Print 🖨

The House Committee on State Affairs met on March 15 to take up several bills. This report covers HB 821 (K. King), HB 1817 (Capriglione), HB 584 (Capriglione), HB 390 (Howard), HB 537 (Wu), HB 1500 (Holland), HB 2033 (Guillen), and HB 2127 (Burrows). The notice for the hearing can be found here. A video of the hearing can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 821 (K. King) – Relating to the placement of electric vehicle charging equipment on state property.

  • Ken King – Bill would allow state agencies to partner with private business to place charging stations for charging electric cars on state property such as state parks
  • Have a ton of state parks across Texas but no charging stations, believe it would be a tourism driver

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For

  • Customers need choices, bill provides a choice for people visiting state parks and other state-owned facilities

 

Rep. Ken King – Closes

HB 821 is left pending

 

HB 1817 (Capriglione) – Relating to the validity of a contract for which a disclosure of interested parties is required.

  • Explained case where development company sued City of Hutto for breach of contract, based off of the judge ruling the potential now exist that any government contract found without form 1295 on file could be voided
  • Capriglione – Bill updates statue to allow for a cure period if form 1295 is found not to be on file
  • The governmental entity is required to send written notice to the business of their failure to provide the form; the business entity then ha 10 business days to submit the form

 

Rep. Capriglione – Closes

HB 1817 is left pending

 

(CS) HB 584 (Capriglione) – Relating to the development of a state information technology credential offered by public junior colleges to address shortages in the state information resources workforce.

  • Capriglione – Bill would allow the DIR to enter into agreements with any community college or technical college to develop a state information technology credential that is tailored to address the shortages in the state information resources workforce
  • The credential would be offered in conjunction with the student’s pursuit of an associate degree in a relevant field and include a 1-year apprenticeship working on state ID projects
  • Once the student completes this credentialling program the bill directs the state auditor’s office to consider the credential as a substitute for a 4-year degree
  • Bill would ensure the state is investing in resilience IT workforce

 

Gaylene Scott, Texas Association of Community Colleges – For

  • 46 of 50 CCs offer associate degrees in computer and information sciences
  • Currently state classification office guidelines recommended all entry level technology jobs should require a graduation from a 4-year college or university
  • Bill would address the needs for states IT candidates and establish a viable pathway through existing programs already at CCs

 

Rep. Capriglione – Closes

HB 584 is left pending

 

HB 390 (Howard) – Relating to the Internet broadcast or audio recording of certain open meetings.

  • Howard – Bill updates access to open meetings by requiring qualifying state agencies and departments to live broadcast and archive public meetings on their websites
  • Bill simply insures those livestreaming public meetings is the standard in Texas
  • Bill requires that archived video and audio be placed on the agency’s website no later than 7 days after the meeting, should provide agencies reasonable time to archive
  • Bill only requires agencies that receive $10M from GR fund and have at least 100 FTEs to comply with requirements; agencies below this threshold would be required to upload audio only
  • Raymond – There are 41 agencies that would be affected and 29 are already doing it?
    • Correct

 

Rep. Howard – Closes

HB 390 is left pending

 

(CS) HB 537 (Wu)- Relating to public access to the audit records of certain governmental entities.

  • Wu – Bill allows public to have access to a public agency’s records
  • CS limits bill to only when an organization is a subject of the audit
  • CS ratchets down who would be subject to this, only would affect a public agency if they are looking at themselves and if the information would normally be releasable under open records

 

Rep. Wu – Closes

  • Have worked with other parties that are concerned, and the CS is the result of those meetings

HB 537 is left pending

 

(CS) HB 1500 (Holland) – Relating to the continuation and functions of the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the functions of the independent organization certified for the ERCOT power region.

  • Holland – Bill reflects the sunset commission decisions and recommendations related to the continuation and functions of the PUC, ERCOT, and OPUC
  • PUC and OPUC are subject to abolishment under Sunset Act on Sept. 1, 2023
  • CS is a culmination of the Sunset review over the last year, addressing PUC reporting, transparency, etc.
  • Major provisions in the CS include 6-year continuance of PUC and OPUC; including Sunset recommendation that only the agencies and not their statutes are subject to abolishment
  • CS also extends the PUCs authority to hire any accountant, consultant, auditor, engineer, or attorney to represent it in matters in front of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to align with the sunset continuation date
  • CS adds one additional PUC commissioner as nonvoting ex office member of the ERCOT bord of directors for a total of the 2 PUC commissioner; will now be a total of 12 ERCOT board members
  • CS establishes a best practices and training manual for PUC commissioners that is consistent with other state agencies
  • Manual is to be created by PUC Executive Director (ED), bill also adds scope and limitations on rule making authority of the commission, manual will be distributed annual, adds the requirement that each member of the commission submits to the ED a document acknowledging the member received and reviewed the training manual
  • CS establishes agenda policy for the inclusion of public testimony in meeting of the commission on matters that are not related to contested cases
  • CS requires a strategic agencywide communications plan for improving communications with the public, industry and other relevant audiences, PUC communications director is tasked with distributing this plan by the commission
  • CS establishes a new electric industry report biennially explaining the state of the electric industry, specifically to provide legislators clear more comprehensive information about the grid; new requirement is specific to the electric industry
  • CS establishes protocol for written documentation of verbal directives in urgent and emergency situations that pose threats to public safety; CS clarifies that all verbal directives issued by the commission must be documented in writing within 72 hours of the urgent emergency situation from the commission to ERCOT and vice versa
  • CS makes numerous clean ups striking previsions and requirements that are no longer necessary
  • CS provides for an extension of time for the PUC to appoint emergency temporary mangers to troubled water and wastewater utilities from 180 days to 360 days
  • Geren – CS says commission is authorized to consider in closed meetings it will let ERCOT exclude the commissioners that are non officio members, is that right?
    • Yes, because it would allow the ERCOT members to ask the two PUC members to step out, so that they can discuss an item that may be related to a future PUC ruling
  • Anchía – Would they be removed because they would be serving as a deciding body later on?
    • Yes, that precisely it; now it’s permissive so it doesn’t require them to leave
  • Geren – Can you further defend the reasons they can kick them out of the meeting?
    • I am going to defer to the sunset staffer
  • Turner – You mentioned modernizing the website, does that extend to the power to choose website for our constituents?
    • This would only be in relations to the PUC agency website
  • Turner – Not the site where we go and select our energy plans?
    • No this is just for the PUC website
  • Anchía – Where there any recommendations from sunset that were not adopted, that you think we should know about?
    • No, I would say there’s anything we didn’t adopt that we should have
  • Anchía – Would you say that the sunset staff recommendations were focused more on the energy side rather than the telecom side
    • I would way your correct we did focus primarily on the energy side of this

 

Emily Johnson, Sunset Staff – On

  • Anchía – I heard in the layout, that ERCOT could not go away if the bill does not pass, but the PUC could go away although the statutory language could remain; If someone wanted to hold the PUC hostage what would the ramifications be to the agency
    • Currently statute allows for the abolishment of the agency and its title of regulatory act
  • Anchía – How would ERCOT continue with the PUC no longer continuing?
    • There is some language that could retain Ch. 39 Its possible that another agency could name ERCOT as the independent systems operator
  • Anchía – Is there any language that would allow the Gov. or some other entity as a successor to the PUC?
    • That language I mentioned, would allow the legislature or the Secretary of State, if the legislature didn’t do it, to enforce those provisions but it’s not clear which provisions would continue
  • Turner – Can you speak more on the power to choose website?
    • PUC is currently undergoing a website redesign effort, and that would include their power to chose
  • Turner – So the agency is currently taken that effort including their power to choose?
    • I can’t speak to if the agency is working on that one, but it is included in it
  • Geren – Can you go a little deeper on the exclusion of the PUC members, I would think we would want them in on some of those meetings?
    • ERCOT would have to develop a policy to state the circumstances in which that would happen
  • Geren – Would we want to develop that policy, so we know what it is before we pass this bill?
    • You can certainly suggest such a change
  • Geren – I would like a little more verbiage to clear up what they can kick them out for and what they can’t
  • Chair Hunter – Request a follow up from her and the agency regarding this bill

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For

  • PUC sunset date of 2029 seems better than the purposed 2035
  • Transparency for public hearings with PUC is a great change
  • Making website more user friendly, for power to chose and power to save website could be improved
  • This is a sunset bill and not a policy bill hope it stays that way

 

Michele Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • Critical that the agency and the bill continue
  • Appreciate the inclusion of the requirement to put verbal directives in writing, helps with transparency

 

Kenneth Flippin, US Green Building Council – For

  • Improvements to transparency are great, the time frame is correct

 

Rep. Holland – Closes

HB 1500 is left pending

 

(CS) HB 2033 (Guillen) – Relating to the inclusion of the Texas Department of Transportation on the Texas Electricity Supply Chain Security and Mapping Committee.

  • Guillen – Bill would add TXDOT to the Texas Electricity Supply Chain Committee and grant them access to the Supply Chain Map
  • CS adds the water and wastewater treatment facilities to the map

 

Rep. Guillen – Closes

HB 2033 is left pending

 

(CS) HB 2127 (Burrows) – Relating to state preemption of certain municipal and county regulation.

  • Burrows – bill is also known as the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act
  • Bill would create a single set of predictable and consistent regulations
  • Bill expands on Article 3 Section 1 of Texas Constitution and includes the concept of Field Preemptions; if a field is occupied by legislature, legislature is the only one that will regulate it
  • Bill codifies the waiver of sovereign immunity, expands standing to associations, expands the jurisdiction which they can bring the lawsuit; CS no longer expands to statewide only the county or the city but also the neighboring counties
  • CS adds provision to property and business code; changing of standing is no longer just for taxpayer but agreed party and associations
  • CS has savings clause that no matter what, local government will still have powers granted to a general law city
  • Under this bill local government will still have powers of zoning, billboards, firearms etc.
  • Smithee – Do you have an opinion on if this bill will preempt pay day lending ordinances?
    • My understanding is cities that have pay day lending ordinances are already preempted under the current provisions
  • Smithee – Have you considered being more specific on the legislation itself, I’m concerned how board we are going with this?
    • This bill is designed to be a living document and rely on case law to say if the state occupies a field, it will regulate it
  • Smithee – If the legislature adopted a policy legalizing abortion, would a municipality within the state have the power to declare abortion unlawful within the confines of the city?
    • The heartbeat bill last session would be protected under this bill; 6-8 years from now if another political climate comes out this bill may have some effect on it
  • Anchía – In some ways you could say this bill his highly prescriptive visa vi cities, right?
    • I have talked to several of the businesses in the cities any they have told me the tribulations they go through to operate their business in each of these cities
  • Anchía – How does the CS deal with nondiscrimination ordinances and nondiscrimination ordinances in the housing code?
    • It doesn’t have to, because it never was done away with, both of those are protected under here
  • Anchía – Dallas has noise and nuisance ordinances in place, why shouldn’t a local city council be responsive to their community?
    • Cities have the right to regulate noise and nuisance under this bill
  • Anchía – Can you talk to me about how the venue works?
    • We are not creating a new cause of action because one already exists, you have to be threatened to be affected by the ordinance; the CS narrowed it down to make sure you have a common law standing to sue, then you can file your declaratory judgment in the county district court in which it happened or one of the adjacent counties
  • Anchía – Why one of the adjacent counties?
    • When Travis County adopted paid sick leave ordinances it was facially against state law
  • Anchía – But paid sick leave was never passed, its to this day blocked by the courts?
    • But during the period of time, they were threatened to and you had to wait for the court opinion to come out
  • Anchía – But there was no enforcement?
    • But it was on the books in potential enforcement; what are you supposed to do when a city council complete oversteps it boundaries
  • Anchía – So you would agree laws that are on the books that may not have effectiveness are problematic to people?
    • They can be
  • Hunter – To clarify NDOs are preserved in the bill?
    • Yes
  • Dean – Thank you for the CS, would you agree most ordinances are there for cities to give fines for citizens that aren’t following the law?
    • That’s what I thought about most ordinances; but what I’m starting to see is different cities want to implement their vision of Texas that the legislature has already rejected
  • Dean – Home rule charter cities are going to continue to operate just as they always have is that correct?
    • Yes, I have had a number of city council members and mayors because they want something like this to go into effect
  • Dean – If we did this the opposite way, our cities would have a difficult time understanding what they have to enforce, but at least as the bill continues to unfold, we can address the issues and help everything become clear
  • Turner – If false alarm and police are dispatched, can’t preempt the cities’ ability to address that?
    • 341 -370 of local government code would allow them to maintain that

 

Donnie Evans, Texas Association of Builders – For

  • Texas economy is complex, have to comply with multiple jurisdictions in different counites

 

Alex Birnel, MOVE Texas – Against

  • This bill is known as the ending local freedom act; prohibits local governments from passing/enforcing basic protections/guidelines
  • Bill lets any private person/business bring a suit and strips local elected officials of legal immunity

 

Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders – For

  • Is currently inherent complexity across the state due to varying ordinances
  • Bill has explicit grants for local amendments concerning electrical/building/plumbing/energy code
  • When it comes to employment standards, is currently impossible to comply with the varying ordinances out there
  • Anchía – Passed measures with Dallas a couple years ago allowing scoring of RFP responses based upon if they offered employees healthcare; bill would affect this?
    • Do single-family residential so that does not apply to us; understand if there is something currently in state law, this bill does not touch it
  • Turner – Are there problematic ordinances now that you care about?
    • Paid sick leave ordinance and minimum wage
    • The state should be the one to discuss these issues
    • Concerned about predictive scheduling that is in other states
  • Geren – Did we not already pass a bill that says local governments cannot set minimum wage?
    • Yes, but are bills that try to undo that every session; should be discussion at the state
  • Geren – We would have to discuss that as a state; is already in statute

 

Jeff Coyle, City of San Antonio – Against

  • The CS is better, thank Burrows for that; were previously considered the bill would affect our downpayment assistance for first responders
  • Have been trying to figure out what exactly this bill does for weeks; the number of codes this bill addresses is very complicated/confusing
  • Confused if this effects our ordinances concerning disposal of hazardous materials, peddlers, where trucks park/what roads they can use
  • This confusion would lead us to the courts and spend time/resources on this
  • Agree the city should not have ordinances regarding paid sick leave, scheduling ordinances, gas stoves, bag bans, etc.
  • Anchía – Speaks about the legal complexities of this bill; cannot imagine how much time/resources litigation will cause the city to use
  • Anchía – People keep bringing up “boogeymen” in other states; are certain preemptions the state has already put in statute
  • Anchía and Coyle discuss how minimum wage ordinances are already out of the question
  • Anchía – Cities are not trying to kill their own economies; if people do not like what the city is doing, they will go elsewhere

 

Jeffrey Thompson, Central Texas Interfaith – Against

  • Bill has potential to be harmful by possibly doing away with protections concerning payday lending, workforce development, and minimum wage
  • Payday and auto title lending has drained $16b from the Texas economy
  • Turner and Thompson discuss how this bill undermines payday and auto title lending ordinances serve to weaken the economy
  • Turner – Bill author believes payday ordinances are already unconstitutional under the law
    • Correct

 

Martin Gutierrez, San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce – For

  • Have been many regulations on our businesses; state should be the primary regulator
  • Bill will make it easier for businesses to operate across the state

 

Ann Baddour, Fair Financial Services Project Texas Appleseed – Against

  • Top level concern is the auto title and payday lending ordinance removal; most recent numbers are that they have drained $18b
  • Dean – Suggesting the state will undo a bunch of payday lending ordinances? Where are you getting that in the bill?
    • Field preemption of the Texas Finance Code; are under Chapter 393 of the Finance Code
  • Dean – Not sure I agree with that; the chairman noted that was not the intent of the bill
  • Dean – Are working with some things with the bill, but no matter what we do people who are hard up for money will find a way
    • We have been working on these issues for years, when ordinances are adopted, the cities step up to offer their own loans/financing

 

Mont McClendon, Texas Apartment Association – For

  • This bill is needed for fair, predictive, and consistent housing regulations

 

Judy Gradford, Self – Against

  • Bill is an attack on democracy; need these local ordinances because the state is not doing its job

 

Rick Levy, Texas AFL-CIO – Against

  • The patchwork of the state is what makes it so special
  • Concerned about the loss of workforce and other protections ordinances provide
  • Dallas and Austin have entitled construction workers a water-break; tried to solve the problem of people dying
  • This bill is so broad and the incentive for litigation is so strong
  • Turner and Levy discuss the water break ordinances

 

Skeeter Miller, Countyline Restaurants – For

  • Speaks about the various regulations across all restaurant locations; have large increased administrative costs to keep up with this

 

Laura Morrison, City of Dallas – Against

  • Dallas understands the intent of this bill, but have concerned about its unintended consequences and its vagueness
  • Bill could impact water safety, agriculture, livestock, natural resources, labor, among others
  • Thompson – What do you think the bill is about?
    • About preempting local ordinances; impacts various sections of code
  • Thompson – Do not see this bill as a positive?
    • No; cities have a unique way of governing their constituents
  • Anchía – Can you bring me a list of concerns with the CS, when I talk to the author, he is saying this bill does something different then what you are
  • Turner – Part of your job is to advise city council on how they comply with state law?
    • Yes, that part of our role
  • Turner – I asked a specific question to the bill author about burglar alarms, would you feel comfortable advising your council on that issue?
    • That’s where a lot of the confusion stems from, because we will have two competing state statutes, it will be a case-by-case basis and there will be a lot of litigation stemming form that
  • Hernandez – Are you concerned this bill will preempt a city’s ability to negotiate with their employees?
    • Yes, our employment lawyers do have that concern

 

Lisa Fullerton, Auntie Anne’s Pretzels – For

  • In last 5 years a lot of different city mandates and regulations have become too much
  • We are asking for some predictability with this bill
  • Government is not the only pressure, have landlords, mandates among other things we deal with
  • Think this is a chance for the state to get this right for small business owners in Texas

 

Patrick Brophey, North Texas Commission – Against

  • NTC is concerned this bill will create unnecessary confusion for local leaders
  • Believe the bill will encourage excessive legal action and add more litigation for local governments
  • In current form NTC is Against

 

Glenn Hamer, Texas Association of Business – For

  • Bill will provide clarity and consistency for a city’s fundamental duty
  • There are very different regulations across this state because of its size
  • Last thing Texas businesses need is spending money on regulations that are the responsibility of the state
  • Thompson – Bill says it also encourages compliance by stripping local official of immunity, do you agree with that also?
    • We agree with the bill in the sense that this bill will create the regulatory certainty that our businesses need, don’t have enough expertise to speak on that aspect
  • Anchía – Are you in favor of more lawsuits against municipalities and the waiver of those lawsuits?
    • I’m in favor of the tools we need to protect our business in the state of Texas
  • Anchía – How does your organization decide to weigh in a decision?
    • We have a board of directors and we set a slate of policies, this is an easy one, it is more difficult to operate a business when there are more rules
  • Anchía – Do you agree that this is not already a great state to do business?
    • It is, but there are a lot of different minds that want to impose different regulatory regimes
  • Anchía – If this bill resulted in the end of nondiscrimination ordinances going away at the local level would it be a good result?
    • It won’t
  • Anchía – Let’s assume that it does and goes away do you think it’s a good or bad result?
    • It won’t
  • Anchía – So TAB is supportive of those ordinances?
    • We would support those staying in place

 

Ben Brenneman, Texas Association of Building Trades Unions – Against

  • Author said bill does not affect locality’s ability to deal with crisis, believe it does
  • At the beginning of the pandemic unions, city and counties came up with rules to keep workers safe; this bill prevents the local ordinance

 

Colleen Petty, City of Houston – Against

  • Bill is bad for Texas business, business hate uncertainty, this bill creates that
  • Courts ruled that state law can only preempt local law if it’s done with unmistakable clarity
  • CS ensures the uncertainty is going to continue for as long as possible
  • By attempting to create the only one size bill it will stifle innovations
  • Bill creates more uncertainty because the state is not prepared to take over these items
  • Thompson – Could you give us the case law that you referred to?
    • Yes, the city of Laredo case, the bag ban
  • Thompson – Would you give a snippet of what those cases were about?
    • One case there was two competing revenue caps, and one preempts the other
  • Thompson – if this bill was passed would it impact collective bargaining agreements?
    • I can’t tell you, it’s too complicated

 

Chris Mayberry, Airlines for America – For

  • Airlines support bill because it would prevent local governments from regulating the relationships between airlines and employees
  • It is extremely difficult to comply with so many different laws at a single airport
  • Airlines are affected because of the highly mobile workforce
  • Gave example of flight attendants that fly to Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas that each passed different sick leave

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – Against

  • Bill undoes 100 years of what the state and city has done for years
  • Within Ag code there are examples of local ordinance code, if this law is passed will create confusion around it
  • Think it would be a radical change and not good policy
  • Thompson – Think cities should have a say in the placement of concrete batching plants?
    • Yes absolutely

 

Richard Ales, Self – Against

  • Concerned over the unintended consequences of this bill and the difficulty to predict the ordinances that will be nullified with the passing of this bill
  • The bill will take power away from Texas citizens and taxpayers and hand it to corporations, corporations that will be out of state and will benefit from this bill

 

Anthony Stergio, Andrews Myers Construction Law Firm – For

  • Have been dealing with municipalities that pass different paid time off bill
  • Bill creates a singular rule at a state level with regard to wages and benefits
  • Thompson – If this bill passes, can protect us from those that don’t play by the rules?
    • Absolutely we will
  • Turner – You referred to paid time off ordinances what is that?
    • Its paid sick leave
  • Turner – We have heard from those cities that those ordinances never came into effect, correct?
    • Correct, we were dealing with preemptively
  • Turner – You would agree its not an issue anymore?
    • That’s correct

 

Joseph Bowie, Beard Integrated Systems – Against

  • Work across the state of Texas, bill would do away with local training and safety requirements we work in

 

Louis Figueroa, Every Texan – Against

  • Think the bill is a step backwards in terms of local democracy
  • Believe it is an attack on workers, had heard this would impact rest breaks, all things that make it safer and more equitable
  • Believe its an attack on safety, believe this will affect many safety provisions
  • Dean – Have y’all gone through all the different things in the bill that this would affect?
    • We did, we still have partners that are going through it because of the complexity of what codes it could affect

 

Stephen Scurlock, Independent Bankers Association of Texas – For

  • Banking business is unique and operates under federal and state requirements
  • Community banks have more than enough regulatory environments as it is
  • Spiller – Earlier we heard this would be terrible for business, would you agree with this?
    • Our lane is banking, if we know what we’re dealing with it makes it easier

 

Abigail Milam, Self – Against

  • Taxpayers have the right to say where their regulations go
  • How is this not the state of Texas overstepping their boundaries
  • Believes this law is prioritizing profits over people
  • Bill takes one size fits all approach, when no one city is the same

 

Alex Eagle, Freebirds World Burrito – For

  • Regulatory consistency is easier for business to deal with
  • To avoid the challenge of different operating standards, we created rules and systems that affect all; meant that municipal regulations extend outside their jurisdiction

 

Sam Benavides, Mano Amiga – Against

  • Regarding the plastic bag ban in Laredo, neighbors ended up bring their own bags to the grocery store and provided benefits to the environment
  • Bill would prohibit local lawmakers from passing laws that benefit their communities
  • Believes this bill is a counter to organizations like Mano Amiga that help their neighbors
  • Raymond – Your families can still use their own bags when they go to HEB
    • That’s great, and there are still plastic bags that are ending up in the river

 

Tom Kenney, WFK Restaurant Group – For

  • One man show for the company, does everything, deal with changes like this every day
  • Having laws that are consistent help make businesses run easier
  • How do we operate in different environments where there are different rules and regulations in each city
  • Turner – You mentioned one ordinance that requires you to keep doors open?
    • It’s in Austin not sure where else
  • Turner – Are there other laws you have to run into that have caused you problems in your business?
    • Multiple laws can’t pull one off the top of my head
  • Turner – I’m just wondering what the specifics you run into are?
    • Well for paid time off, if I hired a high school kid after 60 hours of work they could get time off
  • Turner – You would agree that laws not gone into effect, correct?
    • Yes thankfully
  • Turner – I’m just wondering what the specifics your business runs into?
    • Restrictive scheduling and predictive scheduling
  • Turner – Have you run into that in your business?
    • Well, we haven’t run into yet as a law
  • Turner – So you have not directly experienced that yet in Texas?
    • No sir

 

Jenny Andrews, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – Against

  • Most concerned with payday lending ordinances
  • Recognize the interest in protecting Texans, TCCB has worked in partnership with local official to curb the practice of pay day lending
  • When left unchecked this industry is known to pray on the poor
  • Passage of this bill would undermine TCCBs paid day lending work
  • Dean – You mentioned something about pay day lending, if someone borrows $500 it cost them $1-2K to pay it back, did I hear that correctly?
    • $1-3K, your statement would also be true
  • Dean – Even with cities that have ordinances around pay day loans, don’t you think they would pay a that amount on a small loan?
    • Those are where ordinances are not in place and those are the unrestricted rates
  • Dean – Does the TCCB help with this without expecting to be repaid?
    • Certainly, we do a lot of charitable work if without the expectation to be repaid, but we could do more charitable work if we did not have to pay these exorbitant rates
  • Dean – So y’all pay off those pay day lending loans in cities that don’t have ordinances?
    • Yes, in some cases or we work with other charities
  • Dean – Desperate people do desperate things, if they don’t get the money from you, they’re going to find the money to get it elsewhere at much higher or more exorbitant rates.
    • Desperate people do desperate things and it’s our duty to make sure they’re not preyed upon
  • Dean – We’ve heard multiples times that the finance portion goes back to pay day lending, I don’t see any evidence where that is an actuality?
    • As long as the finance portion of the bill is the way it is, we cannot be certain that it will not preempt our hard-fought wins in this area
  • Turner – TCCB has worked with other agencies across the state to enact pay day lending ordinances, correct?
    • Correct
  • Turner – That’s was done because there was a lack of action by the legislature?
    • Correct
  • Turner – Local community organizations recognize that this is an insidious problem across communities, correct?
    • Yes
  • Turner – We heard that $18B of Texans money has been wasted on pay day title loans; so, 49 cities across the state have adopted ordinances to protect people from this?
    • That is accurate
  • Turner – Charitable organizations have basically subsidized the pay day lending industry as Against to helping people get back on their feet
    • Correct
  • Turner – Your concern is if this passes it will preempt the ordinances across the state and lead to more predatory lending?
    • Correct

 

Rod Bordelon, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Support the consistency aspect of the bill, regulation should fair transparent and consistent
  • Think this bill does a good job identifying the codes that are at issue
  • Think the CS makes it clearer, in a sense it is saying that local ordinance cannot ordinate something that is already in that code
  • Dean – Did we not pass rules or regulation by the states regarding pay day lending?
    • I understand there are some state laws with finance in general that would apply to pay day specifically
  • Dean – If there is already law on the books that are already in place, and cities put in their own pay day ordinances, they would have been nullified at that point in time correct?
    • If they were in conflict with state law, they would have

 

John Litzler, Texas Baptists – Against

  • Concerned with the pay day leading ordinances; think this makes a good example of how broad this bill
  • 393 does not tell pay day lenders how much interest or fees they can charge, that’s why these local ordinances have been held in compliance and not preempted by state law
  • Concerned bill would preempt all the hard work pastors and churches have done

 

Elle Cross, Mono Amiga – Against

  • Ordinances adopted with super majority will become void with the passage of this bill
  • This bill silences the voice of the people; ordinances are the best support for communities and should not be told by the state what their need are

 

Robert Mayfield, Dairy Queen – For

  • Small business need protection from the cities provided by the state
  • Would appreciate the states help on this
  • Anchía – Do you offer paid sick leave, and do your peers?
    • I don’t know if they do, but we don’t have a formal thing
  • Anchía – You don’t dock people pay if their sick
    • That’s correct

 

Andrew Maglich, Mono Amiga

  • Bill would destroy the democratic process at the local level
  • Texas remains one of the few states that does not mandate water breaks for construction workers, bill would remove the basic steps to protect its workers

 

Amos Humphries, Park Lake Drive Baptist Church – Against

  • Several members of church are in debt because of pay day loans
  • Please don’t make it harder for churches to work with city governances
  • Raymond – if you were convinced that this bill does not affect pay day lending would you support it?
    • If I was convinced without a shadow of a doubt then I would support it

 

Daniela Hernandez, Workers Defense – Against

  • Bill will harm workers, shared testimony from one of their members

 

Annie Spilman, NFIB Texas – For

  • Have worked on this bill for 5 years
  • Many ordinances that we have seen have mini subpoena ordinances
  • The sick leave ordinances are not in effect because we have fought it at the courts
  • Cities have spent weeks trying to figure out what this bill does and who it affects; small business owners have no lawyers and have to figure out what the different ordinances are
  • Turner – you still think this legislation is necessary because of the paid leave ordinance even though it’s not going into effect?
    • No, cities have begun to do things like fair wage ordinances among others
  • Turner – one of the problems they had with things like paid sick leave was the different ordinances, would your origination support a statewide paid sick leave law?
    • Typically, we don’t support statewide mandates for employers
  • Turner – So you just don’t support paid sick leave?
    • We totally support paid sick leave, we don’t support the government mandating what we need to do
  • Turner – In reality this is a fundamental disagreement with a government telling you to mandate paid sick leave?
    • My organization supports the small business that want have control over what they’re doing in their private businesses
  • Thompson – What I’m hearing through your testimony is that you don’t want government dictating to y’all?
    • There should be safety laws in place, but when it comes to a relationship with an employer or employees they should not

 

David Chincanchan, Workers Defense – Against

  • Bill is an over reaching and deviating bill that hard to measure the harm it will cause across cities in Texas
  • We don’t know how it will affect the different cities, but we do now the way that it will punish Texas workers; Texas is the only state in the nation that does not guarantee workers compensation
  • Bill strips away the hard-earned rights from the hands of workers and working with local leaders to provide what‘s best for their fellow workers

 

Tim Morstad, AARP Texas – Against

  • Concern about how this bill would harm older Texans by undoing ordinances that protect them from abusive loans across the state
  • Burrows said this might not even be an issue, but I would ask that you take a laser focus approached and make sure it’s true that 95% of ordinances would not be affected
  • Raymond – So you support it if pay day loans are not affected?
    • We would withdraw our opposition if it was removed
  • Thompson – So if mandatory water breaks were taken away you would still support it even if the pay day pat was changed?
    • It would be something that I would like to look at

 

Lauren Johnson, ACLU – Against

  • Freedom and liberty should be prioritized for individuals not business
  • Changes to litigation is a worry that this is going to open the flood gates
  • Worried this will affect the fair chance hiring ordinance in the city of Austin
  • Agree that we should deal with these issues one by one
  • Concerned with the CS usurping local control especially with discrimination orders

 

Bennet Sandlin, Texas Municipal League – Against

  • Thank the chairman burrows for working with us
  • Still Against to the bill for the concept of super preemption bills
  • HB 40 last session was a good bill because it was clear and concise and hasn’t had any lawsuits since it was passed
  • Thompson – Would you explain super preemption?
    • It’s a new trend where you don’t say in the bill what you’re preempting but instated you reference a concept, in this case its 8 different state codes
  • Thompson – If a city said you had an ordinance, that says you can’t have chicken in the city limits, and this bill passes, is this ordinance out the window?
    • The answer is maybe, that’s the problem with this bill it’s just too broad

 

Mark Roach, Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas – For

  • Believe this bill will address the hodgepodge of legislation passed by different municipalities across the state of Texas
  • One of their members works in public education, the practice for each jurisdiction varies and the cost goes to the tax payers
  • Companies have to take on cost of carry because they have to hire different consultants for each jurisdiction
  • Does not promote a business-friendly environment
  • Turner – In terms of existing policy for water breaks, what do you and your members find to be problematic?
    • We are already required by OSHA to give mandatory water breaks, the policies at the municipal level take it to another level
  • Turner – Can you describe the frequency of the break that is required?
    • OSHA does not give the specifics of when a person has to take their break
  • Turner – Would you agree that’s probably the reason for the ordinance?
    • Yes sir
  • Turner – So your organization Against rest breaks?
    • No, I don’t want you to misconstrue
  • Turner – So when Dallas passes an ordinance making water breaks mandatory you support those polices?
    • No sir, not when it comes from municipalities
  • Turner – So you would support a state law?
    • Yes, consistently across the state
  • Turner – You would agree in Texas, heat is a related concern across the state?
    • Yes

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against

  • Agree with the concerns about the super preemption approach
  • Gave handout with specific area of laws that organization has issue with
  • Private right of action is concerning, especially given vagueness of the legislation

 

Adam Haynes, Conference of Urban Counties – Against

  • Concerned about the venue, narrowing it down from statewide to county
  • Other concern is the indemnity waiver because they carry insurance for public officials

 

Molly Cook, Self – Against

  • Nurses have compact licensure, think that this policy is to sweep
  • Cities are a form of innovation, using ordinances on the city level allows other cities to not have to enact the exact same laws
  • Think there is a problem that needs to be addressed but don’t believe this bill is the way to do it

 

Kelsey Erickson Streufert, Texas Restaurant Association – For

  • This ordinance is not about stopping local ordinances from governing local concerns
  • Bill is not about stopping local mandates; we are not against all employment mandates but think we should have consistency
  • Lack of consistency does create real cost for our members

 

David Stout, County Commissioner El Paso – Against

  • Local elected leaders have to be innovative problem solvers, solutions to these issues have to look different from city to city
  • Bill is an aggressive attempt to strip local municipalities of their legislative powers
  • The use of governmental immunity as a defense is the most used defense for our county, would cost more money to provide litigation
  • Venue language of the bill is too vague
  • Spiller – Do you know of any existing ordinances of orders that would be adversely affected by this bill?
    • It’s very vague and wide and difficult to understand at this time for counties
  • Spiller – Do you know of any existing ordinances in El paso counties that would be affected?
    • I do not at this time

 

Rep. Burrows – Closes

  • When the bill started the only concern was pawn shops, now people are saying just the opposite of what we discussed in the meeting
  • Turner you talk about fireworks, alarm systems, and other examples; believe some of the people in this room who want to deceive and delay this bill
  • Previously met with group of city of attorneys, but they here we are today slowing things down
  • El Paso has an ordinance that by 2035 will require 80% of homes/business to use clean energy and 100% by 2045
  • The idea that a city will close 60% of its business through an ordnance is becoming too much
  • Smithee – Good point, most of the testimony in opposition has been theoretical; haven’t heard a lot of talk about what those ordinances are
    • It’s hard to sit and watch a bill that you care a lot about and hear some of the things you thought fixed in a meeting come undone
  • Thompson – If a case is taken to court, to challenge this bill and an ordinance of the city, is the court supposed to harmonize this?
    • Absolutely; preemption and preemption litigation do exist under statute; created a different standalone cause of action to codify the need for waiver of sovereign immunity
  • Thompson – Who does the plaintiff sue?
    • They would sue the city or the person in their official capacity not in their individual capacity, no individual elected representative would be liable for attorney’s fees in this
  • Thompson – How long have you been working on this?
    • I have been thinking about this problem for a significant period of time; took time to figure out the way to approach this
  • Thompson – Legal immunity was brought up today, if your bill passes what happens to that?
    • Allows the plaintiff to not get kicked out of court for filing a declaratory judgment action against municipalities and counties who enjoy sovereign immunity
  • Thompson – The issues of collective bargaining came up; would this bill impact those kind of bargaining agreements?
    • No, the freedom of contract still exists; I don’t think it has to be spilled out in the bill that it doesn’t
  • Turner – Would you be amenable, for some of the examples we went through like alarms or fireworks, to stating clearly in the bill this section does not affect a city ordinance governing firework?
    • Referencing the general laws in the CS with the savings clause that does it; if there is a more specific way to make sure that’s in there I’m happy to do that
    • Not sure if need to articulate out each one; the provision already granted under local government code
    • Savings clause in the CS is to address those concerns
  • Turner – If there was legitimate concern there is still some ambiguity, you’d be open to that?
    • Legitimate is the key word
  • Turner – It seems like there is 3 central buckets of concern about the bill, cities and local government, groups that are involved in pay day lending practices, and third groups that are advocating for workers; would you be willing to have discussion with the latter two groups?
    • Sure, my door is always open
  • Thompson – Does Ch 15 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code provide for general venue rules under your bill?
    • No, allowed for contiguous counties in the aggrieved place to have an additional venue
  • Thompson – Bill provides a mandatory venue for cases involving suits against governmental entities?
    • That is correct
  • Thompson – Does it provide mandatory venue rules for suits seeking injunctive release?
    • Have created my own venue provisions for this particular action that would be different that the general venue provisions because we have contiguous counties available to the agreed party
    • Would be different than any of the mandatory permissive venue statutes in the civil practice and remedies code
  • Thompson – Ch 22 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code limits the state courts subpoena power to 150 miles from the county in which the suit?
    • I don’t think my bill addresses or touches that
  • Thompson – Could a witness ignore a subpoena issued by a county court over 150 miles away under your bill?
    • That would still be under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code
  • Thompson – Does a county court have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief over a city or a person not located within their county?
    • I’ll have to take a look at that
  • Anchía – Can you walk me through how the savings clause works?
    • All of the codes talked about, like drought or water, cities have the authority
    • This would make sure they actually have that, this would be the controlling language as it applies to those individual codes I articulated
  • Anchía – A general law city would provide a base line of authority in order to protect the health and welfare of their constituency?
    • Yes, general law cities are able and do effectively acquit themselves of providing that
  • Anchía – So they fall under this general law basket?
    • Correct
  • Anchía – So this clause says that if you fall into the general law basket then your held harmless, your saved?
    • That’s correct, saving clause; no matter what, you can still do all the different things people were saying are being taken away from them
  • Anchía – A home rule city is different from a general law city; saying in this bill is that only in this band of extra stuff that would you be preempted?
    • Anything over and above that’s going to deal with something the state regulates, then we are going to do this; it does shift the burden of proof, but not everything, only when the state has decided to regulate the field
  • Anchía – That applies retrospectively, and can change over time?
    • Yes
  • Anchía – Because cities and counties that compete against each other, can you think of some examples of how this bill could be used offensively between counites are cities that compete?
    • Happy to have that conversation, the only thing that was asked was related to the paid sick leave being overtured
  • Hunter – Members if you have problems, you should be talking with the author, don’t use this as a delay; get the information in if it’s a real concern

 

HB 2127 is left pending