BILL ANALYSIS
H.B. 1300
By: Hilbert/et al.
April 30, 1995
Committee Report (Unamended)
BACKGROUND
Current law allows municipalities to increase their tax base
through annexation. There are few limitations or restrictions in
existence which limit municipal annexation. Certain cities have
used "strip annexation" to annex narrow strips of valuable
commercial property along highways, roads, rivers, streams, creeks,
canals and other natural and man-made features. By annexing only
the valuable commercial property, the city adds a great amount of
value to its tax base while leaving behind the people in the
communities along the annexed area who could benefit from the city
services.
Strip annexation can erode the tax base of neighboring communities
by removing the valuable commercial property, thus hampering the
ability of rural fire prevention districts, emergency services
districts, and other special districts to provide services to these
suburban communities.
PURPOSE
H.B. 1300 would provide a check to strip annexation by certain
cities in order to insure that nearby communities are not harmed by
the strip annexation of valuable commercial properties. The bill
would establish a framework in which strip annexations by certain
cities could be reviewed by the county commissioners court and a
committee made up of specified members.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1 Amends Subchapter C, Chapter 43, Local Government Code,
by adding Section 43.0541 as follows:
(a) Prohibits a municipality with a population of 1.5
million or more from annexing a strip of area following
the natural course of a road, highway, river, stream,
or other natural or constructed feature if the
commissioners court of the county in which a majority
of the area is located resolves that the area:
(1) is primarily composed of commercial property
with a high tax value;
(2) is part of a larger area in which a sense of
community exists; and
(3) does not include all of the parts of the
larger area in which the sense of community
exists.
(b) Requires the commissioners court to adopt the
resolution opposing the annexation before the completion
of the annexation.
(c) Requires the findings of the commissioners court
to be reviewed by an annexation review committee
consisting of the following:
(1) the county judge;
(2) a county commissioner designated by the
commissioners court;
(3) a member of the municipality's governing body
designated by that body;
(4) an appointee of the state representative whose
district includes the majority of the area
proposed for annexation; and
(5) an appointee of the state senator whose
district includes the majority of the area
proposed for annexation.
(d) Requires that the designations and appointments to
the review committee be made within fourteen days of the
adoption of the commissioners court resolution.
(e) Names the county judge as the presiding officer of
the committee and requires that the committee meet at
the presiding officer's call at a place convenient to
the majority of the area to be annexed.
(f) Provides for affirmation or reversal by the
committee of the commissioners court's findings. The
committee must issue the decision within 60 days of the
commissioners court resolution. Provides for appeal of
the committee's decision to a district court serving the
county in which a majority of the area for proposed
annexation is located.
(g) Provides time allowance for completion of
annexation when a reversal of the commissioners court
finding takes place.
SECTION 2 Applies only to annexations begun on or after the
effective date of the Act.
SECTION 3 Emergency clause.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
H.B. 1300 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
April 4, 1995.
The following persons testified in favor of the bill:
Representative Paul Hilbert; and
Cooper Slay, representing himself and the Houston
Northwest Chamber of Commerce.
The following persons testified against the bill:
Bob Stout, representing Mitchell Energy and Development
Corporation;
Michael White, representing the Greater Houston
Partnership; and
Donna Kristaponis, representing the City of Houston.
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Annexation and ETJs
consisting of Representatives Combs, Howard and Krusee.
After being recalled from subcommittee, the bill was considered by
the committee in a public hearing on April 25, 1995.
The bill was reported favorably without amendment, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 2 absent.