	City Council
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	December 16, 2008	Agenda Request No:		IX-B
Initiated By:	Dale Rudick, Director of Intergovernmental Relations	Responsible Department:		Intergovernmental Relations
Presented By:	Dale Rudick, Director of Intergovernmental Relations	Department Head:		Dale Rudick, Director of Intergovernmental Relations
		Additional Department. Head (s):		N/A
Subject / Proceeding:	Approve Legislative Agenda Resolution Number 08-41
Exhibits:	Resolution No. 08-41; Exhibit A
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	Aaron Dobbs, Assistant 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
Current Budget: $			N/A
Additional Funding: $			N/A
Recommended Action
Consideration of and action on Resolution No. 08-41
Executive Summary
On November 4, 2008, a City Council workshop was held to discuss a draft Legislative Agenda for the pending 81^st Texas Legislative Session that will commence in January 2009. Since that time, further discussion has taken place at the November 18, 2008 Council meeting and a subsequent December 3, 2008 Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 08-41 and its related Exhibit A that gives a background of each category along with the City’s stated position(s). 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 before, when the Legislature is in session, the legislative session is a very dynamic process. Therefore, the subject Legislative Agenda does not preclude Council from editing or amending the stated position in the future as necessary. Two items were brought up at the Council workshop and above described subsequent meetings. These items pertain to Open Meetings and the Effective Tax Rate requirements. Position statements for these specific items have been added to Exhibit A and have been discussed in detail with the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. The attached resolution does include 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 may continue to be provided basic services that help to maintain a community and its quality of life.
Exhibits

RESOLUTION NO. 08-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THE 81st 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, 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 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, state representatives and senators 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 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

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS:

Section 1. That City Council members will meet with area state representatives and senators to discuss the City’s legislative agenda and provide both 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 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.

Section 3. That it believes it is incumbent of all legislators to work in consort with 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 4. 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 legislation agenda, as it may be amended from time to time.

Section 5. 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 6. That it adopts the 2009 Legislative Agenda as shown on Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated into this resolution by reference.

APPROVED on December 16, 2008.

_________________________

James A. Thompson, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

Reviewed for Legal Compliance:

Attachment: Exhibit A- 2009 Legislative Agenda

EXHIBIT A

City of Sugar Land

2009 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 allows a legislator to say they did not raise your taxes when, in fact, they did by forcing the local government and local taxpayer to pay for the unfunded mandate. Then at the same time state elected leaders will blame the local government for out of control spending. These legislative unfunded mandates place a great strain on local taxpayers and upon the City to maintain a reasonable tax rate and quality service levels.

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

Appraisal Reform is a consistent theme coming out of Austin. In 2006, the Governor appointed a Task Force on Appraisal Reform. Earlier this year, the Speaker of the House created a House Select Committee on “Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform” which, according to the Speaker, “will oversee all matters relating to property tax relief and reforming the property appraisal system”. There continues to be an organized effort to reduce the current revenue cap for municipalities. Even the pro-business Greater Houston Partnership recognizes that appraisal “caps limit local governments’ ability to use property tax structures for economic development” and “artificial value caps on real property will result in a declining tax base that cannot keep up with changing economic conditions.”

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

1. Oppose any changes to the current property and sales tax systems as well as other income producing structures that would cause the City to lose revenue or the ability to raise revenue.

2. Support simplifying the effective tax rate calculation for notice purposes only, provided the legislation would have no effect on the underlying effective tax rate and rollback tax rate calculations themselves.

3. Support legislation that accurately notifies and explains to taxpayers the actual impacts of the effective tax rate while deleting parts of the notification and adoption process that causes confusion and is inconsistent with the goal of providing a transparent budget and tax rate setting process.

Annexation

Background

The passage of S.B. 89 during the 1999 Legislative Session made broad changes in the manner in which future annexations will be conducted. In 2007 legislation passed H.B. 610 that made technical modifications to the statutes dealing with the provision of services to annexed areas by providing, among other things, that a city’s annexation service plan, which must be completed in the time period provided by law, must include: (a) a program under which the city will provide full municipal services in the annexed area and (b) a list of all services required by law to be provided under the plan. The Legislature has consistently proposed substantive changes harmful to cities since 1999. These modifications included restricting development authority in the ETJ and requiring a vote prior to annexation. It is anticipated that annexation authority modifications will be proposed in 2009.

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.

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 a) do not have the ability to implement the tax due to their being at the 8.25% cap on sales tax or b) 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.

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, as well as the Texas and U.S. constitutions.

Also, many legislative changes have been proposed over the last several sessions that would have adversely affected local governments as it pertains to sovereign immunity, statutes of limitation, and the freedom of city or TML officials to communicate with state elected or appointed officials, etc.

Position

Oppose any legislation that erodes the authority of city government or is detrimental to cities.

Right-of-Way Authority and Utilities

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.

Also, in recent years, the legislature has considered numerous bills related to statewide water conservation standards, and some have been enacted. In 2005, the legislature considered S.B. 3, an omnibus water bill that would have enacted several new provisions relating to the development and management of the state’s water resources. Although the bill did not pass, it would have required each retail public utility to collect a water conservation and development fee from each customer. The revenue from the tax would have been deposited into a water infrastructure fund, which is generally used to make low interest loans or give grants to cover the costs for planning, design, permitting and activities required to comply with state and federal regulatory activities. In 2007, the omnibus water bill was once again called H.B. 3 and passed. It created the Water Conservation Advisory Council, modified current law relating to reservoirs and created a joint interim legislative committee on state water funding. With the dynamic growth taking place in Texas, water will continue to be a major topic.

Position

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

2. Support resolution of dispute between the Texas Department of Transportation and investor- owned utilities relative to the national code under which street lighting in State right-of way is installed.

3. Oppose legislation that would impose on cities: mandatory water conservation measures; “tap fees” or any other type of state charge on municipal water systems; or any other onerous regulations as it relates to utilities provided by a city.

Transportation

Background

Transportation is a key issue for every growing community. At the same time, while Texas is a fast growing state, many factors are impacting the State’s ability to properly respond to fund transportation projects vital to our economy. These factors include, but are not limited to: federal funding recisions, construction inflation, a gasoline tax that has not increased in over fifteen years, use of the gas tax revenues for non-transportation purposes by the legislature, etc. It will be important for the State to create mechanisms to help meet the increasing transportation needs of our communities.

Position

1. Support state-funded and local-option funding choices to be utilized for transportation purposes.

2. Support legislation that would discontinue the diversion of transportation revenues to non-transportation purposes and appropriate all revenues from highway user fees and taxes to fund transportation projects.

3. Support funding of the voter-approved Texas Rail Relocation & Improvement Fund.

Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS)

Background

In 2007, the TMRS Board voted to adopt changes that include a new: a) more accurate set of actuarial assumptions that will provide for “advance funding of projected benefits”, b) amortization calculation, and c) investment policy that is anticipated to improve the return on TMRS investments. Several of the proposed changes will require enabling legislation in 2009.

Position

Support legislation initiated by the Texas Municipal Retirement System to make the TMRS system more financially stable.

Open Meetings/Open Records

Background

Current public information and open meetings often create barriers to open and transparent government due to their ambiguous nature. The application and interpretation of some of the existing laws prevent local elected officials and city staff from providing basic information to citizens in public meetings. A recent Texas Attorney General’s opinion reiterated this fact when it confirmed a prohibition on “Mayor Updates” or “General Council Updates” even if the updates are of a general and informative nature and no action was taken or planned. This highlights a prime example of an instance were open government would be served by allowing the free flow exchange of information in a public meeting.

In addition to often being at odds with the goal of transparent government, current laws relating to public information and open meetings create administrative and financial burdens 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.

Uniform application and interpretation of public information and open meetings laws at every level of state government would ensure a more transparent and open system of government. For example, 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, council members, city managers and certain other city officials under stated situations. The state legislators are exempt from this statute that they placed on local officials. Also, there are strict requirements with respect to open meeting for local agencies in order to maintain transparency in government; however, the state legislative process is excluded from many of these open meeting requirements.

Position

1. Support proposals that promote open and transparent government by allowing elected city officials and staff to make general comments in public meetings on matters of community interest if no action is taken on the issue.

2. Seek to work with local state representatives to promote legislation to meet objective of position statement #1

3. Oppose any attempt that would make the current open meetings and public information laws more restrictive and ambiguous.

4. Support uniform application of the public information and open meetings laws at every level of government including State legislative and executive branches.

5. Support clarifications to public information and open meetings laws so that elected officials, including State legislative and executive officials, can better communicate with their constituents.

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 2005, legislation was passed that 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.

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. 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. One of the City’s greatest legislative efforts of the last session was to have legislation passed requiring the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to perform a feasibility study of the Central Prison Unit (CPU) and related guard housing in Sugar Land to determine the feasibility of said property. The legislature also required the TDCJ to provide access easements to surrounding properties from the CPU such as the west side of the airport and Tract 2 to the west.

The City has completed a portion of this feasibility study to be incorporated into the TDCJ’s report to the legislature. This will ensure the City’s perspective is taken into account in the report to the legislature. The next legislative session will be the next step in our pro-active efforts to ultimately have the prison consolidated with other units in the State and then acquire the prison property for expansion of the Tract 2 business park as well as the identified expansion of the airport consistent with the City’s planning efforts. Since this last legislative success, the City has secured $2 million in federal appropriation to be utilized in land acquisition for 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.