BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 564
By: COMBS
March 8, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Under current law, residents in areas to be annexed are not given
the right to vote on the measure of being annexed.  Many residents
have expressed their desire to be consulted prio to annexation.

PURPOSE

This bill would require voter approval from a majority of the
residents of an area to be annexed before a home-rule municipality
could annex that area.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any
additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution,
department, or agency.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.     Subchapter B, Chapter 43, Local Government Code, is
               amended by adding Section 43.0225 as follows: 

               (a) Applies only to a home-rule municipality that
               has a charter provision allowing for limited-purpose annexation and has annexed territory for a
               limited purpose.

               (b)(1) A home-rule municipality may annex an area
               with 50 or more inhabitants only if an election is
               held with ballots for or against the proposition.

               (b)(2) A home-rule municipality may annex an area
               if a majority of the votes received at the election
               favor annexation.

               (c) The general description on the ballot
               proposition need not exactly describe the
               boundaries of the area, but may refer to commonly
               understood points of reference that provide voters
               with a reasonable general understanding of the area
               to be annexed.

               (d) The election order and the notice of the
               election must describe the area to be annexed by
               metes and bounds or by a legal description and must
               generally describe the area to be annexed.

               (e) If the annexation is not approved, the
               municipality may not initiate annexation
               proceedings in any part of the area until after the
               fifth anniversary of the date of the election.

SECTION 2.     Effective date.

SECTION 3.     Emergency clause.



COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The original bill applied to a home-rule municipality with a
population of more than 400,000, a charter provision allowing
limited-purpose annexation, and disannexed territory that was
annexed for a limited-purpose.  The substitute applies only to a
home-rule municipality that has a charter provision allowing for
limited-purpose annexation and that has annexed territory for a
limited purpose.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

H.B. 564 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
February 14, 1995.

The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.

The following persons testified in favor of the bill:

           Martin Denbar, representing the Lost Creek Neighborhood
           Association;
           Charles Walters, representing the Wells Branch Municipal
           Utility District;
           Russell Larson, representing the Onion Creek Homeowners
           Association;
           John Romano, representing the Wells Branch Neighborhood
           Association;
           Mike Swenson, representing the Northwest Travis County
           Municipal Utility District;
           John Burke, representing the Central Texas Association
of Utility Districts; and
           Tom Jones, representing the Lamplight Village Area
           Neighborhood Association.

The following persons testified against the bill:

           Mayor Bruce Todd, representing the City of Austin; and
           Jim Smith, representing the City of Austin.

The substitute was withdrawn without objection.

The bill was left pending.

H.B. 564 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
February 21, 1995.

The bill was referred to a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Combs, Hilderbran, and Krusee.

After being recalled from subcommittee, the bill was considered by
the committee in a public hearing on February 28, 1995.

The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.  The
substitute was adopted by a record vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv,
0 absent.

The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 0 absent.