Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
In 2007, the elected leaders of 15 Hill County counties
united to form a coalition to approach the Legislature with a request to expand
the statutory authority of counties.
The
members of the Hill Country Coalition of Counties, representing their more than
524,000 residents, had common concerns over the negative effects of rapid
growth in unincorporated areas of their counties. The concerns were water availability,
traffic, drainage, the environment and budgets.
In this election season, the subject of county authority for
Kendall County has become a subject of conversation. Recent political ads
bought in the Boerne Star have featured commentary within the framework of a
bill described as H.B. 3265.
In order to encourage honest debate, with an eye toward fact
based decision making and to provide for a better informed public, factual
information is required. As this
issue will likely be included in future Legislatures, it is important an
ongoing discussion of county authority be based on the facts.
The basis for this information is the actual piece of
legislation, H.B. No. 3265I, introduced by Representative Rose. After a public
hearing and testimony to the County Affairs Committee, a substitute bill
replaced the bill as it had originally been introduced. The substitute bill was
C.C.H.B 3265 by Representative Coleman.
It was this bill that was sent to the Calendars Committee for
scheduling to the floor of the House for a vote. In this committee, the bill was tagged. This is a legislative privilege enjoyed only by Calendars Committee
members to hold back a bill "for further study." It prevents a bill from
ever being scheduled. As the legislative session ends, so does the life of a
tagged bill. As a result, this bill died in committee before a vote was
actually taken.
The information provided to follow this introduction is
displayed in the format as it was written and recorded on the website of the
Texas Legislature On-Line. Sections of the language in H.B. No. 3265I are
identified as “Original.” C.C.H.B. 3265 is identified as “Substitute”.
After a comparison of language from the two bills side by
side, the Facts are provided.
- Fact: The
original bill defined the Hill Country counties to include 15 counties. The
final bill included eight counties
- Fact: The
original bill identified three separate types of infrastructure that could be
affected by the authority provided by the bill. The final bill included
one-roads.
-
Fact: Both
the original and final bills provided a mechanism for a County to recover the
costs associated with development.
- Fact: The
original bill provided that density of lots could be set to a minimum
size. The final bill provided for
the density of lots to be managed by establishing an average lot size within
the development.
- Fact: Both
the original and final bills prohibited regulation of the use of any building
or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purpose; or a plat
or subdivision in an adjoining county by a commissioner’s court.
- Fact: Both the original and final bills required
approval by the majority of voters to allow a county commissioner’s court to
use the regulatory authority as defined in the bill.
Original:
SUBCHAPTER M. DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS IN HILL COUNTRY COUNTIES
|
Sec. 231.281. DEFINITIONS.
In this subchapter:
|
(1) "Hill
Country county" means Bandera, Blanco,
|
Burnet,
Comal, Edwards, Gillespie, Hays, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble,
|
Llano,
Mason, Medina, Real, or Uvalde County.
|
Substitute:
SUBCHAPTER M. DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS IN HILL COUNTRY COUNTIES
|
Sec. 231.281. DEFINITIONS.
In this subchapter:
|
(1) "Hill
Country county" means Bandera, Blanco,
|
Comal,
Edwards, Gillespie, Hays, Kendall, or Medina County.
|
Facts: The
original bill defined the Hill Country counties to include 15 counties. The
final bill included eight counties.
Original:
(2) "Infrastructure"
means any of the following
|
facilities:
|
(A) water
supply, treatment, and distribution
|
facilities;
|
(B) wastewater
collection and treatment
|
facilities;
|
(C) storm
water, drainage, and flood control
|
facilities;
or
|
(D) roadway
facilities.
|
Substitute:
(2) "Infrastructure"
means any roadway facility.
|
Facts: The
original bill identified three separate types of infrastructure that could be
affected by the authority provided by the bill. The final bill included
one-roads.
Original:
(3) "Infrastructure
cost recovery fee" means a fee
|
imposed
by the county on the owner of new development to pay for or
|
recover
costs of infrastructure improvements necessitated by and
|
attributable
to the new development. The fee is assessed on a cost
|
per
service unit basis.
|
Substitute:
(3) "Infrastructure
cost recovery fee" means a fee
|
imposed
by the county on the owner of new development to pay for or
|
recover
costs of infrastructure improvements necessitated by and
|
attributable
to the new development. The fee is assessed on a cost
|
per
service unit basis.
|
Facts: Both
the original and final bills provided a mechanism for a County to recover the
costs associated with development.
Original:
(1) density
of development as determined by minimum or
|
average
lot size within a designated area;
|
Substitute:
(1) density
of development as determined by average
|
lot
size within a designated area;
|
Facts: The
original bill provided that density of lots could be set to a minimum
size. The final bill provided for
the density of lots to be managed by establishing an average lot size within
the development.
Original:
(c) Unless
otherwise authorized by state law, a
|
commissioners
court may not regulate under this subchapter:
|
(1) the
use of any building or property for business,
|
industrial,
residential, or other purpose; or
|
(2) a
plat or subdivision in an adjoining county.
|
Substitute:
(c) Unless
otherwise authorized by state law, a
|
commissioners
court may not regulate under this subchapter:
|
(1) the
use of any building or property for business,
|
industrial,
residential, or other purpose; or
|
(2) a
plat or subdivision in an adjoining county.
|
Facts: Both
the original and final bills prohibited regulation of the use of any building
or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purpose; or a plat
or subdivision in an adjoining county by a commissioner’s court.
Original:
Sec. 231.285. ELECTION
TO APPROVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
|
REQUIRED.
(a) Regulatory authority granted under Section 231.284
|
is
not effective until it is approved by a majority of the county
|
residents
voting in an election held under this section.
|
(b) County
residents voting in an election held under this
|
section:
|
(1) may
approve regulatory authority granted under
|
Section
231.284 in its entirety; or
|
(2) may
approve specific regulatory authority granted
|
under
Section 231.284 without approving other specific regulatory
|
authority
granted under Section 231.284.
|
Substitute:
Sec. 231.285. ELECTION
TO APPROVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
|
REQUIRED.
(a) Regulatory authority granted under Section 231.284
|
is
not effective until it is approved by a majority of the county
|
residents
voting in an election held under this section.
|
(b) County
residents voting in an election held under this
|
section:
|
(1) may
approve regulatory authority granted under
|
Section
231.284 in its entirety; or
|
(2) may
approve specific regulatory authority granted
|
under
Section 231.284 without approving other specific regulatory
|
authority
granted under Section 231.284.
|
Facts: Both the original and final bills required
approval by the majority of voters to allow a county commissioner’s court to
use the regulatory authority as defined in the bill.
Original:
Sec. 231.287. DISTRICTS.
(a) The commissioners court of a
|
Hill
Country county may divide the unincorporated area of the
|
county
into districts of a number, shape, and size the
|
commissioners
court considers best for exercising the authority
|
granted
by this subchapter.
|
(b) Development
regulations may vary from district to
|
district.
|
Substitute:
Sec. 231.287. PROCEDURE
GOVERNING ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS.
|
(a)
A development regulation adopted under this subchapter is not
|
effective
until the regulation is adopted by the commissioners
|
court
of the county after a public hearing. Before the 15th day
|
before
the date of the hearing, the commissioners court must
|
publish
notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation
|
in
the county.
|
Facts: The
final bill dropped an option for county commissioner’s court to divide
unincorporated areas into districts. The final bill added the requirement for
commissioner’s court to conduct a public hearing before adopting a regulation.
.
.
.
C.S.H.B. 3265 |
By: Rose |
County Affairs |
Committee Report
(Substituted) |
.
.
.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Texas Hill Country region
is recognized nationally as a major tourist destination, a favorite retirement
location, and a perfect place to raise a family. Its population is
expected to nearly double from the 2000 census population of 2.6 million to
4.3 million by 2030. Already, in 2007, the population was 3.1 million,
a 65.4 percent increase. Economic prosperity has come with an increased
need for community services and infrastructure, including police, sheriff,
and fire protection, emergency medical services, schools, roads, water, and
wastewater.
Today, these communities and
their local governments lack the tools they need to be able to plan and
manage growth in order to sustain future economic vitality and to protect
property values and the Hill Country way of life. Because much of this
region's undeveloped lands are not within incorporated cities or towns,
county governments—limited to the powers of road building and
permitting—are the only entities with the territorial breadth and
jurisdiction suitable for actively and rationally managing growth within the
Texas Hill Country.
In 2007, a group of counties
formed the Hill Country county coalition with the purpose of studying and
building consensus on what limited county powers were needed to better plan
and prepare for the future. Over the past two years, these local
government leaders have met to discuss what authorities are needed to better
balance rapid population growth with finite natural resources and lagging
infrastructure.
C.S.H.B. 3265 grants a
commissioners court of a Hill Country county the authority to regulate land
development in an unincorporated area of the county. |
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
|
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3265 amends the Local
Government Code to authorize the commissioners court of a Hill Country county
by order to adopt land development regulations in the unincorporated area of
the Hill Country county. The bill prohibits a commissioners court from
regulating the use of any building or property for business, industrial,
residential, or other purpose, or a plat or subdivision in an adjoining
county, unless otherwise authorized by state law. The bill defines "Hill
Country county" to mean Bandera, Blanco, Comal, Edwards, Gillespie,
Hays, Kendall, or Medina County.
C.S.H.B. 3265 sets forth
provisions for general development regulations, the election to approve
regulatory authority, compliance with county and municipal plans, the
procedure governing adoption of regulations, the authority to appoint a
development commission, special exceptions to development regulations,
cooperation with municipalities, conflict with other laws, infrastructure
cost recovery fees, procedures for assessing infrastructure cost recovery fees
in general, and the requirement for certification of compliance.
C.S.H.B. 3265 makes it a
misdemeanor offense punishable by fine of not less than $500 or more than
$1,000 to violate provisions of this bill or an order or development
regulation adopted in accordance with this bill and provides that each day a
violation occurs constitutes a separate offense. The bill authorizes the
commissioners court to adopt orders to enforce these provisions or an order
or development regulation. The bill provides that if a regulation adopted in
accordance with this bill imposes higher standards than those required under
another statute or local order or regulation, the regulation adopted under
this subchapter controls in the area subject to regulation, and if the other
statute or local order or regulation imposes higher standards, that statute,
order, or regulation controls.
C.S.H.B. 3265 defines
"infrastructure," "infrastructure cost recovery fee,"
"new development," and "service unit" and makes
conforming changes to the Local Government Code. The bill provides
legislative findings and purpose that Hill Country counties including the
areas surrounding specified lakes, rivers, tributaries, creeks, and springs
are for recreational and tourism purposes and are critical to the bays and
estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the orderly development of the Hill
Country counties requires adequate development regulations.
|
EFFECTIVE DATE
|
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE |
C.S.H.B. 3265 differs from the
original by removing certain counties from the definition of "Hill
Country county," by removing certain facilities from the definition of
"infrastructure," and by removing a specified activity that
increases the number of service units from the definition of "new
development." The substitute removes from the original a minimum lot
size relating to a determination of development density. The substitute
removes from the original provisions relating to a petition to request an
election to approve a grant of regulatory authority. The substitute removes
from the original authority granted to a commissioners court to divide
unincorporated areas into districts. The substitute differs from the original
by inserting qualifying statements to provisions relating to an
infrastructure cost recovery fee that reflect that the fee is imposed to pay
for or recover the costs of constructing, acquiring, or expanding
infrastructure. |
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
|
Austin, Texas
|
|
FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR
SESSION
|
|
Revision 1
|
|
|
April 24, 2009
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Garnet Coleman,
Chair, House Committee on County Affairs
|
|
FROM:
|
John S. O'Brien, Director,
Legislative Budget Board
|
|
IN RE:
|
HB3265 by Rose (Relating to granting Hill Country counties
regulatory authority and the authority to impose certain development fees;
providing penalties.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
|
No
significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would amend
Chapter 231, Local Government Code, by adding Subchapter M to authorize certain
counties to by order adopt land development regulations in the unincorporated
area of the county. The bill stipulates general regulations and procedures.
Included in the procedures would be holding an election to approve regulatory
authority; authority to appoint a development commission to assist in
implementing and enforcing regulations; and imposing an infrastructure cost
recovery fee, but only after an infrastructure development plan is prepared.
The commissioners court of any of the affected counties would be required to
hold a public hearing to consider the infrastructure improvements and
infrastructure cost recovery fee, and would be required to post notice of the
hearing and send written notice by certified mail to the owner of the new
development for which a fee is proposed.
A violation of
orders adopted to enforce development regulation would be a misdemeanor
offense, punishable by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.
An applicable county
that imposes an infrastructure improvement cost recovery fee would be required
to annually submit a written certification to the attorney general, verifying
compliance with the subchapter. A county that fails to submit a certification
would be liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to 10
percent of the amount of the fee assessed in that fiscal year. A penalty
collected would be deposited to the Housing Trust Fund.
The Office of the
Attorney General anticipates any additional work resulting from the passage of
the bill could be reasonably absorbed with current resources.
Local
Government Impact
The Comptroller of
Public Accounts contacted three counties in the Hill Country for the purpose of
this analysis: Blanco, Hays, and Bandera.
The Blanco County
Judge and the Bandera County Judge estimate that there would be no
negative fiscal impact to their respective counties because the bill would not
require actions, but only provide authorization.
Working through the
County Auditor's Office, Hays County estimates that there would be no negative
fiscal impact to the county if the commissioner's court chose not to adopt land
development regulations. If the commissioners court chooses to adopt land
development regulations and those regulations are approved by the voters, then
start-up expenses would be $310,000 for salaries, office equipment, a building,
vehicles, and consultants. Hays County would have to hire a consulting firm to
do a traffic study and infrastructure development plan. Additionally, the
county may need the assistance of a special counsel to get all 1,445 interlocal
agreements in place prior to adoption. Hays County estimates a $400 expense for
countywide notification of the development regulations. Annual expenditures for
fiscal years 2010-2014 are estimated to be $640,000 for salaries, $256,000 for
benefits, $30,000 for operating expenses, $50,000 for furnishings, and $150,000
for consultants. Hays County would create up to four positions: program
specialist (2) and administrative assistant (2). Annual salaries for these new
positions are estimated at $35,000-$45,000 for the program specialist and
$24,000-$28,000 for the administrative assistant. It is possible that the
county could generate income from fees and/or costs assessed; however no
figures were provided by the County Auditor's Office.
The fiscal impact
would vary by county and would depend on to what extent provisions are
implemented.
Source Agencies:
|
302 Office of the Attorney General, 304 Comptroller of
Public Accounts
|
. |