BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2757
By: Saunders
April 21, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND
The Municipal Annexation Act of 1963 (subsequently codified, in
part, into Chapter 43, Local Government Code) granted broad
authority to home-rule cities to annex adjoining territory without
the consent of affected landowners. However, it also mandated that
in return, newly-annexed landowners were entitled to receive all
services furnished to other residents of the city.
Following enactment of the annexation act, numerous cities failed
to extend full services to newly-annexed areas. Responding to
landowner complaints, the legislature has amended the act from
time-to-time, to hasten the provision of city services to newly-annexed landowners.
For example, the earlier annexation statutory language required
cities to initiate the construction of utilities to serve a newly-annexed area within two and one-half years of the annexation. In
at least one city, surveyor stakes would be placed in the ground at
the end of the two and one-half year period to show that
construction had been "initiated." The city would then proceed
with actual construction over the next five to ten years.
In 1987, the legislature attempted to fix this problem by requiring
cities to initiate the construction of utilities within two years,
and substantially complete construction within four and one-half
years. One city circumvented this requirement by taking the
position that water and sewer services were exempt from the
definition of "services" covered by the 1987 reforms. In 1989, the
legislature again changed the act, this time to make it
unmistakably clear that water and sewer services were subject to
the four and one-half year construction requirement.
Presently, cities that violate the service requirements of the act
are not subject to fines. In addition, disannexation is presently
the only remedy for an aggrieved landowner. To be disannexed, a
landowner must hire a lawyer to file an action in district court.
Under current state law, the complainant has the burden of proving
that the city failed to provide services; then, even if the
landowner prevails, he/she has to pay his/her attorney's fees.
Many persons are concerned that the disannexation procedures are
set up in a manner that discourages landowners from seeking
disannexation and/or enforcement of a city's duty to provide
services.
PURPOSE
To ensure that utility services are furnished in a timely fashion
to newly-annexed areas, the bill requires cities to provide water
and wastewater services to an annexed area upon the effective date
of the annexation. The requirements of the bill apply to any home-rule municipality that has disannexed territory that was originally
annexed for limited purposes and has a municipally-owned water and
wastewater utility system.
Provides that a city cannot circumvent its service responsibilities
by requiring annexed landowners to pay the cost of installing water
and wastewater utility lines in a manner inconsistent with Chapter
395, Local Government Code; by providing lower levels of service
than existed at the time of the annexation; or by providing lower
levels of service than are provided to other similar areas in the
city.
In addition, provides that landowners who are not furnished water
and wastewater services upon annexation may bring a mandamus action
to require the city to provide the services. In a mandamus action,
the city has the burden of proving that it furnished the required
services. Further, provides that in a successful mandamus action,
the city must pay the complainant's attorney fees, and also refund
any fees, charges, or other impositions (not including property
taxes) that were paid by the complainant during the time that
services were not furnished.
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 G, Chapter 13, Water Code by adding
new Section 13.256 as follows:
Subsection (a) limits the applicability of the section
to home-rule municipalities that on the effective date
of the Act have disannexed territory that was originally
annexed for limited purposes and have a municipally-owned water and wastewater utility system.
Subsection (b) requires a municipality, in addition to
complying with the annexation procedure requirements in
Subchapter C, Chapter 43, Local Government Code, to
provide water and wastewater services to an annexed area
immediately upon and after the effective date of
annexation. The municipality must have adequately sized
water and wastewater service lines extending to the
perimeter of the tract or tracts within the annexed
area.
Subsection (c) requires the municipality to provide
water and wastewater services to the annexed area by
methods it uses in other areas of the municipality.
Subsection (d) restricts the city from:
(1) requiring landowners in the annexed area to
fund the capital improvements necessary to
provide water and wastewater services in a
manner inconsistent with Chapter 395 of the
Local Government Code, unless agreed to by the
landowner;
(2) providing lower levels of water or wastewater
services to the annexed area than were in
existence in the area immediately prior to
annexation; or
(3) providing lower levels of water or wastewater
services to the annexed area than the city
provides to comparable areas.
Subsection (e) provides residents of the annexed area
with the ability to seek enforcement of the provisions
of the Act through a mandamus action. If the writ is
granted, then the municipality shall be liable for the
costs and attorney's fees of the person bringing the
action, and the municipality shall also refund any fees,
charges, or other impositions (not including property
taxes) paid by the prevailing person on property that
was the subject of the mandamus action.
SECTION 2 Emergency clause. Effective upon passage.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE
The substitute changes the language in Section 13.256, Subsection
(a), to clarify which municipalities are subject to the provisions
of the Act.
The substitute also changes the language in Section 13.256,
Subsection (e), to state that a prevailing party shall receive a
refund of "any fees, charges, or other impositions, not including
property taxes,. . . ." The original bill provided that a
prevailing party could receive a refund of taxes paid on the
property that was the subject of the mandamus action.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
H.B. 2757 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
April 11, 1995.
For purposes of testimony, the committee considered the following
related bills together: H.B. 2757 and H.B. 2758.
The following persons testified in favor of one or more of the
bills:
Sabrina Foster, representing Houston Mayor Bob Lanier (H.B.
2758); and
William Glass, representing himself and the Wells Branch MUD
and the Central Texas Association of Utility Districts (H.B.
2758).
The following persons testified against one or more of the bills:
Mike Erdmann, representing the City of Austin Water and
Wastewater Department (H.B. 2757);
Mary Arnold, representing herself (H.B. 2757);
William Bunch, representing the Save Our Springs Legal Defense
Fund (H.B. 2757, H.B. 2758); and
Brent Alan White, representing himself (H.B. 2757).
The following person testified neutrally on one or more of the
bills:
Frank Sturzl, representing the Texas Municipal League (H.B.
2758).
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.
The vote by which H.B. 2757 was reported favorably was reconsidered
without objection.
The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The
substitute was adopted without objection.
The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 4 absent.