Latest news with #TexasLocalGovernmentCode
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Frisco voters reject $160M performing arts center bond
The Brief Frisco residents voted against a $160 million bond for a new performing arts center. Frisco residents also voted against using sales tax revenue for the project. FRISCO - Frisco residents voted against a $160 million bond for a new performing arts center. In addition to the bond, the city also asked voters to authorize the Frisco Economic Development Corporation to use sales tax revenue on the project. That proposition also failed. The city has been working on plans for a performing arts center for several years, but past projects have all fallen through. The $340-million project called for a 2,800-seat large hall for Broadway shows, concerts, and larger events, as well as a 300-400-seat community hall for local and regional performances. An additional $100 million in funding would have come from a partnership with Prosper ISD. Private and corporate donations would have also contributed to the funding of the center. City of Frisco Proposition AThe Frisco Economic Development Corporation is authorized to use proceeds of its sales and use tax, including all amounts previously authorized and collected, for projects related to the proposed center for the arts project, including but not limited to, land, buildings, equipment, facilities and improvements found by the Frisco Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors to be required or suitable for use for the proposed Center for the Arts Project in accordance with section 505.152 of the Texas Local Government Code. FOR 40.59% AGAINST 59.41% City of Frisco Proposition BThe issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $160,000,000 for a City-owned Center for the Arts Project, and levying taxes sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds. FOR 33.34% AGAINST 64.66% City of Frisco Proposition CShall Section 3.02 (Limitations on Terms) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to state that no person shall serve as a Councilmember and Mayor (combined) for more than six consecutive elected terms rather than 18 consecutive years? FOR 76% AGAINST 24% City of Frisco Proposition DShall Section 3.04 (Compensation) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to increase the amount of compensation for the Mayor and each Councilmember and to provide for annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)? FOR 36% AGAINST 64% City of Frisco Proposition EShall Section 3.06 (Vacancies, Forfeiture and Filling of Vacancies) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to grant authority to the City Council to fill a vacated office on the City Council by appointment if the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacated office is 12 months or less, as permitted under Article XI, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution? FOR 53% AGAINST 47% City of Frisco Proposition FShall Section 3.09 (Meetings of the City Council) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to grant authority for the City Council to hold only one regular monthly meeting in up to four months, rather than two months, out of the calendar year? FOR 50.5% AGAINST 49.5% City of Frisco Proposition GShall Section 5.01 (City Elections) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to conform to state law the process for ordering a special election? FOR 72% AGAINST 28% City of Frisco Proposition HShall Section 6.05 (Presentation of Petition to the City Council) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to clarify the scope of the City Secretary's review of petitions? FOR 73% AGAINST 27% City of Frisco Proposition IShall Section 6.12 (General Power of Initiative and Referendum) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to remove from the scope of the powers of initiative and referendum ordinances or resolutions relating to the Comprehensive Plan, amendments of the Zoning Ordinance, use of the power of eminent domain or other ordinances or resolutions not subject to initiative or referendum as provided by state law, and reorganizing existing language relating thereto? FOR 51.75% AGAINST 48.25% City of Frisco Proposition JShall Section 6.13 (Initiative) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to clarify the scope of the City Secretary's review of initiative petitions, clarify initiative petition requirements and remove the requirement for review by the City Attorney? FOR 47.54% AGAINST 52.46% City of Frisco Proposition KShall Section 6.14 (Referendum) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to clarify the scope of the City Secretary's review of referendum petitions? FOR 69.35% AGAINST 30.65% City of Frisco Proposition LShall Section 7.18 (Independent Audit) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to remove the requirement for publication of a summary of each independent audit in the City's official newspaper and instead require publication of the summary on the City website, or by such other means as may be allowed by state law? FOR 59% AGAINST 41% City of Frisco Proposition MShall Section 14.08 (Conflict of Interest) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to clarify the standard for determining when a City officer or employee has a conflict of interest by referencing state law? FOR 78% AGAINST 22% City of Frisco Proposition NShall Section 14.09 (No Officer to Accept Gifts, Etc.) of the Frisco Home Rule Charter be amended to conform to state law the prohibitions and requirements applicable to a City official's acceptance, agreement to accept or solicitation of gifts and other benefits and the disclosure thereof? FOR 74% AGAINST 26% The Source Information in this article comes from Collin County election officials.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Starbase incorporation vote nears; company cites growth for Starship development
Apr. 29—Once the results of the May 3 election are counted, canvassed and ratified by Cameron County, it's very likely Starbase, Texas, will be the state's newest municipality. In December, county Judge Eddie Trevino Jr. received a petition from more than 10% of the several hundred eligible voters who are residents of Starbase — SpaceX's name for its Starship/Super Heavy construction and testing complex centered around the currently unincorporated Boca Chica Village — requesting that an incorporation election be called. Since the petition met the requirements set forth by the Texas Local Government Code, Trevino was required by law to call an election, which he scheduled for May 3 to coincide with the statewide Uniform Election. Assuming Starbase voters approve the ballot question, Starbase will be incorporated as a Type C general law municipality, or one with more than 201 but fewer than 4,999 residents. According to Trevino, the last new municipality to be incorporated in Cameron County was Los Indios, in 1995. According to the petition, the territory of the proposed municipality consists of approximately 1.45 square miles. According to state law, a proposed municipality of fewer than 2,000 residents cannot incorporate if the surface area exceeds 2 square miles. Starbase has been recognized as a "distinct area within Cameron County" according to resolutions approved by the county commissioners court and Brownsville City Commission. The December petition was signed by Gunnar Milburn, senior security manager at Starbase and then sole candidate for mayor, though the new sole mayoral candidate is Bobby Peden, vice president of SpaceX Texas test and launch operations, whose name appears on the May 3 ballot. The petition was also signed by Jordan Buss and Jenna Petrzelka, whose names appear on the ballot as Starbase city commission candidates. Buss's ballot application form lists his occupation as environmental health and safety director, while Petrzelka's application form lists her occupation as "philanthropist." In a cover letter to the petition, Starbase General Manager Kathryn Lueders wrote that SpaceX hoped to incorporate Starbase in order to keep growing it, and by extension "continue growing the workforce necessary to rapidly develop and manufacture Starship." Incorporation would streamline the building of "amenities necessary to make the area a world-class place to live" for current resident/employees and those to come, she said. "As you know, through agreements with the County, SpaceX currently performs several civil functions around Starbase due to its remote location, including management of the roads, utilities, and the provision of schooling and medical care for the residents," Lueders wrote. "Incorporation would move the management of some of these functions to a more appropriate public body." SpaceX's last two suborbital test flights (Flights 7 and 8) from Boca Chica/Starbase, on Jan. 16 and March 6, ended with the loss of the Starship test vehicles over the Caribbean. No date has been announced for Flight 9. Featured Local Savings
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SpaceX legislation dies: Would have removed county's authority on closures
Apr. 28—Proposed legislation that would have given SpaceX control over closures of Boca Chica Beach and S.H. 4 has died in the Texas Legislature. The development follows weeks of strident opposition by groups such as the Surfrider Foundation and Texas Sierra Club, joined by the city of Port Isabel, which passed a resolution opposing S.B. 2881 from Sen. Adam Hinojosa (R-Corpus Christi) and H.B. 4660 from Rep. Janie Lopez (R-San Benito), which would have effectively removed Cameron County's authority over beach and road closures on weekdays through noon on Fridays. Authority over closures after noon on Fridays and during weekends would have remained with the county. According to the South Texas Environmental Justice Network (STEJN), about 500 letters opposing the bills were sent to state representatives, while protests were held outside Hinojosa's office. Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino Jr. likewise was vocal in opposing the legislation, which he said in an April 4 letter to the House State Affairs Committee "does not serve the public interest and has received an overwhelmingly negative response from our local community. "Through experience, Cameron County has shown the proper discretion and authority with respect to SpaceX, and any beach or road closures for spaceflight activities," he wrote. "These have been coordinated satisfactorily through the mutual collaboration of both parties and continue without this bill." STEJN said a celebration will be held from 4 to 7 p.m. May 3 (Election Day) in the form of the Save Boca Chica Beach community event, "where residents will gather to continue demanding access to the beach and speaking out against SpaceX's plans to establish the company town of Starbase through an election this month." This refers to a May 3 ballot question on whether to allow SpaceX's Boca Chica community to be legally incorporated as a Type C municipality called "Starbase." SpaceX/Starbase submitted a petition to the county on Dec. 12 that satisfied the Texas Local Government Code's requirements for the calling of an election by residents to decide incorporation. A Type C municipality contains between 201 and 4,999 residents. Trevino, who by law was required to call an election to decide the question, scheduled it for May 3 as part of the Uniform Election. Only Starbase residents are allowed to vote on the matter. "The (STEJN) recently acquired, through a records request, a map of the voting district for the proposed Starbase city, which shows a crudely drawn boundary encompassing approximately 200 residents, mostly SpaceX staff, who would be eligible to vote in the May 3 election," according to STJEN. "These community organizations have also taken action to speak out against this company town election." STEJN co-founder Bekah Hinojosa issued a statement saying that the "Rio Grande Valley community successfully stopped Texas (Legislature) bills pushed by SpaceX lobbyists. Elon Musk's SpaceX company will not have control over our Boca Chica beach." "Stopping these bills should send a clear message to all public officials, (that) they are supposed to represent the people," she said. "Public and regulatory officials must listen to our concerns that the facility is harming our wildlife habitat, homes, waterways and daily lives. We strongly oppose Elon Musk's dangerous SpaceX rocket facility, his Starbase company town election, and his attempted beach takeover." ------ RELATED READING: Featured Local Savings
Associated Press
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
State appeals court strikes down Austin's marijuana decriminalization ordinance
A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday that the city of Austin cannot enforce its law that prohibits police from citing and arresting people for carrying a small amount of marijuana. This is the second time this month that the appeals court has ruled in favor of the state against ordinances that decriminalize marijuana. The state's 15th Court of Appeals overturned the decision by Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer, who had dismissed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit against Austin last year, ruling that there was no legal justification to try the case. The court determined the city law 'abused its discretion' by putting up any barrier to the full enforcement of drug-related laws. Last week, this same court overturned a lower court ruling that denied a temporary injunction to prevent the city of San Marcos from enforcing its voter-approved ordinance to decriminalize marijuana because it conflicts with current state law. 'Consistent with the City of San Marcos, we conclude that the ordinance in this case is also preempted by state law,' according to the ruling about Austin's ordinance penned by Judge Scott Field. This is another blow to the progressive drug movement that swept into various cities across the state. Austin Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes called the ruling another example of the state stepping on local decisions. 'This court ruling is a huge letdown. Austin voters made their voices loud and clear in 2022, and instead of respecting that, the State has chosen to ignore their will,' Fuentes said. The background Austin voters approved a proposition in May 2022 to allow the possession of 4 ounces or less of marijuana. Police already weren't arresting people for low-level possession, in part because it was difficult to differentiate marijuana from hemp, which was legalized in 2019. Voters in four other cities — San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton — also approved policies policies that would end arrests and citations for possession of less than four ounces of marijuana. An initiative spearheaded by Ground Game Texas — the progressive group that first launched the proposition in Austin — worked with local organizations in the other cities and succeeded in pushing for similar policies to appear on the ballots. Why Texas sued Paxton filed the suit in 2024, alleging Austin was violating state law and promoting 'the use of illicit drugs that harm our communities.' He filed similar suits against San Marcos, Killeen, Denton and Elgin, which also decriminalized pot. Paxton argues the Texas Local Government Code forbids them from adopting policies that would result in not fully enforcing drug-related laws. Paxton is seeking to repeal the city's ordinances and make them enforce state law. What has happened in the courts so far Hays County District Judge Sherri Tibbe dismissed Paxton's lawsuit, upholding the argument that the state was not injured when San Marcos reduced arrests for misdemeanor marijuana possession and that it allowed for resources to be used for higher-priority public safety needs. The Office of the Attorney General appealed this decision. In February, the case was assigned to the 15th Court of Appeals, where the state's attorneys argued that the San Marcos ordinance obstructed the enforcement of state drug laws. The city argued the policy was voter-driven, but the court disagreed, granting the temporary injunction while litigation continues. Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer dismissed Paxton's lawsuit against Austin last year, ruling there was no legal justification to try the case. Both Tibbe and Soifer's rulings have now been overturned by the 15th Court of Appeals. This puts the fate of the ordinances in doubt and some cities have already given up on trying to fight the state. Paxton's lawsuit against Elgin was resolved last summer via consent decree, meaning neither side is claiming guilt or liability but has come to an agreement. In the North Texas suburb of Denton, where voters approved decriminalization by more than 70%, the implementation of marijuana decriminalization has stalled after City Manager Sara Hensley argued it couldn't be enforced since it conflicted with state law. The case against Killeen, which was filed in Bell County a year ago, is still pending. Broader impact The future of THC products in Texas is uncertain. Currently, lawmakers are debating Senate Bill 3, which would ban any consumable hemp products that contain even trace amounts of THC, as well as House Bill 28, which would ban synthetic THC and products like gummies and vapes. The House's proposal focuses more on tightening regulatory loopholes, allowing hemp-infused beverages and assigning the alcohol industry to regulate those products. HB 28 would also limiting the consumption of such products to those 21 years or older and implement advertising regulations. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said he would move to force a special legislative session if lawmakers fail to pass the ban during the current session which ends June 2. 'Kids are getting poisoned today,' Patrick told the Senate earlier this year. Earlier this week, the Texas Senate passed Senate Bill 1870 that would ban any local entity from putting a drug decriminalization ordinance on the ballot for approval. The House will take up the bill next. ___ This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appellate court finds Austin's marijuana ordinance unlawful
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A Texas appellate court has reversed a Travis County judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the city of Austin over its marijuana decriminalization ordinance. 'We have inspected the record and find error in the order granting appellees' plea to the jurisdiction and the order denying appellant's application for temporary injunction. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion,' the ruling said. In 2022, more than 85% of Austin voters approved a proposition to decriminalize less than four ounces of the drug. 'This court ruling is a huge letdown. Austin voters made their voices loud and clear in 2022, and instead of respecting that, the State has chosen to ignore their will,' Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes said. 'Now, our police will be forced to waste time on minor marijuana cases instead of focusing on violent crimes. Once again, the State is stepping on local decisions that reflect the values Austin residents actually care about.' While this ruling opens the door for officers to resume citing people for possession, city officials say their focus remains on more serious crimes. 'Sometimes the court system, and in this case the attorney general, are not in agreement with Austin voters,' Austin City Council Member Ryan Alter said. Alter added that if the policy needs to change, Austin will comply. San Marcos got the same answer from the appellate court last Thursday. The court also issued an opinion siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, stating that San Marcos' marijuana decriminalization ordinance violates state law. In 2022, over 80% of San Marcos voters approved a proposition that ended low-level marijuana enforcement in the city. In 2024, Paxton sued San Marcos and other cities, including Austin and Killeen, over marijuana decriminalization ordinances passed around the same time or shortly after San Marcos. Appellate court finds San Marcos voter-approved marijuana ordinance unlawful 'The Texas Local Government Code prohibits the 'governing body of a municipality… municipal police department, municipal attorney, county attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney' from 'adopt[ing] a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs,'' the opinion filed in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals read. 'San Marcos, however, has passed a local ordinance prohibiting its police officers from issuing citations and making arrests for certain low-level marijuana offenses,' it continued. A Hays County district court judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024, but it is now likely to go to trial. In a statement to KXAN, the city of San Marcos confirmed it cannot enforce the marijuana ordinance 'pending a trial on the merits.' KXAN's Sam Stark contributed to this report. You can find his full report on San Marcos' ruling here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
