	City Council
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	10-17-06	Agenda Request No:		VIII C
Initiated By:	Dale Rudick	Responsible Department:		Intergovernmental Relations
Presented By:	Dale Rudick, Director of Intergovernmental Relations	Department Head:		Dale Rudick Director
		Additional Department. Head (s):		n/a
Subject / Proceeding:	2007 Legislative Agenda Consideration of and action on resolution no. 06-45
Exhibits:	Resolution No. 06-45
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	Joe Morris, city attorney		Executive Director:	Joe Esch, Business & Intergovernmental Relations
Purchasing:	N/A		Asst. City Manager:	N/A
Budget:	N/A		City Manager:	Allen Bogard
Budget
Expenditure Required: $			N/A
Amount Budgeted/Reallocation: $			N/A
Additional Appropriation: $			N/A
Recommended Action
Consideration of and action on Resolution No. 06-45
Executive Summary
On October 3, 2006, a City Council workshop was held to discuss a draft Legislative Agenda for the pending 80^th Texas legislature that will commence in January 2007. Attached is Resolution No. 06-45 and its related Exhibit A that gives a background of each category along with the City’s stated position. Most of these categories are general in nature and provide direction to staff in what to monitor and how to respond to proposed legislation that could impact the City. As stated in the workshop, when the Legislature is in session, the legislative process is a very dynamic process. Therefore, the subject Legislative Agenda does not preclude Council from editing or amending the stated positions in the future as necessary. As directed at the workshop, the resolution includes language directed to our elected state leaders so that they may hopefully work in concert with the City to the benefit of our residents. The City is the local level of government closest to the people. The City provides basic and life saving services without the benefit of a revenue stream from the State. Therefore, it is imperative that the state legislators not impair Council’s ability to govern in a responsive and responsible manner, so that the constituents of both city and state government elected officials may continue to be provided basic services that helps to maintain a community and its quality of life.
Exhibits

RESOLUTION NO. 06-45

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THE 80^TH SESSION OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE.

WHEREAS local government is the most direct and frequent point of contact with its residents; and

WHEREAS the process for local government is a public and participatory process whereby the actions of local governments are subject to the public scrutiny of the residents; and

WHEREAS, the local government is responsible for providing basic and emergency services; and

WHEREAS, local governments are the first responders in local emergencies; and

WHEREAS, the ability of the local government to provide those services is dependent on the ability to have the necessary resources and authority to carry out its responsibilities; and

WHEREAS, local government officials are elected by the residents they represent to provide a wide array of services; and

WHEREAS, local state representatives are charged with working in the best interest of the citizens they represent; and

WHEREAS, residents of the state of Texas expect elected government officials representing local governments to make every effort to be informed on the needs of the constituents and the local government to ensure that the local governments have the necessary authorities and resources in which to fulfill the desired needs of the citizens who have elected them; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS:

Section 1. That it directs the City Manager and his staff to:

Take all necessary actions to inform Sugar Land residents of the City’s legislative agenda;

Encourage residents to make every effort to be aware of the local and state governing and legislative process and expect their elected representatives from all levels to seek a proactive and positive relationship that does not pass a burden from the state to the County or City without providing the tools and resources to undertake the added responsibility;

Provide local area state representatives and senators with copies of the City’s legislative agenda and be available to provide information and assistance on all matters relating to

bills and other legislative matters that come before the representatives and senators to ensure that they have the resources to call upon in making decisions that impact the lives of their constituents.

Section 2. That it believes it is incumbent of all legislators to work in consort with the City and County government to ensure that the entire governing process is as effective as possible and, to that end, seek input and advice from the local level of government on issues that have a direct impact on their ability to undertake their responsibilities.

Section 3. That it expects elected representatives of state government to fully understand the implications of legislation they act upon to ensure there are no negative impacts on the community and to strongly support and take all actions necessary in furtherance of the attached legislative agenda, as it may be amended from time to time.

Section 4. That it believes the state legislative body should not exempt its members any regulation that they impose upon any other member of a political subdivision unless it can clearly be shown that there is a clear and compelling need to do so.

Section 5. That it adopts the 2007 Legislative Agenda as shown on Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated into this resolution by reference.

APPROVED on ___________________________, 2006.

_________________________

David G. Wallace, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

Reviewed for Legal Compliance:

Attachment: Exhibit A- 2007 Legislative Agenda

EXHIBIT A

City of Sugar Land

2007 Legislative Agenda

Un-funded Mandates

Background

The Legislature has previously placed requirements upon cities that create a financial burden without providing the necessary financial support to carry them out. This places a great strain upon the City and a burden on the local taxpayers to fund these requirements while maintaining a reasonable tax rate and quality services.

Position

1. Oppose any legislation that would require expenditures by the City without a source of revenue provided by the State.

2. Oppose legislation that would impose a presumption that first responders incurred illnesses or injuries in the line of duty.

Municipal Revenue

Background

The Governor has appointed a Task Force on Appraisal Reform. At this time, it is unknown what the recommendations of the task force will be and what implications it could have on municipal revenue as well as available options to cities. It also appears that an organized effort is gaining momentum to reduce the current revenue cap for municipalities. However, (as stated in Resolution No. 04-10 approved by Council on April 20, 2004) in the event “the legislature makes changes to the current property tax system, that the following revisions/recommendations be considered: A) No less than a 5% cap on annual appraised value increases for residential homesteads; B) No revenue cap beyond the current truth-in-taxation laws; however should a revenue cap be implemented, that it be based on the total tax rate, allowing governments to manage the total tax rate and components (specifically including debt service) thereof; and C) That the appraisal board be made up of members per current State Statute.”

In addition to appraisal and revenue caps, the State is faced with the issue of streamlining sales tax collections to meet requirements for a proposed nation-wide internet sales tax collection system. The current system under review includes a streamlined sales tax that applies the point of sale at the customer, rather than the vendor. This is at odds with current State tax law that is based on raising revenue at the vendor’s location to reimburse local government for the services and infrastructure provided to the business.

Position

Oppose any changes to the current property and sales tax systems that would cause the City to lose revenue or the ability to raise revenue.

Annexation

Background

The passage of Senate Bill 89 during the 1999 Legislative Session made broad changes in the manner in which future annexations will be conducted. The Legislature has not made substantive changes since then, even though several modifications harmful to cities have been proposed. These modifications included restricting development authority in the ETJ and requiring a vote prior to annexation. It is anticipated that these modifications will be proposed again in 2007.

Position

Oppose any legislation that erodes the authority of cities to annex.

Land-Use Regulation Authority

Background

In previous years, legislation has been introduced that would restrict the authority of cities to utilize zoning to regulate land uses. These restrictions include eliminating the distinction between mobile homes and single-family residences, excluding churches from zoning and building codes, and forcing cities to pay land owners for damage claims made as a result of changes in zoning classifications. In addition, legislation giving counties zoning authority in unincorporated areas, including the ETJ, has been proposed in past sessions.

Position

1. Oppose any legislation that would restrict the zoning authority of cities.

2. Monitor the creation, or modification of special districts within the City and its ETJ, and support or oppose them as necessary.

Right-of-Way Authority

Background

Historically, cities have had the authority to police their right-of-way for the purpose of ensuring safety and managing growth in an orderly manner. However, the Legislature restricted the abilities of cities to control their rights-of-way with the passage of telecommunications legislation in 1999. This legislation has been interpreted by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as giving that organization complete control over rights-of-way. This conflicted with the intent of the authors of the legislation and both sides are attempting to resolve the issue through the legal system. However, opponents of city control of rights-of-way could attempt to pass legislation stating that cities cannot police their right-of-way.

Position

Oppose legislation that would negatively impact the City's authority over its right-of-way.

Economic Development

Background

In the past, changes have been proposed to the 4A and 4B taxes to both enhance their use, and to restrict them. These proposed changes included allowing the use of 4B funds on federal property, as well as further restricting the type of economic development projects allowed for these funds. The majority of the anti-ED tax uses are proposed by communities that 1) do not have the ability to implement the tax due to their being at the 8.25% cap on sales tax or 2) are rural and have minimal revenue from 4A and 4B.. In addition, changes to the property tax laws have been discussed that could have ramifications on the use of tax abatement as an economic development incentive and the operation of tax increment reinvestment zones.

Position

1. Oppose any attempts to restrict the ability of cities to use 4A and 4B funds.

2. Support the ability of cities to hold a single election to eliminate one special use tax and to adopt another.

3. Oppose attempts to restrict the use of economic development tools such as tax abatement and tax increment reinvestment zones.

Collective Bargaining

Background

In the past, under state statute, public safety personnel could engage in collective bargaining only if the Civil Service system had been adopted by election or if a separate election authorizing collective bargaining had been held and approved by the voters. In the last legislative session, bills were introduced and passed which now authorizes “meet and confer” with police officers and firefighters in some cities. As a result of this legislation, City Council approved Resolution No. 05-33 that states: 1) “That City leadership will meet with any employee and take into consideration his or her ideas and concerns, however, the City does not believe “collective bargaining” is necessary and no formal agreements will be entered into regarding salaries, benefits, hours and other conditions of employment as a result of this process”; and 2) “That any employee group representing the fire or police department that approaches City leadership with the request to ‘meet and confer’ will be required to hold a certification election as mandated by House Bill No. 304 and House Bill No. 2892.”

It is anticipated that more bills will be introduced aimed at simplifying the process of obtaining collective bargaining for municipal public safety employees.

Position

1. Oppose legislation that would impose expanded collective bargaining rights .

2. Oppose legislation that would expand the current meet and confer law.

Open Meetings/Open Records

Background

Current laws relating to open records and open meetings create an administrative and financial burden on cities in order to be in compliance. These burdens include the cost of maintaining and copying records, as well as unreasonable demands placed on public officials to avoid a conflict between the definition of a meeting and typical social events.

H.B. 914 was passed during the 2005 legislative session and became effective January 1, 2006. The bill enacts Local Government Code Chapter 176. It requires a “conflicts disclosure statement” be filed by mayors, councilmembers, city managers and certain other city officials under stated situations. It also requires city vendors to file a “conflict of interest questionnaire”. The Attorney General issued an opinion on this bill that included a “laundry list” of changes that may be beneficial to Texas cities. The author of the bill has indicated her willingness to “fix” various specific problems with this legislation.

Position

1. Oppose any attempts to make the current open meetings/open records laws more restrictive.

2. Support legislation that clarifies and addresses problems with H.B. 914.

Erosion of Municipal Powers

Background

The climate in the legislature has been to erode the authority granted to municipalities. Although the State does not provide a revenue stream to city governments, the prevailing attitude of recent legislative sessions has been for the State to further limit the abilities of locally elected leaders to be responsive to their constituents’ needs and expectations. The City does not want to be dependent on the State for revenue, but the City does want to be allowed to independently govern within the powers already granted by the City Charter, State codes, Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution.

Position

Oppose any legislation that erodes the authority of city government.

Prison Property Acquisition

Background

The City is landlocked and has limited ability to secure large tracts of land for future office park/economic development activities. GLO Tract 2 is a good example of the City being pro-active in working to secure the City’s future for this type of land use. Recently the Department of Criminal Justice made public a $520 million plan to expand the number of prison beds in order to keep up with the steady growth in the prison population. This may be an opportunity for the City to pro-actively work to have the existing prison consolidated with other units in the State and then acquire the prison property for expansion of the GLO Tract 2 business park as well as the identified expansion of the airport.

Position

Pro-actively work to write legislation to encourage the relocation and consolidation of the Central Prison Unit and “Smithville” into another TDCJ prison location, find sponsors for the bill and seek its passage for the ultimate acquisition of the prison property by the City.