Previous Sessions
APATX Positions on 2021 Legislation
"This bill will significantly change the rules of subdivision plat and related engineering plan reviews/approvals with serious negative impacts." Read Full SB 1947 Statement
APATX issues statement in opposition to SB 1261"This bill will put Texas businesses behind the curve for future economic success and will harm people in neighborhoods throughout the state." Read Full SB 1261 Statement
APATX issues statement in favor of HB 4499
"Thinking towards our future, a regionally connected trail system offers numerous benefits for Texans, including improved health and social connectedness, environmental awareness, connectivity, and economic prosperity. This bill will help to identify the feasibility of establishing a regional connected trails system throughout the state, including potential projects, allocation of state resources potentially needed, and departmental capacity to oversee such a program." Read Full HB 4499 Statement
APATX issues statement in opposition to HB 4447
"HB 4447, as written, further penalizes cities, counties, developers, their consultants and property owners by adding even more limitations to an already dysfunctional, one-size-fits-all, mandatory time frame for approvals. We have been advised that a committee substitute has been drafted which is even worse, though we have not been provided a copy. APATX recommends this bill, as written or with the proposed substitution language, be opposed by cities, counties, developers, their consultants and large property owners planning on working with cities and counties to develop their property. " Read Full HB 4447 Statement
A substitute bill has been submitted which is not available online. The APATX Advocacy Committee did not receive the substitute bill until late last night 4/19). It is the committee's opinion as well as the professionals that have been consulted, the substitute HB 4447 will completely disrupt plat and plan reviews by expanding the 30-day "shot clock" required action provision to include staff approvals of all plats, plans, construction drawings and other development related studies and analysis. The time frame now includes incomplete applications and precludes completeness checks.
APATX issues statement in opposition to HB 3519
"This bill as written plays havoc with over 70 years of ETJ law including numerous court cases resolving annexation and jurisdiction disputes between competing jurisdictions. Anyone could remove any property from an ETJ. APATX recommends this bill, as written, be opposed by cities, counties and large property owners planning on working with cities to develop their property in the ETJ." Read Full HB 3519 Statement
APATX provides testimony in favor of HB 442
"Permitted vehicle speed for a roadway should recognize the land use context. The way to do this is by balancing the number of vehicles on a roadway with the potential lives lost: the more people in the area, the more careful we should be in their presence. Streets in residential neighborhoods are prime candidates to reduce the risk to residents by reducing the prima facie speed limit to 25 mph." Read Full HB 442 Statement
APATX provides testimony in favor of HB 5, HB 11, HB 12, and HB 13
"HB 5 is an essential step in coordinating the state’s response to the digital divide. Those of us in the planning profession have seen firsthand how the lack of broadband infrastructure threatens the state’s long-term economic viability, particularly in rural and low-income areas, and for communities of color. Economic development is driven by access to critical infrastructure, and broadband access is a key deciding factor job creators look for when choosing to relocate to Texas." Read Full HB 5 Statement
"Increasing our communities’ resiliency to all types of disasters has been a stated priority for APATX for many years now, and we are excited to work alongside the Legislature. The recent winter storm is just the latest example of how underprepared our infrastructure system has become in Texas. HB 11 makes reasonable strides to ensure that we are prepared for the next weather-related disaster and make no mistake; the next weather-related disaster is just a matter of time." Read Full HB 11 Statement
"HB 12 is an essential tool for local communities to respond to all types of disasters and will help the coordination between state and locals to, hopefully, mitigate the human cost of a disaster." Read Full HB 12 Statement
"HB 13 addresses a critical need facing the state, the need to prepare our infrastructure systems better to respond to disasters. In particular, the requirement to maintain records of critical infrastructure facilities is a much- needed requirement. The state's fast growth has led to more fire stations, schools, and police stations being built in our communities. Having a central repository of these locations will hopefully prevent service outages to other critical infrastructure, which are necessary to maintain essential functions." Read Full HB 13 Statement
H.B. 3167 and S.B. 2370 Relating to Subdivision Review Timing and ProcessStatements:
The proposed legislation, in seeking to address a perceived problem, will have the opposite effect as it removes flexibility for cities to work with applicants and cause the subdivision process to take longer. APATX supports reforms to the subdivision process to streamline and eliminate red tape, even working with legislators on HB 3314 and HB 3315. HB 3167, by contrast, is ineffective reform. In consultation with our membership, APATX has identified the following issues with SB 2370:
- The requirement to approve or disapprove prevents the governing body from "approving with conditions" or "disapproving pending resolution of outstanding issues administratively." Cities have use this approach to simplify resolution of outstanding comments at the administrative level rather than requiring further delay while awaiting the next available meeting of the governing body.
- Disapproval of a plat ends the process, forcing a project to start over. This jeopardizes project vesting under Chapter 245, as the project risks becoming anew series of applications. It also prolongs the ultimate approval process, and results in more costs to the developer. This is why cities typically provide the option to waive the 30-day action calendar or have the project denied. Submitting engineers and surveyors prefer the waiver in order to keep the process moving productively rather than explaining a denial to a client.
- The waiver of 30-day action is, at times, used to allow joint review of a final plat and construction plans. This is helpful on complex projects, as it ensures public infrastructure is properly located in easements and allows for adjustments to the plat, which are often easier than redesigning an entire site plan or public improvement construction plans. Shifting the location of a single building can cascade into requiring the relocation of easements and public infrastructure. Cities owe their citizens a detailed review of such plans, as the public is accepting an operation and maintenance burden that will last decades.
- The inability to meet 30-day action requirements rests with inadequate quality assurance and quality control by engineering and surveying firms tasked with preparing subdivision plats. Workloads for these consultants are stretched beyond their capacity, a result of the booming Texas economy in which cities have been key contributors. Simply put: Texas does not have enough experienced civil engineers and surveyors. These errors can be serious and cause long-lasting, complex title clouds that can be difficult and expensive to resolve. The effect has been to turn city staff into quality reviewers for the firms preparing the plats. Common examples of errors include: legal description of the property failing to match the acreage within the plat; errors of course and distance that cause the plat to exceed dimensions of the subject property; preparing a plat without reviewing the applicable zoning and lot standards, oftentimes requiring drastic redesign of the subdivision; plat details so poorly prepared that experienced planners are unable to identify the location of the subject property; use of standards for other jurisdictions, such as incorrect dedication statements and incorrect stormwater drainage criteria, that would result in flooding upstream or downstream and cause violations of the Texas Water Code; and utility easements and rights-of-way that fail to meet accepted engineering standards.
In our experience, flexibility in the subdivision platting process benefits both the regulator (cities) and the regulated (developers), SB 2370 would erode that flexibility and make the relationship between cities and developers unnecessarily adversarial.
Business and Commerce Committee Members:
Chair: Sen. Kelly Hancock
Vice Chair: Sen. Robert Nichols
Members:
- Sen. Donna Campbell
- Sen. Brandon Creighton
- Sen. José Menéndez
- Sen. Angela Paxton
- Sen. Charles Schwertner
- Sen. John Whitmire
- Sen. Judith Zaffirini
For HB3167, we need our members to send letters and call House Land & Resource Committee Members. The “ask” is to not report the bill out of committee. The members are:
Chair: Rep. Tom Craddick
Vice Chair: Rep. Sergio Muñoz, Jr.
Members:
- Rep. Cecil Bell
- Rep. Kyle Biedermann
- Rep. Terry Canales
- Rep. Ben Leman
- Rep. Ina Minjarez
- Rep. Jonathan Stickland
- Rep. Shawn Thierry
H.B. 2439 Prohibits Cities from Regulating Building Materials
From TML
You are receiving this email because our records show that yours is one of more than 200 Texas cities that regulate building materials used in residential and/or commercial construction. House Bill 2439 (Phelan) is a far-reaching bill that would eliminate your authority to require brick construction or any other exterior, interior, or internal system materials that differ from those allowed by a national building code.
The bill has been set for a hearing in the House Committee on State Affairs, which is chaired by the author, on Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. in Room E2.014 in the Capitol Extension in Austin.
The hearing notice is available at:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/schedules/pdf/C4502019032010301.PDF
More specifically, H.B. 2439 would provide that: (1) a governmental entity may not adopt or enforce a rule, charter provision, ordinance, order, or other regulation that prohibits, directly or indirectly, the use of a building product, material, or method in the construction, renovation, maintenance, or other alteration of a residential or commercial structure if the building product, material, or method is approved for use by a national model code that: (a) is adopted by the governmental entity; and (b) governs the construction, renovation, use, or maintenance of buildings and building systems; (2) a rule, charter provision, ordinance, order, or other regulation adopted by a governmental entity that conflicts with the bill is void; (3) the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state to enjoin a violation of the bill; and (4) the attorney general may recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing an action under the bill.
If you are opposed to the preemptive bill, please contact yourHouse Member and Chairman Phelan's office to let them know. Also, plan to attend and testify at the hearing next week.
Please email legislative@tml.org with questions.
Texas House Land and Resource Management Committee to hear bill removing Tier 1 County Annexation rights
Representative Phil King (R - Weatherford) has filed H.B. 347. The bill, which will be heard in the House Land and Resource Management Committee on Tuesday, March 5, 2019, in Room E2.012 of the Capitol Extension in Austin, would eliminate most unilateral annexations by ANY home rule city, regardless of population or location. The hearing notice is available here.
Specifically, the bill would: (1) eliminate the distinction between Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities and counties created by S.B. 6 (2017); (2) eliminate existing annexation authority that applied to Tier 1 cities and make most annexations subject to the three consent annexation procedures created by S.B. 6 (2017), which allow for annexation: (a) on request of the each owner of the land; (b) of an area with a population of less than 200 by petition of voters and, if required, owners in the area; and (c) of an area with a population of at least 200 by election of voters and, if required, petition of landowners; and (3) authorize certain narrowly-defined types of annexation (e.g., city-owned airports, navigable streams, etc.) to continue using a service plan, notice, and hearing annexation procedure.
City officials in home rule cities who are opposed to the bill should make plans to testify at the hearing.
Please contact Scott Houston, TML General Counsel, at shouston@tml.org if you plan to testify or with questions.
Coppell City Council passes short-term rental ordinance (6/15/18)
Significance: Two bills were proposed during the 2017 Legislative Session (HB 2551: Krause and SB 451: Hancock) intended to pre-empt cities from regulating Short Term Rentals (STRs). STR regulation is anticipated to be a hot topic in the upcoming 2019 Legislative Session.
After several discussions, meetings and comments from the public, the Coppell City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday that regulates short term rentals (STRs) in the city.
The ordinance requires that the rented property be the owner’s primary residence, be registered with the city, an emergency contact number be provided and the property be inspected.
The ordinance also only allows two adult guests per bedroom and only one car per bedroom or number of cars that be accommodated within the garage and driveway without extending over the public’s rights-of-way.
Also, property owners within 100 feet of an STR will be sent a notification that an STR is in their neighborhood and given a number to a 24-hour hotline number to call in case an issue arises.
The STR issue became a highly discussed topic, bringing in arguments from both sides. Several residents had complained of STRs in their neighborhoods citing concerns of safety, disruptive activity and declining property values while others felt the proposed regulations were unnecessary and an infringement on property rights.
“We have heard considerable input from citizens on both sides,” said Councilman Marvin Franklin. “Our staff has studied ordinances from other cities, and we have sought to strike a balance between free enterprise, neighborhood integrity and property rights. I think we’ve done a pretty good job of doing that.”
Councilman Gary Roden said Airbnb is a great system, but it’s not necessarily great for every location.
“When I look at something like this my thought is would I want this next door to me,” he said. “If I’ve got somebody that bought a house, they’re never present and there’s constantly people coming and going every night, I think that changes the integrity of our neighborhood.”
Council members Mark Hill and Cliff Long said they were against the inspection requirements of the ordinance.
Marcie Diamond, assistant director of community development and planning, brought out the inspections are conducted to make sure the basic safety and health requirements are met in each rental home.
Diamond said the ordinance allows for a sunset review, meaning the council will be given the chance to review the ordinance after one year and be able to make changes if necessary.
The STR ordinance is set to go into effect Jan. 2, 2019.
“Doing this ordinance provides a process. It’s the process I think that will help everybody feel that they have a little bit more control,” said Mayor Karen Hunt. “I’m hopeful this will be a start, and with the sunset we will be able to revisit this from now.”
Urgent Action Needed!
7/21/17:TXAPA working with TML is sending out this urgent call for testimony and letters. If cities and/or interested groups, including responsible developers, realtors, etc that understand the issues can attend to testify, it will be hugely beneficial.
Action Needed:
4/4/17:TML & TXAPA legislative Committee needs expert testimony on the attached annexation bills that will be heard at 2 pm in Austin on Wednesday, April 5. Agenda is also attached. HB299, HB 424, HB 3072 and HB 2272 are the main bills that we are concerned with. Two of them will have serious negative consequences. If you cannot attend, look up the members of Land and Resource and let them know what your City thinks. Copy TML and Shanna Igo with your comments or your plans to appear. Thanks for everyone's help. This one is important.