about_text

HOT TOPICS - CITY PROPOSALS

During the 80th Session of the Texas Legislature, Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and Chairman Mike Krusee (R-Taylor) introduced companion bills on behalf of the city of Austin to optimize development along SH 130 and maximize this economic development opportunity. SB 1688 advanced through the Senate, passing from that Chamber on April 18. Unfortunately, the bill faltered in the House. It was posted for full House consideration on May 22, but the deadline for consideration of Senate bills on 2nd reading passed before the bill was reached for consideration.

The intent of the bill was described as providing some level of certainty on the quality of development that will grow along SH 130 and provide money to finance it. Senator Watson said the bill was "designed to make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and to avoid mistakes that could haunt future generations."

The last version of SB 1688 is the version that passed the House Transportation Committee on May 8, 2007. You may click on the following links for a summary of the House Transportation Committee- passed bill and the proposed timeline for implementation had the bill passed .

The key provisions of the House Transportation Committee-passed bill were:

Reduced the size of the corridor from 5 miles on each side of SH 130, to two miles to the east of SH 130 and five miles to the west of SH 130 or up to the Austin city limits on the west. To clarify that the bill is limited to the SH 130 corridor, "controlled access highway" is changed to "toll project" throughout the bill.
Clarified that the district's territory does not extend Austin's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
Removed automatic limited-purpose annexation and the 15-year deadline for full-purpose annexation. Instead, Austin's planning authority would be imposed in the area bounded by and included within the area located within 1,250 feet on each side of SH 130 (such area, the "transportation infrastructure impact zone") upon district creation.
Established a governing board to consist of:
(1) seven members of the Austin City Council, with the Mayor voting only in cases of a tie;
(2) two RECA-recommended appointees with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year; chosen by the Austin City Council from a list of at least six names submitted by RECA;
(3) two HBA-recommended appointees with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year; chosen by the Austin City Council from a list of at least six names submitted by HBA; and
(4) two persons, who are residents of or property owners of property in the district, with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year, and who are appointed by the principal municipality's governing body after reviewing letters of interest submitted by district residents.
Clarified the conflict of interest language to ensure that board members are not unnecessarily conflicted out if other provisions of Texas law apply to the board.
Established an Advisory Committee (like ZAP or PC) to recommend the initial land use plan to the board and to perform other duties. The Advisory Committee includes the two appointees from RECA, two appointees from HBA and two other public board directors (not city council members), plus other persons, 75% of which must be owners of property in the district. The committee size will be determined by the district board just as with the bond committee.
Established a Bond Committee to consider and propose a bond program or capital improvement program (CIP). The Bond Committee includes the two appointees from RECA, two appointees from HBA and two other public directors (not city council members), plus other persons appointed by the district board of directors, 75% of which must be owners of property in the district.
Added language that requires a vote of district voters, i.e., residents, not property owners, on its CIP or bond program prior to imposition of the city of Austin's zoning authority or imposition of ad valorem taxes. Also, the election must be requested by non-resident land owners holding 50 percent in a district.
To assure that the CIP and bond program are adopted in a timely fashion, required the board to

publish a land use plan no later than the 2nd anniversary of the district's creation based on a proposal submitted by the Advisory Committee,
approve a bond program or a capital improvement program no later than the 3rd anniversary following the district's creation and
hold an election in the district on a single question of (1) the implementation of the bond or capital improvement program and (2) the application of Austin's planning and zoning ordinances no later than one year after the adoption by the board of the bond or capital improvement program.

If a majority of voters approve, the board will implement the bond or capital improvement program not later than the 1st anniversary of the election date.
If not, the board may call subsequent elections.
If the bond/CIP vote is not approved during any election prior to the 6th anniversary of the district's creation, then the district is automatically dissolved.

Assessment fee language was added back, but a special assessment district would only be created upon petition of owners of 100% of the assessed value of the property in the district.
To incentivize expedited, quality development in the SH 130 corridor, added language to allow the City of Austin to reimburse a developer for extensions to the principal municipality's water and wastewater system within the transportation infrastructure services district on the same terms it reimburses for those extensions outside the district (in similarly situated areas – i.e., the Desired Development Zone).
To make the language clearer and to ensure that city regulations and processes in the transportation infrastructure services district are the same as in the city, clarified that Austin's land development code is the land development code used in the district.
Specified that the city must assume district debt upon annexation, in part or in entirety. If there is a partial annexation, debt is assumed on a pro rata basis tied to the value of the land annexed under a valuation agreement between the city and the governing board that must be approved by two-thirds of the board. Specifies that the city must assume district debt upon dissolution. To further clarify that the transportation infrastructure services district's sales and ad valorem taxes will be discontinued upon partial or full annexation by the city of Austin, adds a new section to specifically state there is no intent for double taxation.
Clarified that district revenues will be maintained in a segregated fund used only for district purposes.
Clarified that the district does not "unwind" CCNs.
Clarified that Austin's water and wastewater charges will be the same for the district.
Clarified that the district's ad valorem tax does not eliminate the agricultural use or other property tax exemptions available to an owner.
The district would not include homesteads unless the owner requests in writing to be included, and would not include an area described on a plat approved by the appropriate governmental entity on or before April 1, 2007 unless the owner consents in writing
Protected existing, non-conforming uses.
Clarified that there may be one or more districts in the SH 130 corridor.

© 2007 Real Estate Council of Austin, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Back to Top

HOT TOPICS - CITY PROPOSALS
During the 80th Session of the Texas Legislature, Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and Chairman Mike Krusee (R-Taylor) introduced companion bills on behalf of the city of Austin to optimize development along SH 130 and maximize this economic development opportunity. SB 1688 advanced through the Senate, passing from that Chamber on April 18. Unfortunately, the bill faltered in the House. It was posted for full House consideration on May 22, but the deadline for consideration of Senate bills on 2nd reading passed before the bill was reached for consideration. The intent of the bill was described as providing some level of certainty on the quality of development that will grow along SH 130 and provide money to finance it. Senator Watson said the bill was "designed to make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and to avoid mistakes that could haunt future generations." The last version of SB 1688 is the version that passed the House Transportation Committee on May 8, 2007. You may click on the following links for a summary of the House Transportation Committee- passed bill and the proposed timeline for implementation had the bill passed . The key provisions of the House Transportation Committee-passed bill were: Reduced the size of the corridor from 5 miles on each side of SH 130, to two miles to the east of SH 130 and five miles to the west of SH 130 or up to the Austin city limits on the west. To clarify that the bill is limited to the SH 130 corridor, "controlled access highway" is changed to "toll project" throughout the bill. Clarified that the district's territory does not extend Austin's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Removed automatic limited-purpose annexation and the 15-year deadline for full-purpose annexation. Instead, Austin's planning authority would be imposed in the area bounded by and included within the area located within 1,250 feet on each side of SH 130 (such area, the "transportation infrastructure impact zone") upon district creation. Established a governing board to consist of: (1) seven members of the Austin City Council, with the Mayor voting only in cases of a tie; (2) two RECA-recommended appointees with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year; chosen by the Austin City Council from a list of at least six names submitted by RECA; (3) two HBA-recommended appointees with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year; chosen by the Austin City Council from a list of at least six names submitted by HBA; and (4) two persons, who are residents of or property owners of property in the district, with two-year terms and compensation not to exceed $7,200 per year, and who are appointed by the principal municipality's governing body after reviewing letters of interest submitted by district residents. Clarified the conflict of interest language to ensure that board members are not unnecessarily conflicted out if other provisions of Texas law apply to the board. Established an Advisory Committee (like ZAP or PC) to recommend the initial land use plan to the board and to perform other duties. The Advisory Committee includes the two appointees from RECA, two appointees from HBA and two other public board directors (not city council members), plus other persons, 75% of which must be owners of property in the district. The committee size will be determined by the district board just as with the bond committee. Established a Bond Committee to consider and propose a bond program or capital improvement program (CIP). The Bond Committee includes the two appointees from RECA, two appointees from HBA and two other public directors (not city council members), plus other persons appointed by the district board of directors, 75% of which must be owners of property in the district. Added language that requires a vote of district voters, i.e., residents, not property owners, on its CIP or bond program prior to imposition of the city of Austin's zoning authority or imposition of ad valorem taxes. Also, the election must be requested by non-resident land owners holding 50 percent in a district. To assure that the CIP and bond program are adopted in a timely fashion, required the board to publish a land use plan no later than the 2nd anniversary of the district's creation based on a proposal submitted by the Advisory Committee, approve a bond program or a capital improvement program no later than the 3rd anniversary following the district's creation and hold an election in the district on a single question of (1) the implementation of the bond or capital improvement program and (2) the application of Austin's planning and zoning ordinances no later than one year after the adoption by the board of the bond or capital improvement program. If a majority of voters approve, the board will implement the bond or capital improvement program not later than the 1st anniversary of the election date. If not, the board may call subsequent elections. If the bond/CIP vote is not approved during any election prior to the 6th anniversary of the district's creation, then the district is automatically dissolved. Assessment fee language was added back, but a special assessment district would only be created upon petition of owners of 100% of the assessed value of the property in the district. To incentivize expedited, quality development in the SH 130 corridor, added language to allow the City of Austin to reimburse a developer for extensions to the principal municipality's water and wastewater system within the transportation infrastructure services district on the same terms it reimburses for those extensions outside the district (in similarly situated areas – i.e., the Desired Development Zone). To make the language clearer and to ensure that city regulations and processes in the transportation infrastructure services district are the same as in the city, clarified that Austin's land development code is the land development code used in the district. Specified that the city must assume district debt upon annexation, in part or in entirety. If there is a partial annexation, debt is assumed on a pro rata basis tied to the value of the land annexed under a valuation agreement between the city and the governing board that must be approved by two-thirds of the board. Specifies that the city must assume district debt upon dissolution. To further clarify that the transportation infrastructure services district's sales and ad valorem taxes will be discontinued upon partial or full annexation by the city of Austin, adds a new section to specifically state there is no intent for double taxation. Clarified that district revenues will be maintained in a segregated fund used only for district purposes. Clarified that the district does not "unwind" CCNs. Clarified that Austin's water and wastewater charges will be the same for the district. Clarified that the district's ad valorem tax does not eliminate the agricultural use or other property tax exemptions available to an owner. The district would not include homesteads unless the owner requests in writing to be included, and would not include an area described on a plat approved by the appropriate governmental entity on or before April 1, 2007 unless the owner consents in writing Protected existing, non-conforming uses. Clarified that there may be one or more districts in the SH 130 corridor.

© 2007 Real Estate Council of Austin, Inc. All Rights Reserved.	Back to Top