Any of you county attorney types ever dealt with a "1445 agreement" where a city defers to the county's authority to regulate a rural subdivision where a small portion the subdivision extends into that city's ETJ? Any help would be appreciated.

I believe the reference is to HB 1445 from the 77th Legislative Session, now codified in Chapter 242 of the Local Government Code. The amendments to that section of the Local Government Code require cities and counties who share ETJ to develop joint guidelines for the regulation of county subdivisions in the city's ETJ. My understanding is that the changes were the result of developers, cities and counties who could not play nice in the fast growing counties along I-35...some of which contain state capitals. Under the amended statute, cities could defer to the county to enforce the regulations, counties could defer to the cities, or the cities and county could develop a coordinated process for regulating ETJ subdivisions.

By the way, the legislature mandated that cities and counties enter into agreements for the regulation of ETJ subdivisions no later than April 1, 2002. I would send you a copy of our agreement, but we are still waiting for it to be returned to us by the attorneys at the city.

I just finished dealing with one last month. The city agreed to allow the subdivision to be developed under the county's subdivision regulations. A written agreement was prepared. E-mail me if you want a copy of the agreement at ken.sparks@co.colorado.tx.us

I realize it is a little late.....however, do to the oil boom, our city has started to grow into the county and we are dealing with subdivisions in the ETJ of the city.....does anyone have an agreement that was drafted pursuant to loc. govt code 242 that i can borrow? it appears that the county will defer to the the city and allow the city to enforce its rules and regs in the ETJ....any help would be appreciated.
Mike Hartman
scurryca@suddenlinkmail.com

Check your email.

Looking back on this old thread, the irony of Mr. Grace's response--in light of his current employment--should not be lost on us.

We are working on it.