Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Defence Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killeen council approves additional legal funding to defend marijuana ordinance despite split opinion
Summary
The council voted 5–2 to increase authorized funds to defend a Bell County lawsuit challenging Killeen’s marijuana enforcement ordinance, reopening debate about home-rule authority and the cost of litigation.
KILLEEN, Texas — The Killeen City Council voted 5–2 on Tuesday to increase the city’s authorized legal spending to defend a lawsuit brought by Bell County that challenges the city’s marijuana enforcement ordinance, raising the ceiling from $100,000 to $135,000.
The case stems from a city ordinance adopted through the charter initiative process and later challenged by Bell County. City Attorney (unnamed in the record) briefed council members on the history: the city engaged outside counsel in February 2023 and had previously authorized fees not to exceed $100,000. The city attorney told council additional funds were needed to continue the defense.
Councilman Solomon said he opposed further spending. "I think we have expended enough funds for this. I think we ought to call it quits," he said on the record. Councilwoman Copp (also spelled earlier as Copp/Cobb in the transcript) likewise voted against the funding increase. Supporters of continuing the defense argued the city should honor the outcome of its initiative process and defend the ordinance in court.
The substantive legal posture presented by the city attorney, as recounted to council, is that the ordinance grew out of a citizen ballot initiative under the city charter. The city attorney also told the council that the state appellate process and a petition to the Texas Supreme Court had been part of the litigation history.
During debate, several council members framed the vote in terms of upholding the results of Killeen voters and home-rule authority. Council members who opposed the additional spending said the courts had signaled limits on local authority and expressed reluctance to continue paying for litigation they considered likely to fail.
The motion to increase authorized funds to $135,000 carried 5–2. The record identifies Councilwoman Copp and Councilman Solomon as the two dissenting votes; the minutes did not list all individual yes votes by name in the transcript excerpted for this hearing.
