning of particular words in a statute may be ascertained by reference to other words associated with them in the same statute.
Using these canons of construction here, we construe the general prohibition in 1305.201(f) (“A municipality or region may not collect a permit fee, registration fee, administrative fee, or any other fee from an electrician who holds a license issued under this chapter for work performed in the municipality or region”) in light of the specific fee authorization that remains in Section 1305.201: Subsection (f) expressly authorizes a city to continue to collect a building permit fee.
By changing the permit title, a city would be in conformance with subsection (f) of the bill because it would be issuing a building permit and it is not prohibited from collecting a building permit fee from an electrician.
A city could register an electrical license free of charge verifying state license law requirements. A building permit fee for electrical work can offset administrative costs of enforcement verification.
How each city defines and charges for a building permit for electrical or other work should be decided by that individual city based on the advice of local legal counsel.
During the regular legislative session, legislation passed that potentially opens the door for the state to reconsider numerous state statutes requiring cities and other local governments to publish legal notices in the newspaper.
S.B. 622 by Senator Konni Burton (R – Colleyville) provides that: (1) the proposed budget of a political subdivision for a fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2018, must include a line item indicating expenditures for required newspaper notices that allows as clear a comparison as practicable between the expenditures in the proposed budget and actual expenditures for the same purpose in the preceding year; and (2) excepts from the requirement in (1) a political subdivision primarily located in a county with a population of less than 50,000.
The passage of S.B. 622 is a direct result of the work done prior to the legislative session by the Joint Interim Committee on Advertising Public Notices, which was established to examine whether print or internet publication of legal notices best serves governmental entities and citizens of Texas. The committee’s interim report (PDF recommended legislation in line with what ultimately passed in the form of S.B. 622 so that further study on the publication of legal notices may address the question of cost based on official budget records.
While S.B. 622 does require some cities to add an additional item to their budgets, the information required can be used by cities and other local governments in the coming years to demonstrate exactly how much cities and other political subdivisions are spending on publishing legal notices in the newspaper. This information, coupled with the continuing expected decline of newspaper readership in the coming years, may prove very useful in convincing legislators that the time has finally come to shift to online legal notices.
iii. The market value of all new improvements to the property.
provide that the governing body of a taxing unit other than a small taxing unit may direct the designated officer or employee to calculate the rollback tax rate of the unit in the manner provided for a small taxing unit if any part of the unit is located in an area declared a disaster area during the current tax year by the governor or by the president of the United States.
1H.B. 115 (G. Bonnen) – Property Tax Deferral: would provide that: (1) an eligible person serving on active duty in any branch of the United States armed forces may pay delinquent property taxes on property in which the person owns any interest without penalty or interest no later than the 60th day after the date on which: (a) the person is discharged from active military service; (b) the person returns to the state for more than 10 days; or (c) the person returns to non-active duty status in the reserve; and (b) a delinquent tax for which a person defers payment under (a) that is not paid on or before the date the deferral period expires: (a) accrues interest at a rate of six percent for each year or portion of a year the tax remains unpaid; and (b) does not incur a penalty.
1H.B. 116 (Uresti) – Installment Payments: would: (1) expand the types of groups who may be able to pay off delinquent property taxes in quarterly installment payments; and (2) for a residence homestead, authorize a person who is disabled or over 65 or disabled veterans and their unmarried surviving spouses to pay off delinquent property taxes in monthly installment payments.
1H.B. 154 (Phelan) – Appraisal District: would, among other things, provide that: (1) an appraisal district is governed by a board of five directors; (2) one director is elected from each of the four commissioners precincts of the county for which the appraisal district is established; (3) the county assessor-collector is a director by virtue of the person’s office; (4) if the county assessor-collector is ineligible to serve pursuant to a contract, the appraisal district is governed by the four directors elected from the commissioners precincts and a director elected from the county at large; and (5) the directors other than the county assessor-collector are elected at the general election for state an county officers and serve two-year terms beginning on January 1 of odd-numbered years.
1H.B. 155 (Phelan) – Appraisal Review Board: would: (1) authorize the appraisal review board, on motion of the chief appraiser or a property owner, to direct by written order changes in the appraisal roll or related records as provided by (2); and (2) authorize the appraisal review board to order the appraised value of the owner’s property in the current tax year and either of the two preceding tax years to be changed to the sales price of the property in the current tax year if, for each tax year for which the change is to be made: (a) the property qualifies as that owner’s residence homestead; (b) the sales price of the property is at least ten percent less than the appraised value of the property; and (c) the board makes a finding that the sales price reflects the market value of the property.
1H.B. 158 (Metcalf) – Property Tax Deferral: would provide that interest accrues at a rate of five percent in connection with the deferral or abatement of the collection of property taxes on an appreciating residence homestead.
1H.B. 159 (Metcalf) – Property Tax Deferral: would provide that the annual rate at which interest accrues in connection with the deferral or abatement of the collection of property taxes on residence homesteads of elderly or disabled persons is five percent.
1H.B. 160 (Metcalf) – Property Tax Appraisal: would, among other things, provide that the chief appraiser is elected for a two-year term at the general election for state and county officers by the voters of the county in which the appraisal district is established.
1H.B. 165 (Geren) – Property Tax Appeals: would: (1) authorize a property owner to appeal an order of the appraisal review board determining that the appraisal review board lacks jurisdiction to finally determine a protest by the property owner because the property owner failed to comply with a statutory requirement; (2) provide that a property owner who establishes that the appraisal review board had jurisdiction to issue a final determination of the protest is entitled to a final determination by the court of the protest on any ground, regardless of whether the property owner included the ground in the property owner’s notice of protest; and (3) provide that for certain appeals, if a plea to the jurisdiction is filed in the appeal on the basis that the property owner failed to exhaust the property owner’s administrative remedies, the court may, in lieu of dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, remand the action to the appraisal review board with instructions to allow the property owner an opportunity to cure the property owner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
1H.B. 174 (Metcalf) – Appraisal Districts: would, among other things, provide that: (1) one director is elected from each of the four commissioners precincts of the county for which the appraisal district is established and one director is elected at large from the county; (2) the county assessor-collector serves as a nonvoting director, unless ineligible; and (3) the directors other than the county assessor-collector are elected at the general election for state an county officers and serve two-year terms beginning on January 1 of odd-numbered years.
1H.B. 179 (Roberts) – Property Tax Exemption: would provide that qualifying disabled first responders and their surviving spouses are entitled to an exemption from property taxes of the total appraised value of the qualifying disabled first responder’s residence homestead.
1H.B. 192 (P. King) – Property Tax Appraisal: would provide that the chief appraiser may not increase the appraised value of property following the year in which the appraised value of the property is lowered as a result of protest or appeal unless the increase by the chief appraiser is reasonably supported by clear and convincing evidence when all of the reliable and probative evidence in the record is considered as a whole.
1H.B. 203 (Miller) – Property Tax System: would make several changes to the property tax system, including: (1) that an appraisal review board consists of five members elected by the voters of the county in which the appraisal district is established at the general election for state and county officers; and (2) that the members of the appraisal review board serve two-year terms beginning on January 1st of odd-numbered years.
1H.J.R. 25 (Shine) – Property Tax Exemption: would amend the Texas Constitution to: (1) authorize the governing body of a taxing unit other than a school district to adopt a residence homestead property tax exemption, expressed as a dollar amount, of a portion of an individual’s residence homestead if the exemption is adopted by the governing body in the manner provided by law for official action; (2) provide that the amount of the exemption is $5,000 of the appraised value of the residence homestead, except that if the average market value of residence homesteads in the taxing unit in the tax year in which the exemption is adopted exceeds $25,000, the governing body may authorize an exemption in a larger dollar amount not to exceed an amount equal to 20 percent of the average market value of residence homesteads in the taxing unit in the tax year in which the exemption is adopted; (3) provide that the legislature by general law may prohibit the governing body of a political subdivision that adopts an exemption under (1) from reducing the amount of or repealing the exemption; and (4) provide that, for a taxing unit which has ceased granting a percentage-based homestead exemption and adopted an exemption under (1), an individual who would have been entitled to a percentage-based residence homestead exemption had the governing body not ceased granting the exemption is entitled to continue to receive the percentage-based exemption in lieu of the dollar-amount homestead exemption if the individual otherwise qualifies for the exemption and the amount of the percentage-based exemption exceeds the amount of the dollar-amount exemption. (See 1H.B. 119).
ii. taxes of $10 million or less are imposed when applied to the current total value for the taxing unit.
make numerous calendar changes to the property tax appraisal, collection, and rate-setting process in order to have property tax rollback elections for taxing units other than small taxing units on the November uniform election date.
a. is identified by the name of the office of tax rate notices, instead of the name of the appraisal district, and as the “Real-time Tax Rate Database;"
eliminate the ability of a taxing unit to challenge before the appraisal review board the level of appraisals of any category of property in the appraisal district or in any territory in the appraisal district.
1S.B. 49 (Schwertner) – Appraisal of Agricultural or Open-Space Land: would, among other things, eliminate the requirement that a person pay interest along with additional taxes if land that has been designated for agricultural use in any year is sold or diverted to a nonagricultural use.
1S.B. 50 (Buckingham) – Appraisal Review Boards: would provide that the appraisal review board may not determine the appraised value of the property that is the subject of a protest to be an amount greater than the appraised value of the property as shown in the appraisal records submitted to the board by the chief appraiser unless agreed to by the parties to the protest.
1S.B. 78 (Nichols) – Property Tax Appraisal: would provide that land used principally as an ecological laboratory by a public or private college or university does not qualify for appraisal as qualified open-space land unless the land was appraised as qualified open-space land on the basis of that use for the 2017 tax year.
repeal the statute providing rollback relief for pollution control requirements.
1S.B. 96 (Bettencourt) – Revenue Cap: this bill, known as the “Texas Property Tax Reform and Relief Act of 2017,” is essentially identical to 1S.B. 1, above, except that this bill would adjust the property tax rollback rate in the following ways define “small taxing unit” as a taxing unit other than a school district for which: (1) the maintenance and operations tax rate proposed for the current tax year is two cents per $100 of taxable value; or (2) taxes of $20 million or less are imposed when applied to the current total value for the taxing unit.
1H.B. 139 (Giddings) – Sales Tax Exemption: would exempt certain school art supplies from sales tax if the sale takes place during a period beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the Friday before the 15th day preceding the uniform date before which a school district may not begin instruction for the school year, and ending at 12 midnight on the following Sunday.
1H.B. 216 (Fallon) – Sales Tax Exemption: would exempt firearms and hunting supplies from sales taxes during the last full weekend in August.
1H.B. 34 (Reynolds) – Legal Services: would, among other things, provide that attorneys are added to the Professional Services Procurement Act (which would require qualifications-based procurement).
1H.B. 141 (Paul) – Municipal Management Districts: would impose various changes to the governance and operation of municipal management districts.
1H.B. 169 (Fallon) – Voter Assistance: would, among other things: (1) provide that an election officer commits a Class A misdemeanor if the person permits an unlawful voter or ineligible ballot to be cast in a manner that will be counted; (2) provide that a voter who is unable to read or mark the ballot by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read the language in which the ballot is written is eligible for assistance; (3) provide that before allowing a person to assist a voter, an election officer must: (a) review the voter assistance affidavit form and confirm that the form is complete; (b) note on the form the reason provided by the voter for eligibility for assistance; (c) confirm that the assisting person is eligible to assist the voter based upon the answers provided; (d) administer the oath to the assisting person; and (e) sign the voter assistance affidavit attesting that the officer has complied with (a)-(d); (4) provide that an election officer commits a Class A misdemeanor if the officer knowingly fails to comply with (2); and (5) increase penalties under certain circumstances for a number of different election-related offenses including: (a) unlawfully assisting or influencing a voter; (b) fraudulent use of application for ballot by mail; (c) unlawful carrier envelope action by person other than voter; (d) unlawfully assisting voter voting ballot by mail; and (e) paid vote harvesting activity.
1H.B. 212 (Reynolds) – Voter Registration: would require the secretary of state to implement a program to allow a person who has an unexpired Texas driver’s license or personal identification card to complete an electronic voter registration application over the Internet.
1S.B. 34 (Miles) – Early Voting by Mail: would, among other things, provide that: (1) the officially prescribed application form for an early voting ballot must include a space for the voter to provide a change of residence address within the county, if applicable; (2) if the application includes a change of address within the county, the early voting clerk shall notify the voter registrar of the change and the registrar shall update the voter’s registration accordingly; (3) the early voting clerk is not required to provide a form for a statement of residence to a voter who indicated a change of address within the county on the voter’s application for an early voting ballot to be voted by mail; and (4) the signature verification committee and early voting ballot board may provide a voter the opportunity to correct a defect under certain circumstances for an early voting ballot voted by mail.
1S.B. 36 (Rodriguez) – Early Voting by Mail: would, among many other things, authorize early voting by mail for any qualified voter and provide for implementing procedures.
1H.B. 219 (Martinez) – Occupational License Addresses: provides that certain the home address of certain state occupational license holders may not be published on the state agency’s website, unless the license holder requests for their home address to appear on the state agency’s website.
1H.B. 117 (Uresti) – Cell Phone Ban: would provide that certain affirmative defenses to prosecution for violation of the offense of use of a portable wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle are not available if the offense was committed by a person under 18 or by a person operating a school bus.
1H.B. 128 (Leach) – Abortion: would provide that neither a state agency nor a political subdivision may not use appropriated money to pay or reimburse, directly or through a contract or grant, a person that pays for or provides abortion services.
1H.B. 146 (Farrar) – Breast-Feeding: would: (1) prohibit a person from interfering with or restricting the right of a mother to breast-feed in any location the mother and child are authorized to be, and from revoking the mother’s authority to be on the premises solely because she is breast-feeding; (2) require the comptroller to provide certain notifications about a mother’s right to breast-feed; (3) authorize a mother to bring a civil action against a person who allegedly violates the mother’s right to breast-feed; and (4) provide that if a mother prevails in a civil action she is entitled to injunctive relief, damages up to $500 for each day a violation occurred, reasonable attorney’s fees, and court costs.
1H.B. 163 (Springer) – Abortion: would provide, among other things, that a city may not enter into a contract, give any thing of value, or transact in any way with an abortion facility licensed by the state or an affiliate of the abortion provider, except for basic governmental services such as police, fire, and utility services.
1H.B. 170 (Dutton) – Public Bathrooms: would: (1) require a person with control over bathrooms and changing facilities in a public building to ensure that each bathroom and facility in the building is gender-neutral and single-occupancy; (2) except from the requirement in (1): (a) a federal or other building exempt by law; and (b) a public building constructed before January 1, 2018; and (3) provide a civil penalty for a violation of (1).
1H.B. 180 (Shine) – Local Debt: would, among other things: (1) require the comptroller to create an Internet database, known as the Political Subdivision Public Information Warehouse, that contains information regarding all active political subdivisions in the state that are authorized to impose an ad valorem or sales and use tax to issue bonds, notes, or other obligations; (2) require the warehouse database to include the following information: (a) the name of the political subdivision; (b) the rate of any sales and use tax the political subdivision imposes; (c) various property tax rates for the most recent tax year; (d) the total amount of the political subdivision’s debt, including the principal, interest, and year in which the debt would be paid; (e) the political subdivision’s Internet website address, or if the political subdivision does not operate a website, contact information to enable a member of the public to obtain information from the political subdivision; and (f) the Internet website address for the appraisal district in each county in which a political subdivision has territory; (3) authorize, but not require, the warehouse database to include the following information: (a) information describing the political subdivision’s boundaries; (b) the political subdivision’s current budget; (c) each current check registry published by the political subdivision’s governing body; and (d) any other current financial audit or annual report published by the political subdivision’s governing body; (4) authorize the comptroller to consult with the appropriate person from each political subdivision to obtain the information necessary to operate and update the warehouse database; (5) require the governing body of a political subdivision that publishes the check registry on its website to provide a link to the webpage containing the information to the comptroller; (6) require the comptroller to update tax rate information at least annually; (7) require a political subdivision to transmit records and other information to the comptroller annually in a form and in the manner prescribed by the comptroller, for purposes of operating the Political Subdivision Public Information Warehouse; and (8) require a political subdivision to transmit to the comptroller: (a) its most recently adopted annual budget; (b) its most recently adopted annual financial report; and (c) the address of the Internet website maintained by the political subdivision, if any.
1H.B. 206 (Villalba) – Expenditure Limit: would: (1) provide that unless additional expenditures are authorized by a majority of a city or county’s voters voting at an election called for that purpose, a city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in a fiscal year may not exceed the greater of: (a) the amount of total expenditures for the preceding fiscal year; or (b) an amount determined by multiplying the amount of total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in the preceding fiscal year by the product of: (i) the sum of one and the estimated average rate of projected growth of the population that resides in the city or county’s geographic boundaries during the period ending on the last day of the fiscal year and beginning the first day of the preceding fiscal year; and (ii) the sum of one and the estimated average rate of monetary inflation in this state during the period described by (1)(b)(i); (2) provide that for the purposes of determining the amount of total expenditures described by (1)(a): (a) the city or county shall use, as available, data published by the United States Census Bureau as a basis for estimating projected population growth; (b) not later than May 1 of each year, the comptroller of public accounts shall make available on the comptroller’s Internet website and submit to the secretary of state for publication in the Texas Register the rate of monetary inflation in this state for the preceding year; and (c) as soon as practicable after receipt of the rate described in (2)(b) from the comptroller, the secretary of state shall publish that rate in the Texas Register; and (3) provide that the requirements in (1) and (2), above, do not apply to a city or county that does not impose taxes or incur debt.
1H.B. 211 (Reynolds) – Officer-Involved Injuries or Deaths: would: (1) disqualify an attorney from prosecuting a peace officer with respect to any offense arising out of an officer-involved injury or death, if the officer is employed by a political subdivision that is also served by the attorney; (2) require a local law enforcement agency employing the peace officer involved in an officer-involved injury or death to report the incident as soon as practicable to the attorney general; and (3) require the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to perform the duties of a prosecuting attorney in the case.
1H.B. 213 (Fallon) – Public Retirement Benefits: would limit the amount of retirement benefits any member of a public retirement system, including the Texas Municipal Retirement System, may receive to an amount no larger than certain military salaries or certain federal deputy positions, regardless of the amount in the account or the years of service of the public official.
1H.J.R. 31 (Shine) – Unfunded Mandates: would amend the Texas Constitution to provide that a law enacted by the legislature on or after January 1, 2019, that requires a city or county to establish, expand, or modify a duty or activity that requires the expenditure of revenue by the city or county is not effective unless the legislature appropriates or otherwise provides, from a source other than the revenue of the city or county, for the payment or reimbursement of the costs incurred for the biennium by the city or county in complying with the requirement.
1S.B. 4 (Schwertner) – Abortion Providers: would, with limited exceptions, prohibit a governmental entity from entering into a taxpayer resource transaction or contract with an abortion provider or an affiliate of an abortion provider.
1S.B. 18 (Estes) – Expenditure Limit: would: (1) provide that a city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in a fiscal year may not exceed the greater of: (a) the city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in the preceding fiscal year; or (b) an amount determined by multiplying: (i) the city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of revenue in the preceding fiscal year; and (ii) the sum of one and the rate most recently published by the Legislative Budget Board under (2), below: (2) require the Legislative Budget Board to publish a rate not later than January 31 of each year equal to the product of: (a) the rate of growth of the state’s population during the preceding calendar year, using the most recent estimates published by the United States Census Bureau; and (b) the rate of monetary inflation in this state during the preceding calendar year, using the effective consumer price index for all items for this state as determined by the Legislative Budget Board based on information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor; (3) provide that a city or county’s total expenditures from all available sources of local revenue in a fiscal year may exceed the amount described in (1), above, if: (a) the local government’s voters approve the additional expenditures for that fiscal year at an election called for that purpose and held on a uniform election date; or (b) the governor declares or renews a declaration of a state of disaster in that fiscal year, and the governor’s designation of the area threatened includes all or part of the geographic territory of the local government; (4) provide that revenue received from the issuance of bonds approved by the voters or from a grant, donation, or gift is not considered an available source of revenue for the purposes of this section.
1S.B. 25 (Hall) – Cell Phone Ban: would: (1) prohibit a city from regulating or prohibiting distracted driving, including the use of a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle; (2) permit a city to continue enforcing state laws related to distracted driving; (3) create the offense of collision during distracted driving that provides: (a) a person commits an offense if the person causes or is at fault in a collision while operating a motor vehicle and engaging in activity that is not related to the operation of the motor vehicle and interferes with the driver’s ability to pay attention to the road; and (b) the offense is a class C misdemeanor, except that the offense is a state jail felony if it is shown at trial that an individual suffered serious bodily injury or death.
1S.B. 38 (Rodriguez) – Discrimination: would: (1) provide, with certain exceptions, that a person commits a discriminatory practice in violation of law if the person, because of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of an individual, denies the individual full and equal accommodation in a place of public accommodation or otherwise discriminates against or segregates the individual based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression; (2) authorize a person aggrieved because of a violation of law described in (1) to file a civil action in district court; and (3) add sexual orientation and gender identity or expression as a protected class in existing state anti-discrimination provisions.
1S.B. 39 (Zaffirini) – Cell Phone Ban: would provide that: (1) a motor vehicle operator is prohibited from using a portable wireless communication device unless the vehicle is stopped outside a lane of travel; and (2) a city is preempted from adopting or enforcing regulations related to the use of a portable wireless communication device by the operator of a motor vehicle.
1S.B. 52 (Huffines) – Local Debt: would provide that an election held by a political subdivision to authorize the issuance of bonds does not authorize the issuance of the bonds unless at least three-fifths of the voters voting in the election vote in favor of authorizing the issuance of bonds.
1S.B. 54 (Huffines) – Preemption Suits: would provide, in regard to cities and counties over 25,000 in population, that: (1) if a court determines an ordinance or similar measure of the political subdivision is unenforceable because it is preempted by state law, the court shall award the prevailing party court costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees to be paid by the political subdivision; and (2) if a court determines an officer of the political subdivision has failed to perform an act of the office required by state law, the court shall award the prevailing party court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to be paid by the political subdivision for which the officer served at the time of the failure to perform.
1S.B. 65 (Garcia) – Government Bathrooms: would provide: (1) that a governmental entity (including a city), with control over a bathroom or changing facility in a building owned or leased by the entity, must allow a person to use a bathroom or changing facility located in the building consistent with the person’s gender identity or gender expression; and (2) for an attorney general complaint and enforcement process (including civil penalties, mandamus, and other equitable relief) for a violation of the requirement described in (1).
1S.B. 77 (Schwertner) – Abortion Providers: would, with limited exceptions, prohibit a governmental entity from entering into a taxpayer resource transaction or contract with an abortion provider or an affiliate of an abortion provider.
1S.B. 79 (Menendez) – Medical Cannabis: would prohibit a city from enacting, adopting, or enforcing a rule, ordinance, order, resolution, or other regulation that prohibits the cultivation, production, dispensing, or possession of medical cannabis.
A “Tier 1 county” means a county with a population of less than 500,000.
A “Tier 2 county” means a county with a population of 500,000 or more.
A “Tier 2 municipality” means a municipality: (a) wholly or partly located in a tier 2 county; or (b) wholly located in one or more tier 1 counties that proposes to annex an area wholly or partly located in a tier 2 county.
The City of Brownsville and a neighboring municipality may annex in a way that surrounds that municipality if the governing body of each municipality adopts, on or after September 1, 2017, a resolution authorizing that action.
The City of Fort Worth is authorized to annex without consent certain areas that are surrounded by the city.
A municipality may annex all or part of the area located in an industrial district designated by the governing body under the requirements applicable to a tier 1 municipality.
A municipality may not annex for full or limited purposes any part of the area located within one-half mile of the boundaries of a military base unless the municipality and the base authorities have entered into a comprehensive written agreement that establishes provisions to maintain the compatibility of the municipality’s regulation of land in the area with the military base operations following the annexation (the provisions in current law related to coordination with military bases remain intact).
For a permit application for which notice is provided under (1)(b), above, the city must grant or make a preliminary determination to deny the permit not later than the 15th day after the date the notice is received.
A city may not extend the period for the city to act on an application under the bill more than once.
If a city fails to act on a permit application within the period required by (2), above, or by an agreement, the permit application is considered approved and the city: (a) may not collect any permit fees associated with the application; and (b) shall refund to the applicant any permit fees associated with the application that have been collected.
If a city makes a preliminary determination to deny a permit application, the city must send written notice of the determination to the applicant not later than the first business day after the date the determination is made stating: (a) each application deficiency that is a reason for the determination, including a citation to the specific ordinance, order, regulation, or policy relevant to the determination; (b) the specific actions required by the applicant to remedy each specified deficiency; and (b) a deadline not earlier than the 30th day after the date the notice is sent for the applicant to complete the remedial actions specified in the notice before the denial becomes final.
If an applicant substantially completes the remedial actions specified in the notice under (5), above, within the period required, the applicant may request reconsideration of the determination.
The city shall grant the permit if the city determines the applicant has substantially completed the specified remedial actions.
Not later than the 15th day after the date the applicant’s request for reconsideration is received, the city shall send the applicant written notice of a final determination to grant or deny a permit application.
If the city fails to send notice of a final determination within the period required by the bill, the permit application is considered approved.
Written notice of the city’s final determination that a permit is denied must include the information required by (5), above, in addition to written findings of the reasons the city determined that any remedial actions taken by the applicant were insufficient to correct the deficiencies specified in the notice provided under (5), above.
Any final determination that a permit is denied may not be based on: (a ) a reason or remedial requirement that was not previously disclosed to the applicant in the notice required under (6), above; or (2) a requirement for the applicant to comply with any ordinance, order, regulation, or policy that is not substantially related to the construction or improvement of a building or other structure.
A city may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, order, regulation, or policy relating to granting or denying a permit under the bill that: (a) restricts or prohibits the right of an applicant to reapply for a permit to construct or improve the same building or other structure that was the subject of a denied permit application; (b) requires a private employer to offer more than the minimum wage; or (3) authorizes on-site monitoring of a private employer by a nongovernmental entity.
“Project” means an endeavor, occupation, or activity over which a regulatory agency exerts its jurisdiction and for which one or more permits are required to initiate, continue, engage in, or complete the endeavor, occupation, or activity.
Rights to which a permit applicant is entitled under chapter 245 accrue when an applicant submits the application electronically if the regulatory agency accepts applications electronically by a method that provides confirmation of receipt.
A regulatory agency may provide that a permit application expires on or after the 61st day after the date the application is filed, if certain conditions are met, but a permit application may not expire before the 11th business day after the date the regulatory agency provides the applicant with the notice described by the bill (the bill may have an error because it doesn’t describe that notice).
A regulatory agency may not deny a permit application based on a requirement for the applicant to comply with any ordinance, order, regulation, or policy that is not substantially related to the purposes for which the permit is required.
Except as provided by the provisions in (1)-(12) in the section above, or other law that provides for a shorter period, a regulatory agency shall approve or deny an application for a permit not later than the 60th business day after the date the regulatory agency received the completed application.
A regulatory agency may extend the period under (7), above, for approving or denying an application by an additional 10 business days if the regulatory agency provides written notice of the extension to the applicant during that period stating the reasons the regulatory agency has been unable to grant or deny the permit application during that period.
A regulatory agency may not extend the period for the regulatory agency to grant or deny an application under (8), above, more than once.
If a regulatory agency fails to approve or deny a completed application as provided by (8) and (9), above, the application is considered to be approved.
If a regulatory agency denies a permit application, the regulatory agency must send written notice of the denial to the applicant not later than the first business day after the date of the denial stating: (a) each application deficiency that is a reason for the denial, including a citation to the specific ordinance, order, regulation, or policy relevant to the denial; and (b) the specific actions required by the applicant to remedy each specified deficiency.
This title does not prohibit a political subdivision from adopting procedures to provide a shorter period than provided by law for the approval of a permit.
The entirety of chapter 245 becomes retroactive to permits issued before the effective date of the bill.
1H.B. 187 (Oliverson) – Non-Annexation Agreements: would provide, in relation to the current law that requires a city to offer a non-annexation agreement to property that is subject to an agricultural or certain other property tax exemptions, that: (1) the execution of a non-annexation development agreement does not extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city; and (2) an area subject to an agreement may not be considered for the purposes of calculating the width of an area or municipal territory.
1H.B. 207 (Huberty) – Annexation: would provide, with some exceptions, that a qualified voter of a water or sewer district, any portion of which a city has annexed for full or limited purposes, is entitled to vote in municipal elections regarding the election or recall of members of the governing body of the city and the amendment of the municipal charter, regardless of whether the city has annexed the entire district or whether the voter resides in an annexed portion of the district.
1S.B. 47 (Schwertner) – Developer Participation Agreements: would provide that: (1) the amount of a performance bond for a developer participation agreement must be for the contract price for the improvements; (2) a city may not require the developer to include in the amount of the bond any other improvement related to the development that the developer did not contract with the city to construct; (3) a city and developer may agree that, instead of a performance bond, the developer may submit an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount required for the bond; and (4) as part of the agreement, the city may not pay any amount to the developer, issue a building permit related to the development other than a permit necessary for the improvements that are the subject of the contract, or approve a subdivision plat for the developer until: (a) the improvements are complete or in the final phase of construction if the improvements are constructed in phases; and (b) the developer has submitted to the city an affidavit stating that the developer has paid all costs associated with the construction.
1S.B. 55 (Huffines) – Building Codes: would: (1) lower the population threshold in current law from 100,000 to 40,000 to invoke certain notice and hearing procedures for changes in a city’s building code; and (2) impose new requirements: (a) that a city publish a detailed cost-benefit analysis of a building code or code amendments; and (b) that would mandate, for an amendment that addresses existing or potential harm to health and safety: (i) scientific evidence supporting the probability or likelihood that the harm has occurred or will occur; and (ii) scientific evidence supporting the probability or likelihood that the amendment will prevent or address the harm.
1S.B. 61 (Hughes) – Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: would: (1) prohibit a city from treating an open-enrollment charter school differently than a school district for purposes of zoning, permitting, code compliance, and development (but would maintain the exemption in current law that a campus of an open-enrollment charter school located in whole or in part in a city with a population of 20,000 or less is not subject to zoning); (2) require a city that has annexed territory for limited purposes to enter, on request of an open-enrollment charter school, an agreement with the school governing certain land development standards and water pollution controls (these are the same requirements currently in place for school districts); and (3) exempt an open-enrollment charter school from paying impact fees unless the governing body of the charter school consents.
1H.B. 133 (Reynolds) – Minimum Wage: would provide that the minimum wage is not less than the greater of $15.00 an hour or federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standard Act.
1S.J.R. 11 (Estes) – Labor Organizations: would amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit state or local funds from being used for the administration of a labor organization, including the collection of dues or fees.
1H.B. 123 (Swanson) – Concealed Handguns: would provide that, in relation to a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun by posting an optional “30.06” and/or “30.07” sign, it is a defense to prosecution that the license holder was personally given notice by oral communication and promptly departed from the property.
1H.B. 175 (Anchia) – Concealed Handguns: would provide that: (1) a person who is authorized by a federal agency may possess a firearm in a secured area of an airport; and (2) “secured area” means an area: (i) of an airport terminal building or of an adjacent aircraft parking area used by common carriers in air transportation but not used by general aviation; and (ii) to which access is controlled under federal law.
1H.B. 205 (Pickett) – Motor Vehicle Inspections: would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to: (1) identity the minimum program required by the federal Clean Air Act for the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program; and (2) develop a state implementation plan revision and necessary rules to revise the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program to include only the minimum program.
1S.B. 58 (Huffines) – Vehicle Inspections: would eliminate regular mandatory vehicle safety inspections.
1H.B. 199 (Picket) – Solar Charges: would provide that an investor owned electric utility may not impose on residential customers who are distributed solar or wind renewable generation owners: (1) a rate or charge that applies only to those customers; or (2) a rate or charge that is significantly higher than a similar charge imposed on residential customers who are not distributed solar or wind renewable generation owners.