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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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.
HOUSE HB 1136 (2nd reading)
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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:
No concerns identified.
HOUSE HB 226 (2nd reading)
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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.
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:
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
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:
No concerns identified.
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
House Research Organization
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.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
HB 102
House Research Organization
page 3
- 26 -
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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.
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:
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
page 2
- 34 -
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:
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
page 3
- 37 -
appropriate care, including promptly transporting the prisoner to a local
hospital.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
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.
HOUSE HB 1409 (2nd reading)
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
House Research Organization
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.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
HB 1409
House Research Organization
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.
HOUSE HB 809 (2nd reading)
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
House Research Organization
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.
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 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
House Research Organization
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:
No concerns identified.
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
COMMITTEE: Public Education — favorable, without amendment
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
House Research Organization
page 2
- 45 -
federal law.
The bill would apply beginning with the 2019-2020 school year.
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:
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
House Research Organization
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
COMMITTEE: Public Education — favorable, without amendment
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
House Research Organization
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.
The bill would apply beginning with the 2019-2020 school year.
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:
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
House Research Organization
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.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
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
House Research Organization
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:
No concerns identified.
HOUSE HB 444 (2nd reading)
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
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
House Research Organization
page 7
- 61 -
would be exempt from state and local taxes. The interest on bonds issued
by an authority also would be tax exempt.
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:
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
House Research Organization
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.