RESEARCH ORGANIZATION · On — Robin Riechers and Bob Sweeney, Texas Parks and Wildlife...

Dwayne Bohac

Chairman

86(R) - 41

HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION • TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910

(512) 463-0752 • https://hro.house.texas.gov

Steering Committee: Dwayne Bohac, Chairman Alma Allen, Vice Chairman

Dustin Burrows Donna Howard Andrew Murr Angie Chen Button John Frullo Ken King Eddie Lucio III Toni Rose Joe Deshotel Mary González J. M. Lozano Ina Minjarez Gary VanDeaver

HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

daily floor report

Monday, April 08, 2019

86th Legislature, Number 41

The House convenes at 1:15 p.m.

Part One

Thirty-seven bills are on the daily calendar for second reading consideration today. The

bills analyzed in Part One of today's Daily Floor Report are listed on the following page.

HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Daily Floor Report

Monday, April 08, 2019

86th Legislature, Number 41

Part 1

HB 1300 by Hunter Establishing a cultivated oyster mariculture program 1 HB 770 by Davis Establishing a database for settlement agreements for certain lawsuits 6 HB 1136 by Price Removing population limits from tourism public improvement districts 8 HB 446 by Moody Removing knuckles from Penal Code's prohibited weapons list 10 HB 226 by Krause Creating a commission to review certain penal laws, revising offenses 12 HB 2846 by Larson Transferring ownership of the Allens Creek Reservoir project 19 HB 3226 by Geren Expanding MIPA unit terms to two years, recognizing horizontal wells 22 HB 102 by Bernal Funding for school district teacher mentoring programs 24 HB 2129 by Murphy Extending the expiration date of the Texas Economic Development Act 28 HB 1558 by Paddie Reinstating, revising severance tax exemption for certain wells 33 HB 1651 by González Prohibiting use of restraints on pregnant inmates in county jails 35 HB 1409 by Ashby Preventing certain lands from losing timber productivity tax exemption 38 HB 809 by Thierry Creating a liaison officer for post-secondary students who are homeless 41 HB 692 by White Barring out-of-school suspension for students experiencing homelessness 44 HB 811 by White Requiring certain factors for consideration when disciplining students 47 HB 463 by Springer Requiring air ambulance companies to enter into reciprocity agreements 50 HB 444 by Meyer Increasing penalties for misuse of official information in certain instances 52 HB 71 by Martinez Allowing creation of a regional transit authority in the Rio Grande Valley 55

HOUSE HB 1300 (2nd reading)

RESEARCH Hunter, et al.

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 (CSHB 1300 by Cyrier)

- 1 -

SUBJECT: Establishing a cultivated oyster mariculture program

COMMITTEE: Culture, Recreation, and Tourism — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 9 ayes — Cyrier, Martinez, Bucy, Gervin-Hawkins, Holland, Jarvis

Johnson, Kacal, Morrison, Toth

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — Joe McComb, City of Corpus Christi; Shane Bonnot, Coastal

Conservation Association; Lee Knezek, Commercial Fishermen; John

Brock, Pappas Restaurants; Sajjad Khan and Nasir Kureshy, Turtle Creek

Aquaculture LLC; William Balboa; Brad Lomax; (Registered, but did not

testify: Elizabeth McCampbell, American Bank Center; Roshan Bhakta,

Candlewood Suites NAS; Jake Posey, Centerpoint Energy, Inc.; Hugo

Berlanga, City of Port Aransas; Paulette Kluge, Corpus Christi

Convention and Visitor Bureau; Melody Nixon-Bice, Embassy Suites by

Hilton Corpus Christi; Ryland Ramos, Entergy Texas, Inc.; David

Sinclair, Game Warden Peace Officers Association; James Mathis,

Landrys, Inc; Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent

Business; Patricia Shipton, Nueces County Commissioners Court; Nelda

Olivo, Port of Corpus Christi; Lisa Halili, Prestige Oysters; John

Shepperd, Texas Foundation for Conservation and Texas Coalition for

Conservation; Justin Bragiel, Texas Hotel Association; Rebecca

Robinson, Texas Restaurant Association; Ron Hinkle and Cheri

Huddleston, Texas Travel Industry Association; Laura Huffman, The

Nature Conservancy; Trace Finley, United Corpus Christi Chamber of

Commerce; Elvia Aguilar and Erica Lozano, Visit Corpus Christi; Garrett

Dorsey; Carolyn Dorsey; Justin Hudman; Deanna L. Kuykendall; Darryl

Meadows)

Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Jay Gopal)

On — Robin Riechers and Bob Sweeney, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department; (Registered, but did not testify: Jarret Barker and Lance

Robinson, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Joe Fox, Texas A&M

University Corpus Christi)

HB 1300

House Research Organization

page 2

- 2 -

BACKGROUND: Parks and Wildlife Code sec. 11.032 requires the Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department to deposit revenue from certain licensing and permit

fees into the game, fish, and water safety account in the general revenue

fund.

Sec. 47.0091 requires wholesale fish dealers to purchase aquatic products

for resale only from holders of certain licenses.

DIGEST: CSHB 1300 would establish and set requirements for a cultivated oyster

mariculture program in Texas.

Cultivated oyster mariculture program. The Parks and Wildlife

Commission would be required to adopt rules to establish a program

governing cultivated oyster mariculture, or the process of growing

cultivated oysters. The bill would define a cultivated oyster as an oyster

grown at any point in the life cycle of the oyster in or on an artificial

structure suspended in water or resting on the bottom of a body of water.

The rules adopted by the commission could establish requirements for:

the location and size of a cultivated oyster mariculture operation;

the taking, possession, transport, movement, and sale of cultivated

and broodstock oysters;

marking structures for the cultivation of oysters in a mariculture

operation; and

fees and conditions for use of public resources, including

broodstock oysters and public water.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) would have to

coordinate with the departments of Agriculture and State Health Services,

the General Land Office, and the Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality in the adoption of rules. The Parks and Wildlife Commission

would have to adopt rules to implement the bill by August 31, 2020.

Permit. A person could not engage in cultivated oyster mariculture

without having a cultivated oyster mariculture permit. Rules adopted by

the Parks and Wildlife Commission could establish requirements for

permit applications and fees, criteria for the approval and revocation of

HB 1300


page 3

- 3 -

permits, and procedures for related hearings.

A wholesale fish dealer would not be able to purchase cultivated oysters

from any person or entity in the state unless the oysters were purchased

from a permit holder.

Penalties. It would be a class B Parks and Wildlife misdemeanor (up to

180 days in jail and/or a maximum fine of $2,000) for a person to:

engage in cultivated oyster mariculture without a permit;

sell, barter, or offer to sell or barter a cultivated oyster except as

authorized under the bill;

place a cultivated oyster in a natural or private oyster bed;

place a structure related to cultivated oyster mariculture on coastal

public land unless the person obtained a lease or easement under

other state law; or

violate a rule adopted under the bill.

If conduct constituted an offense under the bill and an offense for the

failure to obtain an easement under Natural Resources Code sec. 33.112, a

person could be prosecuted for either or both offenses.

Deposit and use of fees. TPWD would be required to deposit fees related

to cultivated oyster mariculture into the game, fish, and water safety

account. TPWD would have to deposit 20 percent of those fees into the

cultivated oyster mariculture cleanup subaccount to be used only for the

cleanup of illegal or abandoned cultivated oyster mariculture equipment

and related debris in public water.

Applicability. A structure used to grow oysters that was part of a

cultivated oyster mariculture operation would not be subject to location

requirements under state law regulating public and private oyster beds.

State laws on oyster licensing and permitting requirements and regulations

adopted by the Parks and Wildlife Commission on the taking, possession,

purchase, and sale of oysters would not apply to activity under a

cultivated oyster mariculture permit.

HB 1300


page 4

- 4 -

In the event of conflict, a rule adopted under the bill would prevail over a

rule issued under the Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act or state law

regulating oysters.

State law regarding requirements for state agency rules increasing costs to

regulated persons would not apply to rules adopted under the bill.

The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

CSHB 1300 would create new economic opportunities by developing the

state's coastal resources and providing an alternative, sustainable source

for Texas oysters. In recent years, droughts, hurricanes, and industrial-

scale harvesting pressure have changed the Texas coastline and caused

damage to the oysters that grow in its estuaries, resulting in a decline in

oyster yields. Even though Texas has one of the largest coastal shorelines

in the nation, it is the only coastal state that does not engage in cultivated

oyster mariculture. By creating such an industry, this bill would benefit

coastal economies, better the environment, and meet an increasing

demand for oysters.

The bill would positively impact Texas' coastal economies by boosting

tourism, helping restaurants, and creating jobs. The value of oysters

continues to increase, especially those destined for the half-shell market.

As a result, interest in off-bottom oysters has increased. Currently,

restaurants have to import boutique, farm-grown half-shell oysters from

other states. By allowing for cultivated oyster mariculture in Texas,

restaurants and distributors would have additional, local sourcing options

for oysters to fit this niche need and growing demand. Distributors could

sell Texas products not only in state but also to other states. Further,

cultivated oyster mariculture operations would create job opportunities

along the coast and give current oyster harvesters, both small and large

producers, and commercial and recreational fishermen an additional

revenue stream. This bill would ensure producers had a more stable year-

round supply of high-quality Texas oysters.

Cultivated oyster mariculture would benefit the environment by cleaning

the water and helping the wild oyster reefs, which are habitats for

important game fish. Oyster fishing can have negative effects on the

HB 1300


page 5

- 5 -

environment, and current harvesting methods are unsustainable for the

oyster industry. This bill would help take pressure off of the reefs to allow

wild oysters to grow more prolifically.

This bill would balance the interests of commercial oyster producers,

recreational fishermen, tourists, and conservation groups. The Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department already has conducted a marine spatial planning

analysis and identified coastal areas that could support oyster production

with minimal conflict, including with oil and gas leases, pipeline rights-

of-way, navigation channels and ports, commercial and recreational

fishing grounds, recreational swimming and boating, and sensitive natural

resources. Further, the bill would provide the Parks and Wildlife

Commission with flexibility in adopting rules, ensuring the appropriate

balance between mariculture operations and all other interests was

considered during the process of establishing the cultivated oyster

mariculture program.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

Other states have experienced complications with siting the cultivated

oyster mariculture operations proposed by CSHB 1300, and the

Legislature and the Parks and Wildlife Department should be careful to

weigh all the interests of coastal communities. Residents of other states

have voiced concerns that the location of oyster farms can result in the

loss of areas for recreational activities, such as swimming and boating.

Coastal waterfront property owners have also raised concerns about the

presence of floating cages used in these commercial operations. Cultivated

oyster mariculture operations also could reduce economic opportunity for

some workers, including ecotourism operators, some recreational and

commercial fishermen, and other coastal industry professionals.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 770

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 S. Davis

- 6 -

SUBJECT: Establishing a database for settlement agreements for certain lawsuits

COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 8 ayes — Leach, Farrar, Y. Davis, Krause, Meyer, Neave, Smith, White

0 nays

1 absent — Julie Johnson

WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Dennis Borel, Coalition of Texans

with Disabilities; Lee Parsley, Texans for Lawsuit Reform; Billy Phenix,

Texas Alliance for Patient Access; Luke Dow, Texas Trial Lawyers

Association; Thomas Parkinson)

Against — None

On — (Registered, but did not testify: David Slayton, Office of Court

Administration)

DIGEST: HB 770 would require the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to

establish and maintain an electronic database containing personal injury or

wrongful death settlement agreements for which a minor or incapacitated

person was the beneficiary.

The settlement agreement recorded in the database would be confidential,

and OCA would be required to ensure that the agreement could be

accessed only by the parties to the agreement, a party's attorney, or a

party's guardian, next friend, or guardian ad litem.

The bill would authorize OCA to set and collect a fee to record a

settlement in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of maintaining the

database, not to exceed $50 per agreement. The fee would be a court cost

to be included for payment in the settlement agreement.

HB 770 would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply to a suit

filed on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person pending in trial court on

HB 770


page 2

- 7 -

the effective date of the bill or that was filed on or after the effective date.

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 770 would ensure minors and incapacitated persons affected by tragic

events had access to the financial compensation to which they were

entitled by creating a confidential database to store settlement agreements.

In personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits that resulted in settlements

before going to trial, the parties involved could choose to exclude the

settlement agreement from the court records, requiring each party to

maintain a private record. In such cases, minors and incapacitated persons

often rely on a guardian, next friend, or court-appointed guardian to

maintain their private records. However, if for any reason those records

are lost, the beneficiary currently has no way to find the details of the

settlement or determine what may have happened to any recovered funds.

HB 770 would create a way to confidentially preserve records for minors

and incapacitated persons.

Use of the electronic database would not be mandatory but would be

available for a fee of up to $50. The fees would allow the database to be

self-sustaining, requiring no taxpayer funds.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

No concerns identified.


RESEARCH Price, et al.

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 (CSHB 1136 by Button)

- 8 -

SUBJECT: Removing population limits from tourism public improvement districts

COMMITTEE: Urban Affairs — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 6 ayes — Button, Shaheen, J. González, Goodwin, E. Johnson, Morales

0 nays

3 absent — Middleton, Patterson, Swanson

WITNESSES: For — Jared Miller, City of Amarillo; Carla Pendergraft, City of Waco;

Scott Joslove, Texas Hotel and Lodging Association (Registered, but did

not testify: Eddie Solis, City of Frisco; Bill Kelly, City of Houston

Mayor’s Office; Jay Barksdale, Irving Convention and Visitors Bureau,

VisitDallas, Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce; Monty Wynn,

Texas Municipal League)

Against — None

BACKGROUND: Local Government Code sec. 372.0035 establishes conditions under which

a municipality may authorize public improvement districts (PIDs) related

to the promotion of hotel business. To be eligible, the municipality must

have a population of:

more than 325,000 and less than 625,000; or

more than 650,000 and less than 2 million.

Participation in PIDs is limited to hotels with certain numbers of rooms,

depending on the size of the municipality.

DIGEST: CSHB 1136 would remove population and hotel size restrictions from the

requirements that govern a municipality’s ability to establish a public

improvement district (PID) under Local Government Code, sec. 372.0035.

Any such PID created after September 1, 2019, would be restricted in its

activities to advertising, promotion, or business recruitment directly

related to hotels.

HB 1136


page 2

- 9 -

The bill would allow the governing body of a municipality to include in a

PID hotels that opened after the creation of the PID regardless of whether

the record owners of the property signed the original petition.

The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds

record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take

effect September 1, 2019.

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

CSHB 1136 would allow the hotels in tourism and convention areas to

pool their resources regardless of the size of their cities.

If 60 percent of the hotels in a city petition the local city council, and if

the council approves, local hotels may form a tourism public improvement

district (PID). Under this arrangement, the district would levy a small tax

on all the hotels in the district and use the proceeds to promote the area as

a whole. Since Dallas founded its tourism PID in 2012, both the

occupancy rate of Dallas hotels and the city’s ability to secure conventions

have improved significantly. Other Texas cities have followed in taking

advantage of this arrangement.

Smaller municipalities have greater difficulty in securing the benefits of

tourism PIDs. The population restrictions in current law require these

cities to obtain a separate act of the Legislature in order to establish them.

Making this device available to all cities regardless of size would be both

efficient and fair. This bill would make available to all interested Texas

cities an economic tool with proven effectiveness.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

CSHB would be an unnecessary expansion of local government that could

interfere with the free market. Private businesses seeking to increase

tourism to boost their profits are free to form their own voluntary

associations to accomplish these goals.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 446

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Moody, Stickland, et al.

- 10 -

SUBJECT: Removing knuckles from Penal Code's prohibited weapons list

COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 9 ayes — Collier, Zedler, K. Bell, J. González, Hunter, P. King, Moody,

Murr, Pacheco

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — Michael Cargill, Texans for Accountable Government; Amos

Postell; (Registered, but did not testify: Rachel Malone, Gun Owners of

America; James Dickey and Chris Howe, Republican Party of Texas; John

Baucum, Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition; Emily Gerrick,

Texas Fair Defense Project; and eight individuals.

Against — None

On — Shannon Edmonds, Texas District and County Attorneys

Association; (Registered, but did not testify: David Palmer, Texas

Department of Public Safety)

BACKGROUND: Penal Code sec. 46.05 lists prohibited weapons. It is an offense to

intentionally or knowingly possess, manufacture, transport, repair, or sell

certain items, including knuckles. Illegally possessing knuckles is a class

A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000).

Penal Code sec. 46.01 (8) defines knuckles to be any instrument with

finger rings or guards made of a hard substance and designed, made, or

adapted to inflict serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with a

fist enclosed in the knuckles.

DIGEST: HB 446 would remove knuckles from the Penal Code's definition of

prohibited weapons.

The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply to offenses

committed on or after that date. HB 446 would prevail over any other

conflicting act of the 86th Legislature's regular session, relating to

HB 446


page 2

- 11 -

nonsubstantive additions and corrections to codes.

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 446 would end the unnecessary classification of knuckles as a

prohibited weapon. Knuckles are primarily a defensive tool and should

not be classified with explosive weapons, machine guns, and other

prohibited weapons. Law abiding Texans who carry knuckles, perhaps as

part of a novelty key chain, should not be vulnerable to jail time for

possessing a legitimate self defense tool. HB 446 would be in line with the

recent removal of another unnecessary item, switchblades, from the

prohibited weapons list.

OPPONENTS

SAY:



RESEARCH Krause, et al.

ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/8/2019 (CSHB 226 by Murr)

- 12 -

SUBJECT: Creating a commission to review certain penal laws, revising offenses

COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 9 ayes — Collier, Zedler, K. Bell, J. González, Hunter, P. King, Moody,

Murr, Pacheco

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — Marc Levin, Texas Public Policy Foundation; (Registered, but did

not testify: Chris Jones, CLEAT)

Against — None

On — (Registered, but did not testify: Stormy King and Jarret Barker,

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department)

BACKGROUND: The 84th and 85th legislatures created commissions to study penal laws

outside of the Penal Code, the Texas Controlled Substance Act, and

offenses related to motor vehicles. The commissions were created by HB

351 by Canales in 2017 and HB 1396 by Workman in 2015, and both bills

required the commissions to make recommendations to the Legislature. In

December 2018, the Commission to Study and Review Certain Penal

Laws that was created by the 85th Legislature issued its final report and

was abolished. The report includes recommendations on repealing and

revising offenses in the Occupations Code and on certain statutes outside

the Penal Code and their culpable mental states. It also includes the

recommendations from the 2016 commission, which include suggested

action on offenses in multiple codes.

DIGEST: CSHB 226 would create a commission to study certain penal laws outside

of the Penal Code, move some offenses and penalties to the Penal Code

from other codes, and eliminate and revise penalties in several codes.

The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply only to

offenses committed on or after that date. To the extent of any conflict,

CSHB 226 would prevail over any other act of the 86th Legislature's

HB 226


page 2

- 13 -

regular session relating to nonsubstantive additions and corrections.

Commission. CSHB 226 would create a commission to study penal laws

outside of the Penal Code, the Texas Controlled Substance Act, and

offenses related to motor vehicles. The commission would be required to

make recommendations to the Legislature about repealing or amending

laws it identified as unnecessary, unclear, duplicative, overly broad, or

otherwise insufficient to serve their intended purposes. It also would be

charged with evaluating the recommendations of previous similar

commissions.

The commission would have nine members appointed by the governor,

lieutenant governor, the House speaker, the chief justice of the Texas

Supreme Court, and the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. The appointments would have to represent all areas of the

criminal justice system. The governor would appoint the presiding officer

and members would not be compensated.

The commission would have to report its findings by November 1, 2020,

including recommendations on specific statutes to repeal or amend.

Appointments to the commission would have to be made within 60 days

of the bill's effective date.

Fraud. CSHB 226 would move the Business and Commerce Code sec.

17.461 offense related to pyramid promotional schemes and the Business

and Commerce Code ch. 522 offense of identity theft by electronic device

to Penal Code ch. 32 on fraud.

Sabotage and sedition. CSHB 226 would move the Government Code

offenses of sedition and sabotage to Penal Code ch. 40. The bill would

replace the current penalties involving fines and prison terms of one or

two to 20 years in prison with a penalty of a second-degree felony (two to

20 years in prison and an optional fine of up to $10,000).

The bill would repeal Government Code sec. 557.012 capital sabotage

provisions punishing an act of sabotage or attempted sabotage that caused

the death of an individual with the punishments of death, life in prison, or

a prison term of at least two years. CSHB 226 would include committing

HB 226


page 3

- 14 -

murder while committing or attempting to commit sabotage in the Penal

Code sec. 19.03(a) list of offenses that are eligible for the death penalty.

Natural Resources Code. The bill would modify several offenses and

penalties in the Natural Resources Code, including:

changing the penalty for illegal herding or line-riding from a fine of

$100 to $1,000 and three months to two years in jail to a class C

misdemeanor;

changing the penalty for certain violations of provisions relating to

the control of oil field property from a prison term of two to four

years to a third-degree felony (two to 10 years in prison and an

optional fine of up to $10,000); and

reducing the penalty for failing to make available an oil tanker

cargo manifest or take other actions relating to the manifest from a

third-degree felony to a class A misdemeanor.

Occupations Code. CSHB 226 would amend Occupations Code offenses

relating to several different occupations.

It would revise provisions of Occupations Code ch. 266 relating to

dentistry. The bill would remove provisions that make each day of a

violation for practicing dentistry without a license a separate offense and

would keep the third-degree felony penalty for the offense. The bill also

would reduce the penalty from a third-degree felony to a class A

misdemeanor for first-time offenses related to certifications to operate

dental laboratories and certain prohibited practices related to dental

prosthetic appliances. Repeat offenses would be third-degree felonies.

Other changes in the Occupations Code would include:

reducing from a state-jail felony (180 days to two years in a state

jail and an optional fine of up to $10,000) to a class A

misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of

$4,000) Occupation Code sec. 1701.533 violations of prohibitions

on hiring persons convicted of certain crimes as peace officers,

public security officers, county jailers and others in violation of

license requirements;

HB 226


page 4

- 15 -

establishing in Occupations Code ch. 1802 a civil penalty for

frivolous claims against an auctioneer with penalties of up to

$5,000 per day for each violation and repealing provisions making

such claims related to auctioneers class B misdemeanors (up to 180

days in jail and/or a maximum fine of $2,000);

repealing Occupations Code sec. 2155.002 provisions allowing a

fine of $25 to $100 and a jail term of up to 30 days or both for

violations relating to hotel personnel posting certain notifications

of room rates or charging room rates that are higher than the posted

rates and making all such offenses misdemeanor fines of up to

$100; and

repealing Occupations Code sec. 2156.006 offenses for certain

recordkeeping violations by persons in charge of theaters and for

discrimination against reputable productions.

Parks and Wildlife Code. CSHB 226 would revise several provisions

relating to offenses and penalties in the Parks and Wildlife Code.

Floating cabins. The bill would eliminate Parks and Wildlife Code ch. 32

requirements that all owners of floating cabins sign permit applications

under the penalty of perjury and the offense associated with the

requirement. The bill also would eliminate a requirement that a new

permit holder sign, under penalty of perjury, certain information that has

to be submitted upon transfer of a permit

Hunting with artificial lights. The bill would revise Parks and Wildlife

Code sec. 62 penalties relating to hunting game animals and birds

protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code with artificial lights. Instead of

all first offenses being Parks and Wildlife class A misdemeanors ($500 to

$4,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail) and repeat offenses being Parks and

Wildlife state jail felonies (180 days to two years in jail and/or a fine of

$1,500 to $10,000), offenses would be class C misdemeanors ($25 to

$500) if committed recklessly, class A misdemeanors if committed

intentionally or knowingly, and state jail felonies for repeat offenses.

Oyster bed buoys and markers. The bill would revise offenses relating to

interference with buoys or markers designed to enclose a private oyster

bed. Instead of these offenses being class B Parks and Wildlife

HB 226


page 5

- 16 -

misdemeanors ($200 to $2,000 and up to 180 days in jail), offenses

committed recklessly would be class C Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors

and those done intentionally or knowingly would be class B Parks and

Wildlife misdemeanors.

Oyster licenses and takings. Parks and Wildlife Code sec. 76 offenses

relating to requirements for oyster licenses in certain circumstances and

prohibiting the night dredging of oysters would be revised. Instead of

these offenses being class C Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors, offenses

committed recklessly would be class C Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors,

and those done intentionally or knowingly would be class B Parks and

Wildlife misdemeanors.

Instead of offenses relating to taking oysters from restricted areas being

class A Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors, those done recklessly would be

class B misdemeanors, and those done intentionally or knowingly would

be class A misdemeanors.

Catching shrimp. Offenses in Parks and Wildlife Code ch. 77 relating to

violating the closed season for catching shrimp would be revised. Instead

of these offenses being punished by a fine of $2,500 to $5,000 and six

months to one year in jail, offenses committed recklessly would be class C

Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors and those committed intentionally or

knowingly would be class B Parks and Wildlife misdemeanors.

Tampering with certain educational records. CSHB 226 would move

to the Penal Code an Education Code penalty dealing with tampering with

certain educational records. Similar provisions in Education Code sec.

44.051 would be repealed.

Taxes on tobacco products. The bill would revise several Tax Code

offenses dealing with cigarettes and tobacco products.

Three offenses would have their penalties reduced from third-degree

felonies to class A misdemeanors with repeat offenses being third-degree

felonies. This reduction would apply to Tax Code sec. 154.513 offenses

relating to using or handling previously used or old-design cigarette tax

stamps; Tax Code sec. 155.209 offenses related to transporting certain

HB 226


page 6

- 17 -

tobacco products; and Tax Code sec. 155.211 offenses for possessing

certain tobacco products for which a tax of $50 or more is owed.

The bill also would reduce the penalty for Tax Code sec. 155.203 offenses

for possessing certain tobacco products for which a tax of $50 or less is

owed from a class A misdemeanor to a class C misdemeanor, with repeat

offenses being class A misdemeanors.

Other provisions. The bill would make other changes, including reducing

penalties for violations of the Public Utility Regulatory Act and the Gas

Utility Regulatory Act from third-degree felonies to class A

misdemeanors.

The possible jail term of up to three months for illegally thrashing pecans

would be removed, leaving the fine of $5 to $300.

The bill would change the penalty in Local Government Code sec.

615.002 for offenses involving violating certain rules about parking near

courthouses from a fine of $1 to $20 to a class C misdemeanor.

CSHB 226 would repeal numerous provisions, including:

Alcoholic Beverage Code sec. 101.64 prohibitions on holders of

alcoholic beverage licenses or permits possessing or displaying

cards, calendars, placards, pictures, or handbills that are immoral,

indecent, lewd, or profane;

Business and Commerce Code secs. 17.30, 17.31, and 204.005

provisions on misusing certain dairy container proprietary marks,

misusing shopping carts and other containers that bear certain

marks, and violations relating to handling plastic bulk merchandise;

Business and Commerce Code ch. 504 provisions creating a

criminal offense related to the prohibited uses of crime victim and

motor vehicle accident information;

Occupations Code sec. 1805.103 penalties related to transactions

for the sale of used business machines;

Labor Code sec. 502.021 provisions making it a class C

misdemeanor for employers to provide certain commercial

HB 226


page 7

- 18 -

agricultural laborers with hoes with handles shorter than four feet;

Occupations Code sec. 205.401 provisions making each day a

person practices acupuncture without a license a separate offense

punishable by a third-degree felony;

Occupations Code sec. 2158.003 provisions making it a class C

misdemeanor for certain parking lot owners to charge more than a

specified rate for a special event;

offenses prohibiting certain activities including blasting and rock

quarry operations near a superconducting supercollider constructed

in Ellis County; and

several provisions in Vernon's Civil Statutes, including provisions

relating to prohibitions on certain railway, telegraph, and telephone

companies giving free passes and to other restrictions on fares; a

prohibition on certain types of peddling by persons who are deaf or

mute; and penalties applied to acts violating a law on

discrimination and restrictions on labor.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 2846

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Larson, et al.

- 19 -

SUBJECT: Transferring ownership of the Allens Creek Reservoir project

COMMITTEE: Natural Resources — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 7 ayes — Larson, Metcalf, Farrar, Harris, T. King, Lang, Price

1 nay — Ramos

3 absent — Dominguez, Nevárez, Oliverson

WITNESSES: For — Joe Arnold, BASF Corporation; Matt Sebesta, Brazoria County,

Lower Brazos River Coalition; David Collinsworth, Brazos River

Authority; Rich Wells, Dow Chemical; Ivan Langford, Gulf Coast Water

Authority; Richard A. (Tony) Bennett, Texas Association of

Manufacturers; Sergio Matute, Texas City - La Marque Chamber of

Commerce, Eastman Chemical Texas City; (Registered, but did not

testify: Mike Meroney, BASF Corporation; Paula Bulcao, BP America;

Matt Phillips, Brazos River Authority; Daniel Womack, Dow Chemical;

Jeffrey Buchik, Marathon Petroleum; Sam Gammage, Texas Chemical

Council)

Against — James Lee Murphy, America First Committee; Drew Molly,

City of Houston; Carol Haddock, City of Houston Public Works;

(Registered, but did not testify: Bill Kelly, City of Houston Mayor’s

Office)

On — Jeff Walker, Texas Water Development Board

BACKGROUND: The 76th Legislature in 1999 enacted SB 1593, which authorized a water

supply reservoir project at the Allens Creek Reservoir site. The date to

begin construction on the reservoir was to be no later than September 1,

2018. SB 1132 by Hegar, enacted by the 82nd Legislature in 2011,

amended this deadline to no later than September 1, 2025.

DIGEST: HB 2846 would require the City of Houston to enter a contract to transfer

ownership interests in the Allens Creek Reservoir project to the Brazos

River Authority by January 1, 2020. The Brazos River Authority would

HB 2846


page 2

- 20 -

assume all required water right permits as well as the responsibility to

construct the project in accordance with all statutory requirements and

deadlines.

Construction of the reservoir would be subject to the Brazos River

Authority obtaining all necessary federal permits.

The contractual agreement would have to include provisions for the

Brazos River Authority to transfer no more than $5 million to the city of

Houston. For one year after the completion of the reservoir, the city of

Houston would have the option to purchase up to 20,000 acre-feet of

water from the Brazos River Authority at the authority’s wholesale rate.




SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 2846 would protect the Brazos River basin's future economic stability

and growth through securing development of needed water resources.

Industry is leaving the lower Brazos due to lack of access to water. The

bill would secure critical resources for the region’s continued growth.

The bill would diversify the region’s water supply, reducing groundwater

pumping in the area, which has led to increasing land subsidence

problems downstream.

There is a precedent for legislative involvement in the reservoir to develop

it as a resource. The Brazos River Authority has sought to actively

develop this critical resource for at least a decade. This bill would affirm

the intent and precedent of the Legislature to actively develop the

reservoir for the benefit of Texans.

Houston has no demonstrated need for the water from the aquifer, having

already spent billions of dollars to develop the Trinity basin to meet water

resource needs significantly into the future. The bill would still afford the

city the option to purchase 20,000 acre-feet of water from the river

authority at a wholesale rate. Developing the reservoir is expected to cost

HB 2846


page 3

- 21 -

$350 million to $500 million, and this bill would grant the city the option

to diversify its water resources without significant new investment in

supplies they do not require.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 2846 would not recognize the intent and investments of the city of

Houston to develop the reservoir.

The city already has money available for future development of Allens

Creek. The lack of current development of the reservoir is due to several

factors. In a water rights settlement, Houston and the Brazos River

Authority agreed that no development on the reservoir was required

before the authority obtained a final and non-appealable permit. Hurricane

Harvey also interrupted the city’s efforts to advance its water

infrastructure.

The bill would impede the city’s efforts to diversify its water supplies and

increase water resiliency in the face of extreme weather events. Recovery

efforts from Hurricane Harvey have negatively impacted the city’s water

supplies, making the development of water resiliency vital.

HB 2846 would infringe on local control by mandating that Houston

transfer its rights, rather than allow for a mediation process between the

city and the river authority. The bill could also create a destabilizing

precedent that long-term water rights could be unexpectedly revoked by

the Legislature. The assurance of long-term rights are necessary for

effective planning and resource management.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 3226

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Geren, Darby, et al.

- 22 -

SUBJECT: Expanding MIPA unit terms to two years, recognizing horizontal wells

COMMITTEE: Energy Resources — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 9 ayes — Paddie, Herrero, Bailes, Craddick, Darby, Gutierrez, Harris,

Perez, Rosenthal

0 nays

2 absent — Anchia, Geren

WITNESSES: For — John Bennett, Sinclair Oil & Gas Company; (Registered, but did

not testify: Lindsey Miller, Anadarko Petroleum; Paula Bulcao, BP

America Inc.; Mark Harmon, Chesapeake Energy; Greg Mathews,

Stephen Perry, Chevron; Stan Casey, Concho Resources; Tom Sellers,

ConocoPhillips; Teddy Carter, Devon Energy; Caleb Troxclair, EOG

Resources, SM Energy; Jimmy Carlile, Fasken Oil and Ranch; Lauren

Spreen, Four Sevens Operating; Bill Stevens, Panhandle Producers and

Royalty Owners Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers;

Michael Lozano, Permian Basin Petroleum Association; Mark Gipson,

Pioneer Natural Resources; Ryan Paylor, Texas Independent Producers &

Royalty Owners Association; Tulsi Oberbeck, Texas Oil and Gas

Association)

Against — None

On — John Fleet, National Association of Royalty Owners Texas

Chapter; Wei Wang, Railroad Commission; Jennifer Bremer, Texas Land

& Mineral Owners Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Jason

Clark, Railroad Commission of Texas)

BACKGROUND: Natural Resources Code sec. 102.011, the Mineral Interest Pooling Act,

allows the Railroad Commission to accept an application under certain

conditions to create a pooled unit in which all interest owners in a

reservoir are involuntarily enrolled in a group agreement.

Sec. 102.082 mandates the automatic dissolution of a unit if no production

HB 3226


page 2

- 23 -

or drilling operations take place on the unit within one year of its effective

date.

DIGEST: HB 3226 would change the duration of a Mineral Interest Pooling Act unit

so that the unit was automatically dissolved if no production or drilling

operation had been had on the unit or its surface location within two years

of the unit's effective date.


SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 3226 would update Mineral Interest Pooling Act (MIPA) units to

avoid an unnecessary and wasteful duplication of the MIPA process. The

current one-year term means that a MIPA unit can expire while the two-

year drilling permit is still active. This could cause needless repetition of

the expensive and contentious MIPA process that would waste valuable

Railroad Commission and operator resources.

The bill also would update the MIPA statute to include a reference to

surface location. This would recognize horizontal wells outside the unit

that exploit the unitized reservoir so that the lease did not expire while

drilling was, in fact, taking place.

OPPONENTS

SAY:


HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 102

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Bernal

- 24 -

SUBJECT: Funding for school district teacher mentoring programs

COMMITTEE: Public Education — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 11 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Ashby, K. Bell, M. González, K. King,

Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver

0 nays

2 absent — Allison, Dutton

WITNESSES: For — Andrea Chevalier, Association of Texas Professional Educators;

Carrie Culpepper, San Antonio ISD; Thomas Hoffman, Sibme; Michael

Lee, Texas Association of Rural Schools; JoLisa Hoover; Estevan

Romero; (Registered, but did not testify: Chandra Villanueva, CPPP;

Steven Aleman, Disability Rights Texas; Karen Kelley, League of

Women Voters of Texas; Fatima Menendez, MALDEF; Will Francis,

National Association of Social Workers-Texas; Deborah Caldwell, North

East Independent School District; Bob Popinski, Raise Your Hand Texas;

Lindsay Sobel, Teach Plus Texas; Ted Raab, Texas AFT (Texas American

Federation of Teachers); Molly Weiner, Texas Aspires Foundation; Barry

Haenisch, Texas Association of Community Schools; Casey McCreary,

Texas Association of School Administrators; Grover Campbell, Texas

Association of School Boards; Lonnie Hollingsworth, Texas Classroom

Teachers Association; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Dee Carney, Texas School

Alliance)

Against — None

On — Priscilla Aquino Garza, Educate Texas; (Registered, but did not

testify: Eric Marin and Tim Regal, Texas Education Agency; Lisa Dawn-

Fisher, Texas State Teachers Association)

BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 21.458 allows school districts to assign a mentor

teacher to each classroom teacher who has less than two years of teaching

experience in the subject or grade level to which the teacher is assigned.

The section contains requirements for the commissioner of education to

HB 102


page 2

- 25 -

adopt rules concerning the duties and qualifications of a teacher who

serves as a mentor.

DIGEST: HB 102 would establish an allotment to fund a school district mentoring

program for classroom teachers who had less than two years of teaching

experience. Districts and mentor teachers would be required to meet

certain requirements.

To be assigned as a mentor, a teacher would have to agree to serve as a

mentor teacher for at least two school years and begin the assignment on

the first day of employment of the classroom teacher to whom the mentor

teacher was assigned. A mentor teacher would have to meet with each

classroom teacher assigned to the mentor at least once a week for an

individual mentoring session lasting at least 45 minutes, with not less than

12 hours of meeting time each semester. The bill would include certain

requirements for the mentoring sessions and require the education

commissioner to adopt rules concerning the number of classroom teachers

that could be assigned to a mentor.

A school district would be required to designate a specific time during the

regularly contracted school day for the mentoring meetings and schedule

release time or a reduced teaching load for mentor teachers and classroom

teachers to facilitate classroom observations and other mentoring

activities. School districts also would be required to provide training to

mentor teachers and other employees who worked with a classroom

teacher in the mentorship program, including training on best mentorship

practices. This training would have to be completed before the beginning

of the school year.

The commissioner would be required to adopt a formula to determine the

allotment amount to which each district was entitled. Funding could be

used only for mentor teacher stipends, scheduled release time for

mentoring meetings, and mentoring support through providers of mentor

training.

The bill would apply beginning with the 2019-2020 school year.


HB 102


page 3

- 26 -



SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 102 would strengthen the Texas teaching workforce by providing

funding for districts that implemented a structured mentoring program for

new classroom teachers. Robust mentoring programs have been shown to

have a positive effect on student test scores of classroom teachers who

receive the mentoring. The bill also would allow funding provided for

mentoring programs to be used for stipends for mentor teachers, who

should be compensated for agreeing to use their expertise to help

beginning teachers improve their skills and techniques.

A 2015 report by the legislatively created Texas Teacher Mentoring

Advisory Committee said that many districts and schools across Texas

provide some form of mentoring for beginning teachers but that funding

for these programs varies widely. The committee recommended the

Legislature develop a formula-based allotment to fund mentoring

programs.

Although the bill would have a cost, it could save districts expenses

associated with teacher turnover. The formula funding contained in the

bill would allow districts to sustain and expand evidence-based mentor

teacher programs, rather than leave these programs dependent on sporadic

funding as provided by previous grant programs. Mentoring programs

would be optional, and districts would have the flexibility to design their

own programs within the broad framework of the bill.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 102 would take a top-down approach to teacher mentoring initiatives

that would best be crafted at the local level. The bill would create a new

entitlement to a formula funding allotment for school districts for mentor

teaching programs that could grow annually as more mentor teachers

participated. Although mentoring programs are laudable, they should be

funded by school districts using existing resources.

OTHER

OPPONENTS

SAY:

Instead of paying a stipend to mentor teachers, the state should create a

salaried position of mentor teacher that would allow those individuals to

spend half their time teaching and the other half mentoring.

HB 102


page 4

- 27 -

NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board fiscal note, HB 102 would

have an estimated negative impact of $4.7 million to general revenue

related funds through the biennium ending August 31, 2021. This estimate

is based on an assumption by the Texas Education Agency that the

education commissioner would adopt an allotment entitlement of $500 per

mentored teacher.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 2129

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Murphy, et al.

- 28 -

SUBJECT: Extending the expiration date of the Texas Economic Development Act

COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 9 ayes — Burrows, Guillen, Cole, Martinez Fischer, Murphy, Noble,

E. Rodriguez, Sanford, Wray

1 nay — Shaheen

1 absent — Bohac

WITNESSES: For — Bob Adair, Phillips 66; Richard A. "Tony" Bennett, Texas

Association of Manufacturers; Hector Rivero, Texas Chemical Council;

Dale Craymer, Texas Taxpayers and Research Association; (Registered,

but did not testify: Jeffrey Clark, Advanced Power Alliance; Adam

Burklund, Amshore US Wind LLC; Mark Stover, Apex Clean Energy

Inc.; Fred Shannon, Applied Materials, Hewlett Packard Enterprise; Dana

Harris, Austin Chamber of Commerce, Texas 2050 Coalition; Janis

Carter, Avangrid Renewables; Mike Meroney, BASF Corporation; Jake

Posey, Bell; Paula Bulcao, BP America; Anthony Moline, Cedar Park

Chamber of Commerce; Matt Barr, Cheniere Energy; Randy Cain, City of

Dallas; Leticia Van de Putte, City of Del Rio; Eddie Solis, City of Frisco

Economic Development Corporation; Angela Hale, City of McKinney,

Frisco Chamber of Commerce, McKinney Chamber of Commerce,

McKinney Economic Development Corporation; Leslie Pardue, Clearway

Energy; Sarah Matz, Computing Technology Industry Association;

Shayne Woodard, Corteva Agriscience, Enbridge Energy, Tyson Foods,

Freeport LNG; Jim Allison, County Judges and Commissioners

Association of Texas; Charlie Hemmeline, Cypress Creek Renewables,

EDF Renewable Energy, Innergex Renewables USA, Lincoln Clean

Energy, Longroad Energy, Native Solar, Orsted, Texas Solar Power

Association, The Brandt Companies LLC; Priscilla Camacho, Dallas

Regional Chamber, Metro 8 Chambers of Commerce; Daniel Womack,

Dow Chemical; Royce Poinsett, Duke Energy Renewables Inc.; Lisa

Hughes, E.ON Climate and Renewables; Suzi McClellan, EDF

Renewables; Eric Wright, EDF Renewables, Lincoln Clean Energy;

Shannon Meroney, Enel Green Power North America; Jamie Weber, EOG

HB 2129


page 2

- 29 -

Resources; Samantha Omey, ExxonMobil; Trent Townsend, First Solar;

Rebecca Young-Montgomery, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Mark

Borskey, General Electric Corp.; Steven Will, Greater Houston

Partnership; Greg Sims and Terry Thomas, Greenville Board of

Development, Type A EDC; Debbie Ingalsbe, Hays County; Mark Vane,

HB Strategies; John Kroll, HMWK LLC; Shannon Ratliff, Invenergy; Jay

Barksdale, Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce, Plano Chamber of

Commerce; Jennifer Rodriguez, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company;

Mindy Ellmer, Lyondellbasell, Olin; Neal T. Buddy Jones and Daniel

Casey, Moak, Casey & Associates; Holli Davies, North Texas

Commission; Randy Cubriel, Nucor; Christina Wisdom, Occidental

Petroleum; Amber Pearce, Pfizer; Neftali Partida, Phillips 66; Christopher

Shields, Port San Antonio, Toyota Inc.; Scott Dunaway, Powering Texas;

Lucas Meyers, Recurrent Energy LLC; Stephanie Reyes, San Antonio

Chamber of Commerce; Sophie Torres, San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of

Commerce; Michael Jewell, Solar Energy Industries Association; Thomas

Ratliff, Sunfinity Solar and Tri-Global Energy; David Edmonson,

TechNet; John R. Pitts, Texas Advanced Business Alliance; James Hines,

Texas Association of Business; Justin Yancy, Texas Business Leadership

Council; Carlton Schwab, Texas Economic Development Council;

Thomas Kowalski, Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute; Virginia

Schaefer, Texas Instruments; James LeBas, Texas Oil and Gas

Association; Julia Parenteau, Texas Realtors; Lynette Kilgore, Texas

Schools for Economic Development; Tyler Schroeder, The Boeing

Company; Mark Walter, Tradewind Energy; Trace Finley, United Corpus

Christi Chamber of Commerce; John Pitts Jr., UPS; Jay Brown, Valero;

D. Dale Fowler, Victoria Economic Development Corp; James Popp)

Against — Adam Cahn, Cahnman's Musings; Dick Lavine, Center for

Public Policy Priorities; Mark Goloby; (Registered, but did not testify:

Rene Lara, Texas AFL-CIO; Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy

Foundation; Michael Potter; Lacricia Ryan)

On — Robert Wood, Comptroller of Public Accounts

BACKGROUND: The Texas Economic Development Act (Tax Code ch. 313) authorizes

school districts to agree to temporary abatements of property tax in

exchange for businesses using property in the district for:

HB 2129


page 3

- 30 -

manufacturing;

research and development;

a clean coal project;

an advanced clean energy project;

renewable energy electric generation;

electric power generation using integrated gasification combined

cycle technology;

nuclear electric power generation;

a computer center primarily used in connection with one or more

activities described above conducted by the business; or

a project on which the business has committed to expend or

allocate a qualified investment of more than $1 billion, known as a

Texas priority project.

Districts entering into such agreements are held harmless by the state for

purposes of state education aid.

The Texas Economic Development Act expires December 31, 2022.

DIGEST: HB 2129 would extend the expiration date of the Texas Economic

Development Act to December 31, 2032.




SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 2129 would allow school districts across the state to continue to use a

tool that has proved successful in attracting large-scale capital investment

to Texas.

In exchange for a temporary abatement of school property taxes,

companies agree to build new facilities within the school district. These

investments result in more jobs in the state and additional benefits to the

economy. During the term of the abatement, any pre-existing property and

inventory would still be subject to property tax. When the abatement ends,

new facilities would be taxed at full value, meaning that states would have

HB 2129


page 4

- 31 -

to pay less aid to these districts. Thus, Chapter 313 agreements both

expand and promote the long-term stability of school districts' tax base by

attracting investments that otherwise would not have come to the state.

Chapter 313 agreements provide a counterweight to the relatively high

property taxes that businesses face when considering making an

investment in Texas. Other states offer tax abatements to recruit

businesses, and discontinuing the program would leave Texas at a

competitive disadvantage. In many cases, businesses would not have

invested in projects in Texas without these abatements. Chapter 313

agreements allow projects in Texas get closer to the national average for

property taxes.

By renewing Chapter 313 this session, HB 2129 would provide businesses

currently considering an investment in a project in Texas with needed

certainty. Concerns about whether Chapter 313 will expire during the

process of site selection could preclude Texas from consideration for these

projects, putting the state at a disadvantage.

Chapter 313 agreements require the approval of both the school district

and the comptroller, which helps to ensure that an investment would not

have located in Texas but for the abatement.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 2129 would extend prematurely an unnecessary program that imposes

a strain on the state budget.

Chapter 313 puts a burden on the state budget because the state pays

school districts for any school taxes relinquished due to these abatements,

leading to less money going toward other state budgetary needs and

increased inequality among school districts. Many Chapter 313

agreements concern projects in school districts that are already wealthy,

meaning that these districts forfeit less money to the state and that the

state has fewer funds to send to poorer districts.

The abatement is largely unnecessary, as many of the businesses that have

entered into Chapter 313 agreements would have located to Texas even

without the abatement. Many of the projects that have applied for Chapter

313 agreements are dependent on the geography and resources of Texas.

HB 2129


page 5

- 32 -

The large amount of supplemental payments that companies routinely pay

to school districts to incentivize approval of Chapter 313 agreements

further demonstrate that businesses would have been attracted to Texas

without these abatements.

HB 2129 would extend the expiration of the Texas Economic

Development Act without addressing key problems that have been

identified by the Legislative Budget Board and the comptroller. The act

currently does not expire until December 31, 2022. Delaying the

continuation of Chapter 313 until the next legislative session would allow

for a full interim review of the costs and effectiveness of Chapter 313.

NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) estimates that HB 2129 would have

no fiscal impact through the biennium ending August 31, 2021. It

estimates that the bill could have a negative impact to general revenue

related funds of $252,000 in fiscal 2023 and $166 million by fiscal 2029.

The LBB notes that the bill would make no appropriation but could be the

legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of

the bill.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 1558

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Paddie, et al.

- 33 -

SUBJECT: Reinstating, revising severance tax exemption for certain wells

COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 11 ayes — Burrows, Guillen, Bohac, Cole, Martinez Fischer, Murphy,

Noble, E. Rodriguez, Sanford, Shaheen, Wray

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — Ed Longanecker, TIPRO; James LeBas, TXOGA; (Registered, but

did not testify: Paula Bulcao, BP America; Greg Macksood, Chesapeake

Energy, Encana, Hilcorp, PDC Energy, WPX Energy; Jamie Weber, EOG

Resources; John Kroll, HMWK LLC; Bill Stevens, Panhandle Producers

and Royalty Owners Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers;

Ryan Paylor and Lauren Spreen, Texas Independent Producers and

Royalty Owners Association; Al Zito)

Against — None

BACKGROUND: Tax Code sec. 202.056 exempts oil and gas produced from certain

previously inactive wells from severance taxes for 10 years.

To qualify for the exemption, a well must either have been designated as a

three-year inactive well by the Railroad Commission before or on

February 29, 1996, or as a two-year inactive well before or on February

28, 2010.

DIGEST: HB 1558 would re-establish the severance tax exemption for certain

previously inactive oil and gas wells and reduce the duration of the

exemption from 10 years to five years.

To qualify for the exemption, a well could not have produced oil or gas in

more than one month in the two years preceding the date of application for

the exemption. This exemption would not apply to a well that was part of

an enhanced recovery project or to one that had been drilled but not

completed and did not have recorded hydrocarbon production reported to

the Railroad Commission.

HB 1558


page 2

- 34 -




SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 1558 would encourage oil and gas well operators to renew production

at marginal wells to address the growing problem of abandoned, inactive

wells in Texas, known as orphan wells. It is the responsibility of the

Railroad Commission to seal orphan wells, but the agency does not have

the resources to seal the wells that are currently abandoned nor the wells it

expects to be abandoned this year. Reinstating the severance tax

exemption for two-year inactive wells could incentivize operators to bring

them back online, preventing them from being abandoned.

Renewed production at previously inactive wells also could increase sales

and property tax revenue and employment.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 1558 would give preferential tax treatment to a particular industry,

which amounts to an interference in the free market.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 1651

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 M. González, et al.

- 35 -

SUBJECT: Prohibiting use of restraints on pregnant inmates in county jails

COMMITTEE: County Affairs — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 8 ayes — Coleman, Bohac, Anderson, Biedermann, Cole, Dominguez,

Rosenthal, Stickland

0 nays

1 absent — Huberty

WITNESSES: For — Kaycie Alexander, Texas Public Policy Foundation; Bill

Hammond, Texas Smart on Crime Coalition; Allison Crawford;

(Registered, but did not testify: Nick Hudson, American Civil Liberties

Union of Texas; Mignon McGarry, American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists Texas District; Mandy Blott, Austin Justice Coalition;

Steve Bresnen, El Paso County; Traci Berry, Goodwill Central Texas;

Cindy Klempner, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Austin; Alissa

Sughrue, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Texas; Josette Saxton,

Texans Care for Children; Lori Henning, Texas Association of Goodwills;

Michael Barba, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; Day Brown,

Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; Joey Gidseg, Texas Democrats with

Disabilities; Nikiya Natale, Texas Equal Access Fund, Lilith Fund for

Reproductive Equity; Diana Claitor, Kevin Garrett, and Krishnaveni

Gundu, Texas Jail Project; Michelle Romero, Texas Medical Association;

Jacob Palmer, TexProtects; Nataly Sauceda, United Ways of Texas)

Against — (Registered, but did not testify: James Skinner, Sheriffs'

Association of Texas)

BACKGROUND: 37 T.A.C. part 9, sec. 273.6 requires documentation of the use of restraints

during labor, delivery, and recovery for known pregnant inmates. This

documentation must include, at a minimum, the events leading up to the

need for restraints, the time the restraints were applied, the justification for

their use, observations of the inmate’s behavior and condition and the time

the restraints were removed.

HB 1651


page 2

- 36 -

DIGEST: HB 1651 would require the Commission on Jail Standards to prohibit the

use of restraints on a pregnant prisoner for the duration of the pregnancy

and for 12 weeks after the prisoner had given birth unless:

the use of restraints was necessary to prevent an immediate and

credible risk that the prisoner would attempt to escape;

the prisoner posed an immediate and serious threat to the health

and safety of the prisoner, staff, or any member of the public; or

a health care professional determined that the use of restraints was

appropriate for the health and safety of the prisoner.

When restraining a pregnant prisoner, jail staff would be required to use

the least restrictive restraints necessary to prevent escape or to ensure

health and safety. Staff also would be required to refrain from using

restraints or to remove restraints at the request of a health care

professional.

The bill would require county jails to submit annually to the commission a

report on the jail’s use of any type of restraints used on a prisoner who

was pregnant or who gave birth in the preceding 12 weeks. The report

would be due by February 1 and would be required to contain the

following information:

the specific type of restraints used;

the activity in which the prisoner was engaged immediately before

being restrained;

whether the prisoner was restrained during or after delivery;

whether the prisoner was restrained while being transported to a

local hospital; and

the reasons supporting the determination to use the restraints, a

description of the decision-making process, and the name and title

of the person or persons making the determination.

The bill also would require the commission to adopt reasonable rules and

procedures establishing minimum requirements for a county jail to ensure

that the jail's health services plan addressed obstetrical and gynecological

care and to identify when a pregnant prisoner was in labor and provide

HB 1651


page 3

- 37 -

appropriate care, including promptly transporting the prisoner to a local

hospital.


SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 1651 would apply to the inmates of Texas county jails a nationwide

consensus against using restraints on pregnant women.

Shackling pregnant inmates is banned in Texas state prisons and was

recently outlawed at the federal level. This bill would extend the same

common sense protection to the inmates of our state’s county jails. The

restrictions would not compromise safety or security or prevent jail

officials from being able to do their jobs, as the bill’s exceptions to the

ban on restraints provide jail officials with the ability to address

dangerous situations when necessary.

Pregnancy requires specialized attention that non-professionals or general

practitioners are not able to provide. The bill would ensure that pregnant

inmates received the specialized care that they needed.

The Texas Administrative Code currently requires county jails to

document each time restraints are used on a pregnant inmate during labor,

delivery and recovery. The bill would not pose an additional burden but

merely extend the documentation to the duration of the pregnancy and for

12 weeks after the prisoner had given birth.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 1651's recordkeeping requirements could constitute an unfunded

mandate that could impose burdensome logistical and fiscal hardships on

county governments.


RESEARCH Ashby, et al.

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 (CSHB 1409 by Wray)

- 38 -

SUBJECT: Preventing certain lands from losing timber productivity tax exemption

COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 10 ayes — Burrows, Guillen, Bohac, Cole, Martinez Fischer, Murphy,

Noble, Sanford, Shaheen, Wray

0 nays

1 absent — E. Rodriguez

WITNESSES: For — Wayne Pfluger; (Registered, but did not testify: Robert Turner,

Earthmovers Contractors Association of Texas, Texas Sheep and Goat

Raisers Association, Texas Poultry Federation, Independent Cattlemen's

Association; David Glenn, Home Builders Association of Greater Austin;

Todd Morgan, International Paper Corp; Bill Oswald, Koch Companies;

Robert Howard, South Texans' Property Rights Association; Jeremy

Fuchs, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association; Ray Head,

Texas Association of Property Tax Professionals; Michael Pacheco, Texas

Farm Bureau; Rob Hughes, Texas Forestry Association; Jennifer Bremer,

Texas Land and Mineral Owners Association; Ryan Skrobarczyk, Texas

Nursery and Landscape Association; James LeBas, Texas Oil and Gas

Association, Texas Association of Manufacturers; Joe Morris, Texas

Poultry Federation, Texas Forestry Association, Texas Sheep and Goat

Raisers Association)

Against — None

BACKGROUND: Tax Code sec. 23.72 establishes that land qualifies for appraisal as timber

land if it:

currently and actively is devoted principally to production of

timber or forest products to the degree of intensity generally

accepted in the area with intent to produce income; and

has been devoted principally to the production of timber or forest

products or agricultural use for five of the preceding seven years.

HB 1409


page 2

- 39 -

Tax Code sec. 23.9802 provides for the appraisal of land as restricted-use

timber land if the land is in an aesthetic management zone, a critical

wildlife habitat zone, or a streamside management zone.

Tax Code sec. 23.55 and sec. 23.76 establish that land that is appraised

and then taken out of use as timber land or restricted-use timber land is

subject to an additional tax equal to the difference between the taxes

imposed on the land for each of the five years preceding the year in which

the change of use occurred plus interest at an annual rate of 7 percent

calculated from the dates on which the differences would have become

due.

DIGEST: Under CSHB 1409, when determining whether a portion of a parcel of

land qualified for appraisal as timber land or restricted-use timber land, an

appraiser would be prohibited from considering the purpose for which the

portion of land was used if the portion was:

used for the production of timber or forest products, including a

road, right-of-way, buffer area, or firebreak; or

subject to a right-of-way that was taken through eminent domain.

This portion of land would qualify for appraisal as timber land or

restricted-use timber land if the remainder of the land parcel qualified for

appraisal as timber land or restricted-use timber land.

Land used for oil and gas operations over which the Railroad Commission

had jurisdiction would continue to be eligible for appraisal as timber land

or restricted-use timber land if the portion of land where the oil and gas

operations did not occur was qualified for appraisal as timber land or

restricted-use timber land.

The bill would apply only to the appraisal of land for property tax

purposes for a tax year beginning on or after its effective date. It would

not affect an additional tax imposed as a result of a change of use of land

that occurred before the effective date.


HB 1409


page 3

- 40 -

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

CSHB 1409 would protect landowners from appraisers unfairly changing

the use of their land. Preventing appraisers from considering whether

portions of the land were used in timber production or seized through

eminent domain when determining whether it should be appraised as

timber land would protect landowners from being charged back taxes on

land removed from use as land for timber production. The bill also would

protect tracts of timber land on which oil and gas operations were being

conducted.

Individuals who lose land to eminent domain are compensated, but this

compensation may not have factored in the loss of the timber property tax

exemption. This bill would ensure landowners were treated fairly and

protected from losing the timber land productivity exemption.

The process of receiving a timber productivity tax exemption is rigorous

and already prevents potential abuse of the system by land owners. This

bill would not make receiving the timber tax exemption easier, but it

would ensure landowners were treated fairly by appraisal districts.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

CSHB 1409 could create an incentive for landowners to seek broad

exemptions for lands not used in timber production that technically did

not meet the requirement for the specialty appraisal. Small appraisal

districts with limited technology could be hindered in verifying that the

land owner's unused land fell under the requirements listed in the bill.

NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board notes that the bill could reduce taxable

property values and increase related costs to the Foundation School Fund

through the operation of school finance formulas.


RESEARCH Thierry

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 (CSHB 809 by Howard)

- 41 -

SUBJECT: Creating a liaison officer for post-secondary students who are homeless

COMMITTEE: Higher Education — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 11 ayes — C. Turner, Stucky, Button, Frullo, Howard, E. Johnson,

Pacheco, Schaefer, Smithee, Walle, Wilson

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — Kristian Caballero, Texas Appleseed; Irene Sauceda; Barbara

Wand James; (Registered, but did not testify: Marilyn Hartman, NAMI

Austin; Eric Kunish, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Austin; Brett

Merfish, Texas Appleseed; Andrew Homer, Texas CASA; Nataly

Sauceda, United Ways of Texas; Knox Kimberly, Upbring)

Against — None

On — Debra Emerson, Department of Family and Protective Services;

Paige Muehlenkamp, University of Texas at Austin (Registered, but did

not testify: Jerel Booker, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board)

BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 51.9356 requires institutions of higher education to

designate at least one employee to act as a liaison officer for current and

incoming students who were formerly in the care of the Department of

Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The liaison officer is required to

provide this student population with information on support services and

other resources available to them.

Sec. 51.978 requires institutions of higher education, on the student's

request, to assist full-time students who were formerly in DFPS care with

locating temporary housing between academic terms if they lack a

reasonable alternative. An institution is authorized to either provide a

stipend or temporary housing directly to the student.

42 U.S.C. sec. 11434a defines homeless children and youths as

individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

HB 809


page 2

- 42 -

DIGEST: CSHB 809 would require institutions of higher education and the Texas

Higher Education Coordinating Board to designate at least one employee

to act as a liaison officer to students who were homeless. The institution

and coordinating board could designate the same employee to act as a

liaison officer to students who were homeless and to students who were

formerly in the care of the Department of Family and Protective Services

or could designate one or more employees to act as a liaison officer for

each of those student populations separately.

CSHB 809 would define students who are homeless using the definition

assigned to homeless children and youth in federal law. It would include

students who resided in a student housing facility maintained by an

institution of higher education during an academic term but who were

homeless between terms.

The bill would require the liaison officer for students who were homeless

to perform the same duties as would the liaison officer to students who

were in the care of DFPS. The liaison officer would provide the students

for whom the officer was designated with information on financial aid,

on- and off-campus housing, food and meal programs, and counseling

services available at the institution.

CSHB 809 would require institutions of higher education that maintained

student housing facilities to give priority to students who were homeless

when assigning housing. The institutions also would be required to

provide full-time students experiencing homelessness with certain

assistance in locating temporary housing between academic terms.




SUPPORTERS

SAY:

CSHB 809 would help post-secondary students who were experiencing

homelessness by providing them with information on obtaining housing,

financial aid, and meals. The state has recognized the need for liaison

officers in helping vulnerable student populations navigate institutions of

higher education, but services currently are only available to students who

were in the care of DFPS. Those same services should be extended to

HB 809


page 3

- 43 -

students who are experiencing homelessness.

Tens of thousands of university and community college students

experience homelessness in Texas every year. CSHB 809 would help

these students with some of their unique challenges by informing them of

resources available to them at their school and in their community. This

would enable students experiencing homelessness to focus on their degree

instead of on food and housing.

OPPONENTS

SAY:


HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 692

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 White, et al.

- 44 -

SUBJECT: Barring out-of-school suspension for students experiencing homelessness


VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, Dutton, K.

King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver

0 nays

1 absent — M. González

WITNESSES: For —Desiree Viramontes Le, Round Rock ISD; Brett Merfish, Texas

Appleseed; Lauren Rose, Texas Network of Youth Services; Kaycie

Alexander, Texas Public Policy Foundation; Bryce Jackson; (Registered,

but did not testify: Adam Cahn, Cahnman's Musings; Jo DePrang,

Children's Defense Fund-Texas; Alyssa Thomason, Doctors for Change;

Eric Kunish, National Alliance on Mental Illness Austin; Alissa Sughrue,

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Texas; Will Francis,

National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Josh Cogan,

Outlast Youth; Kathryn Freeman, Texas Baptist Christian Life

Commission; Bryan Mares, Texas CASA; Darren Grissom, TX PTA;

Knox Kimberly, Upbring)

Against — (Registered, but did not testify: David Anderson, Arlington

ISD Board of Trustees; Michelle Davis)

On — (Registered, but did not testify: Lisa Dawn-Fisher, Texas State

Teachers Association)

BACKGROUND: 42 U.S.C. sec. 11434a defines homeless children and youth as individuals

who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

DIGEST: HB 692 would prohibit school districts from placing a student who was

homeless in out-of-school suspension. A campus behavior coordinator

could coordinate with a district's homeless education liaison to identify

alternatives to out-of-school suspension. The bill would define students

who are homeless using the definition of homeless children and youths in

HB 692


page 2

- 45 -

federal law.





SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 692 would protect vulnerable students and encourage schools to

implement more trauma-informed disciplinary alternatives.

Prohibiting out-of-school suspensions for students who are experiencing

homelessness would protect a vulnerable population. Homeless children

and youth are more likely than their peers to face disciplinary action,

including suspension, and more likely to drop out of school. They already

are confronted with a lack of stable housing and limited access to basic

necessities. Many also receive vital resources, such as meals, from school.

Sending these students away from school puts them back in unstable

environments that could cause further trauma and worsen behavioral

issues.

The bill would not stop school districts from disciplining students

experiencing homelessness and would prohibit only a particular

disciplinary approach that has been shown to be detrimental. Out-of-

school suspensions are discretionary, based on each district's code of

conduct, and are not required by Texas law. By allowing campus behavior

coordinators to create alternative punishments alongside districts'

homeless student liaisons, HB 692 would encourage districts to implement

trauma-informed alternatives that were not detrimental to students'

emotional and physical well-being.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 692 could undermine a school's ability to provide a safe and secure

school environment and could promote unequal disciplinary treatment of

students. Some offenses are egregious enough to warrant a student's

immediate removal from campus for the safety of other students and staff.

The bill also could have the unintended effect of encouraging schools to

treat students differently. It could inadvertently single out students

HB 692


page 3

- 46 -

experiencing homelessness by not placing them in out-of-school

suspension for infractions for which other students would receive that

punishment.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 811

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 White, et al.

- 47 -

SUBJECT: Requiring certain factors for consideration when disciplining students


VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, Dutton, K.

King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver

0 nays

1 absent — M. González

WITNESSES: For — Brett Merfish, Texas Appleseed; Bryan Mares, Texas CASA;

Bryce Jackson; (Registered, but did not testify: Adam Cahn, Cahnman's

Musings; Jo DePrang, Children's Defense Fund-Texas; Eric Kunish,

National Alliance on Mental Illness-Austin; Alissa Sughrue, National

Alliance on Mental Illness-Texas; Will Francis, National Association of

Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Josh Cogan, Outlast Youth; Desiree

Viramontes Le, Round Rock ISD; Kathryn Freeman, Texas Baptist

Christian Life Commission; Lauren Rose, Texas Network of Youth

Services; Jennifer Lucy, Texprotects; Kyle Piccola, The Arc of Texas;

Darren Grissom, Texas PTA; Knox Kimberly, Upbring)

Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Michelle Davis)

On — (Registered, but did not testify: Lisa Dawn-Fisher, Texas State

Teachers Association)

BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 37.001 requires school districts to adopt a student

code of conduct. Sec. 37.001(4) requires the student code of conduct to

specify that certain circumstances be taken into consideration when

making a decision concerning certain disciplinary actions for students.

42 U.S.C. sec. 11434a defines homeless children and youth as individuals

who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

DIGEST: HB 811 would require a student code of conduct adopted by a school

district to specify that consideration would be given, in decisions on

HB 811


page 2

- 48 -

certain disciplinary actions, to a student's status in the conservatorship of

the Department of Family and Protective Services or status as a student

who is experiencing homelessness.

These factors would be added to the list of factors to be considered in each

decision concerning suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative

education program, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice

alternative education program, regardless of whether the decision

concerned a mandatory or discretionary action.

The bill would define students who are homeless using the definition of

homeless children and youths in federal law.





SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 811 would protect vulnerable student populations, allow flexibility for

school districts, and encourage equity in school disciplinary actions.

The bill would protect students who are experiencing homelessness or

who are in the foster care system by encouraging districts to take into

consideration these students' unique circumstances when implementing

discipline for behavioral issues. Children can lose months of academic

progress when changing schools, a common frustration for foster youth,

and students experiencing homelessness are more likely to experience

challenges to their emotional well-being. Both are factors that can

manifest in behavioral problems. Foster children or children experiencing

homelessness also tend to be disciplined at a disproportionate rate

compared to their peers. This bill would encourage school districts to

consider this potential inequity.

HB 811 would require districts to consider these factors before

disciplining these students, but it would not prohibit school districts from

taking the disciplinary actions they deemed appropriate.

HB 811


page 3

- 49 -

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 811 would infringe on school districts' control over what they

consider when implementing disciplinary actions, and this is not a proper

role for state government.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 463

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Springer

- 50 -

SUBJECT: Requiring air ambulance companies to enter into reciprocity agreements

COMMITTEE: Public Health — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 10 ayes — S. Thompson, Allison, Coleman, Frank, Guerra, Lucio, Ortega,

Price, Sheffield, Zedler

0 nays

1 absent — Wray

WITNESSES: For — Blake Hutson, AARP Texas; (Registered, but did not testify: Erica

Ding, Doctors for Change; Mike Meroney, Texas Association of Health

Underwriters)

Against — None

BACKGROUND: Health and Safety Code sec. 773.011 authorizes an emergency medical

services provider to create and operate a subscription program to fund and

provide emergency medical services. It also exempts subscription

programs from regulation under the Texas Insurance Code.

DIGEST: HB 463 would require air ambulance companies that operated a

subscription program in the state to enter into reciprocity agreements with

each other to maximize geographic coverage for patients covered under

those programs. The bill would exempt a reciprocity agreement for

subscription programs from regulation under the Texas Insurance Code.

The executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services

Commission would adopt rules necessary to implement the bill's

provisions as soon as practicable after the effective date.


SUPPORTERS

SAY:

By requiring air ambulance companies that operate subscription programs

to enter into reciprocity agreements, HB 463 would address gaps in air

ambulance services for individuals who participate in these programs.

Subscription programs for air ambulance companies provide speedy

transportation to hospitals for members in isolated areas, while limiting

HB 463


page 2

- 51 -

costs. Membership in these programs currently does not guarantee a

particular service will be available when an emergency occurs, which can

lead to charges being incurred for the total cost of transport provided by

an air ambulance service provider if a patient does not participate in that

provider's subscription program. Establishing reciprocity agreements

would ensure patients under subscription programs had access to air

ambulance services regardless of where an emergency occurred.

OPPONENTS

SAY:



RESEARCH Meyer

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 (CSHB 444 by Harless)

- 52 -

SUBJECT: Increasing penalties for misuse of official information in certain instances

COMMITTEE: State Affairs — committee substitute recommended

VOTE: 13 ayes — Phelan, Hernandez, Deshotel, Guerra, Harless, Holland,

Hunter, P. King, Parker, Raymond, E. Rodriguez, Smithee, Springer

0 nays

WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen;

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter; Bay Scoggin, Texas Public

Interest Research Group)

Against — None

BACKGROUND: Penal Code sec. 39.06 makes it a crime to misuse official information.

Public servants commit an offense if they use non-public information to

which they have access because of their office or employment to:

acquire or help another acquire a monetary interest in any property,

transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information;

speculate or help another to speculate on the basis of the

information; or

as a public servant, coerce another into suppressing or failing to

report that information to a law enforcement agency.

It also is an offense for a public servant to disclose or use official

information for a nongovernmental purpose if it was done with the intent

to obtain a benefit or to harm or defraud another. A person commits an

offense by soliciting or receiving such information from a public servant

if done with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm or defraud another.

The above offenses are third-degree felonies (two to 10 years in prison

and an optional fine of up to $10,000), with the exception of coercing

another into suppressing or failing to report information to a law

enforcement agency, which is a class C misdemeanor (maximum fine of

$500).

HB 444


page -1

- 53 -

DIGEST: CSHB 444 would impose graduated penalties for the crime of misuse of

official information if the offense resulted in a net pecuniary gain to the

person committing the offense. The offense would be:

a third-degree felony (two to 10 years in prison and an optional

fine of up to $10,000) if the gain was less than $150,000;

a second-degree felony (two to 20 years in prison and an optional

fine of up to $10,000) if the gain was at least $150,000 but less

than $300,000; or

a first-degree felony (life in prison or a sentence of five to 99 years

and an optional fine of up to $10,000) if the gain was $300,000 or

more.

The bill would make it a third-degree felony for a public servant to coerce

someone into suppressing or failing to report information to a law

enforcement agency.

The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply only to an

offense committed on or after that date.

SUPPORTERS

SAY:

CSHB 444 would strengthen laws on the misuse of information by a

public servant by linking the severity of the penalty to the amount of

monetary gain derived from the crime. It is a violation of the public trust

for public officials to use information gained in the course of their office

or job for their own financial benefit, and these offenses need to be taken

seriously by imposing appropriate penalties.

Strengthening the penalty could further discourage public servants from

misusing their position for personal gain. The highest penalty for the

offense available under current law is a third-degree felony. The bill

would establish graduated penalties to make potential punishments

proportional to the crime by scaling up punishments as the amount of gain

increased. This would serve as a deterrent to public servants who might

use their positions of public trust for financial gain and would punish

appropriately those who did. The graduated penalties established by the

bill would impose punishments similar to those for other financial crimes

and would track the standard value ladder used to determine punishments

HB 444


page 0

- 54 -

for numerous other crimes.

Prosecutors and courts would retain discretion to handle these cases

appropriately and to impose fitting penalties, including a range of prison

terms within each felony level, probation, and restitution. The bill would

not change the base-level punishment for the crime, but the crime's

egregious nature makes it appropriate that a range of penalties be available

when the crime results in financial gain.

CSHB 444 would not significantly impact the demand for state

correctional resources. In fiscal 2018, 10 people were arrested for misuse

of official information punishable as a third-degree felony, with fewer

than 10 people admitted into state correctional institutions and fewer than

10 placed on felony probation, according to the Legislative Budget

Board's criminal justice impact statement.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

While misusing official information by public servants and others is a

serious crime, current law appropriately sets the punishment at a third-

degree felony, which can result in two to 10 years in prison. Enhancing

certain offenses to a first- or second-degree felony could go too far in

allowing potentially lengthy sentences of up to 99 years. Long prison

terms can make it difficult to recover restitution from offenders,

something victims often request. Under current law, offenders may be

punished appropriately, including with probation or a shorter incarceration

term, which can allow the offender to return to work and pay restitution.

HOUSE (2nd reading)

RESEARCH HB 71

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/8/2019 Martinez

- 55 -

SUBJECT: Allowing creation of a regional transit authority in the Rio Grande Valley

COMMITTEE: Transportation — favorable, without amendment

VOTE: 8 ayes — Canales, Landgraf, Y. Davis, Goldman, Martinez, Ortega,

Raney, E. Thompson

1 nay — Hefner

4 absent — Bernal, Krause, Leman, Thierry

WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Mario Martinez, City of

Brownsville)

Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Terri Hall, Texas TURF,

Texans for Toll-free Highways; and 10 individuals)

On — Andrew Canon, Hidalgo County MPO; Tom Logan, LRGVDC;

Eric Gleason, Texas Department of Transportation

DIGEST: HB 71 would allow the creation of a regional transit authority, by election,

in a county contiguous to both the Gulf of Mexico and the Mexican border

and adjacent counties (Cameron, Willacy, and Hidalgo counties). The bill

would provide for the governing structure, general powers, and other

regulations of a regional transit authority.

Authority confirmation. HB 71 would allow the board of directors of the

regional planning commission in the applicable counties to initiate the

process to create a regional transit authority. The board would have to

conduct public hearings on the creation of an authority and, after the

hearing process, the board could designate the name of the authority and

authorize an interim executive committee.

The bill would require the interim committee to develop a service plan

and, upon approval from the commissioners court of each county, submit

a proposition on the creation of the authority to the voters. The authority

would be confirmed by a majority of votes from each county.

HB 71


page 2

- 56 -

The board of directors would pay the cost of the confirmation election. An

authority that was not confirmed would expire three years after the day the

process was initiated.

Governing structure. An executive committee, made up of the board of

directors of the regional planning commission, would be responsible for

the management, operation, and control of an authority. Members would

be subject to statutory regulation concerning conflicts of interest.

The committee could adopt rules for the safe and efficient operation and

maintenance of the public transportation system, use of the system, fare

payment, and regulation of privileges on property controlled by the

authority. The committee would be required to hold at least one regular

meeting each month and could take action by a majority vote.

The executive committee could appoint a chief executive officer, who

could be designated as the general manager or executive director, to

administer the daily operation of an authority and manage employees. The

committee also could establish a security force.

General powers. HB 71 would provide the general powers of a regional

transit authority. An authority would be a public political entity and

corporate body that could contract with any person and accept grants and

loans. An authority would have to use a competitive bidding process to

award contracts for construction, services, or property, with certain

exemptions.

The authority would have to encourage to the maximum extent feasible

the participation of private enterprise.

An authority could coordinate the provision of services with a

municipality. HB 71 would allow an authority to leverage funds to finance

a project with a municipality that provided public transportation services

in the authority's territory.

The bill would allow an authority to issue bonds, as well as notes, at any

time for any amount necessary to develop its public transportation system

or fund insurance, retirement, or pension funds. The state or a political

HB 71


page 3

- 57 -

subdivision of the state would not be obligated to pay the principal of or

interest on the bond, and the faith, credit, and taxing power of the state

would not be pledged to bond payment.

Acquisition of property. HB 71 would allow an authority to use a public

way and directly or indirectly alter the route or construction of a person's

property for a purpose related to the operation of a public transportation

system. An authority could contract with the property owner to allow the

owner to alter the property by the owner's own means and provide for

reimbursement of related costs. The authority could not begin activity to

alter or damage property of others without the property owner's written

permission.

If an authority altered the route or construction of a road, cable line,

pipeline, or related property, the authority would be required to pay all

expenses of the alteration and any damages incurred by a property owner.

The bill would prohibit an authority from relocating the property of a

telecommunications provider without that provider's permission. If an

authority otherwise relocated a provider's property, the authority would

have to reimburse those costs.

An authority could agree with a public or private utility, communication

system, common carrier, or transportation system for the joint use of

property or establishment of through routes, joint fares, or passenger

transfer.

Eminent domain. An authority could use eminent domain to acquire an

interest in real property without adhering to the above requirements for the

acquisition of property. Eminent domain could not be exercised in a

manner that would allow the authority to run a vehicle on a railroad track

that is used to transport property.

An eminent domain proceeding would be initiated by a resolution adopted

by the executive committee after a notice and hearing. The resolution

would be required to describe the property interest to be acquired by the

authority, declare the public necessity for the acquisition, and state that the

acquisition was necessary for the construction or development of a public

HB 71


page 4

- 58 -

transportation system.

The bill would not grant eminent domain authority to a regional transit

authority unless the bill received a vote of two-thirds of the membership

of each house.

Public transportation system operation. The bill would allow an

authority to:

acquire, construct, operate, and maintain a public transportation

system within its territory;

contract with a municipality, county, or other political subdivision

to provide public transportation services outside its territory; and

lease the system to, or contract for the operation of the system by,

an operator.

An authority would be required to determine the routes of its public

transportation system.

Station or terminal complex. A station or terminal complex could not be

included in the public transportation system unless the executive

committee found that it would encourage efficient and economical public

transportation, facilitate access to public transportation, reduce vehicular

congestion and air pollution, and be reasonably essential to the successful

operation of the system.

A station or terminal complex would have to include adequate provisions

for the transfer of passengers among the various means of transportation

available at the complex and could include provisions for residential,

institutional, recreational, commercial, and industrial facilities. The

location of the station or terminal would be determined by an authority

after notice and a hearing.

Fares. The bill would require an authority to impose reasonable and

nondiscriminatory fares, tolls, charges, rents, and other compensation for

the use of the public transportation system sufficient to pay:

necessary operation and maintenance costs;

HB 71


page 5

- 59 -

the principal cost of and interest on issued bonds; and

an amount to fulfill the terms of bondholder agreements.

Compensation to use the public transportation system could be set

according to a zone system or another reasonable classification.

HB 71 would intend that the compensation would not exceed the amounts

necessary to meet an authority's obligations.

Fare enforcement. The executive committee could prohibit the use of the

public transportation system by a person who did not pay an appropriate

fare and establish an administrative fee for nonpayment. The authority

would have to post signs designating each area in which a person was

prohibited from using the system without payment.

A person who used the system without paying the appropriate fare would

commit a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $100. If a

person provided proof of payment of a fare or administrative fee within 30

days of notification from the authority and paid the administrative fee, if

any, the person would be exempt from the offense.

The bill would allow a justice court to enter into an agreement with the

authority to try all criminal cases for nonpayment of fares.

HB 71 would allow the authority to hire fare enforcement officers, who

could request and inspect evidence of fare payment, including personal

identification, and issue citations. A fare enforcement officer would have

to complete at least eight hours of relevant training approved by the

authority before commencing duties.

The bill would prohibit a fare enforcement officer from carrying a weapon

while performing duties, unless that person was a certified peace officer.

A fare enforcement officer would not have authority to enforce other

criminal law and would not constitute a peace officer.

Additional bridge fee. An entity that operated an international bridge

could impose a fee of $1 for passenger vehicles, $2 for commercial motor

vehicles, and 25 cents for pedestrians. The entity would have to enter into

HB 71


page 6

- 60 -

a written agreement with an authority before imposing a fee providing for

fee collection and remittance.

Of the fees collected, 25 percent would be retained by the entity for

transportation projects or complementary services, 25 percent would be

used for regional high capacity transit, and 50 percent would be used for a

rail mass transit system. The entity could retain the percentage for

regional high capacity transit if the entity was a mass transit provider in

the municipality where the bridge was located on or before January 1,

2019.

Financing. The executive committee would have to make a proposed

annual budget available to the commissioners courts of counties in the

authority at least 30 days before the final adoption of the budget.

The executive committee would be required to have an annual audit of the

affairs of the authority prepared by an independent certified public

accountant or firm. The final audit report would be open to public

inspection.

HB 71 would require excess revenue from the transportation system to be

used to pay the expenses of operation and maintenance, including salaries,

materials, and repairs, and to fund operating reserves.

Existing rail use. A rail mass transit system line operating on property

previously used by a railroad would be a continuation of existing rail use.

Commuter rail districts. If an authority created by this bill had

boundaries that overlapped with the boundaries of a commuter rail

district's territory, the rail district would be dissolved and all assets and

liabilities would be transferred to the authority.

High occupancy vehicle lanes. The bill would allow the executive

committee to regulate or prohibit improper entrance into, exit from, and

vehicle occupancy in high occupancy vehicle lanes operated by the

authority.

Tax exemptions. The property, revenue, and income of an authority

HB 71


page 7

- 61 -

would be exempt from state and local taxes. The interest on bonds issued

by an authority also would be tax exempt.




SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 71 would allow the counties of Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy to

establish a regional transit authority to coordinate, develop, and maintain

public transportation in the Rio Grande Valley. The bill would provide a

planning shell for the authority, which would be run by local elected

officials from all three counties. By allowing for the creation of a regional

transit authority, HB 71 would give the Rio Grande Valley the same tool

already used by several other regions of the state to develop necessary

public transportation.

A regional transit authority would promote mass transit, bus and rail, and

passenger light rail in the area, which are sorely needed. Not only is the

population of the Valley quickly increasing, but thousands of workers

commute daily between the region's counties, and the number of student

riders who rely on public transportation is growing. Public transportation

services also need to be improved for colonias, rural areas of the counties,

and low-income communities in order to provide access to education,

healthcare, and job opportunities.

HB 71 would ensure that any action by the authority was transparent and

responsive to the local community. Elected officials from the local council

of government, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council,

would make up the executive committee overseeing the authority.

Regional transit authorities typically may use eminent domain, but the bill

would ensure that this ability could not be used without a public hearing.

HB 71 would not provide taxing authority and the regional transit

authority would be subject to independent financial audits. It is necessary

to create this authority in the Valley because there is a lack of private

transportation providers in the region.

OPPONENTS

SAY:

HB 71 would establish another level of unnecessary bureaucracy in the

transportation system in Texas. The Legislature should not allow the

HB 71


page 8

- 62 -

creation of new entities with the ability to raise additional fees or seize

property through eminent domain. These transportation projects could be

accomplished within the existing transportation financing framework or

through the private sector.

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION · On — Robin Riechers and Bob Sweeney, Texas Parks and Wildlife...

Documents