Agenda Packet TC 01/05/2009 - SupplementCHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY
CENTER
justice & healing
December 11, 2008
Town of Trophy Club
Mayor Nick Sanders
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, TX 76262
Dear Mayor Sanders,
On behalf of our Board of Directors, staff, and children, thank you to the Town of
Trophy Club for providing Fair Share Funding to the Children's Advocacy Center for
Denton County for the 2008-09 fiscal year. We appreciate your city's support of our
multidisciplinary response to severe child abuse.
Due to your commitment to providing justice and healing to our children, local
municipalities contributed $128,194.43, an increase of $18,173.73 over the previous
year. Fifteen of the twenty-four municipalities that CACDC requests funding are now
providing full or partial fair share support. A fair share funding chart from last year is
attached for your review.
The Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County will move into a new facility in June
2009, which will allow more participation by your police department and other partner
agencies. The new building will provide a place of dignity for our children and their
families to receive services. More children and families will be served and more
perpetrators will be held accountable for their crimes against our children.
If you have any questions or would like to tour our current facility, please do not hesitate
to call Dan Leal, Executive Director at (972) 317-2818 ext. 227 or Chief Ed O'Bara at
(972) 317-6551. Thank you for your ongoing support.
Sincerely,
Dan Leal Chie Ed O'Bara
Executive Director CACDC Board of Directors / K V.P.D.
United Y
Way
ph 972.317.2818 •fax 972.317.6989 866.875.1015
1960 Archer Avenue • Uewisville,TX 75077 www.caedc.org
CHILDREN'S
AOVOCACY-
CENTERS
CHILDREN'S
ALLIANCE
Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County
Municipal Fair Share Calculation
JI
CC 10 1-0
Q
C� UO �O Op 00 �O
Argyle
7
99
0.01
$1,808.76
$1,000.00
$1,808.76
Aubrey
45
708
4.31
$12,997.67
$0.00
Carrollton
105
1230
7.48
$22,557.44
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Co ell
8
319
1.94
$5,850.46
$3,500.00
$5,850.46
Corinth
774
4.71
$14,203.95
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Dallas
237
1.44
$4,342.61.
$0.00
Denton
3258
19.82
$59,771.17
$8,500.00
$35,000.00
Flower Mound
635
3.86
$11,640.60
$14,401.00
$11,641.00
Frisco
127
179
1.08
$3,256.96
$0.00
Hicko Creek
31
0.19
$572.98
$300.00
$700.00
Hi hland Villa a
210
1.28
$3,860.10
$16,413.00
$3,860.10
Justin
388
2.36
$7,117.05
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Kru erville
5
103
0.62
$1,869.73
$0.00
Krum
17
2471
1.50
$4,523.55
$0.00
Lake Dallas
33
5201
3.16
$9,529.61
$7,000.00
$10,000.00
Lewisville
200
2810
17.09
$51,538.31
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
ZLittle Elm
75
531
3.23
$9,740.71
$7,000.00
$9,740.71
Oak Point
7
60
0.36
$1,085.65
$1,468.67
$1,085.65
Pilot Point
22
272
1.65
$4,975.91
$0.00
Ponder
26
277
1.69
$5,096.53
$0.00
Roanoke
201
107
0.65
$1,960.21
$5,109.12
$1,960.21
Sanger
371
375
2.28
$6,875.80
$0.00
The Colony
721
625
3.80
$11,459.66
$0.00
Trophy Club
9
79
0.48
$1,447.54
$510.91
$1,447.54
Other Denton Co.
452
2.75
$8,293.18
$0.00
Cooke County
41
309
1.88
$5,669.52
$0.00
Dallas County
144
402
2.45
$7,388.47
Wise County
19
144
0.88
$2,653.82
$0.00
*Other
170
682
4.151
$12,515.161
$0.00
Total
1,459
16,437
97.101
$301,459.411
$110,020.70
$128,194.43
* The city's fair share was calculated by multiplying the municipality's % of
services by the expenses remaining after federal, state, and county funding
provided to the Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County.
* Other includes clients from cities outside of Denton, Cooke, and Wise Counties.
* Other Denton County includes clients from unincorporated areas of the county.
December 30, 2008
Number 11
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE RELEASES REPORT ON
PROPERTY TAXES
The House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform recently
released its report relating to property taxes and appraisals. The committee, which was
chaired by Rep. John Otto (R-Dayton), held numerous hearings during the summer of
2008. The report contains the following recommendations of interest to cities:
• Consider abolishing the comptroller's property value study (PVS) in favor of a
system whereby the state reviews the methods and procedures used by appraisal
districts. The PVS exerts upward pressure on appraisals, according to the report,
and no longer serves its intended purpose.
• Consider changing from annual to biennial property reappraisals.
• Provide more training and education for appraisal review board (ARB) members,
and install a "taxpayer liaison" at each ARB.
• Consider regional ARBs, rather than having ARBs for each county.
• Simplify the effective tax rate and related budget procedures as follows:
o "Publicize the effective tax rate as the rate that would raise the same
amount of revenue as the prior year (excluding new property added to the
tax roll)";
o "Disclose the proposed rate and the percentage increase it represents from
the previous rate";
o "State the amount of revenue the new rate would generate";
o "Taxing entities should also be required to disclose the previous two years
fund balance and the projected fund balance at the end of the proposed
budget cycle. Such disclosure would enable taxpayers' ability to discern
increases in rates, revenues, and whether fund balances were being
increased beyond current needs."
• Consider eliminating residence homesteads appraisals based on the "highest and
best use" of the property.
• Consider raising the $1 million value cap on property eligible for binding
arbitration of appraisals.
• Protect property owners who successfully challenge their appraisals from quick
appraisal increases in following years.
• Consider electing some board members of the appraisal district.
• Reevaluate disaster reappraisal procedures.
Although the report includes a discussion of lowering the current ten-percent appraisal
cap, with arguments both for and against, there is no discussion or recommendations
relating to property tax revenue caps. Instead, the report focuses on issues of
transparency and simplicity with respect to the effective tax rate.
The main point to be gleaned from the report is that it seems to recognize that the chief
problems with property taxes are: (1) the immense pressure that the state’s school-
funding system places on the total property tax burden in Texas; and (2) the taxpayer’s
perception of unfairness and lack of redress regarding their individual appraisals.
Should city officials therefore be optimistic about the report? Maybe so. But within its
recommendations is ample opportunity for bad legislation to emerge. Simplification of
the effective rate, for example, can easily pave the way for a revenue cap. The TML staff
will closely monitor all legislation that is filed to implement features of the report.
2
HOUSE LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE ISSUES INTERIM REPORT
The House Committee on Land and Resource Management released its interim report last
week. The 195-page document is very thorough, and provides an in-depth (if perhaps
one-sided) analysis of the committee’s interim charges. Four of the committee’s seven
charges are directed specifically at cities. Those charges examine the current state of
laws relating to: (1) eminent domain; (2) annexation; (3) regulatory takings; and (4)
extraterritorial authority. An additional charge relating to the authority of the state’s
General Land Office to purchase property in cities is included in the report, but simply
concludes that the state should refrain from making such purchases unless “absolutely
required.”
Interim Charge Two – Eminent Domain
Observe and study ongoing litigation and actions by condemning authorities in light of
the Kelo decision and make recommendations for changes in eminent domain law needed
to protect private property rights. Specifically, examine the body of law used to
determine the amount of compensation property owners receive when their land is
condemned, in whole or part, and determine the appropriateness of this scheme as
compared to others.
The interim report recommends several changes to eminent domain laws:
• The state should refrain from statutorily or constitutionally defining “public use”
unless a consensus can be reached on a definition that would avoid unintended
consequences. Rather, the committee recommends limiting government’s power
to use eminent domain to condemn blighted or slum areas. (Note: legislators
have already pre-filed bills that would provide a statutory or constitutional
definition of “public use”, including H.J.R. 14 (Corte), H.J.R. 31 (Anderson), and
S.B. 219 (Nichols). In addition, lawmakers have filed bills that would limit
municipal authority with regard to urban renewal projects, including H.B. 37
(Corte) and H.B. 417 (Callegari).)
• The state’s statutory provisions regarding the power of eminent domain and the
condemnation process should be amended to require that a property owner be
made economically whole by the condemning entity, meaning that the property
owner should be fully compensated for each and every economic damage suffered
as a result of the eminent domain action. The report recommends that
compensation should include, for example, a new statutory standard to determine
market value, damages related to diminishment of access, loss of visibility, and
other damages that are not included under current law. In addition, the report
recommends that the law should be amended to provide for reimbursement of
many of a landowner’s expenses related to contesting an eminent domain action.
3
(Note: legislators have already filed bills that would modify the way in which
damages are calculated, including H.B. 359 (B. Brown) and H.B. 403 (Woolley).)
• State law should be amended to ensure an appropriate balance between the
interests of the state and those of individual property owners. (Note: H.B. 403
(Woolley) contains various provisions relating to this recommendation.)
On the issue of eminent domain, the report uses words like “disingenuous” to describe
city officials, makes patently incorrect statements about the actions of certain cities, and
concludes that city officials must be “adequately restrained.”
Interim Charge Three - Annexation
Research annexation practices in the state to determine whether municipalities are
abiding by both the spirit and the letter of the state’s annexation laws, thereby
maintaining a proper balance between municipal governments and residents.
The report recommends the following restrictions on annexation authority:
• The full House of Representatives should be given the opportunity to fully debate
and decide the question of whether or not municipalities should be required to
acquire the approval of residents that it proposes to annex as a precondition of
annexation. The following are statements from the report:
“These countless [witnesses] passionately argue that on the most basic and
fundamental level free people should be able to choose under which governmental
authority they are subjected to, a choice that is denied to them when they are
involuntarily made citizens of a municipality through unilateral annexation.
These individuals have reminded the Committee that such is a basic tenet of all
free societies.”
“It should be noted that there is strong argument to be made that the legislature
should amend state law to require voter approval prior to the annexation by any
municipality of any new territory (with certain reasonable exceptions such as
petition annexations)…The Committee has heard from those who believe that
such a requirement will not unduly hamper the ability of municipalities to annex
adjacent territory, but will instead provide a more appropriate balance between
the periodic need of municipalities to annex additional territory with the right of
the people to choose under which government’s jurisdiction they will submit
themselves and their property to.” [sic]
• State law should be amended to severely limit the types of areas that need not be
included in a municipality’s annexation plan under Section 43.052(h) of the Texas
Local Government Code.
4
• State law should be amended to ensure that aggrieved citizens have meaningful
recourse when a municipality fails to comply with state law.
Interim Charge Four – The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act
Examine the effectiveness of the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (Chapter
2007, Government Code).
The report recommends several changes to the Act, but the most detrimental is the
following:
• The blanket exemption for municipalities from the provisions of Texas Private
Real Property Rights Preservation Act found in Section 2007.003(b)(1), Texas
Government Code, should be repealed. The report states the following:
The Act creates a near blanket exemption for municipalities, the type of
governmental entity that is responsible for perhaps the greatest number of
complaints from property owners, most often regarding the effect that a municipal
zoning has had on the value of their property.
On this issue, the report concludes that “municipalities are most often responsible for
enacting and enforcing those regulations that diminish the value of private property.”
The report also concludes that “the at times unrestrained actions of governmental bodies,
especially municipalities…has led to a situation in which the rights of individual property
owners have been undermined for what some might claim is the public good.”
Interim Charge Six – Extraterritorial Authority
Examine recent attempts by municipalities to exert regulatory authority beyond city limits
and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Evaluate the current relationship between and possible
conflicts related to regulatory authority expressly given to state agencies by the
legislature and regulatory authority delegated to home rule municipalities.
This charge apparently relates to recent attempts by a city to regulate air pollution outside
of its city limits, in some cases within the limits of other cities. Rather than make any
substantive recommendations on the charge, the report concluded that the legislature
should continue to monitor the issue.
5
TXDOT DEMANDS MUNICIPAL FUNDS FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION:
HAS THIS HAPPENED TO YOUR CITY?
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) often requires cities to participate in
the costs of improvements to state highways. In 1991, one small Texas city entered into
an agreement with TxDOT to do just that. The agreement called for the city to partially
fund right-of-way acquisition for the widening of a major state highway.
The city agreed that TxDOT would assume responsibility for acquiring the right-of-way,
and that the city would contribute ten percent of the cost. The agreement estimated that
the city’s portion would be $18,000, and the city transferred that amount to the state.
Later, the city transferred an additional $18,000 to cover cost overruns.
In the fall of 2008 (over 17 years after the initial agreement), the city received a demand
letter from TxDOT. According to the letter, “auditing by this office [TxDOT] revealed
additional funds are due.” Imagine the city’s surprise to see that TxDOT is demanding
that an additional $496,000 be transferred to the state within 30 days.
The city is currently deciding how to best deal with this unexpected demand for
unbudgeted municipal funds to pay for a state highway project. TML is seeking
information from any city that has received a similar request from TxDOT. If you
haven’t already done so, please contact Scott Houston, TML’s director of legal
services, at shouston@tml.org if this has happened to your city.
MAY 2009 ELECTION LAW CALENDAR
In the past, the Texas Municipal League legal staff has prepared an election calendar for
general law cities. The calendar, which spelled out various deadlines for the May general
election of city officers, appeared in each January issue of Texas Town & City magazine.
Other groups annually prepare calendars as well. One of those groups is the Texas
Municipal Clerks Association (TMCA). Because the TMCA publishes this outstanding
calendar, the League will no longer prepare a separate calendar. The TMCA calendar is
available online at http://municlerks.unt.edu/pdf/electioncal2009.pdf. The League’s
legal staff remains available to answer election-related questions.
6
STATE CHANGES COLLECTION OF MIXED BEVERAGE
PERMITTING FEES
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) is switching from an annual to a
biennial collection cycle for mixed beverage permit fees. Because cities may collect
similar fees in amounts up to half of the state fee, each city will need to determine
whether to adopt the state's two-year collection cycle or remain on a one-year cycle.
Here is the link to a useful memorandum on the topic prepared by TABC:
http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/LicCom/TACletter.htm.
NEW FEDERALLY MANDATED MENTAL HEALTH
BENEFIT PARITY COULD MEAN EXPENSIVE CHANGES
FOR ALL EMPLOYERS
The $700 billion stimulus bill approved by Congress in October contains a provision
called the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. Although the measure
does not require that mental health benefits be provided by an employer, it does provide
that if an employer with 50 or more employees provides any mental health benefits, those
benefits must be identical to the benefits provided for medical or “physical” health
conditions.
Under the new law, visits to a mental health professional would have to be covered in the
same way and in the same amount as visits to a medical doctor. For example,
deductibles, copayments, out-of-pocket expenses, frequency of treatments covered,
number of visits allowed, and other similar limits would all have to be the same for
mental coverage as they are for physical coverage. Congress has given insurers until
January 1, 2010, to comply with the new requirements.
This law could dramatically increase the cost of health care for both employers and
employees who pay for dependent coverages. For more information on the effects of the
Act, cities should contact their health benefits provider.
RED LIGHT CAMERA SYSTEMS UNDER FIRE
Recently-filed lawsuits are challenging the validity of citations issued through the use of
red light cameras.
The History
The road to the use of red light camera enforcement systems is long and storied. During
the 2001 legislative session, legislation that would have amended state law to authorize
7
red light cameras and civil enforcement of violations failed to pass the Texas House on a
tie vote.
Some home rule cities, arguing that they didn’t need state authority for the systems,
proposed their own ordinances. The Texas attorney general subsequently issued Opinion
No. JC-460 (2002), which concluded that because the Transportation Code provides that
the disregard of a traffic control signal is a criminal violation, and because a city is
prohibited from enacting an ordinance that regulates the same conduct regulated by state
law (i.e., the running of a red light), a city ordinance imposing a civil fine for the same
conduct would be invalid.
In 2003, the legislature once again considered legislation to authorize the systems. After
a lengthy floor debate covering such issues as privacy and accuracy of the systems, the
bill failed to pass. However, the legislature passed a different bill that arguably allowed
for the use of the systems.
Several cities used this new authority to implement their systems, and others began
planning for implementation. In 2005, red light camera opponents filed bills to take away
the authority granted to cities in 2003, but none passed. In 2006, the Texas attorney
general’s office concluded in opinion GA-0440 that the Texas Department of
Transportation may allow cities to use red light cameras on state highway rights-of-way.
The opinion bolstered the position of cities that were using or considering the use of the
systems.
Entering the 2007 session, most city officials believed that cities had the necessary
authority to use the systems, but also realized that many legislators wished to repeal the
authority. During that session, comprehensive red light photo enforcement legislation
finally passed. The final bill (S.B. 1119) was a combination of three separate motives:
(1) the desire of some legislators to clarify the legality of red light cameras; (2) the desire
of other legislators to strictly regulate the installation and operation of red light cameras,
if they were in fact to be statutorily authorized; and (3) the desire by most legislators that
the state share in any proceeds generated by red light cameras. As passed, the bill did all
three, and then some. Many hoped that the controversy had been put to rest, but it now
appears that nothing could be further from the truth.
The Basis for the Latest Attacks
Those who oppose the use of red light camera systems have found a novel argument as to
why they are allegedly operating illegally in Texas. Various vendors contract with cities
to operate the cities’ systems. Most vendors are out-of-state companies that serve cities
around the country. Recent lawsuits argue that the Texas law governing private
investigators applies to the vendors that operate the systems. Specifically, the lawsuits
claim that Section 1702.104(a)(2) of the Private Security Act, which states that a person
acts as a private investigations company if the person engages in the business of securing
“evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee,” requires a
vendor that operates a camera system to obtain a license as a private investigator.
8
The Private Security Bureau of the Texas Department of Public Safety (which oversees
licensing) does not appear to agree with that interpretation because: (1) the city, rather
than the vendor, actually secures the evidence (the photograph); (2) the Transportation
Code expressly authorizes the use of the systems; and (3) the Private Security Act
exempts photographs taken for criminal justice purposes on behalf of a governmental
entity.
The Lawsuits
In Amanda Ward v. ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc., Ward sued ACS (a vendor that
contracted with the City of Dallas to run the city’s system) based on collection attempts
made by the company for her red light violation. Ward received her notice of violation
from the City of Dallas. ACS, on behalf of the city, contacted Ward and notified her that
she would be reported to a national credit agency if she did not pay the fine.
Ward filed suit in state district court in Dallas, alleging various state law causes of action.
She also sought $3 million in damages. After various procedural tactics were dealt with
in both state and federal court, the court issued a partial summary judgment in favor of
Ward, ordering that ACS should have been licensed as a private investigator under Texas
law.
On the heels of Ward’s victory, two new cases have been filed in federal court against
two different vendors. The plaintiffs in Steven Bell, Alexis and Jacqueline Monrreal,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.,
filed suit in Dallas. They claim that American Traffic Solutions failed to obtain the
appropriate license as a private investigator in Texas. The plaintiffs received notices of
red light violations from Irving and Arlington, respectively. Importantly, the pleadings in
the case seek to certify a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who has ever received
a notice of violation from those cities, and seeks actual damages in the amount of the
tickets each plaintiff received, attorneys’ fees, plus $3 million in punitive damages. The
same attorney filed an essentially identical suit in federal court in Sherman, Steven Bell,
TXPS, Inc., and Mohammed Al Musa on behalf of others similarly situated v. Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc. That case involves notices of violation issued by Plano and
Duncanville.
Vendor/City Responses
The vendors have vowed to vigorously defend against the lawsuits. The Texas Red Light
Camera Coalition is a group of cities that was formed in 2006 to prepare for the 2007
legislative session. The coalition is still active and will likely guide the response of
affected cities.
Meanwhile, a recent study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded
that red light cameras at intersections may reduce traffic accidents by up to 30 percent.
But some people just can’t get past the idea of a private company assisting cities with
9
enforcement. Where most cities see the cameras as public safety tools, these people see
them as “big brother” and oppose them for various reasons related to that
characterization.
The League will continue to monitor the lawsuits and coordinate with the coalition as
needed.
THE GIVING SEASON: TCEQ MAY LOOK TO CITIES
FOR MORE MONEY
Cash-strapped state agencies may soon be looking to your city to pay more for state
programs that the state does not fund with its own revenue.
In anticipation of a projected revenue shortfall in the 2010-2011 biennium, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) may seek to fund water program
activities by restructuring Consolidated Water Quality (CWQ) fees and Public Health
Service (PHS) fees. These two fees are the most broad-based, water-related fees at the
agency and represent two of the top three revenue-generators at TCEQ.
TCEQ plans to amend the CWQ and the PHS assessment by rule as early as February
2009. These fees can be revised without statutory change, but TCEQ may also seek
legislation to raise the $75,000 statutory cap to either $200,000 or to remove the cap
altogether. This could result in enormous fee increases for some cities as TCEQ seeks to
support their current level of water program activities.
TCEQ will no doubt ask the legislature to provide additional state general revenue for
water programs, but if history is any indication it will ultimately fall on the shoulders of
cities to fund these state activities.
MUNICIPAL COST INFLATION AT 5.6 PERCENT
The Municipal Cost Index (MCI), developed exclusively by American City and County
magazine, shows the effect of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services. The
MCI is used to study price trends, help control price increases for commodities, make
informed government contract decisions, and facilitate sound budget planning. The MCI
determines the cost of inflation and the rising cost of doing business as a local
government.
According to American City and County magazine, the MCI for December 2008 was
210.6, down 1.9 percent from the previous month but a 5.6 percent increase over the
previous year. The December 2007 MCI was 199.5.
10
In this era of rapid inflation, the MCI increases at a faster rate than does the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) because a city purchases great amounts of items that have pushed
inflation in the past year: gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt, health insurance, and many more.
PRE-FILING OF BILLS CONTINUES
H.B. 175 (S. King) – Police Training: would require peace officers to complete (every
24 months) an education and training program relating to the investigation and prevention
of drive-by shootings.
H.B. 185 (Alonzo) – Library Computers: would require that a public library with a
service area of more than 50,000 residents shall provide computers with high-speed
Internet access for use by the public.
H.B. 191 (Alonzo) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would require that certain health
benefit plans that provide coverage for low dose mammography must allow a patient to
choose a physician who is not the patient’s primary care physician to conduct the
mammography.
H.B. 205 (Aycock) – Dangerous Dogs: would provide that a city’s leash laws may not
be applied to certain dogs used to protect livestock on an agricultural operation within the
city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction or on land that has been annexed.
H.B. 209 (Bohac) – Property Tax: would do the following: (1) limit re-appraisals of
residential homesteads to no more often than once every two years; and (2) prevent
taxable value increases in years in which homesteads are not re-appraised. (Note: the
intended effect of this bill is to create a five-percent appraisal cap on homesteads, but its
constitutionality—absent an accompanying constitutional amendment—is questionable).
(Companion bill is S.B. 276 by Patrick, below.)
H.B. 210 (Aycock) – Public Information Act: would make confidential the name and
physical address of an individual who provides that information to a governmental body
in connection with a communication to the governmental body or in order to receive
subsequent communication from the governmental body, subject to certain exceptions.
H.B. 214 (Bonnen) – Sex Offenders: would require local police departments to provide
to registering sex offenders certain information regarding required notice to school
administrators during a school visit by a registrant.
H.B. 218 (Menendez) – Graffiti: would allow a city to regulate the sale of aerosol paint
by: (1) requiring identification and logging by businesses of each sale of aerosol paint;
and (2) requiring businesses to provide the information regarding aerosol paint sales to a
law enforcement agency.
11
H.B. 219 (Menendez) – Cell Phone Ban: would: (1) make the use of a cell phone or
other wireless communication device by the operator of a motor vehicle moving through
a school crossing zone illegal, with some exceptions; and (2) mandate that a city send 50
percent of the fines collected under the new law to the state comptroller at the end of the
fiscal year, to be deposited in the foundation school fund.
H.B. 220 (Menendez) – Cell Phone Ban: would make the use of wireless
communication devices while operating a motor vehicle a class C misdemeanor, subject
to certain exceptions.
H.B. 225 (Aycock) – Property Tax: would exempt from property taxes certain
equipment related to rainwater harvesting, water conservation, desalinization, and brush
control (Note: under current law, such an exemption is optional for a city council.)
(Note: please see H.J.R. 25, below.)
H.B. 226 (Pitts) – Employee Charitable Contributions: would prohibit an employer
from: (1) withholding or diverting any part of an employee’s wages for a charitable
contribution unless the employer has written authorization from the employee to deduct
part of the wages for that purpose; and (2) terminating or suspending an employee who
declines to participate in a charitable contribution campaign conducted by the employer
or at the place of employment.
H.B. 227 (Pitts) – Information Technology: would clarify that an information
technology professional who is installing or repairing computer equipment is not required
to hold a private investigator’s license.
H.B. 231 (Pitts) – Sale of Alcoholic Beverages: would allow a board of trustees of a
school district to petition any city to adopt a 1,000-foot distance requirement between
businesses selling alcoholic beverages and public schools. (Note: current law permits
such petitions only in cities over 900,000 in population.)
H.B. 238 (Rodriguez) – Sales Tax: would exempt from sales taxes certain renewable
energy devices.
H.B. 240 (Alonzo) – Appointment to Governing Body: would: (1) provide that an
appointment to the governing body of a city must be made with the intent to ensure that
the governing body is representative of the constituency served by the governing body;
and (2) require a city to adopt procedures for the implementation of such appointment
procedures.
H.B. 243 (Alonzo) – Law Enforcement: would require a police department to equip
each vehicle used in K-9 law enforcement with a heat alarm.
H.B. 244 (Alonzo) – Immigration: would provide that a city may not require a landlord
to: (1) refuse to lease to a prospective tenant or renew the lease of a tenant solely on the
basis of the immigration status of the tenant or a member of the tenant's family; or (2)
12
inquire as to the immigration status of a tenant or prospective tenant or a member of the
tenant's family.
H.B. 245 (Alonzo) – Elections: would provide that a person who would be eligible to
vote in an election, but who is not registered, shall be accepted for voting in the precinct
of the person's residence if, on the day the person offers to vote, the person submits a
voter registration application and presents proof of identification that establishes the
person's residence.
H.B. 247 (Alonzo) – Elections: would provide that: (1) an authority conducting an
election may establish on election day an additional polling place at the location of the
main early voting polling place that is open during the first two hours of voting and
during the last two hours of voting; and (2) a voter may cast a ballot at the additional
polling place if the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter is unable to find the
polling place in the voter's precinct and has not previously voted in the election.
H.B. 248 (Alonzo) – Voting Rights Protection: would: (1) prohibit any state law or
regulation, rule, order, ordinance, practice, or procedure of a political subdivision that
denies or abridges the right of an individual to vote based on race, color, ethnicity, or
membership in a language minority group; and (2) permit an individual to bring a civil
action against the state or a political subdivision for violating this statute.
H.B. 251 (Berman) – Political Advertising: would make the use of an internal mail
system or electronic mail system by an officer or employee of a state agency or political
subdivision for the distribution of political advertising a Class A misdemeanor.
H.B. 252 (Berman) – Elections: would allow certain underaged students to serve as
election clerks.
H.B. 254 (Berman) – Immigration: would: (1) require that all illegal immigrants
residing in the state must reside in a “sanctuary city”; and (2) require that the Department
of Public Safety disseminate information in English and Spanish regarding the residency
requirement.
H.B. 259 (Berman) – Law Enforcement: would require a police officer to do the
following after citing a driver for no insurance: (1) remove the vehicle’s license plates;
(2) provide for secure impoundment of the license plates in the offices of the officer who
removed the plate; (3) issue written notice to the offender regarding the process by which
the offender may recover the plates and the consequences of not taking those steps; (4)
issue temporary license plates to offenders whose plates are removed; (5) submit
information to the DPS, TxDOT and county within specific time frames; and (6) destroy
certain license plates.
H.B. 261 (Berman) – Law Enforcement: would prohibit a city or any officer or
employee of the city from adopting any policy that does not fully enforce state and
13
federal law, and, in the case of policies that would not fully enforce state and federal
immigration laws, prohibit the city from receiving state funds.
H.B. 266 (Berman) – Immigration: would: (1) require a city to register with and
participate in an electronic system, such as “E-Verify”, to determine whether its
employees are authorized to work in the United States under federal law; (2) prohibit a
city from entering into any contract unless the contractor participates in an electronic
verification system; (3) subject a city to liability if the city discharges a United States
citizen or permanent resident alien while retaining an “unauthorized alien”; and (4)
require a city to verify a recipient’s immigration status before providing certain public
benefits.
H.B. 272 (Ortiz) – Communicable Diseases: would allow a local health authority to: (1)
provide anonymous exchange of used hypodermic needles and syringes; (2) provide
medical waste containers for safe disposal of syringes; and (3) charge for syringes.
H.B. 288 (Dutton) – Municipal Court: would shift the duty to issue occupational
drivers licenses from county courts to justice and municipal courts.
H.B. 291 (Dutton) – Sovereign Immunity: would permit plaintiffs to obtain discovery
from cities that raise certain sovereign immunity defenses to a lawsuit.
H.B. 292 (Dutton) – Municipal Court: would provide that an individual convicted of
any offense under Texas law may submit an application for the restoration of any rights
forfeited as a result of the conviction.
H.B. 293 (Dutton) – Municipal Court: would: (1) mandate compulsory expunctions in
municipal courts in certain situations; and (2) broaden the circumstances under which
expunctions are available to defendants.
H.B. 301 (Dutton) – Municipal Court: would: (1) require a municipal prosecutor, upon
request by a defendant and subject to certain exceptions and existing rules of evidence, to
make available to the defendant multiple types of discovery records related to the case;
(2) require the same of the defendant; (3) create sanctions for violations; (4) apply the
requirements created to pro se defendants only as required by the court; and (5) give the
release requirement precedence over the Texas Public Information Act.
H.B. 306 (Dutton) – Elections: would provide that an election judge or clerk is entitled
to at least one-and-a-half times the federal hourly minimum wage as compensation for
services rendered at a precinct polling place.
H.B. 314 (Raymond) – Law Enforcement: would require the DPS to create a system
allowing a police officer to receive from the department criminal history information
regarding certain alcohol offenses during a traffic stop.
14
H.B. 323 (Raymond) – Water Utilities: would require any publicly owned water
treatment facility to: (1) use a gas chromatograph to sample any discharge from the
plant; (2) report any unauthorized discharge to the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ); (3) give notice to any treatment plants downstream; and (4) provide
water samples to the TCEQ under certain circumstances.
H.B. 325 (Raymond) – Sales Tax: would exempt college text books from sales taxes
during two, two-week periods, one in August and one in January. (Companion bill is
S.B. 22 by Zaffirini.)
H.B. 338 (Leibowitz) – Diversion of State Revenue: would limit the diversion of state
revenue that is dedicated to a particular purpose by, among other things, providing that:
(1) surplus state agency funds must continue to be sent to the state’s general fund, except
for any portion of a fund derived from dedicated revenues or funds that are dedicated by
the Texas Constitution or by statute; and (2) state revenue that has been set aside by law
for a particular purpose or entity is generally available only for that purpose or entity.
H.B. 341 (Herrero) – Property Tax: would create a $3,000 homestead property tax
exemption for members of the armed forces. (Note: please see H.J.R. 28, below.)
H.B. 346 (Straus) – Sales Tax: would entitle owners of certain energy efficient facilities
to receive rebates of state sales taxes paid for repair or remodeling services. It is unclear
whether the refund would apply to city sales taxes.
H.B. 355 (Aycock) – Elections: would provide that a political subdivision with a
population of less than 1,500, other than a county, is exempt from certain electronic
voting machine requirements, provided reasonable accommodations are made for persons
with disabilities. The exemption would not apply during a joint election where a federal
office appears on the ballot.
H.B. 356 (Quintanilla) – Cell Phone Ban: would double the fine for certain traffic
violations in cases where the person who committed the offense was using a wireless
communication device at the time.
H.B. 360 (Kuempel) – Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS): would make the
following changes to the TMRS statute: (1) guarantee an annual interest credit of at least
five percent to member accounts and set the annuity purchase rate for retirees at a
minimum of five percent; (2) allow the crediting of unrealized income to certain
accounts; and (3) allow city accounts to receive annual interest at a rate different from the
member rate, including negative interest.
H.B. 369 (B. Brown) – Eminent Domain: would allow for additional damages in a
condemnation proceeding by:
1. authorizing a property owner in a condemnation proceeding to seek an award for
damages caused by the condemnation to the remaining portion of the tract or
parcel;
15
2. providing that the total amount of the award for damages to the property
condemned and the remaining property must be based on the difference in the
local market value of the entire tract or parcel immediately before the
condemnation and the local market value of the remaining property immediately
after the condemnation, considering any benefit or injury that the construction or
operation of the project for which the property was condemned has on the local
market value of the property owner's remaining property;
3. prohibiting an award of compensation based on any increase or decrease in the
local market value of an entire tract or parcel of real property caused by the
condemnor's proposed project;
4. providing that any increase or decrease in the local market value of an owner's
remaining real property caused by the condemnor's proposed project after the
condemnation shall be considered in estimating the local market value of that
property after the condemnation, except that, in the case of a condemnation of real
property by or for the Texas Department of Transportation for a state or federal
highway, in estimating the local market value of the property condemned,
including the local market value of any remaining property, if a portion of a tract
or parcel of real property is condemned, the special commissioners shall consider
all factors considered in the marketplace that may affect the property's local
market value, including: (a) vehicular and pedestrian access to and from and on
and off the property; (b) traffic circulation and count in and around the property;
(c) visibility and appearance of the property; (d) productivity and convenience of
use of the property, including the property's highest and best use; and (e) the
property's access to utilities and drainage; and
5. mandating that, if the property condemned is owned by a public entity or by a
person organized and operated on a nonprofit basis and the property is devoted to
and needed by the property owner in good faith to perform a public function or to
provide a nonprofit educational, charitable, or eleemosynary service, the damage
award may not be less than the financial cost of replacing the property.
H.B. 370 (Berman) – Official Language: would establish English as the official
language for acts of government, and would prevent the state or a political subdivision of
the state from making a policy that expresses a preference for any language other than
English, subject to certain exceptions.
H.B. 373 (Anderson) – Elections: would: (1) require the voter registrar of each county
and the secretary of state to provide notice of voter identification requirements and to
educate voters about the requirements through certain programs by publishing notice on
certain websites; (2) require a voter to present to an election officer at the polling place a
voter registration certificate and an acceptable form of identification; (3) modify the types
of acceptable voter identification documents; and (4) provide that a voter who presents a
voter registration certificate indicating that the voter is currently registered in the
precinct, but whose name is not on the precinct list of registered voters, shall be accepted
for voting if the voter’s identity can be verified from the proof presented.
16
H.B. 377 (S. Miller) – Economic Development: would: (1) create the "Texas Rural Job
Development Fund"; and (2) provide that money in the fund, which may include Texas
Enterprise Fund donations and legislative appropriations, can be used to offer incentives
to entrepreneurs and businesses creating jobs in rural communities.
H.B. 381 (Callegari) – Elections: would provide that a political subdivision with a
population of less than 5,000, other than a county, is exempt from certain electronic
voting machine requirements. The exemption would not apply during a joint election
where a federal office appears on the ballot.
H.B. 386 (S. Miller) – Property Tax: would expand appraisal district boards of directors
from five to seven members by adding two popularly-elected members.
H.B. 387 (Pena) – Volunteer Fire Departments: would exempt volunteer fire
departments from the payment of motor fuel taxes. (Companion bill is S.B. 254 by
Estes.)
H.B. 390 (Zerwas) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would require that certain health
benefit plans, including a plan offered by a governmental risk pool, provide coverage for
health care costs incurred in connection with certain clinical trials for the prevention,
detection, or treatment of a life-threatening disease or condition. (Companion bill is S.B.
39 by Zaffirini.)
H.B. 398 (Ortiz) – Economic Development: deletes Chapter 398 from the Local
Government Code. (Note: this is a 2005 law that allows a city to pledge sales tax revenue
increases to attract certain special events.)
H.B. 400 (Herrero) – Disabled Parking: would require a city that enforces disabled
parking restrictions to dismiss an offense of parking in a disabled parking spot without a
proper placard if: (1) a placard is displayed, but expired; (2) the placard has been expired
for less than sixty days; and (3) the individual who received the ticket renews the
disabled parking placard within 20 working days from the date of the offense or by the
ticket hearing date, whichever is later.
H.B. 401 (Raymond) – Elections: would extend from 2005 to 2010 the deadline for a
city to change the date on which it holds its general election for officers to another
authorized uniform election date.
H.B. 402 (Woolley) – Eminent Domain: would make the following changes to eminent
domain laws: (1) define a “public use” as one that allows the state, a political
subdivision, or the general public to possess, occupy, and enjoy the property, including
the specifically enumerated public projects in current law; (2) provide that a
governmental entity may not take private property through the use of eminent domain if
the taking: (a) confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the
property; (b) is for a public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a
particular private party; (c) is for economic development purposes, unless the economic
17
development is a secondary purpose resulting from municipal community development or
municipal urban renewal activities, or (d) is not for a public use as defined by the bill; (3)
require a record vote with specific wording to take each parcel of land through the use of
eminent domain; (4) require an entity that wants to acquire real property for a public use
to make a “bona fide offer” to acquire the property voluntarily, and to certify in the
condemnation petition that the offer was made; (5) define “bona fide offer” to mean one
that is not arbitrary or capricious and is based on a reasonably thorough investigation and
honest assessment of the amount of the just compensation due to the landowner as a
result of the taking; (6) provide that if a court finds that a condemnor failed to make a
bona fide offer, the court shall abate the suit and order that an offer be made; (7) provide
that if a court finds that a condemnor filed frivolous pleadings, the condemnor shall pay
the property owner’s costs and attorney’s fees; (8) change the evidentiary standard used
for determining market value to mean “the price a property will bring when offered for
sale by a person who desires to sell the property, but is not obliged to sell the property,
and is bought by a person who desires to buy the property, but is not under a necessity to
buy the property;” (9) provide that the special commissioners shall admit, subject to the
Texas Rules of Evidence, evidence as to the market value of the property before the
condemnation and the net change in market value to the remaining property, considering
both injury and benefit to the property owner; (10) for individuals or entities displaced by
eminent domain, require a city to provide a relocation advisory service that is compatible
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Advisory Program; (11) require a city,
as a cost of acquiring real property, to pay moving expenses and rental supplements,
make relocation payments, provide financial assistance to acquire replacement housing,
and compensate for expenses incidental to the transfer of the property if an individual, a
family, the personal property of a business, a farming or ranching operation, or a
nonprofit organization is displaced in connection with the acquisition; (12) modify the
current provisions that allow a property owner to repurchase the property if it isn’t used
by the condemnor within ten years of the condemnation by providing that the repurchase
price is the price paid to the condemnee at the time the property was condemned, and
provide that the right is activated if the condemnor fails to begin the operation or
construction of the project during the ten-year period; (13) limit the authority of a water
and sewer utility (not including a municipal water and sewer utility) to use eminent
domain only to acquire property necessary to, among other things, comply with federal
and state regulations relating to sanitation; (14) add additional court costs in a
condemnation proceeding; (15) provide that a person whose property is taken by eminent
domain for an easement may construct streets or roads up to 40 feet wide over the
easement; (16) provide that, for property condemned for the state highway system or a
county toll project, the special commissioners shall consider any diminished access to the
highway and to or from the remaining property to the extent that it affects the present
market value of the real property; and (17) include specific additional reforms that apply
solely to common carriers.
H.B. 403 (Villarreal) – Impact Fees: would exempt certain nonprofit housing
organizations from paying city impact fees.
18
H.B. 404 (Harless) – Immigration: would: (1) prohibit a city from adopting a policy
under which the city's police department or other city officials would not fully enforce
state or federal laws relating to immigration; (2) penalize a city that adopts such a policy
by taking away state grant funds; and (3) allow a citizen residing in a city that adopts
such a policy or fails to enforce state or federal law to file a petition in a district court to
compel compliance with this law. (Companion bill is S.B. 358 by Patrick, below.)
H.B. 405 (Harless) – Animal Control: would permit animal control officers to carry
bite prevention sticks.
H.B. 408 (Isett) – Property Tax: would permit a disabled veteran or the veteran's
surviving spouse to pay homestead property taxes in installments.
H.B. 412 (Isett) – Sales Tax: would exempt the following assessments and fees from
telecommunications services sales taxes if the cost is passed through to the purchaser: (1)
city franchise fees; (2) utility gross assessment receipts; (3) universal service fund
assessments; and (4) federal universal service fund charges.
H.J.R. 25 (Aycock) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize
the legislature to grant a property tax exemption for certain equipment related to
rainwater harvesting, water conservation, desalinization, and brush control. (Note:
please see H.B. 225, above.)
H.J.R. 27 (Berman) – Official Language: would amend the Texas Constitution to
establish English as the official language in Texas and prevent the state or a political
subdivision of the state from making any policy or appropriating any money to express a
preference for a language other than English, subject to certain exceptions.
H.J.R. 28 (Herrero) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize
the legislature to provide, for all taxing units, a $3,000 residential homestead tax
exemption for members of the armed forces. (Note: please see H.B. 341, above).
H.J.R. 31 (Anderson) – Eminent Domain: would amend the Texas Constitution to
provide that the state or a political subdivision of the state may not take private property
through the use of the power of eminent domain if the primary purpose of the taking is
for economic development or to benefit a particular private party.
H.J.R. 32 (Berman) – Official Language: would amend the Texas Constitution to: (1)
establish English as the official language in Texas; (2) provide that the new requirement
applies to an official document recorded or first maintained on or after December 1,
2009; and (3) prevent the state or a political subdivision of the state from making any
policy or appropriating any money to express a preference for a language other than
English, subject to certain exceptions.
19
S.B. 64 (Zaffirini) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would require that certain health
benefit plans, including those offered by a governmental risk pool, provide coverage for
devices that facilitate insulin therapy and enhance glucose control.
S.B. 116 (Ellis) – Police Departments: would: (1) require a police department to provide
training regarding the technological aspects of electronically recording interrogations to
any officer or employee who interrogates defendants or suspects; (2) require the DPS to
adopt rules providing funds or electronic recording equipment to police departments; and
(3) exempt certain electronically recorded interrogations from release under the Texas
Public Information Act.
S.B. 261 (Deuell) – Law Enforcement: would require a blood or breath test when the
person arrested: (1) was in an accident where a victim suffered bodily injury and required
transportation to a hospital; (2) is suspected of driving while intoxicated with a child
under the age of 15 in the car; or (3) is suspected by the arresting officer, based on
reliable information from a credible source, of having been previously arrested for certain
intoxication offenses.
S.B. 265 (Hinojosa) – Electric Utilities: would provide that: (1) an entity that provides
retail electric service shall waive any deposit requirement for a residential customer who
is at least 62 years of age or has a payment history for electric service in this state that
includes not more than one late payment in the preceding 12 months; (2) during the
period beginning July 1 and ending September 30 of each year, an entity that provides
retail electric service may not disconnect service to a residential customer who requests a
deferred payment plan and who is a low-income electric customer or is likely to be
seriously ill; and (3) an entity that provides retail electric service shall offer a specified
payment plan to a residential customer who is elderly or ill.
S.B. 276 (Patrick) – Property Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 209 by Bohac, above.
S.B. 280 (Nelson) – Public Information Act: would make the following changes
regarding the confidential nature of certain personal information about city officers or
employees: (1) automatically make certain personal information confidential, instead of
requiring an affirmative election by each officer or employee; (2) include an officer or
employee's date of birth and shift assignment among the confidential information; (3)
permit each officer or employee to make personal information public.
S.B. 295 (West) – 4A/4B Sales Tax: would permit the expenditure of 4A/4B sales tax
revenue on college scholarships.
S.B. 298 (Carona) – Sobriety Checkpoints: would authorize certain law enforcement
agencies to operate a temporary checkpoint to determine whether persons operating
motor vehicles are intoxicated.
S.B. 299 (Patrick) – Property Tax: would reduce the property tax appraisal cap on
homesteads from ten to five percent. (Note: please see S.J.R. 13 below.)
20
S.B. 304 (Shapleigh) – Public Information Act: would: (1) prohibit governmental
bodies from entering into confidentiality agreements with a requestor who is a member,
agency, or committee of the legislature when there is evidence in the requested
information that the governmental body has committed a crime that has not been detected
or investigated; and (2) declare void any confidentiality agreement regarding information
that contains evidence that the governmental body has committed a crime that has not
been detected or investigated.
S.B. 313 (Wentworth) – Tax Increment Financing: would do the following: (1) permit
a city that creates a tax increment finance zone to extend the duration of the zone beyond
its original termination date; and (2) give other taxing entities the option to continue to
participate in zones which have had their duration extended.
S.B. 331 (Carona) – Public Information Act: would: (1) provide that the home
address, home telephone number, social security number, or family member information
of a current or former employee of a governing body or a current or formal official of the
governing body is excepted from disclosure regardless of whether the individual elected
to keep the information confidential; and (2) provide that information that could
compromise the safety of a public officer or employee is confidential if the individual
applies to the governmental body’s public information officer and asserts that disclosure
of certain information could compromise the individual’s safety, and the public
information officer determines that the individual’s safety would be compromised if such
information were released to the public.
S.B. 333 (Carona) – Municipal Court Fees: would replace a $22.50 court cost used for
maintaining a certified breath alcohol testing program in some cities, the authority for
which was repealed in 2003, by permitting a municipal court to keep the same amount
from certain other fees sent to the comptroller’s office.
S.B. 339 (Gallegos) – Emergency Procedures: would require the governor and the
Department of Public Safety to write rules that establish uniform reentry procedures for
essential personnel entering a disaster area, a stricken area, or threatened area that has
been evacuated, including procedures that: (1) authorize the orderly reentry of essential
personnel according to the critical functions provided by the personnel in restoring
normal operations to the area following an evacuation; (2) prioritize the order of reentry
for the essential personnel, including emergency responders, search and rescue personnel,
infrastructure and utility repair personnel, official damage assessment personnel, health
care providers, and businesses essential to the return of residents; and (3) establish
methods to verify the identity of the personnel authorized to reenter the area.
S.B. 340 (Gallegos) – Emergency Housing: would require that a city be reimbursed by
any resource available to the state for expenses incurred during a mandatory evacuation,
including expenses for: (1) for the use of a public facility in a city as an emergency
shelter or temporary housing space, including lost revenue; and (2) amounts paid for
salaries and benefits of permanently employed, straight-time and regular-time city
21
personnel who perform duties associated with the movement or evacuation of persons
into, out of, or through a city.
S.B. 357 (Patrick) – Immigration: would: (1) require the suspension of any employer's
license to do business if the employer knowingly employs a person not lawfully present
in the United States; (2) require an employer to terminate any individual on order of the
comptroller, if the employee is found to be not lawfully present in the United States or
risk losing any business license provided by the state or a political subdivision of the
state; and (3) require a city to suspend any license of an employer found to be in
noncompliance with immigration law.
S.B. 358 (Patrick) – Immigration: this bill is the same as H.B. 404 by Harless, above.
S.B. 360 (Patrick) – Sales Tax: would create a three-day sales tax holiday in June for
certain hurricane preparation supplies.
S.B. 361 (Patrick) – Water Utilities: would: (1) require a city water or sewer utility to
“ensure” operations during an extended power outage; (2) require a city water or sewer
utility to adopt and submit to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
an emergency preparedness plan for an extended power outage, under a deadline
schedule set according to the utility’s distance from the coast; and (3) require the TCEQ
to create a template plan and allow utility access to agency staff for assistance.
S.B. 362 (Fraser) – Elections: would: (1) require the voter registrar of each county and
the secretary of state to provide notice of voter identification requirements and to educate
voters of the requirements through certain programs by publishing notice on certain
websites; (2) require a voter to present to an election officer at the polling place a voter
registration certificate and an acceptable form of identification; (3) modify the types of
acceptable voter identification documents; and (4) provide that a voter who presents a
voter registration certificate indicating that the voter is currently registered in the
precinct, but whose name is not on the precinct list of registered voters, shall be accepted
for voting if the voter’s identity can be verified from the proof presented.
S.B. 363 (Fraser) – Elections: would: (1) provide that a voter registration application
must include a copy of a document providing proof that the applicant is a United States
citizen; (2) require a voter to present to an election officer at the polling place a voter
registration certificate and an acceptable form of identification; (3) provide that, if a voter
does not present acceptable identification, the voter shall be accepted for provisional
voting only; (4) provide that a voter who presents a voter registration certificate
indicating that the voter is currently registered in the precinct, but whose name is not on
the precinct list of registered voters, shall be accepted for voting if the voter’s identity can
be verified from the proof presented; and (5) provide that a provisional ballot may be
accepted only if: (a) the voter presents acceptable proof of identification at the time the
ballot is cast; or (b) the voter submits a copy of the identification to the voter registrar by
personal delivery or by mail for examination by the early voting ballot board not later
than the fifth day after the date of the election.
22
S.B. 365 (Carona) – Municipal Court: would: (1) require a municipal judge to require
a bond from a defendant during the deferral period of a deferred disposition; and (2)
expand the use of that bond to include special expenses.
S.J.R. 13 (Patrick) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize
the legislature to reduce the property tax appraisal cap on homesteads from ten to five
percent. (Note: please see S.B. 299, above.)
S.J.R 16 (Carona) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize
the legislature to exempt high-speed passenger rail facilities from property taxes.
WHAT’S YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE OR INTEREST?
JOIN YOUR FAVORITE E-LIST
The TML staff is gathering e-mail addresses from city officials (elected or appointed)
who are willing to provide testimony during the 2009 legislative session, want to be kept
“in the loop” on certain subject matters, or are willing to simply provide their perspective
on a particular legislative matter. If you would like to participate in this E-List project,
simply send an e-mail to Chelsea Phillips at Chelsea@tml.org with your name/e-mail
address and the subject matter(s) below that interest you.
Subject Areas
• Annexation
• Billboards
• Civil Service
• Code Enforcement
• Collective Bargaining and Meet and Confer
• Disaster Response
• Disease Presumption
• Economic Development
• Elections
• Electric Utilities
• Emergency Service Districts/EMS
• Ethics
• Gas Utilities
• GFOAT
• Land Use
• Municipal Court
• Open Meetings/Open Records
• Personnel
• Property Tax
• Public Safety Fire
23
• Public Safety Police
• Purchasing
• Sales Tax
• Telecommunications
• Transportation
• Water
• Other:________________________________
TML member cities may use the material herein for any purpose.
No other person or entity may reproduce, duplicate, or distribute any part
of this document without the written authorization of the
Texas Municipal League.
24
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 20, 2008
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular
Session on November 20, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Municipal Drive,
Trophy Club, and Texas 76262.
COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE:
Chairman Hill Present
Vice Chairman Stephens Absent
Commissioner Reed Present
Commissioner Sheridan Present
Commissioner Forest Present
Commissioner Ashby Present
Commissioner Davidson Present
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator
Chris King Building Inspector
Tom Rutledge Town Engineer, Teague Nall & Perkins
Larry Stewart Owner, Lot 3, Block B
Rick Horn Pate Surveyors
Raj Chudasama Hydra Hotels, LLC
Juan Vasquez Tomden Engineering
Jeff Morrison Tomden Engineering
A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM.
Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present.
B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2008 PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Davidson asked for a correction of the spelling of his name in Items B.1 and
C.1. Commissioner Sheridan motioned to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2008,
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as corrected. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Forest.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson
Nays: None
Action: 6-0, Approved
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PD-PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z TO CORRECT
AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE ORDINANCE. (PD AMD-08-028)
C.2 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z TO
CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE ORDINANCE. (PD AMD-08-028)
Chairman Hill announced the item and then stated to the Commissioners and the audience
that documentation provided in the packet concerning P&Z consideration in February and
March 2007 for various amendments to PD-27 verifies the Commission’s action to provide Lot
Type 3 side yard setbacks of 5-ft. The 6-ft. value shown in Table 4-1 on Page 31 of Ordinance
2007-15 P&Z was inconsistent with the Ordinance’s text and the Commission’s decision for a
5-ft. side yard.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing, noted that there were none wishing to speak, and the
public hearing was closed.
Chairman Hill asked for a motion recommending to the Town Council approval of a
correction to Table 4-1 on Page 31 of Ordinance 2007-15 P&Z, changing the Lot Type 3
side yard value to 5-ft.
Chairman Reed so moved and Commissioner Sheridan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Sheridan thanked Mrs. Huggins for researching this for correction of this item.
Commissioner Ashby stated that he believed the Commission had intended to approve this
change provided the 5-ft. applied if the garage was not facing the street, but 6-ft. if the garage
was facing the street.
Chairman Hill responded that the Commission did discuss dual side yard widths for this lot
type, but eventually the Commission dropped the dual width side yard to have a single width
throughout Lot Type 3.
Commissioner Ashby stated that he was not present at the meeting where the dual side yard
width was dropped and therefore when he voted for this change on March 15, 2007, he
thought he was voting for the dual side widths. He would prefer to see it that way.
There was no further discussion and the Chairman reminded the Commission that there was a
motion and a second and he called for a vote.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Davidson
Nays: Ashby
Action: 5-1, Approved
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
C.3 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR
REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK B, TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER INTO LOTS
3R1 AND 3R2, BLOCK B. APPLICANT: LARRY STEWART, OWNER,
REPRESENTED BY PATE SURVEYORS. (RP-08-016)
Chairman Hill announced the case and asked Ms. Huggins for a staff report.
Ms. Huggins stated that this is a replat request for Lot 3, Block B, which is designated as
Tracts 8 and 9 on the 2002 zoning concept plan for this property. This request is to subdivide
the lot into two lots matching the zoning that was approved in 2002. There are a couple of
minor corrections needed to the plat. There is a 37’ fire lane, drainage and access easement
which is not consistent from Lot 3R1 to Lot 3R2 which will be corrected by the applicant prior to
taking this plat to Council. Also, in the dedication and notary blocks the owner’s full name was
not properly written and that has been corrected as well.
Ms. Huggins stated that this plat meets the Town regulations for plat approval and staff
recommends approval.
Chairman Hill asked the developer for a statement.
Rick Horn, Pate Engineers & Surveyors, 6000 Western Center II, Fort Worth, stated that they
appreciate the work Carolyn has done on this plat. A couple of minor corrections have been
discussed and they believe Carolyn is comfortable with approving this plat and they hope that
the Commissioners also are comfortable with moving this on to Town Council. He is available
to answer questions.
Chairman Hill reminded the Commissioners that this item is for replat consideration only.
Although the owner is platting with fire lanes and easements to match a potential site for a
Holiday Inn concept plan, it may be necessary for the property owner to amend this replat if a
Holiday Inn is not brought forward for development on Lot 3R2. The Holiday Inn concept plan
is not a topic for discussion in this replat hearing.
Commissioner Davidson asked if it is necessary to have fire lanes on this plat since the current
plan does not show a second means of egress out of the plat. Chairman Hill responded that it
is not a requirement, but the applicant requested that the fire lanes be included. Ms. Huggins
added that a second ingress/egress will be required for a hotel and the applicant is willing to
put that on the plat before this item goes before Council.
Commissioner Sheridan mentioned a right-of-way dedication on the 2003 plat (that was
included with the packet for reference only) that might need to be abandoned. The right-of-
way Mr. Sheridan was referring to is not part of the replat being considered but will be noted
for future reference.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
Mr. Sheridan stated that a concept plan for a Holiday Inn was included in the packet and he
wishes to make it clear that the concept plan is not part of his thinking as far as recommending
one way or the other on this replat.
Mr. Sheridan asked for better identification of the 37-ft. private drive.
He noted that in the 10-ft. landscape easement “by the time we put a 5-ft. sidewalk in there
isn’t any landscaping. You’re correct in the way you did it, but I’m disappointed that we didn’t
identify that pavement shouldn’t be included within a 10-ft. landscape easement. That’s a
lesson learned.”
He would like to see access to Lot 4B from the fire lane. He would also like to see access from
the fire lane to the 28-ft. access easement shared by the two lots. He stated that he does not
consider an entrance/exit to Southlake/T. W. King to concern Trophy Club so the two
entrances to this project should be in Trophy Club, not Southlake. Ms. Huggins stated that
access to Lot 4, Block B, will be provided through the 28-ft. access easement that is shared by
Lots 3R1 and 3R2. The current owner of Lot 4, Block B, has indicated that they will not be
interested in having an entry or exit along the south side of their property, but the PD requires
an access option at that point so it will be provided. Also, an ingress/egress from the fire lane
to the access easement will be added to the plat before this item goes to Council.
Commissioner Sheridan noted that the dedication includes allowing the “public use forever the
streets and easements thereon”. He stated that this is a private street and asked if that means
that because it is for public use it can remain private but never gated, or does that alter the
private road status and who is maintaining it. Ms. Huggins stated that it is a private drive that
cannot be gated as it is for the public’s use. She stated that in discussing this with the
applicant they added a note on the first page to make that clear. Mr. Horn added that the
change has already been made on the replat and will be reflected on the copy that goes to
Council.
Commissioner Sheridan made a few comments regarding the Holiday Inn concept plan and
Chairman Hill reminded him that the concept plan is not part of the consideration this evening.
Commissioner Davidson made a motion to recommend to the Town Council approval of
a replat of Lot 3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center into Lots 3R1 and 3R2, Block
B. Commissioner Reed seconded the motion.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson
Nays: None
Action: 6-0, Approved
C.4 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO.
2002-41 P&Z, THE SAME BEING PD-25, TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER FOR
FINAL DETAILED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7 (LOT 3R1, BLOCK A),
INCLUDING A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PLANT LIST, BUILDING ELEVATIONS,
SIGHT LINE STUDIES, CIVIL SITE PLAN, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN & LIGHT
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
FIXTURES, SIGN CRITERIA, AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE. APPLICANT:
HYDRA HOTELS, LLC (SP-08-009)
Chairman Hill announced the case and asked for a staff report.
Ms. Huggins stated that this request is for site plan approval of a Hampton Inn & Suites. On
the site plan, the applicant shows all proposed structures, parking, and ingress/egress. The
hotel will contain 94 rooms and the applicant is providing 95 parking spaces which meet the
Town requirements of 1 parking space per room.
The hotel is 4-stories in height at 56’-5-1/2” which meets the PD height restriction of 4 stories
or 65-ft. in height. Access to this property is from both Trophy Wood Drive and Plaza Drive.
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that proposes planting of 85 trees and 254
shrubs. They are removing 10 trees on the site, 5 of which are considered protected so the
applicant must give 1-1/2 caliper inches in exchange for removal of the protected trees. With
the landscape and irrigation plan that the applicant has submitted, those requirements have
been met. All landscaping will be irrigated.
Front, rear and side building elevations are provided. The building will be constructed of
simulated stone and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation and finish system) which meet the minimum
requirements for building materials in the Town of Trophy Club. The applicant provided a color
legend, showing the stone and E.I.F.S. colors of the building. The colors are subject to
Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council approval. Normally, the color selection for
roof materials would also be subject to your approval, but the hotel will have a flat, rather than
pitched, roof.
The lighting plan must provide street lights that do not exceed 25-ft. in height as well as 12-ft.
tall ornamental street lights at the perimeter drives. The current plan doesn’t specify which
light poles are 25-ft. in height and which are 12. We’ve asked the applicant to make this clear
on the documents that will go to Council.
The applicant is asking for 3 signs on the property: A wall sign on the front or south side of the
building; a wall sign on the east elevation of the building and a monument sign in the southeast
area of the property. The applicant has agreed to place stone around the base of the
monument sign which is not reflected in the small color sheets in your packet but is indicated
on the 24x36 plans, which is what becomes part of the ordinance upon approval of this project.
This is a public hearing and notice was placed in the newspaper as well as notification sent to
all property owners within 200-ft. of this site.
The site plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the PD-25 Development
Standards, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Tree Preservation/mitigation provisions of the
Subdivision regulations and staff asks for approval.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
Ms. Huggins stated that the Town Engineer, Tom Rutledge, is present to answer questions as
well as Chris King, the Building Inspector.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing.
Richard Beaty, 18 Hillcrest Ct., stated the following: “I just don’t get it. How come we are
continually being forced and almost railroaded into these pet projects that the overwhelming
majority of the residents are vehemently opposed to? Colleyville, Southlake, Roanoke,
Westlake and Keller have no multiple floor hotels built next to existing homes and back yards.
Why us? Have all of you gentleman been to the property and stood on that lot? Hopefully you
have. That’s pretty close to those houses there. It’s real close to the houses. Have any of
you walked down to 114 and looked back up to see the kind of view that you are going to
have? That hotel is right on the property. Also, have you gone to the Value Place Hotel and
gone up to the 4th floor and looked out at the view? It’s got a great view. You can see forever.
Just think of what that view is like right next to those property owners. They are looking right
down on their yards. I visited the hotel that we have as a business and three things came out
real quick as I was talking to the people there. The first one is I asked them how full they were.
They said they only fill up twice a year – NASCAR. Other than that, they have a very low
occupancy rate. Why do we need another hotel if the one we have existing in Trophy Club is
not even being utilized? No. 2, they already knew that there were two hotels going in. It
wasn’t until I talked to Carolyn earlier that I found out that there is a proposed Holiday Inn in
the area. They already knew weeks in advance from their owner that other hotels were
coming into the area. I’m just wondering if there is some sort of collusion between the builder
and government that this is coming in and the citizens don’t know about what is going on. No.
3, Value Place Hotel is very concerned about these hotels going in because these are name
hotels coming in and what are people going to do? They are going to get on the internet and
find the name hotels and go there. They are going to take business away from the Value
Place Hotel. What is that going to force them to do? They are going to have to lower their
prices. So, next to you do you want to have somebody who is renting a room for $120 and
next door you have someone for $20 a night so that they can stay competitive? There is going
to be a difference in the kind of clientele you are going to have there. A new hotel will not only
lower the property values of our homes, but put a strong financial burden upon our Town’s
commercial businesses. They are already starting to sweat it out with this coming. Now, if you
go to the lobby of the Value Place Hotel and walk out of the lobby, across the parking lot,
across the road that leads to 114 and go maybe 20-ft. past that and there is a fire hydrant. I
went on the property itself and measured with a tape measure to the center of that property
straight to where the homes are. It is an average area – some homes closer, some homes
further away. Go to that hydrant, turn around and look at that hotel and you tell me that you
can live with having that hotel that close to the property, especially having windows from a 4th
floor that is looking down onto our properties. I encourage every one of you to go to that spot
and take a look, right there at that fire hydrant, and see if this is what you envision as far as a
Trophy Club and our backyards. If you do look at it, and you do accept it, and they’ve done a
great job, and I think it is a beautiful job, and it seems they’ve done all the requirements that
need to be done, however, it’s right next to people’s properties. It’s incredible. Why weren’t
they built further out on 114 instead of being right next to our properties? By saying ok to this
you are setting a precedent to have multiple story buildings next to our properties and houses.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
If you had said 5 or 10 years ago that there would be a multilevel hotel going in behind me I
would have said you guys are absolutely insane. But, it’s happened. So, in time what is going
to happen? How about putting a 4-story office building right next to the dentist office right
around the corner? We could use the Country Club parking lot for parking. How about right in
front of Hogan’s Glen entryway? Let’s put a 4-story hotel there. Do you think the Hogan’s
Glen people will enjoy looking at that as they are coming out of their places? Let’s put a 4-
story office building by First Baptist Church. Finally, how about the wooded area next to the
Methodist Church? Let’s level that and put a 4-story storage area in. It sounds ludicrous, but
at one time we never thought we would be able to put a man on the moon. I never thought
that almost to my backyard I would see 4-stories of building. If you go back there and sit down
and look at the hotel in existence, if you are real quiet and you can listen you can hear the
residents of Southlake and Westlake laughing their asses off at us because we are the ones
who decided to build this stuff in our backyard. They won’t. They keep the integrity of their
communities. They will be able to keep the property values of their communities. They will
even be able to prevent the environmental degradation of their communities. They will be able
to keep the quality of their living while we will not. Finally, as you are sitting there and
contemplating what decision we should be making on this thing as you are looking up at this
building, maybe we should change the name of Trophy Club to Marshall Creek. At least,
maybe we need to change the motto to “Trophy Club, a nice place to live except for you who
live near hotel alley, then you are screwed”. Thank you for listening to us tonight. I was
hoping there would be more people other than myself saying something about this.
Remember, tonight, go down to where that fire hydrant is and look at the hotel there and that is
what you are going to be looking at, that is what the people behind are going to be looking at.
Don’t worry, you’ll be able to find the hydrant very easily because it is lit up by the hotel.”
Bob Martin, 21 Jamie Ct., stated that he appreciates the changes that the applicant made to
the landscape plan in adding trees on the northwest corner. He stated that Jamie Ct. curves
and those residences around that curve are right there at the northwest corner. The two or
three trees are not sufficient. The sight line is going to go over the top of that. “I’m wondering
if you could give consideration to putting some more trees in the 30-ft. buffer closer to the
fence line where they will grow up and actually create a site buffer so those residents on that
curve aren’t staring at the back of the hotel rooms.”
There were no others wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and
moved to discussion of this item.
C.5 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-41 P&Z, THE SAME BEING PD-25, TROPHY WOOD
BUSINESS CENTER FOR FINAL DETAILED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7
(LOT 3R1, BLOCK A), INCLUDING A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PLANT LIST,
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SIGHT LINE STUDIES, CIVIL SITE PLAN, PHOTOMETRIC
PLAN & LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGN CRITERIA, AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.
APPLICANT: HYDRA HOTELS, LLC (SP-08-009)
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
Commissioner Sheridan thanked Mr. Beaty for his comments and told him that he has been on
the site. He stated that he has walked it and sat there and driven around the area. He asked
when this area was zoned for hotels. Ms. Huggins responded that the PD was approved in
December 2002. Chairman Hill stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that established
that area as a commercial district was approved in 1997.
Mr. Sheridan stated that the zoning was created a long time ago past what any of these
commissioners can do. He stated that they are concerned but they must follow the law and
the law allows it. He stated that they will ask for some cooperation from the applicant.
Mr. Sheridan noted that there is an outfall in the northwest corner of the lot which is a 27”
concrete pipe coming out of Lot 16. That outfall should go underground and help eliminate a
problem, but he wonders if 27” is enough for Jamie Ct., Lot 3R2, the pool area, and the curb
inlet. Is that acceptable? [Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer, reviewed and approved the
engineering documents prior to placement of this site plan on a P&Z agenda. Mr. Rutledge
was not given an opportunity to respond.]
Mr. Sheridan asked for clarification of the arrows indicating where the 15-ft. drainage
easement is located. Juan Vasquez, Tomden Engineering, indicated that they would make the
arrows clearer on the site plan.
Mr. Sheridan stated that this plan eliminates the turnaround and he would like to know if the
Fire Dept. is going to accept that “as is” or will another turnaround be created. Ms. Huggins
responded that they are going to accept it as is. The Fire Chief has not indicated that anything
further needs to be done with this project, but if that need changes with future development it
will be addressed at that time.
Mr. Sheridan stated that he hasn’t measured how long the street is, but the fire truck won’t be
able to turn at the end of that street so he strongly advises the Fire Dept. to comment on
whether or not they can accept that. Mr. Vasquez responded that the fire lane that goes
through the Hampton Inn & Suites site will get the fire trucks in and out of that street.
Mr. Sheridan stated that this plan shows a sidewalk right at the curb. Most every place in
Town has a parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. He would like to see the sidewalk
centered in the easement. [The sidewalk at the curb was established as part of this PD and is
the way that the Value Place Hotel site was approved and developed. Staff would like the
sidewalks to remain at the curb so that the PD is developed consistently throughout the site.]
The PD requires the dumpster to be screened on three sides and per the PD the minimum
height of the enclosure is determined by the height of the dumpster. Mr. Sheridan stated that
dumpsters can vary in height and he would rather see a set height of 8-ft. for the enclosure
around the dumpster. [The applicant agreed to this request.]
Mr. Sheridan moved to Sheet L1, Landscaping, and asked that in Note No. 1 the applicant
provide more than an “estimate”.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
Mr. Sheridan would like the Live Oaks around the monument sign to be moved to the north
side of the property line. He would like the Chinkapin Oaks on the west side of the property
moved to the north side. Mr. Vasquez stated that there is a public sewer line that runs through
that area and placement of trees would be important. He asked Mr. Rutledge for advice on
how much separation is needed. [Mr. Rutledge was not given an opportunity to respond.]
Mr. Sheridan asked the applicant to talk to the northern neighbor and get permission to put
trees on Mr. Stewart’s property in the triangular piece of property in the northwest corner of Lot
3R1. [Staff does not recommend this as the applicant would not get landscape credit for trees
placed outside the property boundary and there would be no irrigation and maintenance
provided for those trees.]
Mr. Sheridan stated that Chinkapin Oaks are great trees that are disease resistant; however,
they are not evergreen. He would like to see evergreen trees in the northwest corner of the
property. “Live Oaks are evergreen trees that are slow growing so trade out the Chinkapin
Oaks with the Live Oaks in that corner.” Mr. Vasquez asked how far east along the north
property line should they go with the trees. Mr. Sheridan responded that he would like to
concentrate the trees in the northwest corner and at a minimum halfway across the north
property line, but, if possible, to keep going all the way across the north property line. He
asked for at least three quarters of the north property line to be covered. Mr. Vasquez stated
that the code requires so many trees along the street. Mr. Sheridan would be willing to waive
that requirement in favor of trees along the north side of the property.
Commissioner Ashby stated that the ultimate goal, as expressed by Mr. Sheridan, is to try and
create as much of a visual buffer on the north and northwest for the residences.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if the parapet is satisfactory to hide equipment on the roof. Mr.
Vasquez stated that there should not be any equipment visible from the roof. Commissioner
Ashby asked for the height of the parapet. Mr. Vasquez responded that it is approximately 4-ft.
Mr. Ashby responded that if they have R-2’s, 4-ft. will not hide them. He stated that a visual
screen will be needed. Mr. Vasquez stated that if there are any units on the roof, they will be
properly screened so that they are not visible from the street or from the adjacent residential
properties.
Commissioner Sheridan asked for confirmation that the right (east) elevation has a sign, but
that there is no signage on the left (west) elevation that faces Maguire Partners property and
would be visible from Hillcrest. Mr. Vasquez confirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if there is any rooftop wall lighting above an 8-ft. level on these
elevations. Mr. Vasquez stated that there are no lights on the building other than emergency
lighting on the doors. He explained that there are ballard lights around the perimeter which are
uplights to illuminate the building. Mr. Sheridan stated that the color of the building is light in
tone. He asked how the ambient light will reflect off a lighter colored building. Mr. Rutledge
stated that a photometrics study was included which measures the level of light at the property
line which is part of the requirement and part of the PD and they have met that. Mr. Sheridan
asked if that measurement includes reflective light. Mr. Rutledge responded that it does. The
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
photometric cell measurement reading is taken from the property line and that reading reflects
the lighting coming off the site at the property line.
Commissioner Sheridan asked the applicant to consider reducing the height of the light poles
in the rear parking lot. He would be willing to exchange poles taller than 25-ft. in the front of
the building for poles less than 25-ft. in the rear of the building to reduce the lighting on the
side of the hotel closest to residences. Mr. Vasquez did not think that 5-ft. would make a lot of
difference in illumination. Mr. Vasquez stated that lighting below 25-ft. does not work as
efficiently as they do at 25-ft. and higher. He is concerned that there would be too much of a
dark area in the rear of the hotel. Raj Chudasama, Hydra Hotels LLC, came forward and
asked Mr. Sheridan what would be a recommended height for the three poles on the north
side. Mr. Sheridan responded that Lots 15, 16 and 17 on Jamie Ct. are the closest affected by
the lighting. Would it be possible to take the middle light fixture and move it to the south side of
the parking lot? Mr. Chudasama stated that between those two choices, lowering the light
poles might be a little bit better. He asked for a recommendation on height. Commissioner
Ashby responded 20-ft. Mr. Vasquez stated that in order to meet the light levels needed, it
might create the need for another pole. Commissioner Sheridan suggested they put the other
pole on the other side of the parking lot. Mr. Vasquez responded that they’ll see what they can
do.
Commissioner Davidson asked if adding a light closer to the building, since it is already up-lit,
would negate its effectiveness. Commissioner Sheridan disagreed depending on the type of
pole used. Mr. Davidson stated that they are only gaining 5-ft. Mr. Sheridan stated that for
those with backyards close to this project every foot counts. He stated that they are not going
to make everybody happy, but he appreciates that the applicant is trying to cooperate. Mr.
Chudasama stated that they will look at lowering the back three light poles and going a little
higher on the front.
Commissioner Davidson asked for clarification of which light poles would be raised in the front
of the building. Mr. Vasquez explained that the poles at the driveway are ornamental 12-ft.
poles required by the PD. Commissioner Ashby asked if on the plans the poles labeled “DD”
are 12-ft. and the poles labeled “AA” are 25-ft. Mr. Vasquez confirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Ashby asked for confirmation that the monument sign does not exceed the
maximum size as allowed by the PD. Ms. Huggins confirmed that it does not.
Commissioner Forest asked for an explanation, for the benefit of the residents present, as to
why hotels are allowed in this area. Chairman Hill gave a brief history of the zoning and
platting of the property, explaining that the latest update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
adopted in 1997, established the area along Highway 114 as commercial, and the specific
planned development zoning for Trophy Wood Business Center was established and approved
on December 2, 2002, which allows three hotels in that area – the lot where the Value Place
Hotel was built, the lot where the Hampton Inn & Suites will be built, and the lot where
potentially a Holiday Inn might be built.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes
Commissioner Forest stated that it has been a minimum of six years since the zoning was
created. The owner and developer are meeting the criteria that the City requires. He stated
that he wants the public to understand that this Commission cannot stop the hotels from being
built as the zoning created six years ago allows it and the property owner has found potential
tenants for the properties.
There was no further discussion and Chairman Hill called for a motion.
Commissioner Sheridan made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council
with the comments and questions that the Commission has raised being answered and
that those areas where the applicant has indicated that he is willing to work to improve
the site plan be enacted. Commissioner Ashby seconded the motion.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson
Nays: None
Action: 6-0, Approved
D.1 ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes