Agenda Packet TC 03/02/2009 - Supplement
February 12, 2009
Number 6
REVERSE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AID:
HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS PRACTICED IN
TEXAS
The State of Texas, unlike almost all other states, provides virtually no financial assistance to
its cities. State aid, defined as a grant made by the state to cities from revenue generated by
the state, is practically non-existent in Texas. Research conducted by numerous entities over
many years has shown this to be true. The most recent study, released in 2008 by the
National League of Cities, found that only in West Virginia is state aid to cities lower than it
is in Texas.
State aid flows readily in other states, particularly in populous states. For instance, it is not at
all uncommon for states to share state gasoline tax revenue with cities or to split other
sources of state general revenue with municipal governments.
While city officials in Texas have seldom asked for state financial aid, they are increasingly
aware of the numerous ways in which they are compelled to share city-generated revenue
with the state in what can be described as a system of reverse intergovernmental aid.
Of the numerous ways in which cities transfer revenue to the state, four stand out:
1. The state’s charge for administering the municipal sales tax.
2. Fees levied on cities by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
3. “Local participation” in the cost of building and improving the state highway system.
4. State fees imposed on municipal court convictions.
2
These forms of reverse intergovernmental aid are discussed in the following sections.
The State’s Charge for Administering the Municipal Sales Tax
When a Texan purchases a product that is subject to the state and local sales tax, the
merchant collects the entire tax due and remits it to the state comptroller. The comptroller, in
turn, remits the local share back to the appropriate local government (city, metropolitan
transit authority, county, and/or special district). For providing this service and for
performing other administrative, enforcement, and reporting duties, the comptroller deducts
two percent of the local share of the sales tax and deposits that amount in the state’s general
revenue fund.
The two-percent fee is high compared to the same fee in other states. The Texas Municipal
League recently conducted a survey of the 24 states in which all cities may adopt a local-
option sales tax; 16 states participated in the survey. Only one state charges more than two
percent. Another state charges actual cost, not to exceed two percent. All the other states
charge one percent or less; five states impose no charge at all.
In Texas, the two-percent fee generates $112.3 million annually. How much is paid by
cities?
Cities $76.4 million
Transit Authorities $25.7 million
Counties $6.7 million
Special Districts $3.5 million
In mid-2008, TML undertook an effort to determine how much the comptroller’s office
spends annually to provide sales tax services to local governments. The comptroller’s office
informed TML that “(t)here can be no separate accounting of what costs are ultimately
attributable to local tax administration that would not be arbitrary and potentially
misleading,” and went on to note that the “Office of the Attorney General, the Legislature
itself and other state entities are all involved in the process” of local sales tax administration.
Although the comptroller can’t calculate the total cost of providing local sales tax
administration, it is instructive to calculate the extent to which the revenue generated by the
two-percent local government fee covers the comptroller’s total annual expenditures for all
activities.
For the current fiscal year, the comptroller’s baseline budget is $220.3 million. Thus, the
total local government fee of $112.3 million is enough to cover nearly 51 percent of the
entire agency’s total expenses, and the city share alone covers nearly 35 percent.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Fees
According to its Web site, the mission of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is
“to protect our state’s human and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic
development,” and the agency’s goal is “clean air, clean water, and the safe management of
waste.”
3
One would think that this mission and set of goals would merit substantial funding from the
state’s general revenue fund. That’s not the case. The TCEQ Web site reveals that the
agency’s revenue comes from the following sources:
State General Revenue 1.94%
Federal Funds 7.61%
Program Fees 88.41%
Other Sources 2.03%
Just who pays the “program fees” that constitute the lion’s share of TCEQ revenue? To a
great extent, cities do.
The agency imposes more than 40 different fees on cities; roughly 20 are related to water
quality. The revenue from these fees is used to pay for the costs of regulating cities under
either federal or state law or both. In other words, cities pay TCEQ to regulate them.
Of all the fees, the two that have most impact on cities are the consolidated water quality fee
(CWQF), which is imposed on wastewater treatment facilities, and the public health service
fee (PHSF), which is paid by suppliers of public drinking water. For those two fees alone,
cities paid the following amounts in the most recent state fiscal year:
CWQF $7.9 million
PHSF $4.2 million
Other fees paid by cities (the water quality permit application fee, stormwater permit fees, the
solid waste disposal fee, and others) add considerable amounts to state coffers. In fact, cities
(through the payment of fees) generate more revenue for TCEQ than does the state's
general fund.
It has recently come to light that TCEQ’s water program fees will be insufficient for fiscal
years 2010 and 2011. To address this shortfall there are three options:
1. The legislature could inject more state general fund revenue into the TCEQ water
programs. That’s not likely to happen. In fact, state general revenue support of
TCEQ has fallen from nearly $30 million in fiscal year 2003 to $11 million in the
current fiscal year. The state’s general fund provided 7.5 percent of TCEQ’s revenue
in 2003; today it provides less than two percent.
2. TCEQ could reduce its regulatory activities. Again, that’s not likely to happen at
least in part because doing so would run afoul of federal requirements.
3. The legislature and TCEQ could raise fees, including fees imposed on cities. This
will probably be the preferred alternative for state policymakers.
Some might say that the fee-dependent financing structure used by TCEQ is fair since cities
receive a service for each fee they pay. However, when cities impose fees-for-service on
other levels of government, the legislature often acts to prohibit or limit those fees.
For example, when the legislature prohibited the imposition of stormwater fees on public
institutions of higher education, some lawmaker argued that it’s unfair for one level of
government to impose a fee on another level.
4
And when the legislature prohibited the imposition of municipal impact fees on school
districts (unless a district agrees to pay the fee), the legislature's bill analysis stated that…
…impact fees place an undue burden on districts…payment of impact fees by school
districts to cities amounts to a needless transfer of money among public entities and
constitutes a de facto tax on school districts.
This statement is particularly ironic given that cities pay TCEQ fees and are not exempt from
the state's 20-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. "Public entities" (cities) are paying a state tax
each time a police car or fire truck refuels.
Local Participation in State Highway Projects
The best way to describe “local participation” is to quote from a state document entitled
“Background and Need for Partnering.” That document makes the case that the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) faces a funding shortfall because growth in
population, vehicle-miles per capita, and total vehicle miles have grown at faster rates than
growth in the highway system and growth in revenue available for highway projects. Those
trends, according to the report, will continue.
To help address this dilemma…
TxDOT continues to seek additional ways to fund the state transportation program.
For years, TxDOT has partnered with local public agencies to make transportation
improvements on state highways. This local participation has come in many forms,
including provision of right-of-way, financial contributions, maintenance agreements
and other forms… Cooperative partnering between state and local agencies will be
needed to meet future transportation needs. TxDOT will depend on local and
regional leaders to provide both leadership and commitment to help carry projects
forward…TxDOT is currently suggesting to local agencies that they consider
increasing their participation in TxDOT projects in order to expedite scheduling of
locally desired projects. (Emphasis added.)
In short, “local participation” may become a “pay-to-play” system imposed by TxDOT on
local governments who wish to see highway projects in their area move forward.
How much do cities annually contribute in local participation? In recent years, cities have
pitched in more than $90 million per year in cash and much more in right-of-way donations
and in-kind services. In addition, the state gasoline tax paid by cities accounts for many more
millions of dollars paid by cities for the state transportation system.
Here’s the bottom line. In most states, the state government makes grants to cities to help
those cities build and maintain city streets. In Texas, city governments transfer municipal
revenue to the state to help pay for the state highway system.
5
State Fees on Municipal Court Fines
Municipal courts in Texas collect funds on behalf of the state for a wide variety of state
programs. These state programs range from the Criminal Justice Planning Fund to the Crime
Victims’ Compensation Fund. In most cases, the fees are imposed on persons convicted of
any criminal offense. For these collection efforts, cities are generally allowed to keep some
small amount of revenue as reimbursement for the costs incurred to collect the fees and remit
them to the state.
Many city officials contend that state court costs adversely impact municipal courts in two
ways. First, the state’s court costs are complicated to administer. While cities can keep a
small percentage of the costs as an administrative fee, that amount is not sufficient to
reimburse the cities for the bookkeeping and administrative problems connected with this
function. Second, when setting an appropriate fine for an offense, a judge must consider the
fact that the defendant will also be paying state court costs. As a result, municipal fine
revenue is often lower than it would otherwise be because the judge has considered the state
court costs when setting a defendant’s total fine.
Municipal court clerks also point out that the state requires that in the event of a partial
payment, the state court costs must be paid first before the city can keep any of the fine. This
means that cities must do all the work collecting fines but are not allowed to keep any money
until the state court costs have been fully satisfied.
In recent years, the number and amount of the state fees collected by municipal courts have
grown rapidly. For example, on a typical traffic offense conviction, a municipal court
defendant must currently pay $82 in state-imposed fees before any city fine is collected. The
following chart is a comparison of the present situation with fees imposed just seven years
ago.
January 2002 January 2009
Crime Victim Compensation $15.00 $15.00
Judicial/Court $ 2.00 $ 2.00
Personnel Training
Fugitive Apprehension Fund $ 5.00 $ 5.00
Consolidated Court Costs $17.00 $17.00
Juvenile Crime/Delinquency $ 0.50 $ 0.50
(Prairie View A&M)
Correction Management $ 0.50 $ 0.50
Institute (Sam Houston State)
State Traffic Fine -- $30.00
6
Jury Pay -- $ 4.00
State Judges’ Salaries -- $ 6.00
Indigent Defense -- $ 2.00
Total $40.00 $82.00
In many ways, municipal court collection of state fees is similar to the state’s collection of
municipal sales tax. In each case, one level of government is processing a tax/fee levied by
another level of government, is remitting it, and is keeping a fee for providing those services.
While there are similarities, however, there are also substantial differences.
For example, the state doesn’t really “collect” the municipal sales tax; it’s collected by the
merchant. With regard to state fees on municipal court fines, however, a municipal court
employee actually collects the fees and bears the brunt of any resulting fee-payer anger.
Second, the state controls the level of the municipal sales tax, but cities certainly don’t
control the level of state fees on municipal fines. So while cities can’t unilaterally raise the
city sales tax without permission from the state, the state can (and frequently does) increase
the amount of state fees that cities must collect and remit.
How much state fee/fine revenue do municipal courts collect annually? For fiscal year 2007,
the most recent year for which complete information is available, the amount was just over
$215 million.
Summary
What’s the grand total amount of reverse intergovernmental aid in Texas?
1. Texas cities pay the state $76.4 million annually to process municipal sales tax
returns. Most states charge much less. TML has found the average charge to be
0.875 percent. Thus, Texas cities are transferring to the state roughly $43 million
more than the norm.
2. Texas cities pay $12.1 million annually to the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality just for the two most significant of that agency’s 40 separate fees on cities.
3. Cities pay at least $90 million annually (probably much more) to support the state
highway system.
4. It is not unreasonable to believe that at least 25 percent of the $215 million in state
fees annually collected by municipal courts would be retained by cities if it weren’t
for the imposition of those fees. Thus, cities are probably foregoing another $53.75
million.
The annual total is at least $198,000,000, just from these four sources of reverse
intergovernmental aid.
7
Conclusion
Why does this transfer of revenue from cities to the state matter? It matters because these
transfers of resources result in either reductions in municipal services or increased local fees
or taxes—most often the local property tax, which is the only general purpose municipal tax
that a city council can raise or lower.
Texas taxpayers are increasingly concerned about property taxes. It is clear that some of the
pressure on the property tax results from reverse intergovernmental aid, a system under
which governments that must depend on the property tax (cities) transfer revenue to a level of
government (the State of Texas) that has many revenue sources.
It's not hard to understand why some state legislators are tempted to turn to cities and ask
them to generate revenue for the state. It's much harder to understand why some of those
same legislators have been trying for several years to limit the revenue-generating capacity of
cities by placing caps on the municipal property tax.
TML LEGISLATOR-OF-THE-MONTH
FOR JANUARY 2009
House Speaker Joe Straus is the TML Legislator-of-the-Month for
January 2009. Speaker Straus represents House District 121 which
includes Alamo Heights, Olmos Park, Terrell Hills, Windcrest, and
part of San Antonio.
First elected in February 2005, Representative Straus was elected
Speaker of the House by his peers at the commencement of the 81st
Regular Legislative Session on January 13, 2009.
Speaker Straus has served on the Committee on Economic
Development, the Committee on Regulated Industries, and the
Committee on Local and Consent Calendars. He also chaired the
Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Efficiency, which
developed legislation that put Texas on the cutting edge of energy
efficiency.
We hope that city leaders across Texas, and particularly those in Speaker Straus’s district,
will express their appreciation to this outstanding leader.
8
PASSAGE OF FAIR PAY ACT COULD MEAN MORE
RECORD KEEPING RULES FOR CITIES
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (S. 181) was passed by Congress on January 27,
2009, and signed by President Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act allows individuals to
sue for alleged pay discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The most
important change provides that an individual may sue based on each paycheck that was
affected by a discriminatory act. Prior law measured the statute of limitations from the date
of the actual discriminatory act. This means that current and future employees have almost
unlimited time to file certain claims against a city. The text of the bill is available at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-181. The effective date of this Act is
backdated to May 28, 2007.
The Act was passed in response to a 2007 Supreme Court opinion. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., the court held that the plaintiff had to file her pay discrimination
charge within the statutory time limit based on the discriminatory act, and not on the resulting
lowered paychecks.
Each city should review its pay practices to ensure they are not discriminatory. Cities should
ensure that every pay decision is documented. Pay decision records should be retained
indefinitely to be used as possible evidence.
CITY-RELATED BILLS FILED
H.B. 1045 (Otto) – Property Tax: would eliminate the requirement that appraisal value
notices must include estimated tax liability based on an application of last year’s tax rates to
this year’s appraised value.
H.B. 1047 (Deshotel) – Transportation Funding: would provide that: (1) the state highway
fund may no longer be used to finance the Texas Department of Public Safety; and (2) money
in the state highway fund or loans from the state infrastructure bank may be used only to
improve the state highway system. (Companion bill is S.B. 746 by Wentworth.)
H.B. 1053 (Mallory Caraway) – Electric Utility Billing: would provide that a provider of
electric service to a retail customer, including a municipally-owned electric utility, may not
disconnect service or pursue any other collections options for nonpayment of a balance due
before the 30th day after the date on which the statement was issued.
H.B. 1054 (Mallory Caraway) – Law Enforcement: would: (1) prohibit a peace officer
from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle for the sole purpose of
determining whether the driver has insurance; and (2) provide that a vehicle operator need
not be identified by name in a statutorily-prescribed document in order to establish financial
responsibility for a vehicle.
9
H.B. 1057 (McClendon) – Employee Leave: would require an employer to: (1) allow an
employee to use two weeks of accrued sick or vacation paid leave to care for the birth,
adoption, or placement of a foster child; (2) allow an employee to receive two weeks of paid
unemployment benefits if the employee does not have paid leave with the employer; (3) post
a notice of employees' rights under this law; and (4) reinstate an employee who takes leave
under this law. The bill would also provide a civil penalty for an employer who willfully
violates this law and provide a cause of action for wages and other employee benefits to an
employee whose rights under this law have been violated. (Companion bill is S.B. 692 by
Van De Putte.)
H.B. 1059 (Ortiz) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would require a health benefit plan to
cover prenatal care and childbirth expenses.
H.B. 1063 (Farias) – Gated Communities: would provide that the commissioners court of a
county by order may require that each electric gate to a gated community or multiunit
housing project be equipped with a gate-operating device that: (1) is approved by the county
fire marshal; and (2) will activate the electric gate on the sounding of an emergency vehicle
siren.
H.B. 1079 (Kolkhorst) – Community Development Block Grants: would provide that an
applicant for a grant, loan, or award under a Texas Office of Rural Community Affairs
(TDHCA) community development block grant program may appeal a decision of the
TDHCA executive director by filing an appeal with the TDHCA board.
H.B. 1087 (Pena) – Criminal Trespass: would create a defense to a criminal trespass
prosecution for: (1) a firefighter or emergency medical services employee discharging an
official duty under exigent circumstances; and (2) a person employed or acting as an agent
for an entity, including an electric or gas utility, who has or is reasonably believed to have
consent to enter a property and is performing a duty within the scope of that employment.
H.B. 1092 (Parker) – Property Tax: would permit a number of persons equal to ten percent
of county voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election to petition to call an
election to permit an owner of non-agriculturally appraised property to require that city and
county property taxes (but not school taxes) be assessed on the basis of a five-year average of
the property's taxable value. (Note: the bill would also seem to permit the county
commissioners court to call such an election, but that authority does not appear to be
authorized by the enabling amendment, H.J.R. 55, below.) The bill would also: (1) permit
each property owner to make an election for the alternative tax assessment by filing a request
with the chief appraiser by June 15 of a tax year; (2) provide that if an election is made, the
assessed value for city and county purposes for the current tax year and for each of the
subsequent four tax years is the average taxable value of the property over the five-year
period ending with the tax year for which the taxes are imposed (this section of the bill is
confusing, and seems to suggest that the benefit ends after four years); and (3) permit a
property owner to opt out of the five-year rolling average assessed value in any given year if
the property owner pays five years of limited back taxes. (Note: please see H.J.R. 55,
below.)
H.B. 1103 (Guillen) – Elections: would require the secretary of state to conduct a study to
evaluate the feasibility of eliminating the May uniform election date by 2013.
10
H.B. 1104 (Guillen) – Municipal Court: would: (1) require a municipal prosecutor to
provide, not later than the 30th day after a complaint is filed, any evidence pertaining to a
criminal case to the defense attorney; (2) require the court to permit a defense attorney to
make copies of the evidence; (3) permit a city to assert exceptions to required disclosure that
is believed to be confidential by law; and (4) require a municipal prosecutor to supplement or
amend this information as needed. (Companion bill is S.B. 661 by Carona.)
H.B. 1105 (Laubenberg) – Professional Services Procurement: would provide that, in
procuring architectural, engineering, or land surveying services, a governmental entity shall:
(1) base its choice on demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications and on the
reasonableness of the proposed fee for the services; and (2) if other considerations are equal,
give preference to a provider of those services whose principal place of business is in this
state or who will manage the contract wholly from an office in this state.
H.B. 1106 (Bohac) – Property Tax: would permit the city council of a city predominately
located in Harris County to adopt a local-option reduction in the property tax appraisal cap
from ten percent to five percent. (Note: please see H.J.R. 56, below.)
H.B. 1117 (Hochberg) – Elections: would require ballot instructions to clearly indicate to a
voter the reasons that a vote may not count or may count in a different manner than intended,
including: (1) language clarifying the effect of a straight party vote where the vote would not
apply to all elections on the ballot; (2) the circumstances in which a vote for an individual
candidate may override a straight party selection; (3) the impact of improperly marking a
paper ballot; and (4) where practicable, a warning that would appear on the screen of an
electronic voting system if a voter attempts to take an action that could lead to an unexpected
result.
H.B. 1121 (Bolton) – Health Benefits: would provide that a group health benefit plan’s
coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of a serious mental illness must be identical to that
provided for other medical or surgical conditions.
H.B. 1132 (McReynolds) – Property Tax: would slightly alter the schedule of homestead
property tax exemption amounts available to disabled veterans.
H.B. 1142 (Anchia) – Media Production Zones: would permit the creation of “media
production development zones” in certain metropolitan areas containing a city with a
population of more than 250,000, and would provide that the zone is approved by the
Governor’s Music, Film, Television, and Multimedia Office, the sale of certain film and
media equipment used for the building of sound stages within the zone is exempt from sales
taxes.
H.B. 1144 (B. Brown) – Elections: would provide that any qualified voter may serve as a
poll watcher.
H.B. 1155 (McReynolds) – Property Tax: would: (1) permit disabled veterans or their
surviving spouses to transfer disabled veteran homestead property tax exemptions to a new
property in the middle of a tax year; (2) permit such transferred exemptions to be back-dated
11
to January 1 of the year of the transfer; and (3) prorate the exemption on the original
homestead for the portion of the tax year before the exemption was transferred.
H.B. 1156 (Farabee) – Electric Rates: would provide, subject to some exceptions, that a
municipally-owned electric utility shall discount charges for electric service provided to a
public school district.
H.B. 1158 (Truitt) – Cell Phones: would double the fine for certain traffic violations in
cases where the person who committed the offense was using a wireless communication
device without the use of a hands-free device at the time of the offense.
H.B. 1159 (Kuempel) – Tax Increment Financing: would: (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. (Companion bill is S.B. 313 by Wentworth.)
H.B. 1161 (Geren) – Alcohol Regulation: would permit any school district (not just
districts located in cities over 900,000 in population as current law provides) to petition a city
to establish a 1000-foot distance requirement between schools and certain establishments
where alcohol is sold.
H.B. 1168 (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. (Note: this bill is
identical to H.B. 301, also by Dutton.)
H.B. 1172 (Martinez) – Property Tax: would grant a partially disabled veteran a residential
homestead property tax exemption at a percentage equal to the veteran’s disability rating.
(Note: please see H.J.R. 59, below.)
H.B. 1174 (Hartnett) – Sanitary Sewer Overflows: would provide that a city may pay
damages arising from the backup of the city's sanitary sewer system regardless of whether the
city would be liable for the damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
H.B. 1177 (Guillen) – Legislative Leave: would broaden the applicability of Subchapter A
of Chapter 614 of the Government Code, relating to required legislative leave for peace
officers and fire fighters, from cities of 200,000 or more in population to cities of 50,000 or
more in population.
H.B. 1179 (Chavez) – Cell Phone Ban: would prohibit a driver from using a cell phone to
read, write, or send a text message while operating a motor vehicle, unless the vehicle is
stopped.
H.J.R. 54 (Deshotel) – Transportation Funding: would amend the Texas Constitution to
provide that, subject to legislative allocation, appropriation, and direction, three-fourths of
12
the net revenue from the motor fuels tax shall be used for the sole purpose of constructing
and maintaining public highways, and one-fourth of the net revenue shall be allocated to
school funding. (Companion bill is S.J.R. 22 by Wentworth.)
H.J.R. 55 (Parker) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize the
legislature to permit ten percent of the number of county voters who voted in the most recent
gubernatorial election to petition to call an election to permit an owner of non-agriculturally
appraised property to require that city and county property taxes (but not school taxes) be
assessed on the basis of a five-year average of the property's taxable value. (Note: please see
H.B. 1092, above.)
H.J.R. 56 (Bohac) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to permit the
legislature to allow the city council of a city predominately located in Harris County to adopt
a local-option reduction in the property tax appraisal cap from ten percent to five percent.
(Note: please see H.B. 1106, above.)
H.J.R. 59 (Martinez) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize
the legislature to grant a partially disabled veteran a residential homestead property tax
exemption at a percentage equal to the veteran’s disability rating. (Note: please see H.B.
1172, above.)
H.J.R. 60 (Leibowitz) – Parks Funding: would amend the Texas Constitution to require
that all revenue from sales taxes on sporting goods be appropriated to the Parks and Wildlife
Department.
S.B. 18 (Estes) – Eminent Domain: would: (1) provide that "public use," with respect to the
use of eminent domain authority, means a use of property, including a use described as
“public” by current law, that allows the state, a political subdivision of the state, or the
general public of the state to possess, occupy, and enjoy the property; (2) provide that a
governmental or private entity may not take private property through the use of eminent
domain if the taking is not for a public use; (3) provide that any common carrier pipeline may
use the power of eminent domain; (4) require a record vote with specific wording to take
each parcel of land through the use of eminent domain; (5) 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 provide consequences for failure to do so; (6) require an entity that is not
subject to the Public Information Act (such as a common carrier pipeline) and that has the
power of eminent domain to disclose certain information to a landowner during an eminent
domain proceeding; (7) change the standard 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; (8) provide that the special commissioners
shall, subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence, admit evidence on the market value (before the
condemnation) of the property being condemned, the net change to the market value of the
property owner's remaining property considering both injury and benefit to the property
owner, and the use of the property for the purpose of the condemnation; (9) 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; (10)
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
13
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; (11) modify the
current-law 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 in the ten-year period; (12) 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; (13) add additional court costs in a condemnation proceeding; (14) 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; (15) 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 (16) include specific additional
reforms that apply solely to common carriers.
S.B. 496 (Wentworth) – “Qui Tam” Lawsuits: would authorize a private individual to sue
a city on behalf of the State of Texas, alleging that the city defrauded the state by making a
false claim for state funds or property.
S.B. 673 (Hegar) – Coastal Erosion: would require a coastal city to formulate a plan to
reduce public funds spent on erosion and storm damage losses.
S.B. 681 (Ogden) – Electric Utilities: would provide that: (1) the Public Utility
Commission (PUC) shall conduct a study to evaluate whether there is a need in this state for
electric utilities to improve their ability to restore electric service to customers after a major
power outage that is expected to last for more than 24 hours; and (2) on a determination that
there is a need in this state for a particular electric utility to improve its ability to restore
electric service to customers after a major power outage, the PUC may require the electric
utility to maintain: (a) an additional physical interconnection with another electric utility,
regardless of whether the electric utilities operate within the same power region; (b) an
emergency electricity supply agreement with at least one other electric utility; or (c) a joint
restoration procedure with at least one other electric utility.
S.B. 684 (Lucio) – Rural Economic Development: would: (1) create the “Texas Rural
Development Fund” as an account in the state’s general revenue fund; and (2) provide that
money in the account may be spent in rural areas of the state on entrepreneurship programs,
regional planning, rural leadership enhancement, and rural youth corps programs.
S.B. 688 (Wentworth) – Residential Development: would, among other things: (1)
authorize a school district to mitigate the effects of certain residential development by
allowing the Texas Education Commissioner to purchase, for fair market value, a percentage
of the real property acreage within the residential development site if the commissioner
determines that the development is likely to significantly increase elementary school student
enrollment in a school district and that the increase in enrollment warrants the construction of
a new elementary school facility to accommodate the increased elementary school
population; and (2) provide that a city may not grant final approval of a plat or replat of a
14
residential development or issue permits required for a residential development unless the
developer presents evidence of having complied with the mitigating measures.
S.B. 690 (Wentworth) – Charter Amendments: would require a city’s governing body to
submit a proposed charter amendment to election upon receipt of a petition signed by ten
percent of the registered voters in the city. (Note: current law sets the threshold at five
percent of qualified voters.)
S.B. 692 (Van De Putte) – Employee Leave: this bill is the same as H.B. 1057 by
McClendon, above.
S.B. 700 (Patrick) – Property Tax: would do the following: (1) provide that homestead
exemptions are effective on January 1 of the tax year in which the person qualifies for the
exemption; (2) extend from one year to five years the deadline for filing certain late
homestead exemptions; (3) limit property tax appraisals to an amount based on the current
use of the property rather than the potential “highest and best use” use of the property; (4)
require appraisal notices to include additional comparative information based on the past five
years of appraisal history; (5) lower the property tax rollback rate from eight percent to five
percent; (6) provide that a city must hold a ratification election to adopt a tax rate that
exceeds the five-percent rollback rate (as opposed to current law, which requires an
election only if a petition is received from the citizens); (7) permit the electronic filing of
certain appraisal protests; (8) permit appeals of appraisals to small claims court, instead of
district court, if the amount in dispute is within the jurisdictional amount of the small claims
court; and (9) provide that decisions on appraisal appeals to small claims court are not further
appealable.
S.B. 712 (Hegar) – Law Enforcement: would, in cases of certain sexual assault charges: (1)
authorize the court or a victim to request an HIV test of a defendant within 48 hours after
indictment or waiver of indictment ; and (2) delay the beginning of the 48-hour period if a
law enforcement agency cannot locate the defendant at the time of the indictment or waiver
of indictment.
S.B. 718 (Nichols) – Certificates of Convenience and Necessity: would: (1) require an
application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a certificate of
convenience and necessity (CCN) to provide water or sewer service to include a list of the
owners of each tract of land that is at least ten acres in size and is wholly or partially located
within the proposed service area; (2) provide that the TCEQ shall require notice to be mailed
to each such landowner; (3) provide that a landowner of a tract of at least ten acres of land,
any part of which is located in the proposed service area, must consent to the inclusion of the
property in the proposed service area before the TCEQ may issue a CCN or an amendment to
a CCN for an area that includes that property; and (4) provide that the consent required from
the landowner does not apply if the proposed service area is located within the boundaries or
extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city with a population of more than 500,000 and the city or a
utility owned by the city is the applicant (however, in such a case the landowner is entitled to
contest the inclusion of the landowner's property in the proposed service area at a hearing
held by the TCEQ regarding the application).
S.B. 719 (Nichols) – Water and Sewer Ratemaking: would: (1) remove the ability of a
party appealing a ratemaking decision by a city’s governing body, including an investor-
15
owned water utility and utility customers in the ETJ, to request interim rates during a
ratemaking appeal to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); and (2)
permit the executive director of the TCEQ to establish interim rates during a ratemaking
appeal.
S.B. 720 (Nichols) – Water and Sewer Utilities: would prohibit a city’s governing body or
other regulatory authority from considering legal expenses incurred by a non-municipal water
or sewer utility in a contested ratemaking case.
S.B. 721 (Hegar) – Property Tax: would provide that the appraised value of a residential
homestead that is the beneficiary of a successful appraisal review board protest (or final
appeal from such a protest) may not exceed the reduced value until the second tax year
following the protest.
S.B. 728 (Carona) – Eminent Domain: would provide that: (1) a condemnation petition
filed by a private entity must state that the use for which the property is sought is a public
use; (2) with the property owner's consent, a private entity that condemns an easement may,
as an alternative to paying damages, agree to give the owner an intangible legal right to
receive a percentage of the entity's profits associated with the use of the easement; (3) a
private entity that seeks an easement through the use of eminent domain must seek a route for
the easement that is the least burdensome to the land; and (4) the use of an existing easement
that is suitable for the purpose for which the easement is sought is presumed to be the least
burdensome route.
S.B. 730 (Hegar) – Firearms: would: (a) preclude an employer from prohibiting an
employee who has a concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or
ammunition in a locked, privately-owned vehicle in a parking lot, garage, or parking area
provided for employees; but (b) provide that the bill’s restrictions on an employer do not
apply to a vehicle owned or leased by the employer and used by the employee, unless the
employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the course and scope of duty.
S.B. 738 (Watson) – State Agency Fees: would require a state agency, as part of its
strategic plan, to: (1) review all agency functions currently funded by general revenue and
determine if they could be funded by fees or other revenue sources; (2) review agency
functions currently funded by other sources, including fees, and determine whether these
sources of revenue could be increased; (3) recommend new or increased fees; and (4) change
the way fees are calculated.
S.B. 744 (Wentworth) – Property Tax: would: (1) permit certain limited partnerships to
qualify for community housing development corporation (CHDO) property tax exemptions;
and (2) delete the current-law requirement that housing projects must be built after December
1, 2001 in order to qualify for a CHDO exemption.
S.B. 746 (Wentworth) – Transportation Funding: this bill is the same as H.B. 1047 by
Deshotel, above.
S.B. 752 (David) – Disposal Wells: would allow a city to protest to the proper state agency
the application for an oil or gas disposal well.
16
S.B. 769 (Williams) – Electric Utilities: would allow an electric utility to include in a base
rate proceeding the utility’s “system restoration costs” and “self-insurance reserves”
following weather-related events or natural disasters.
S.B. 770 (Wentworth) – Property Tax: would provide that, once granted, a Super-Freeport
property tax exemption is continuous and need not be applied for each year.
S.B. 771 (Williams) – Property Tax: would provide that: (1) all available information that
is specific to a particular property must be taken into account when appraising the property;
(2) after successful appeal of a property’s appraised value, the appraisal of the property may
not increase in the next tax year by more than the preceding five-year average of appraisal
increases; and (3) provide that a comparable sale for use by an appraiser must have occurred
within six months of the date of the appraisal.
S.B. 772 (Williams) – Cell Phones Bans: would prohibit drivers under the age of eighteen
from using a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle.
S.J.R. 22 (Wentworth) – Transportation Funding: this bill is the same as H.J.R. 54 by
Deshotel, above.
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.
February 19, 2009
Number 7
BILLS WOULD REQUIRE A MAILED NOTICE IN
ADDITION TO THE POSTINGS REQUIRED BY THE
OPEN MEETINGS ACT
House Bill 554 (Menendez) and its companion, S.B. 820 (Duncan), would require cities
to mail, at the cities’ expense, some council meeting notices to anyone who requests
them.
The bills relate to model building codes. The first part of each bill provides that a city
may establish a Model Building Codes Advisory Board to review and recommend the
adoption of or amendments to a building code. If the city establishes such a board, the
board must include:
1) a builder registered with the state;
2) an architect registered with the state or a building designer;
3) a commercial building contractor;
4) a building facilities manager;
5) an owner or representative of multifamily housing;
6) an owner or manager of an industrial, manufacturing, or warehouse facility;
7) a licensed engineer;
8) a licensed mechanical, electrical or plumbing engineer;
9) a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contractor;
10) a licensed master electrician;
11) a licensed master plumber; and
12) a developer active in property development.
2
It is unlikely that any small Texas city has all these people living anywhere near the city.
The second part of the bills provides that if a city doesn’t establish a Model Building
Codes Advisory Board (and, of course, most small cities couldn’t), then the city must:
1) allow any and all persons to register with the city secretary to receive written
notice from the city whenever the city will consider the adoption of, or an
amendment to, a national model code; and
2) provide such written notice at least 30 days in advance of any action by the city’s
governing body.
The bills provide no funding source for preparing or mailing the notices, even if
thousands of people register with the city secretary.
The final section of the bills provides that a code or code amendment may generally not
go into effect until 30 days have passed.
If these bills are enacted, it is likely that many other groups will want to receive written
notification of impending city council actions. Pet owners, for example, will certainly
want advance notice when the council plans to adopt or amend a leash law. Sign owners
would certainly want advance, written notice of certain actions. So would neighborhood
groups, tow truck operators, city vendors, people who water their lawns, and on and on.
In short, these bills could be impossible to carry out in small cities and extremely costly
in larger cities.
Why are the notice provisions of the Open Meetings Act not enough?
CITY-RELATED BILLS FILED
H.B. 9 (Truitt) – Transportation Funding: would enact the Texas Local Option
Transportation Act, which as filed would affect a limited number of cities. The bill
would:
1. Authorize several new transportation funding methods, including: (a) a county tax
on the sale of motor vehicle fuel, at a rate not to exceed ten cents per gallon, a rate
that would be annually adjusted according to the producer price index; (b) a local-
option mobility improvement fee in an amount not to exceed $60; (c) a parking
regulation and management fee in the amount of $1 per hour/per vehicle for use
of a parking space; (d) an annual motor vehicle emissions fee based on the
amount of pollutants released by a vehicle, not to exceed $15; (e) a fee for the
renewal of a driver's license issued to a county resident; and (f) a new resident
roadway impact fee, in an amount not to exceed $250, which would not be limited
to the uses of other impact fees in current law.
3
2. Provide that the commissioners court of a county by order may call an election on
the issue of authorizing one or more funding methods under the bill for one or
more mobility or transportation improvement projects located in the county,
including passenger rail, transit, roadway, and freight rail projects.
3. Provide that the commissioners court shall call an election on the issue of
authorizing one or more funding methods under the bill on receipt of: (a) a
resolution requesting that the election be called that was adopted by the governing
bodies of at least two cities that are located partially or completely in the county
and contain at least 60 percent of the county's total population; or (b) a petition
requesting that the election be called signed by a number of registered voters of
the county equal to at least 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the
county for all candidates for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general
election.
4. Provide that the commissioners court may not call an election without holding a
public hearing on the matter.
5. Provide that the election order and ballot must contain specific information about
each funding option and projects to be funded.
6. Provide that an election called under the bill must be held on a uniform election
date in May or November or on a general primary election date in March.
7. Limit an election under the bill to no more often than once per year.
8. Provide that the commissioners court may fund a mobility or transportation
improvement project under the bill only if the project is determined to be
necessary and appropriate by the metropolitan planning organization for the
region in which the county is located, and that the court should use its best efforts
to ensure that each project selected for inclusion on a ballot benefits contributing
political subdivisions in approximate proportion to the amount of revenue
collected from each political subdivision.
9. Provide that, at a minimum, the order imposing the method or methods of local-
option funding shall specify: (a) the rate or amount of the method or methods
approved at the election; and (b) the manner in which each method will be
administered, collected, and enforced.
10. Provide that for any method authorized by the bill, the commissioners court, after
conducting a public hearing, may by order establish an exemption, waiver, or
partial reduction for individuals of low or moderate income who demonstrate
significant financial hardship.
11. Mandate that the county establish a Local Option Transportation Fund and shall
deposit in the fund the proceeds of any funding method imposed by the county
into separate accounts.
12. Limit the use of the money in the Local Option Transportation Fund to: (a)
reimbursing or paying the costs of planning, acquiring, establishing, developing,
constructing, or renovating a mobility or transportation improvement project for
which a method of local option funding was imposed; (b) paying the principal of,
interest on, or other costs relating to bonds or other obligations issued by the
county or to refund bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by a transit or
transportation authority for a mobility or transportation improvement project for
which a method of local-option funding was imposed; (c) refunding the costs of
4
operating or maintaining a mobility or transportation improvement project for
which a method of local-option funding was imposed; and; (d) funding various
other specifically enumerated items.
13. Provide that a county may not be penalized with a reduction in traditional
transportation funding because of the imposition of a method of local-option
funding under the bill.
(Companion is S.B. 855 by Carona. It is likely that legislators will attempt to broaden
the applicability of this legislation to more areas of the state.)
H.B. 1194 (Dukes) – Propane Utilities: would provide that a propane utility is
considered a “gas utility” for purposes of the Gas Utilities Regulatory Act. (Note: the
effect of the bill would be to grant a city original jurisdiction over the rates and services
of a propane utility and allow a city’s decisions to be appealed to the Texas Railroad
Commission.)
H.B. 1202 (Rose) – Property Tax: would: (1) require a person seeking a delay,
because of hardship, in payment of property taxes pending appeal to give notice of the
required court hearing to the tax collector for each taxing entity; and (2) permit a taxing
unit to intervene in the court proceeding at which the hardship is considered.
H.B. 1205 (Button) – Property Tax: would permit tax collectors to make refunds of
erroneously paid property taxes in amounts up to $5,000 without approval by the city
council in a city located in a county over 2,000,000 population. (Companion bill is S.B.
797 by Carona.)
H.B. 1206 (Vo) – Cell Phone Ban: would: (1) prohibit a driver from using a cell phone
while driving unless the vehicle is stopped or the cell phone is used with a hands-free
device; (2) create affirmative defenses for those situations in which the cell phone was
being used in an emergency; and (3) provide that the prohibition does not apply to uses in
connection with the official duties of emergency response personnel and police.
H.B. 1207 (Vo) – Cell Phone Ban: would prohibit a person from reading, writing, or
sending a text message while operating a motor vehicle, bicycle, or electric personal
assistive mobility device.
H.B. 1208 (McClendon) – Rail Relocation Funding: would provide that some of the
proceeds from the collection of state franchise and sales taxes on the purchase of taxable
items by a rail carrier shall be deposited to the credit of the Texas rail relocation and
improvement fund.
H.B. 1211 (C. Howard) – Property Tax: would reduce the annual property tax
appraisal cap from ten percent to five percent. (Note: please see H.J.R. 61, below.)
5
H.B. 1213 (Rios Ybarra) – Golf Carts: would require the commissioner of the General
Land Office to establish rules regarding the way in which a city may regulate the use of
golf carts by disabled persons on public beaches. (Companion bill is S.B. 804 by Lucio.)
H.B. 1221 (C. Howard) – Property Tax: would do the following: (1) eliminate the
requirement that appraisal value notices must include estimated tax liability based on an
application of last year’s tax rate to this year’s appraised value; (2) require tax assessors
to submit the appraisal roll to a city not later than 21 days after the date the appraisal roll
is certified to the assessor; (3) require a city to calculate its effective tax rate not later
than 30 days after it receives the certified appraisal roll from the assessor; (4) require the
person who calculates the effective tax rate to submit the rate to the city council within
five days of making the calculation; (5) require the chief appraiser, after receipt of
preliminary tax rate information by the city, to send a notice to property owners
indicating detailed proposed tax information; (6) extend from 60 to 90 days the deadline
for a city to adopt its tax rates after receiving a late certified appraisal roll; (7) provide
that if the requirements of number 5, above, are not met due to circumstances beyond the
city’s control, such as a natural disaster, the city must adopt a default property tax rate for
the year that is the lower of the effective tax rate or last year’s adopted rate; (8) eliminate
the application of the default tax rate provision in cases where the city council fails to
meet the statutory deadline for adopting a tax rate (Note: it appears that the confusing
provisions in numbers 7 and 8, above, may be unintended features of this bill); and (9)
require a city council, before giving notice of tax increase hearings, to take a record vote
on the proposal to increase taxes and that the motion for that vote must be as follows: “I
move that a proposal to increase property taxes by the adoption of a tax rate of (specify
tax rate) be placed on the agenda for the meeting to be held on (date at which the
governing body anticipates adopting the tax rate).”
H.B. 1224 (Laubenberg) – Sex Offenders: would authorize a general law city to
determine the area, surrounding a premise where children commonly gather, within
which a registered sex offender may not reside.
H.B. 1227 (Mallory Caraway) – Gas Utility Billing: would provide that a gas utility or
municipally-owned utility providing service to a retail customer may not disconnect
service or pursue any other collection options for nonpayment of a balance due before the
30th day after the date on which the statement is issued.
H.B. 1228 (Jackson) – Law Enforcement: would expand the rights of victims of felony
property offenses with regard to access to information regarding the criminal case
involving their property, including a requirement that law enforcement agencies involved
in the investigation must provide requested information regarding the case to the victim.
H.B. 1229 (C. Howard) – Property Tax: would provide that appraisal review board
members shall be appointed by the county commissioners court rather than by the
appraisal district’s board of directors as current law provides.
6
H.B. 1234 (Menendez) – Graffiti: would: (1) allow a city to require a person who sells
aerosol paint to require proof of identification before making a sale; (2) allow the city to
require that the sale be recorded in a log to be maintained for at least two years; and (3)
make it a crime for a person who purchases aerosol paint to fail to take reasonable steps
to prevent access to the paint by a minor.
H.B. 1236 (Menendez) – Court Fines: would: (1) increase the maximum fine to $4,000
for the offense of failure to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian when the pedestrian is
disabled or visually impaired and when a collision causes serious injury or death; (2)
require offenders to complete community service in an organization that primarily serves
disabled or visually impaired persons; (3) require a court to keep separate records of the
money collected under this provision; and (4) require a court to remit ten percent of the
total fine money collected under this provision to the state.
H.B. 1245 (Brown) – Water and Sewer Ratemaking: would: (1) remove the ability of
a party appealing a ratemaking decision by a city’s governing body, including an
investor-owned water utility and utility customers in the ETJ, to request interim rates
during a ratemaking appeal to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ);
and (2) permit the executive director of the TCEQ to establish interim rates during a
ratemaking appeal. (Companion bill is S.B. 719 by Nichols.)
H.B. 1247 (Jackson) – Property Tax: would: (1) provide that requests for refunds of
property tax overpayments shall be made to the tax collector rather than to the auditor as
current law requires; and (2) in a city located in a county over 2 million in population,
streamline the process for taxpayers to apply for refunds of property taxes if the amount
to be refunded does not exceed $5,000. (Companion bill is S.B. 798 by Carona.)
H.B. 1254 (Callegari) – Red Light Cameras: would require a city with a red light
camera system to attach a flashing caution light to the sign that indicates the presence of a
red light camera.
H.B. 1256 (Allen) – Elections: would require an election judge to post notice at one or
more locations at a polling place regarding whom to contact to complain about the
conduct of the election.
H.B. 1257 (Legler) – Property Tax: would permit certain small businesses (defined
generally in the bill as businesses with less than $5 million in yearly gross receipts) that
are located in a disaster area and were damaged by the disaster to pay property taxes in
four equal installments over an eight-month period.
H.B. 1260 (Hopson) – DWI Offender Registration Program: would create a DWI
offender registration program requiring, among other things, that local law enforcement
authorities must serve as the primary registration point for those individuals subject to
registration.
7
H.B. 1267 (Turner) – Cell Phones: would prohibit a driver from using a wireless
communication device to read, write, or send a text message unless the vehicle is
stopped. (This bill is identical to H.B. 1179 by Chavez.)
H.B. 1268 (P. King) – Impact Fees: would provide that a school district is not required
to pay fees for an individual meter connection to a city's water or wastewater system,
unless the board of trustees of the district consents to the payment of the fees by entering
into a contract with the political subdivision that imposes the fees.
H.B. 1269 (Hughes) – Property Tax: would make certain organizations that are
engaged primarily in charitable activities (typically fraternal organizations) automatically
eligible to receive a charitable tax exemption, whereas current law requires action by the
city council or an election to grant the exemption. (Companion bill is S.B. 475 by
Wentworth.)
H.B. 1283 (Eiland) – Property Tax: would: (1) permit the owner of any property that
is located in a disaster area and is damaged by the disaster to pay property taxes in four
equal installments over an eight-month period (Note: current law only permits owners of
residential homesteads to pay in installments); and (2) lower from twelve to eight percent
the penalty on taxes paid after the due date under such an installment plan.
H.B. 1287 (Eiland) – Property Tax: would require appraisal districts to biennially
adopt a plan for the reappraisal of property following a natural disaster. (Companion bill
is S.B. 590 by Jackson.)
H.B. 1290 (Oliveira) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would require the issuer of a
health benefit plan, including a local government risk pool, to provide coverage for
certain tests for the detection of cardiovascular disease.
H.B. 1292 (Eiland) – Property Tax: would: (1) permit a city to adopt a complete
homestead property tax exemption for active duty military personnel serving at least 60
miles from their homestead for longer than six months; and (2) provide that a city adopts
the exemption either by council action or by an election called upon receipt of a petition
signed by 20 percent of the qualified voters who voted in the most recent city election.
(Note: please see H.J.R. 64, below.)
H.B. 1301 (Frost) – Firearms: would: (a) preclude an employer from prohibiting an
employee who has a concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or
ammunition in a locked, privately-owned vehicle in a parking lot, garage, or parking area
provided for employees; but (b) provide that the bill’s restriction on an employer do not
apply to a vehicle owned or leased by the employer and used by the employee, unless the
employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the course and scope of duty.
(Companion bill is S.B. 730 by Hegar.)
H.B. 1305 (Aycock) – DWI: would remove legal liability for a person who takes a blood
alcohol specimen (except in cases of negligence in the taking of the specimen) if the
8
specimen is taken pursuant to a search warrant or at the request or order of a peace
officer.
H.B. 1315 (Ortiz) – Child Abuse Reports: would: (1) require a law enforcement
agency to provide reports of child abuse or neglect in response to a request from either
the child who is the subject of the reported abuse or the child’s parent or guardian, unless
the parent or guardian is alleged to have committed the abuse or neglect; (2) require a law
enforcement agency to redact any personally identifiable information regarding a victim
or witness under 18 years of age who is not the child requestor or other child of the parent
or guardian; and (3) require a law enforcement agency to redact any information that is
otherwise excepted from required disclosure under law.
H.B. 1328 (McClendon) – Property Tax: would provide that once granted, a property
tax exemption for certain solar and wind-powered energy devices located on land that
qualifies for a homestead exemption need not be reapplied for in subsequent tax years.
(Companion bill is S.B. 832 by Wentworth.)
H.B. 1338 (Leibowitz) – Retaliatory Lawsuits: would: (1) allow a person to file suit
and recover damages, including exemplary damages, against a complainant who files a
claim, in bad faith, with a governmental or quasi-governmental agency against the
person; (2) allow a complainant to recover damages, including exemplary damages, from
a person who files suit under the above provision in an effort to intimidate or harass the
complainant, when the complainant filed the complaint with the governmental or quasi-
governmental agency in good faith; and (3) disallow a cause of action against a
governmental or quasi-governmental agency in such cases.
H.B. 1341 (B. Brown) – Water and Sewer Utilities: would prohibit a city’s governing
body or other regulatory authority from considering legal expenses incurred by a non-
municipal water or sewer utility in a contested ratemaking case, or an appeal of that case,
except for certain cost reimbursements outlined in current state law.
H.B. 1342 (Menendez) – Health Benefit Plan Information: would require health
benefit plan providers, including intergovernmental risk pools, to use technology that
provides: (1) real-time information, at the point of service, concerning deductibles and
the enrollee’s potential total financial responsibility; and (2) real-time adjudication of
claims at the point-of-service. The bill also prohibits a plan from charging a fee for such
information services. (Companion bill is S.B. 863 by Harris.)
H.B. 1343 (Menendez) – Court Fines: this bill is substantially the same as H.B. 1236
by Menendez, above. (Companion bill is S.B. 647 by Van de Putte.)
H.B. 1344 (Menendez) – Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS): would
require the TMRS Board to establish a nine-member advisory committee. (Note: TMRS
has had an advisory committee for many years. This bill would establish the committee
in state law.)
9
H.B. 1354 (Vaught) – DWI: would allow any magistrate who is a licensed attorney to
issue a search warrant to collect a blood specimen from individuals arrested for certain
intoxication offenses.
H.B. 1360 (Anchia) – Public Information Act: would allow an attorney representing
the state to release information to defense counsel regarding a pending or reasonably
anticipated criminal case without waiving the right to assert that the information is
excepted from disclosure under the Public Information Act in the future.
H.B. 1373 (D. Howard) – Sovereign Immunity: would waive sovereign immunity to
permit nurses to sue local governments, including cities, for retaliation. (Companion bill
is S.B. 886 by Nelson.)
H.B. 1376 (Thompson) – Sales Tax: would do the following regarding intrastate
sourcing of city sales taxes: (1) eliminate sourcing at the location from which an item is
shipped if an order is placed at another location in the state that is also a place of business
of a retailer; and (2) generally source city sales taxes at the location where an order is
received when there is more than one place of business of the retailer. (Companion bill is
S.B. 852 by Patrick.)
H.B. 1377 (Thompson) – Sales Tax: would do the following regarding the reallocation
of city sales tax revenues due to a mistake: (1) reduce the statute of limitations (also
known as the “look back” provision) for reallocation of city sales taxes from four years to
one year; (2) grant cities a right to notification and hearing regarding reallocation
decisions, as well as a right of appeal to a Travis County district court; and (3) prohibit
cities from using reallocated sales tax proceeds for certain economic development grants.
(Companion bill is S.B. 851 by Patrick.)
H.B. 1378 (Thompson) – Electric Utilities: would allow an electric utility to include in
a base rate proceeding the utility’s “system restoration costs” and “self-insurance
reserves” following weather-related events or natural disasters. (Companion bill is S.B.
769 by Williams.)
H.J.R. 9 (Truitt) – Rail Funding: would provide that the state motor fuels tax may be
used for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating passenger rail, transit,
and freight rail. (Companion bill is S.J.R. 24 by Carona.)
H.J.R. 61 (C. Howard) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to permit
the legislature to reduce the property tax appraisal cap from ten percent to five percent.
(Note: please see H.B. 1211, above.)
H.J.R. 64 (Eiland) – Property Tax: would amend the Texas Constitution to do the
following: (1) permit a city to adopt a complete homestead property tax exemption for
active duty military personnel serving at least 60 miles from their homestead for longer
than six months; and (2) provide that a city adopts the exemption either by council action
10
or by an election called upon receipt of a petition signed by 20 percent of the qualified
voters who voted in the most recent city election. (Note: please see H.B. 1292, above.)
S.B. 777 (Ogden) – Law Enforcement: would require a city police department to report
information to the Texas Department of Public Safety regarding: (1) the number of
arrests the department made for intoxication offenses relating to the operation of a motor
vehicle while intoxicated; and (2) how many of those arrests resulted in a release with no
charges.
S.B. 792 (Nelson) – Sales Tax: would permit the board of directors of a fire control
district, an emergency services district, or a crime control and prevention district to repeal
the sales tax exemption on residential gas and electricity in the portion of the district that
is located in a city that has also acted to repeal the exemption.
S.B. 797 (Carona) – Property Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 1205 by Button, above.
S.B. 798 (Carona) – Property Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 1247 by Jackson,
above.
S.B. 801 (Hegar) – Property Tax: would move the timber production property tax
exemption from the wildlife management section of the Tax Code to the open-space
management section of the Tax Code. (Note: cities with significant numbers of timber
production property tax exemptions should examine the effect of the proposed bill.)
S.B. 804 (Lucio) – Golf Carts: this bill is the same as H.B. 1213 by Rios Ybarra,
above.
S.B. 820 (Duncan) – Building Codes: would: (1) provide that the governing body of a
city may establish a model building codes advisory board to review and recommend the
adoption of and amendment or addition to national model codes to govern the
construction, renovation, use, or maintenance of buildings and building systems in the
city; (2) mandate that the board have twelve members representing specific groups in the
city; (3) force a city that has not established a board under (1) above (or that has not
established a substantially similar advisory body) before the effective date of the bill to
provide to any person who registers with the city secretary written notice when the city
considers the adoption of or amendment or addition to an ordinance or a national model
code that is intended to govern the construction, renovation, use, or maintenance of
buildings and building systems in the city; (4) mandate that the notice be sent at least 30
days before the date the governing body takes action to consider the adoption of or
amendment or addition to an ordinance or code provision; (5) provide that, if a delay in
the adoption of or amendment or addition to an ordinance or code provision would cause
imminent harm to the health or safety of the public, the city may provide alternative
reasonable notice to each person who registers; and (6) mandate that a city that adopts an
ordinance or national model code provision that is intended to govern the construction,
renovation, use, or maintenance of buildings and building systems in the city shall delay
implementing and enforcing the ordinance or code provision for at least 30 days after
11
final adoption to permit persons affected to comply with the ordinance or code provision,
unless the delay would cause imminent harm to the health or safety of the public.
(Companion is H.B. 554 by Menendez.)
S.B. 828 (Whitmire) – Criminal Law: would provide that multiple financial
transactions must be accumulated for purposes of enhancing punishment under the
criminal offense of abuse of official capacity.
S.B. 832 (Wentworth) – Property Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 1328 by
McClendon, above.
S.B. 851 (Patrick) – Sales Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 1377 by Thompson, above.
S.B. 852 (Patrick) – Sales Tax: this bill is the same as H.B. 1376 by Thompson, above.
S.B. 855 (Carona) – Transportation Funding: this bill is the same as H.B. 9 by Truitt,
above.
S.B. 863 (Harris) – Health Benefit Plan Information: this bill is the same as H.B.
1342 by Menendez, above.
S.B. 873 (Harris) – Property Tax: would require an appraisal district that operates an
Internet Web site to implement a system for electronic filing of appraisal protests.
S.B. 877 (Ellis) – Mandatory Health Benefits: would generally require health benefit
plans to provide coverage for HIV tests.
S.B. 883 (Carona) – Transportation Funding: would prohibit the Texas Department of
Transportation from pledging or otherwise encumbering money deposited in the state
highway fund to: (1) guarantee a loan obtained by a public or private entity for costs
associated with a toll facility of the public or private entity; or (2) insure bonds issued by
a public or private entity for costs associated with a toll facility of the public or private
entity.
S.B. 886 (Nelson) – Sovereign Immunity: this bill is the same as H.B. 1373 by D.
Howard, above.
S.B. 894 (Nelson) – Public Funds Investment: would permit a city to invest revenues
from oil, gas, and mineral leases in any investment that is legal under the Texas Trust
Code.
S.B. 898 (Shapleigh) – Rail Funding: would, among other things, add the enhancement
of a city's ability to provide for freight or passenger rail facilities or systems to the
permissible purposes of a municipal transportation reinvestment zone.
12
S.B. 901 (Deuell) – Regulation of Health Benefit Plans: would establish procedures
under which the state would regulate the rates charged for health benefit coverage.
S.B. 907 (Williams) – Flags: would require that: (1) a U.S. flag purchased by a city
must be manufactured in the United States; and (2) a Texas flag purchased by a city must
be manufactured in Texas.
S.B. 908 (Williams) – 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. (This bill is identical to H.B. 360 by
Kuempel.)
S.B. 922 (Harris) – Magistrates: would: (1) allow a judge to refer criminal cases to
district-court-appointed magistrates for proceedings including bail, agreed orders of
expunction, asset forfeiture hearings, agreed orders of nondisclosure, and hearings on
motions to revoke probation, as well as civil cases arising out of certain criminal
proceedings; (2) prohibit a district-court-appointed magistrate from hearing a jury trial on
the merits of a bond forfeiture; (3) allow a district-court-appointed magistrate to accept a
negotiated plea on a probation revocation, conduct a contested probation revocation
hearing, and sign a dismissal in a misdemeanor case; and (4) allow certain district-court-
appointed magistrates to issue certain types of search warrants.
S.J.R. 24 (Carona) – Rail Funding: this bill is the same as H.J.R. 9 by Truitt, above.
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.
The City of Haltom City cordially invites you to attend the
TML Region VIH Quarterly Meeting
Thursday, March 12, 2009
6:30 p.m. Social — 7:00 p.m. Dinner & Business Meeting
Diamond Oaks Country Club
5821 Diamond Oaks Drive, North, Haltom City, Texas
(map provided on back)
Keynote Speaker:
Paul Harral, Vice President and Editor of Editorial Page Fort Worth Star -Telegram
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please copy this information for all of your elected officials and appropriate staff members.
AGENDA
6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Registration
6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Social
7:00 p.m.
Dinner and Business Meeting
Keynote Speaker - Paul Harral
Vice President and Editor of Editorial Page,
Fort Worth Star-Telegrmn
Please complete and return by mail, email or fax no later than Monday, March 9, 2009 to:
City of Haltom City
Attn: Janet Holmes, City Manager's Office
P.O. Box 14246
Haltom City TX 76117
Email: jholmes@haltomeitytx.com Fax: 917/222-7798
Name of City:
Name
$ enclosed as payment for $25.00 per person.
(Please make checks payable to the City of Haltom City)
Check will be mailed to City of Haltom City.
ATTENDEES:
Title
1
Po
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
s
-
2
0
0
8
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
Ma
r
c
h
Ap
r
i
l
Ma
y
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
December Total
Ac
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
-
M
i
n
o
r
4
4
Ac
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
-
M
a
j
o
r
0
0
Ac
c
i
d
e
n
t
-
H
i
t
&
R
u
n
0
0
As
s
a
u
l
t
s
0
0
Bu
r
g
l
a
r
A
l
a
r
m
s
31
31
Bu
r
g
l
a
r
y
I
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
0
0
Bu
r
g
l
a
r
y
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
0
Su
s
p
i
c
i
o
u
s
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
13
13
De
c
e
a
s
e
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
0
0
E.
D
.
P
.
1
1
Di
s
t
u
b
a
n
c
e
8
8
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
2
2
An
i
m
a
l
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
29
29
In
t
o
x
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
0
0
Bu
r
g
.
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
1
1
Fi
g
h
t
0
0
D.
W
.
I
.
1
1
As
s
i
s
t
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
t
.
8
8
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
t
r
o
l
1
1
As
s
i
s
t
E
M
S
12
12
Me
e
t
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
a
n
t
9
9
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
67
67
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
o
p
29
3
293
Pe
r
s
o
n
w
/
A
G
u
n
0
0
Pr
i
s
o
n
e
r
D
e
t
a
i
l
2
2
Pr
o
w
l
e
r
0
0
Su
s
p
i
c
i
o
u
s
P
e
r
s
o
n
7
7
Su
s
p
i
c
i
o
u
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
27
27
2
Th
e
f
t
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
4
4
Ab
a
n
d
o
n
d
/
F
o
u
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
0
0
Co
u
r
t
0
0
Es
c
o
r
t
1
1
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1
1
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
Cr
i
m
i
n
a
l
M
i
s
c
h
i
e
f
2
2
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
P
e
r
s
o
n
0
0
Op
e
n
D
o
o
r
9
9
Ar
r
e
s
t
14
14
St
o
l
e
n
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
0
0
As
s
i
s
t
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
13
13
As
s
i
s
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
79
79
Ci
t
y
O
r
d
.
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
10
10
Ci
v
i
l
S
t
a
n
d
b
y
2
2
Cr
i
m
i
n
a
l
T
r
e
s
p
a
s
s
1
1
Fo
l
l
o
w
U
p
6
6
Fo
r
g
e
r
y
4
4
Ha
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
3
3
Pr
e
m
i
s
e
C
h
e
c
k
16
7
167
Ru
n
a
w
a
y
0
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2
2
Su
i
c
i
d
e
/
T
h
r
e
a
t
0
0
Su
r
v
e
i
l
l
a
n
c
e
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
D
e
t
a
i
l
15
15
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
8
8
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
2
2
Wr
i
t
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
11
11
Cr
i
m
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
7
7
De
l
i
v
e
r
P
a
c
k
e
t
s
28
28
Fo
o
t
P
a
t
r
o
l
71
71
Ho
u
s
e
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
h
e
c
k
12
1
121
3
Na
r
c
o
t
i
c
s
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
Te
r
r
o
r
i
s
t
i
c
T
h
r
e
a
t
2
2
Cr
i
m
e
s
A
g
a
i
n
s
t
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
0
0
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
0
0
As
s
i
s
t
M
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
4
4
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
5
5
As
s
i
s
t
O
t
h
e
r
A
g
e
n
c
y
19
19
Ju
v
e
n
i
l
e
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
5
5
Sc
h
o
o
l
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
18
18
91
1
H
a
n
g
U
p
6
6
Ad
m
i
n
D
u
t
y
49
49
Id
e
n
t
i
t
y
T
h
e
f
t
0
0
We
l
f
a
r
e
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
4
4
To
t
a
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
a
l
l
s
1,
2
1
9
1,219
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 18, 2008
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular
Session on December 18, 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 Present
Commissioner Reed Present
Commissioner Sheridan Present (arrived 7:13 p.m.)
Commissioner Forest Present
Commissioner Ashby Absent
Commissioner Davidson Present
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator
Steve Lenart Lenart Development Co., LLC
Todd Webb K. Hovnanian Homes
Matt Johnson Standard Pacific Homes
Wes Homeyer Centex Homes
A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM.
Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with a quorum (5 members) present.
B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 2008 PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Forest motioned to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2008, Planning &
Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davidson.
Ayes: Davidson, Reed, Hill, Forest
Nays: None
Abstain: Stephens (absent on November 20, 2008)
Action: 4-0-1, Approved
C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PD-PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY
CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” –
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION VI. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS, “C” SCREENING AND FENCING. APPLICANT: HIGH TROPHY
DEVELOPMENT, LLC REPRESENTED BY STEVE LENART, LENART
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (PD AMD-08-029)
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing; no one wished to speak and the public hearing was
closed.
Several homeowners came in after the public hearing was closed and later in the meeting
Chairman Hill allowed the homeowners to speak.
Chris Kelly, under contract for 2208 Aberdeen, scheduled to close on December 23, stated
that he would appreciate consideration for including more of his side yard within fencing.
Tony English, future homeowner of 2240 Veranda, also stated that he would like some side
yard enclosed within a fence which is not allowed by current regulations.
D.1 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT
TROPHY CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” –
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION VI. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS, “C” SCREENING AND FENCING. APPLICANT: HIGH TROPHY
DEVELOPMENT, LLC REPRESENTED BY STEVE LENART, LENART
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (PD AMD-08-029)
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this item for the next 90 minutes. The
discussion is summarized:
Ms. Huggins gave a staff report explaining that as homes are being completed and fencing is
being installed at homes in The Highlands there are a couple of situations in which the
developer would like to request amendments to PD-27 regarding fencing, specifically, side
yard fencing along a side street which also involves key lots, as well as perimeter fencing. Ms.
Huggins explained that there are approximately 1500 homes planned for The Highlands, of
which 1298 are Lot Types 1 through 4. Of those, 642 lots have been platted. Of those,
approximately 65 are corner lots that will have side yards along side streets.
Key lots are lots that have a side build line which is the same as the front build line of adjacent
lots. The side yard fencing should remain on the build line in order to not project beyond the
front build line of adjacent lots.
Commissioner Sheridan arrived at 7:13 p.m.
The applicant, Steve Lenart, Lenart Development Company, 520 Central Parkway East, Plano,
stated that this is a request to clarify the fencing requirements in the PD of The Highlands of
Trophy Club. He stated that the goal is to clarify where the side yard fencing needs to sit and
then, secondly, maximize the use of those lots and the value of those lots for the homeowners
and builders. He stated that this concerns corner lots only in which the side yard setbacks are
greater due to the adjacency to the street.
For Lot Types 1 & 2, the side yard typically is from 10 to 20-ft. The developer is interested in a
visually appealing street scape and, just as important, maximizing the use of the corner lots for
the homeowners so that they do not have to maintain a lot of yard outside the fence which they
cannot functionally use on a daily basis. This situation is exaggerated as you go into the
smaller lots. Mr. Lenart stated that people pick the corner lots because of the larger lot size,
which usually will give them more yard space. However, with the current ordinance, these
homeowners are not allowed to fence in the property beyond the building line.
Mr. Lenart stated that for Lot Types 1 & 2, in working with staff a measurement of 10-ft. from
the property line was agreed upon to maintain the good, wide street scape as you turn onto the
street. Fences will not be crowding the street on the property line which is 11-1/2 ft. off the
back of curb. The fencing begins 21-1/2 ft. off of curb and allows these homeowners to have
the same width of back yard as the interior lots so they are not penalized for buying a corner
lot in the community. Mr. Lenart stated that in working with staff the agreement was that the
fences shall be at least 10-ft. back from the front façade which will allow fencing to wrap the
AC units or windows, but maintain a good offset off the front of the home.
Mr. Lenart stated that for Lot Types 3 & 4, the developer feels it is important to get as much
yard as possible because these are smaller lots. They wish to maximize the value of the
corner lots and allow people to make use of the extra land. Mr. Lenart stated that the standard
interior building line is 5-ft. On a corner lot against a street there is a 15-ft. side yard building
line. They would like to place the side yard fence along a side street at the property line to
place the extra 10-ft. within the fence and capture the side yard as well as maximize the back
yard. Mr. Lenart stated that there are not a lot of corridors running throughout the
neighborhoods of these smaller lot types. He stated that it is typically two lots, back to back,
with an occasional key lot.
Commissioner Davidson asked if the material used on the front of the house facing fence
would be wood or metal. Mr. Lenart stated that the PD doesn’t address this, but in
Neighborhoods 3 & 4, they are using wrought iron but with the smaller lots in Neighborhoods 1,
5, and 7 it would be wood. Mr. Davidson asked for the distance from the house to the fence
for Lot Type 2. Mr. Lenart responded that it varies. He stated that on a typical 80-ft. lot the
side yard is 15-ft. so if the fence is 10-ft. off the property line that leaves a 5-ft. gap between
the fence and the house. Mr. Davidson asked if the 5-ft. gap would have sod or concrete. Mr.
Lenart stated that 5-ft. side yards are very common throughout the metroplex and typically it is
irrigated and sodded. Mr. Davidson stated that it would be difficult to keep anything growing in
that 5-ft. gap so the homeowner is almost forced to put some type of material in that space.
Mr. Davidson asked if the fence height would be 6-ft. or 8-ft. Mr. Lenart responded that the
homeowners have the option of going to 8-ft., but the typical fence is 6-ft. in height.
Commissioner Reed asked how key lots should be addressed. Mr. Lenart stated that on a key
lot the rear fence of the key lot runs beside the front yard of the adjacent lot. In Neighborhoods
3 & 4, these are large lots, standard 80s and 90s or wider, and it is not nearly an issue as it is
with the smaller lot sizes (50s, 60s, 70s width) where the homeowner walks out his front door
and 25-ft. away is the neighbors fence. In Neighborhoods 3 & 4, the homeowners own garage
or recessed front door may block the view of the neighbor’s fence. Staff and Mr. Lenart
discussed a compromise of 5-ft. for the key lots, but more than that entails a discussion of the
placement of the house next door – are they walking out to the left to see their neighbor’s
fence or are they seeing their own garage door. The developer would prefer that the
homeowner be allowed to utilize as much of the yard as possible because typically that is what
homeowners wish. Commissioner Reed stated that he agrees that the amount of back yard
should be maximized. If the homeowner paid a big price for the lot he shouldn’t have to have a
strip of land that he is responsible to care for and mow, but can’t utilize.
Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he sees the wisdom of moving out the fence so that
homeowners can have that extra property to use, as it is a great place to put lawn equipment.
He stated that he put down pea gravel which he doesn’t have to mow, yet that side of the
house, the foundation, stays wet. He has found it to be a great place to put the bar-b-que grill,
lawn mowers and the other items that homeowners accumulate – and over the years
homeowners do accumulate a lot. Mr. Stephens asked for the distance from the curb to the
property line for Lot Types 3 & 4. Mr. Lenart stated that the standard setback off of curb is 11-
1/2 ft. He stated that the developer is going to maintain a stain on the fences, but they didn’t
request that in the PD because it would be a hard thing for the City to police over the 5 to 7
year life of the development. He stated they will mandate and police that through the HOA.
He stated that they recognize that the concern is having the fences tight on the street, but they
feel the trade off on the 60s and 70s is worth it in this situation. There are no long corridor
runs in these neighborhoods (1, 5, and 7) which will give a narrow tunnel vision look.
Vice Chairman Stephens asked how many lots are corner lots with side yard fencing along a
side street. Ms. Huggins responded that of the 610 platted lots there are 75 corner lots.
Commissioner Forest stated that he feels that something should be done that can help
homeowners have a bigger yard. Homeowners are spending a lot of money on a house and
should be able to use their ground rather than having to mow ground that they can’t use. He’d
like to see a solution that works for the developer and for the homeowners.
Commissioner Sheridan apologized for being late and asked for verification of the allowed
fence height. Ms. Huggins stated that the allowed fence height is 6-ft. with a maximum of 8-ft.,
except for yards facing golf course or open space which is limited to 6-ft. Mr. Sheridan asked if
the PD is different from the Town fence ordinance. Ms. Huggins responded, “No”. Mr.
Sheridan made the following observations -- 8-ft. fencing is allowed along the side. Five foot
side yards are not unusual. There are a variety of lot sizes. Drainage issues with 5-ft. side
yards are not unusual. He asked what the typical corner is for all lot types – is it not wider?
Mr. Lenart responded that it is. He stated that on a typical 60-ft. wide lot the corner lot is 70-ft.
wide. Commissioner Sheridan stated that in this Town there is a variety of every type of fence
possible because for many decades there have been different controls varying from none to
some. He stated that this issue was debated when the Town fence ordinance was finalized.
He stated that he lives on a corner lot and his wife would have liked to take the fence to the
property line. Mr. Sheridan stated that he voted against it. He stated that his opinion is that
there should be one fence ordinance for the Town.
Chairman Hill asked to move on to perimeter fencing and key lots. Mr. Lenart stated that
perimeter fencing is where there is a lot adjacent to a screening wall. The current ordinance
prohibits parallel fencing within 20-ft. of each other. Most of the lots in this PD that are beside
a screening wall could not erect a side yard fence without violating the parallel fence
regulation. Mr. Lenart stated that this would be 100% benefit to the homeowner to allow
connection to perimeter fencing.
Chairman Hill stated that the perimeter fence is sitting on a fence easement, correct? Mr.
Lenart stated that most screening walls sit half in right-of-way and half on the property line of
the homeowners’ property.
Commissioner Reed stated that he is in favor of this request. It’s logical.
Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he agrees with Commissioner Reed.
Commissioner Sheridan asked what type of fence could be utilized. Ms. Huggins stated that
staff is recommending wrought iron. Mr. Sheridan asked if the screening wall fencing is HOA
or PID controlled. Ms. Huggins responded, “HOA”. Mr. Sheridan noted that some of the
perimeter fencing is solid stone. He asked if any perimeter fencing will be against gas well
stone walls. Mr. Lenart stated that he believed most of the gas well fences are offset from the
property line a good distance. Mr. Sheridan stated that this is unique to the Highland area so
therefore an individual PD allowance would not be unusual. He believes this is common
sense.
Commissioner Sheridan asked how many lots are perimeter lots. Mr. Lenart stated that there
are approximately 40 lots.
Vice Chairman Stephens and Commissioner Sheridan asked questions and discussed
clarification of key lots with Mr. Lenart. Commissioner Reed discussed the possibility of a
compromise between the build line and 10-ft. off the property line.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that the Town staff has not shown the ability to handle
differences. He stated that in just driving out to this neighborhood there are two houses on
Veranda that are not in compliance and there is a house with a fence on it, that should have
gotten a permit from the Town, that is not in compliance. By creating a variation to the current
ordinance dictates something that we’ve shown we can’t handle.
Commissioner Reed discussed variations for key lots with Mr. Lenart.
Commissioner Davidson stated that 10-ft. off the property line is a nice compromise on the
larger lots. He stated that the tunnel effect is not wanted where the fences come way out to
the sidewalk, which is completely unacceptable for many reasons, most notably public safety.
He has concern about the smaller lots going out to the sidewalk which would create a tunnel
effect.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that he would rather change the fence ordinance for the Town
rather than for the PD. He recommends 15-ft. behind the façade and 5-ft. off the property line.
Commissioner Davidson and Commissioner Sheridan discussed revising the Town fence
ordinance versus the PD. Commissioner Davidson summarized that if there are going to be
fence adjustments, we’ve already proven that it is troublesome to have different ordinances by
location and that it needs to be more universal throughout the Town, adjusting across the
board.
Commissioner Reed stated that there are a lot of regulations in the PD that don’t apply to the
rest of the Town so he doesn’t see why the fencing regulations for the PD have to be the same
as the Town. A planned development is set up so they can negotiate slightly different
situations with us. He would like to set the fencing regulations for the PD.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that Mr. Reed has a point, but the other thing is there are three
houses out there not in compliance, two of which the garage door would have to be torn off to
bring them into compliance. He stated that he is not pointing at Carolyn, there are other
people involved, but the differentials are not managed.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if three separate motions could be made. Chairman Hill asked
for one motion, and recommendation, on all items.
After an additional (approximately 25 minutes) of discussion by the Commissioners, Mr.
Lenart, and Todd Webb (with K. Hovnanian Builders), Chairman Hill called for a motion.
Commissioner Sheridan made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council with the
following stipulations: (1) Define a “key lot” as “any lot which has a street adjacent to both its
front and side building lines, and its rear property line is also the side property line of an
adjacent lot”; (2) the side yard fence adjacent to a side street for Lot Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 may
be placed 10-ft. off the property line, and must be 10-ft. behind the front façade; no differential
for key lots; (3) homeowners may connect to perimeter fencing and the property owner fence
must be located a minimum of ten feet (10-ft.) behind the front façade. The HOA will maintain
the perimeter fencing; the homeowner will maintain his fence connecting to the perimeter
fencing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stephens.
Commissioner Davidson asked Mr. Lenart if the above motion meets the expectation of the
developer. Mr. Lenart responded that it does not meet their desires for the 60 and 70-ft. wide
lots. Mr. Davidson stated, “By doing this consistently regardless of the lot type we now
eliminate the reverse problem with Lot Types 1 and 2 wishing to take their fencing to the
property line”. Mr. Davidson stated that he prefers to see the requirements consistent across
the lot types.
There was no further discussion and Chairman Hill called for the vote.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Davidson, Forest, Sheridan, Stephens
Nays: None
Action: 6-0, Approved
D.2 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR MODEL
HOMES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 27, NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A,
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OF NOT GREATER THAN ONE YEAR. APPLICANT:
GALLERY CUSTOM HOMES.
The applicant was not present and Chairman Hill deferred this item to a future agenda.
D.3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR MODEL
HOMES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 27, NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A,
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OF NOT GREATER THAN ONE YEAR. APPLICANT:
CENTEX HOMES.
Chairman Hill announced this item and asked the applicant to step forward.
Wes Homeyer, Centex Homes, 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 600, Dallas, stated that they wish to
provide parking for their model home to be located at 2408 Trophy Club Drive.
Ms. Huggins stated that Centex Homes is proposing 8 parking spaces with two handicap
accessible spaces. The Town does not have a set amount of required parking spaces for a
model home parking lot, although at least one handicap accessible space is required. Staff
has determined that eight spaces for Centex’s model home is adequate based on the amount
of lots Centex owns. Centex is proposing landscaping on either side of the driveway. They
proposed a couple of trees, but staff asked Centex to remove the trees from this landscape
plan because those trees would be destroyed when this lot is developed as a single family
residence. Staff supports this request and asks the Planning & Zoning Commission to
recommend approval to the Town Council.
Commissioner Reed made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council. The motion
was seconded by Vice Chairman Stephens.
Ayes: Hill, Reed, Davidson, Forest, Sheridan, Stephens
Nays: None
Action: 6-0, Approved
D.4 DISCUSSION AND COMMENT TO TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING CHANGES TO
THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 13-ZONING,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, AMENDING REGULATIONS REGARDING
PERMITTED USES FOR “CG” COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING AND OTHER
MISCELLAENOUS PROVISIONS AS NEEDED OF CHAPTER 13. (ADM-09-001)
Chairman Hill announced this item and asked the Commissioners to discuss and consider
whether or not a pawn shop is an appropriate use in “CG” Commercial General zoning in the
Town of Trophy Club. The Commissioners should also consider whether a pawn shop should
be a conditional rather than a permitted use. The Council is asking P&Z to review all of the
uses for CG and provide comment.
The Commission discussed these items and Chairman Hill will give comments to the Town
Council on January 5, 2009.
E.1 ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
TCE
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2008} and {12/31/2008}
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Incident Type 01/01/2006
to
12/31/2006
01/01/200
7 to
12/31/200
7
01/01/2008
to
12/31/2008
01/01/2005
to
12/31/2005
0 10 0
100 Fire, Other 7 96 4
111 Building fire 3 118 7
112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 31 4
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 2 30 2
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 1 00 2
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 0 00 2
120 Fire in mobile prop used as a fixed struc, Other 0 00 1
121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 1 21 1
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 1 10 1
131 Passenger vehicle fire 2 00 1
138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 1 00 0
140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 1 00 1
141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 0 20 0
142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 2 32 7
143 Grass fire 1 54 8
150 Outside rubbish fire, Other 1 12 0
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 0 02 0
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 1 12 1
160 Special outside fire, Other 2 10 0
162 Outside equipment fire 1 00 0
170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, Other 0 00 1
210 Overpressure rupture from steam, Other 1 00 0
221 Overpressure rupture of air or gas pipe/pipeline 0 20 4
240 Explosion (no fire), Other 0 11 0
251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 3 11 1
311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 36 5025 62
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 310 365298 284
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 20 2511 24
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped)2 40 1
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 0 012 0
331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 )3 11 1
341 Search for person on land 0 01 0
350 Extrication, rescue, Other 0 11 1
352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 3 12 1
363 Swift water rescue 1 00 0
381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 30 0
400 Hazardous condition, Other 3 10 2
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 1 00 0
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 1 10 1
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)6 42 4
1Page02/20/2009 15:14
TCE
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2008} and {12/31/2008}
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Incident Type 01/01/2006
to
12/31/2006
01/01/200
7 to
12/31/200
7
01/01/2008
to
12/31/2008
01/01/2005
to
12/31/2005
422 Chemical spill or leak 0 10 1
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 7 23 2
442 Overheated motor 1 01 0
444 Power line down 2 11 4
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 5 24 2
500 Service Call, other 9 915 9
510 Person in distress, Other 0 22 0
511 Lock-out 15 114 8
512 Ring or jewelry removal 0 00 1
520 Water problem, Other 7 58 7
522 Water or steam leak 2 52 2
531 Smoke or odor removal 4 35 10
541 Animal problem 0 01 0
542 Animal rescue 2 12 5
550 Public service assistance, Other 12 919 3
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 3 20 3
552 Police matter 2 12 0
553 Public service 3 326 2
5531Public Education 0 010 0
554 Assist invalid 0 31 1
561 Unauthorized burning 2 10 0
600 Good intent call, Other 12 910 7
611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 14 818 9
631 Authorized controlled burning 0 10 0
641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)0 10 1
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0 21 0
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 0 00 1
700 False alarm or false call, Other 59 3740 33
711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 0 01 0
730 System malfunction, Other 12 75 3
731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 0 00 1
733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 4 45 5
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 1 13 1
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 5 42 0
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 3 35 1
744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 1 02 2
745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 1 01 3
800 Severe weather or natural disaster, Other 0 00 1
814 Lightning strike (no fire)1 00 1
900 Special type of incident, Other 0 14 3
911 Citizen complaint 0 10 0
2Page02/20/2009 15:14
608 633Totals596 561
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2009} And
{02/20/2009}
TCE
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Incident Type Count
Pct of
Incidents
Total
Est Loss
Pct of
Losses
1 Fire
140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident
311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 5 6.41 %$0 0.00 %
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury32 41.03 %$0 0.00 %
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 3 3.85 %$0 0.00 %
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
41 52.56 %$0 0.00 %
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
444 Power line down 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
3 3.85 %$0 0.00 %
5 Service Call
500 Service Call, other 2 2.56 %$0 0.00 %
550 Public service assistance, Other 8 10.26 %$0 0.00 %
552 Police matter 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
553 Public service 5 6.41 %$0 0.00 %
5531 Public Education 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
17 21.79 %$0 0.00 %
6 Good Intent Call
600 Good intent call, Other 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 9 11.54 %$0 0.00 %
661 EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
11 14.10 %$0 0.00 %
7 False Alarm & False Call
700 False alarm or false call, Other 3 3.85 %$0 0.00 %
715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional1 1.28 %$0 0.00 %
5 6.41 %$0 0.00 %
02/20/2009 15:12 1Page
Total Incident Count:78 Total Est Loss:$0