Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the University Hills MMD topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney warns University Hills MMD legislation may omit Lancaster’s oversight
Summary
City attorney David Ritter told council the University Hills Municipal Management District legislation appears to define 'city' as Dallas and omits Lancaster, potentially leaving Lancaster without the usual statutory checks on district powers; staff will return with analysis and options before any consent vote.
City attorney David Ritter told Lancaster City Council on June 17 that the enabling legislation for the University Hills Municipal Management District (MMD) appears to define the term “city” as the City of Dallas and contains no explicit reference to Lancaster, a drafting issue Ritter said could limit Lancaster’s statutory oversight over activities on four acres inside Lancaster city limits.
Ritter explained that typical MMD statutes require municipal consent for elections and grant cities oversight tools such as appointments or consent for improvements; he warned that the current draft’s strict definition could leave Dallas as the primary oversight entity for the whole district. "There is no mention of Lancaster anywhere in the enabling deal," Ritter said, describing that omission as a potentially "fatal flaw" in the legislation that would need corrective action.
Staff told council a petition to include Lancaster acreage in the University Hills MMD was filed in April 2024 and that the council is being asked to consent to that petition under the legislation as drafted. Ritter outlined options including asking the developer and the bill drafters to seek a legislative correction, withholding consent (which could impede the MMD’s initial actions), or accepting the petition and pursuing other mitigations.
Ritter identified the bill as Senate Bill 2244 (85th Legislature) and said text and sponsor information were included in the council packet. Council members asked for comparative MMD policies (including Dallas’s 2019 MMD procedures), analysis of potential taxing/assessment effects, and clarity about how bond issuance or other district powers might apply to the Lancaster parcel. Staff said the petition will return for formal council action once staff provides further analysis and a policy recommendation.
No council vote was taken on June 17. The discussion centered on legal risk, governance and whether the enabling legislation should be redrafted to preserve Lancaster’s home‑rule and oversight interests.
