Fulshear City Council spent the bulk of its Jan. 7 meeting reviewing a proposed legislative program for the 89th Texas Legislature that lists specific bills to watch or support and broader policy positions the city may seek, oppose or monitor.

Staff framed the program as a tool to protect local authority and support the city’s comprehensive plan, public safety and growth needs. Staff briefed council on recent state bills that have reduced municipal powers — including prior bans on involuntary annexation and limits on municipal building‑material requirements — and highlighted that landowners have petitioned to remove about 10,000 acres from Fulshear’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) under last session’s law. Staff recommended seeking exemptions or carve‑outs for fast‑growing cities in any amendments to Senate Bill 2038 regarding ETJ petitioning.

On land‑use matters staff flagged: support for civil penalties on unauthorized “bandit” signs (Senate bill referenced), backing Representative Gates’ emergency‑repair/after‑the‑fact permit concept for storm or disaster damage, and opposition to bills that preempt local zoning or lot standards for many cities. Council members raised concerns about potential abuse of an emergency‑repair allowance, and asked staff to watch the language for limits and inspections.

On public safety, staff recommended general support for the Texas Police Chiefs Association priorities including increased training funding, recruitment and retention incentives, expanded authority for emergency detention orders (EDOs) to allow medical personnel to initiate certain holds, measures to address squatting and counterfeit paper tags, and clarifying confidentiality rules for police personnel records after recent state changes. Staff described several proposed bills and programmatic funding mechanisms under consideration.

Other topics reviewed included economic and workforce development (preserving Chapter 380 economic incentives and watching bills on first‑year business fees), elections and governance (options to limit required elections after redistricting to affected seats only), budget issues (support for an unfunded‑mandate work group and opposition to proposals that would restrict local investment pools), transportation and infrastructure (pedestrian grant programs and a bill allowing temporary city traffic control on TxDOT roads when devices fail), and water (seeking assurances that state‑provided surface water is treated for PFAS if cities are required to take it, and objecting to unfunded mandates tied to treatment requirements).

Council discussed whether to retain a lobbyist to monitor the session and advocate directly for Fulshear. Staff reported obtaining three proposals and gave price ranges: session‑only representation estimates of roughly $25,000–$35,000 and full multi‑year arrangements in the low six figures. Council members asked staff to circulate lobbyist qualifications and proposals and suggested a session‑only contract as a possible option; several members suggested partnering with nearby cities or relying on Texas Municipal League (TML) for broader representation while retaining targeted advocacy for Fulshear‑specific items.

Council did not adopt a formal legislative program at the meeting but directed staff to prepare a resolution reflecting the city’s seek/support/oppose positions and to return the resolution for council consideration at the next regular meeting (Jan. 21). Staff said it will also provide the council with the lobbyist proposals and recommended language to bracket priority items for a resolution in advance of the session’s Jan. 14 start.