Texas Proposition 7, Conservation and Reclamation Districts in El Paso County Amendment (2011)

Proposition 7
Typ	Constitutional amendment
Origin	Texas Legislature
Topic	Admin of gov't
Status	Defeated d

The Texas Parks and Recreational Provision Amendment was on the November 8, 2011 general election ballot in the state of Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. d

The measure proposed "provision of parks and recreational facilities by conservation and reclamation of districts in El Paso County."

The author of the measure was Jose R. Rodriguez, and the formal title of the bill was Senate Joint Resolution 28.

Election results

See also: 2011 ballot measure election results

Texas Proposition 7
Result		Votes	Prozentualer Anteil
d No		337,766	51.69%
Yes		315,634	48.3%

Text of measure

Ballot summary

The ballot text read:

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

Constitutional changes

Proposition 7 would have amended Section 59 (c-1) of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

(c-1) In addition and only as provided by this subsection, the Legislature may authorize conservation and reclamation districts to develop and finance with taxes those types and categories of parks and recreational facilities that were not authorized by this section to be developed and financed with taxes before September 13, 2003. For development of such parks and recreational facilities, the Legislature may authorize indebtedness payable from taxes as may be necessary to provide for improvements and maintenance only for a conservation and reclamation district all or part of which is located in Bexar County, Bastrop County, Waller County, Travis County, Williamson County, Harris County, Galveston County, Brazoria County, Fort Bend County, [or] Montgomery County, or El Paso County, or for the Tarrant Regional Water District, a water control and improvement district located in whole or in part in Tarrant County. All the indebtedness may be evidenced by bonds of the conservation and reclamation district, to be issued under regulations as may be prescribed by law. The Legislature may also authorize the levy and collection within such district of all taxes, equitably distributed, as may be necessary for the payment of the interest and the creation of a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds and for maintenance of and improvements to such parks and recreational facilities. The indebtedness shall be a lien on the property assessed for the payment of the bonds. The Legislature may not authorize the issuance of bonds or provide for indebtedness under this subsection against a conservation and reclamation district unless a proposition is first submitted to the qualified voters of the district and the proposition is adopted. This subsection expands the authority of the Legislature with respect to certain conservation and reclamation districts and is not a limitation on the authority of the Legislature with respect to conservation and reclamation districts and parks and recreational facilities pursuant to this section as that authority existed before September 13, 2003.

Fiscal note

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The Texas Legislative Budget Board issued a fiscal note about SJR 28 to the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on March 28, 2011.

According to the fiscal note:

• "No fiscal implication to the State is anticipated, other than the cost of publication."
• "The cost to the state for publication of the resolution is $105,495."
• "No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated."

Support

Supporters

Administration of government on the ballot in 2011

• Bill authors: State Senator Royce West
• House sponsor: Sylvester Turner
• State Senator Jose R. Rodriguez
• El Paso County Commissioners Court
• City of El Paso

Arguments

Supporters said:

• A park system would be a great benefit to the citizens of El Paso, both in terms of improving the quality of life for current citizens and to attract and retain the type of human capital needed to fuel the economy. This amendment would be an important step in making that goal a reality.
• Passing this amendment would allow El Paso citizens to begin a conversation over creating a parks district. The amendment would not create a parks district or grant El Paso additional taxing authority; it would only place El Paso on the list of counties that could be authorized by the legislature to create a parks district.
• Nanette Smejkal, Parks and Recreation Director for the city of El Paso, said the reason behind creating a district was to create “a singular focus on parks and recreation” so parks didn't get overlooked or under-prioritized in the midst of other local government issues. Passing Proposition 7 would have allowed the creation of such a district in the future.

Donors

According to the state campaign finance database, there were no registered committees (PACs).

(last updated December 2011)

Opposition

Arguments

• While this amendment would not grant additional taxing authority, it is the first step down a path that would end up in additional taxes for the citizens of El Paso if the district is eventually passed. Given the down economy, local officials should not undertake any actions that could eventually add more tax burden on already struggling citizens.
• This amendment has been put forth as a way to start a discussion regarding developing a parks district. Amending the state's constitution before the citizens have even decided they want a parks district is putting the cart before the horse. "Discussion should precede action, not the other way around."
• We Texans, a limited-government and economic freedom advocacy organization, opposed Proposition 7. In an October 19, 2011 post they explained their reasoning: "The proposal would create yet another government entity with the power to levy a property tax. Cities and counties already have the ability to fund parks and recreational facilities and to incur debt with the approval of local citizens. Creating special purpose districts such as this one further complicates local government and hampers the ability of citizens to understand their associated tax burdens."
• Empower Texans, a limited-government advocacy organization, opposed Proposition 7. In an October 7, 2011 post they explained their reasoning: "State and local governments should be moving away from the property tax system, not looking to expand dependence on it."
• Texas Eagle Forum, a conservative and pro-family advocacy organization, opposed Proposition 7. In an October 7th, 2011 post they explained their reasoning: "This would create another opportunity to tax residents in a property poor county. Even though this must be approved by county voters, good or bad, most bond elections pass because voter turnout is so low."

Donors

According to the state campaign finance database, there were no registered committees (PACs).

(last updated December 2011)

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Texas ballot measures, 2011

Support

• The Lufkin News said, "This amendment would allow the city and the county to work together to develop their parks. As the case in the other counties already specified, voters will always have the final say. We are all for local folks making local decisions. For that reason we recommend a vote for Proposition 7."
• The San Antonio Express-News said,"Texas voters would not be creating the district by approving the amendment, but instead would be authorizing El Paso voters to create the district. El Paso voters deserve an equal opportunity to invest in their community's amenities. We encourage Texans to cast ballots for the amendment and give El Paso residents the ability to create the district if they choose."
• The Dallas Morning News said, "It’s an eccentricity of the Texas Constitution that, in many cases, voters in all 254 counties must weigh in on the apparent business of one...The amendment would not impose a new tax on El Paso County residents, only give them the ability to decide whether to impose one on themselves. "
• The Austin Chronicle said,"Why are we voting on this? This practice is already allowed in numerous (though not all) counties, and the specific enabling legislation hasn't been passed yet in this case – El Paso County will still have to work on that. One of the sillier aspects of the state constitution, but we shouldn't block for El Paso what it can determine for itself."
• The Corpus Christi Caller-Times said, "The Caller-Times Editorial Board recommends approval of all 10, and urges that all registered voters exercise their right to vote."
• The Burka Blog, written by senior editor for the Texas Monthly Paul Burka, supported Proposition 7. In an October 18, 2011 post he stated "If local voters are willing to tax themselves, that’s their business."
• The El Paso Times said, "It's important to note that passage of this proposition would not in itself raise taxes. It would merely give El Paso voters the chance to vote on a city-county taxing district, which in turn would allow the Legislature to authorize this district to issue bonds. That's where the taxation would come in, so it's a long way off. Does El Paso need a dedicated parks district? The early answer seems to be yes, and should be the subject of serious discussion, particularly because it would include the creation of yet another taxing entity."
• The Statesman said, "Ten proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution are on the ballot for your approval or disapproval. We recommend you vote for all 10."
• The Star-Telegram supports Prop 7.

Opposition

• The Conroe Courier of Montgomery County opposed Prop 7: In a October 22, 2011 editorial the Conroe Courier of Montgomery County opposed Proposition 7 stating that "Proposition 7 would authorize the Legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by property taxes to fund development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities...Statewide, in this economic environment, voters do not need to pass constitutional amendments that would create more entities that could add to the tax burden of local residents. Vote no on Proposition 7."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing direct democracy in Texas

The measure was passed by the Texas State Legislature on May 26, 2011, and was filed with the Texas Secretary of State May 27, 2011. SJR 26 passed the Texas State Senate by a vote of 30-1 and passed the Texas House by a vote of 144-0.

As laid out in Article 17 of the Texas Constitution, in order for a proposed constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot, the Texas State Legislature must propose the amendment in a joint resolution of both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives. The joint resolution can originate in either the House or the Senate. The resolution must be adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature. That amounts to a minimum of 100 votes in the House of Representatives and 21 votes in the Senate. SJR 4 was passed the Texas State Senate by a vote of 29-2.

Timeline

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:

Event	Date	Developments
House vote	May 26, 2011	House voted 144-0 in favor of the proposed measure
Senate vote	May 26, 2011	Senate voted 30-1 in favor of the proposed measure
Certified	May 27, 2011	Measure received by the Secretary of State for the 2011 ballot

See also

• Texas 2011 ballot measures
• 2011 ballot measures
• List of Texas ballot measures
• Texas Legislature

By Jimmy Ardis Texas state writer

Email • Submit a link

Artikel

• Election aftermath: 7 Texas amendments approved, 3 defeated
• Texans to vote on ten constitutional amendments next week

External links

• Texas House Research Organization: "Focus Report for Amendments Proposed in November 8, 2011 Election"