BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2977
By: Hamric
May 1, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND
Section 42.001, Local Government Code, declares that it is "the
policy of the state to designate certain areas as the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of municipalities to promote and
protect the general health, safety, and welfare of persons residing
in and adjacent to the municipalities." Although the
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) was established to promote the
welfare of the citizens residing in it, the citizens themselves
have no power to decide whether or not they want to remain under
the municipality's control. The only way a subdivision may escape
the ETJ is by obtaining the written consent of the municipality in
an ordinance or resolution.
PURPOSE
The purpose of HB 2977 is to give certain areas the ability to
decide, by democratic process, whether they want to remain under a
municipality's jurisdiction.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any
additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or
agency.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1 Amends Subchapter B, Chapter 42, Local Government Code,
by adding new Section 42.024, titled "Voluntary
Withdrawal from Extraterritorial Jurisdiction", as
follows:
Subsection (a) provides that this section only applies
in a county with a population of 2.8 million or more or
an adjacent county.
Subsection (b) outlines which areas are covered. This
section applies only to:
1) an area that entered a municipality's ETJ at
the request of the developer of a residential
subdivision who owned the area; or
2) an area in which more than 1,000 registered
voters, that has been located in the same ETJ
for at least 20 years, and that has water,
electricity, and solid waste services
available.
Subsection (c) mandates that a municipality shall give
written consent to reduce its ETJ if approved by a
majority of voters in the subdivision.
Subsection (d) establishes the wording of the ballot.
Subsection (d) also requires the municipality to hold
an election on the question of ETJ withdrawal if the
municipality is properly petitioned pursuant to
Subsection (e).
Subsection (e) states the requirements for a petition
to initiate an election on the question of withdrawal
from a municipality's ETJ, including a description of
the area proposing to withdraw, the need for signatures
of at least 20% of the voters in the area, and a
statement on each page of the petition of the ballot
proposition for the proposed election.
Subsection (f) establishes time limits for validating
the petition.
Subsection (g) gives 60 days for the municipality to
adopt the required ordinance after being approved by the
voters.
Subsection (h) defines an area in the ETJ of a
municipality as a territorial unit of the municipality.
SECTION 2 Emergency clause. Effective upon passage.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE
The substitute adds a new Subsection (a), which states that the
section applies only to a county of 2.8 million or more or an
adjacent county. The substitute also changes the bracketing of the
original bill by redefining the bracket in terms of an area, as
opposed to a subdivision. The substitute adds a provision stating
that the section applies to an area that entered the ETJ at the
request of certain residential developers, and it also adds the
requirement that the area must have been located in the same ETJ
for at least 20 years. The substitute renumbers the sections to
reflect the added provisions and makes other conforming changes.
The substitute also adds a requirement that a withdrawal petition
presented to a municipality must include a description of the area
proposing to withdraw.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
H.B. 2977 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
April 4, 1995.
The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The
substitute was withdrawn without objection.
The following persons testified in favor of the bill:
Curtis Cook, representing Rural Fire Prevention District
#28 and the Association of Rural Fire Prevention
Districts; and
Ken Rigsbee, representing himself.
The following persons testified against the bill:
Michael White, representing the Greater Houston
Partnership;
Dan Doherty, representing the City of Houston;
Luther Polnau, representing the City of Austin; and
Bob Stout, representing Mitchell Energy and Development
Corporation.
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 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
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 3 absent.