TANO Texas Legislature Update – Final Week of 2013 Session

Posted on
As of 5-20-2013, by Richard W. Meyer, TANO Public Policy Advisor

In the final days remaining before the May 27 adjournment deadline, the Texas Association of Nonprofit Organizations (TANO) continues to monitor developments in the 2013 Texas Legislature and highlight those bills and issues that most directly affect Texas nonprofit organizations.

Bills that are moving are being exchanged between the House and Senate with several inflexible procedural and calendar deadlines looming.  House and Senate floor amendments to bills can carry remnants of another bill that was defeated earlier or has languished in a committee.  Differences in House and Senate bills passed in the final days are often referred to conference committees, which must convene quickly.  Unexpected compromise language can emerge in a “conference report” bill.  The uninitiated will have difficulty tracking a bill of interest through this frantic process, but a call directly to the legislative aide of one’s representative or senator is a good way to get specific information.

Next, observers carefully watch the Governor’s review of bills sent to him.  Finally, there’s always the prospect of a special called legislative session during the next 18 months to take up other issues of statewide concern.

Your opinions and comments on this report are welcomed and may be directed to Rick Meyer or Robert Pinhero, TANO Vice-Chair for Public Policy, or Barry Silverberg, TANO CEO.

Texas Nonprofit Council proposal in SB 993 passes Senate, awaits House vote

TANO asks your active support for SB 993, which has passed the Senate and is on the House calendar for a vote at any time. The Texas Nonprofit Council would be established within state government to continue the past four years’ work of a task force of nonprofit leaders (see details of SB 993 below). Contacting your member of the House of Representatives now will advance this proposal and benefit the nonprofit sector’s role in state government in the future.  If it passes the House, contact the Governor’s office and urge its approval.  

Follow-up on federal and state regulatory oversight:

IRS improprieties regarding Section 501(c)(4) nonprofits draws attention to SB 346 passed by the Texas Legislature

The dramatic and troubling revelations last week exposing misconduct by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in considering applicants for Section 501(c)(4) tax exemption should generate a closer look at SB 346, now awaiting the Governor’s review after passage by the Texas Legislature with considerable controversy.

A Texas House committee discussion on April 24 regarding SB 346 exposed the ongoing debate over the permissible advocacy activities of Section 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their receipt of substantial contributions that some say are directed primarily to political activity.

SB 346 would essentially treat 501(c)(4) organizations as political committees under Texas campaign reporting laws if they acted as such under this standard:  by making one or more “political expenditures” that add up to $25,000 during a calendar year. If a group is determined to fall within SB 346 and thereby has to report as a political committee, the nonprofit would be required to observe the detailed requirements of the Texas Election Code—not a simple process and one with stout legal liability if violated. SB 346 provisions would be triggered if the donors/members or the recipient nonprofit organization(s) “…have reason to know that their payment may be used to make political contributions or political expenditures or may be commingled with other funds used to make political contributions or political expenditures.”

Finally, SB 346 would require the nonprofit to disclose any donor whose contributions exceed $1,000 during the reporting period—a bit of a shock to nonprofit managers who are accustomed to the current laws and practices that generally do not require public disclosure of donor names or lists.

The Texas debate over SB 346 mirrors ongoing inquiries and investigations on the national level that will involve hearings before U.S. Congress, criminal investigations and considerable debate regarding IRS oversight of tax-exempt groups that engage in advocacy.  Expect the entire exempt organizations scheme under Section 501(c) to be examined.

In the SB 346 discussions, its proponents have made it clear they are strictly observing the advocacy rights specified in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United case by merely requiring public disclosure of the Texas nonprofits’ funding activities and political expenditures while avoiding outright restrictions on the fundraising, advocacy activities or political expenditures. Transparency is the goal, the Senate and House sponsors emphasized. There are varying estimates of the total amount of nonprofits’ funds spent on direct advocacy by a range of nonprofit groups in the last Texas election cycle, but all agree it is not small and is growing.

A closer look at nonprofit issues:

Legislators devote attention to breaks for volunteers and relief efforts

Increased respect for the important role of volunteers, first-responders, and ad hoc relief groups in assisting people and communities in disasters or with pressing social needs has caught the attention of Texas legislators.  An unrelated group of bills seeks to make it easier for certain licensed persons to assist with disaster relief, allow social service facilities to escape strict permitting in certain situations, or give legal immunity to persons and facilities where socially beneficial work is conducted by volunteers.

The public is familiar with the role and resources of federal response and relief agencies (FEMA) or the state’s emergency preparedness agencies (Texas Division of Emergency Management and Texas Guard ). Nonprofit charities like the American Red Cross and Salvation Army are large well-established organizations with formalized operations and trained staff and volunteers.  But what of a local group that undertakes hands-on care for abandoned or homeless minors?  Or a church facility that provides food and overnight accommodations for the needy?  Licensed medical personnel who rush to the scene of an emergency or cross state lines to help others?  Or local volunteer fire fighters who respond to dangerous emergencies, often without proper training or the best equipment?

The natural reaction of legislators would be to respond to these issues and situations by molding the law to promote useful and well-intentioned volunteer efforts.  But proposed legislation can mean waiving certain licensing requirements for medical personnel (see SB 61 and HB 1491 below); exempting volunteer fire fighters from certain training requirements (SB 766); or limits on the legal liability of persons or groups who assist with relief efforts (HB 2319).  The Governor has already signed SB 1267, which limits the liability of persons assisting in state agency firefighting efforts.

This patchwork of well-intentioned legislative responses to real-world good works by ordinary people (which sometimes have unfortunate outcomes) should not distract from considering an end point in granting these waivers, immunities, and exceptions. Certainly, unreasonable legal obstacles to responsible volunteerism should be addressed.  But careful guidelines and best practices in responding to the needs of youth, the elderly and persons with disabilities should never be compromised.

It is easy to see the variety of bills listed below simply as legislators’ responses to particular situations brought to their attention, but the overall effect on volunteerism risks and the effectiveness of charitable groups’ responses in the face of danger deserves serious attention.  Good intentions do not always produce good results.

What to look for in proposed legislation

The TANO bill listings during the session reflect issues and  bills of interest and concern to leaders in the nonprofit sector in Texas. In examining proposed legislation, TANO’s board and public policy working group considers the following factors:

Whether a proposed bill strengthens nonprofit organizations’ viability under Texas law or unduly burdens or threatens their status; whether the legal liability of nonprofit board members, officers, staff or volunteers is increased; whether current “charitable immunity” and “good faith” legal protections remain in place; whether laws governing nonprofits are necessary, understandable and based on reasonable public policy concerns; whether nonprofit advocacy is protected; whether ongoing nonprofit organization operations and finances are complicated by new governmental regulations, and; whether nonprofit organization reporting, disclosure and accountability requirements remain reasonable and balanced.

The “Comment” notations below are the opinions of Richard W. Meyer and do not necessarily reflect the position of TANO, its board and members, unless so indicated.


Bills pending in the 2013 legislature affect nonprofits in the following areas:*

Regulatory oversight of nonprofit and related organizations

SB 993:  Creates the Texas Nonprofit Council, which is a continuation of the four-year legislative initiative fulfilled by the Task Force on Improving Relations with Nonprofits. The task force worked with an interagency coordinating group task force to promote the “footprint” of the nonprofit sector in the state government realm by promoting contracting and other relationships with state agencies. This bill would make permanent a 14-member Nonprofit Council (administered through the Health and Human Services Commission) that would bring recommendations to the legislature in even-numbered years prior to each legislative session.

Status: Passed Senate, passed House as amended, awaiting Senate vote on amended version of bill.

Comment:  TANO supports SB 993 and believes it will continue to advance the interests of all nonprofit sector stakeholders within the state government. TANO has urged its members and friends to contact legislators and ask for passage of this bill. No appropriated funds are requested to operate the Texas Nonprofit Council, which would continue to be managed and staffed through the Health and Human Services Commission.

SB 849 (=HB 1928)**:  A for-profit corporation may include among its declared purposes “social benefit” purposes involving promoting one or more material positive impacts on society or the environment, such as providing low-income communities with beneficial products or services, promoting economic opportunity, human health, the arts, sciences or advancement of knowledge. See also HB 2565 regarding benefit corporations.

Status: SB 849 passed Senate and House; sent to Governor. HB 1928 set for House vote.

Comment: The “benefit corporation” movement originated in Europe, and enabling legislation has passed in a score of states. The shareholders or directors could affirm one or more social benefit purposes in directing a corporation’s operations without violating their common law and statutory duties to first represent the corporation’s shareholders and maximize profits. Some leaders in the charitable sector worry that the consumer could become confused by the messaging of these “B-corps” which could appear to have a charitable or nonprofit purpose.


HB 412:  Permits a court to enhance (increase) the criminal sentencing period of a person convicted of deceptively holding himself out as a representative of a charitable organization as part of the commission of a crime. Listing nonprofit charities as a “protected class” in the criminal laws is intended to discourage wrongdoers from using and abusing charitable causes as part of criminal activity.

Status: Referred to House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee


HB 2622:  Authorizes creation under Texas law of a low-profit limited liability corporation— “L.3.C.”—a legal entity that has been accepted in a score of other states. It must be organized and operated for a business purpose that significantly furthers one or more religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes as described in the Internal Revenue Code. The corporation would exist as a nonprofit entity but with the flexibility to be sustained with earned revenues (not contributions) and have the ability to join with other enterprise partners in programs and operations.

Status: Referred to House Business and Industry Committee

Comment:  The “L3C” movement has taken on a life of its own in other states as legislatures authorized the formation of this new kind of corporation. Often useful in complex, multi-party transactions in which a nonprofit party is required or beneficial, the L3C still faces uncertainty on a case-by-case basis of the application of well-established federal tax constraints on nonprofits in the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations.


HB 3803:  This long bill, as originally filed, represented new, extensive state regulation of property owner associations and unit owner associations, with detailed governance requirements and the Texas Attorney General’s direct regulation and enforcement of operations and governance, including rulemaking authority in this area. After considerable opposition from scores of local associations across the state, the bill was trimmed considerably, and CSHB 3803 now contains only requirements relating to mandatory fidelity bonds or fidelity insurance for unit owner associations with 20 or more units.

Status: Reported from the House Business and Industry Committee; recommended for calendar

Comment:  Although they are not Section 501(c)(3) nonprofits, the HOAs and POAs in Texas co-exist with charitable organizations in the legal realm of the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Law (see next section). They are highly organized, some are very large (almost quasi-governmental entities), and they are sensitive to proposed increased regulatory oversight of their operations and governance. If proposals such as HB 3803 are passed, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that similar legal regulatory schemes could be extended to 501(c)(3) organizations in the future.


SB 1372 (=HB 2944):  Enacts similar regulatory oversight laws regarding the boards of timeshare property associations.

Status: Passed Senate; awaits House vote


Limits on legal liability; changes to charitable immunity under Chapter 84, Civil Practices and Remedies Code

SB 1267 (=HB 2751):  Limits the liability of persons assisting state agency firefighting efforts.

Status: Passed Senate and House; signed by Governor

Comment: Various professionals and individuals have been added to this list of professions specifically granted Chapter 84 legal immunity while performing voluntary services:


SB 338 (=HB 444):  Would add licensed social workers to this list.

Status: Passed Senate State; voted favorably from House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence


SB 1050:  Would add licensed marriage and family counselors to this list.

Status: Referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee

Comment:  These “Chapter 84 immunity bills” benefit the nonprofit sector in that volunteers and managers of nonprofits are shielded from personal legal and financial liability if the organization complies with the law’s requirements. The following five bills, however, take a different approach and extend certain legal immunity from liability based on the status of the parties or the type of charitable conduct undertaken—and thereby inadvertently blur the clear purpose of the “Chapter 84” protections.


HB 1652:  Limits the legal liability of the owner of land leased or used by a cooperative group as a “community garden” if the required notification signage is posted.

Status: Left pending in the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee


HB 3385:  Limits the liability for “agri-tourism” activities when a person participates in educational or recreational activities on agricultural land.

Status: Passed the House; referred to Senate State Affairs Committee


HB 3476:  Limits the liability of a “sports organization”, as defined.

Status: Passed the House; referred to Senate State Affairs Committee


HB 2319: A church providing an overnight or homeless shelter to children would be immune from civil legal liability.

Status:  Reported favorably from the House committee; awaiting House vote


HB 332:  Grants immunity from legal liability to persons donating volunteer services to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for acts relating to operating a department  vehicle or motor-driven equipment.

Status:  Passed House; action pending in Senate State Affairs Committee


Nonprofit board, officer, employee and volunteer issues

SB 61:  Permits issuance of a “military limited volunteer license” to military physicians licensed in other states who perform voluntary services for the indigent without pay.

Status:  Passed by Senate and House; sent to the Governor


HB 746:  This bill would enact the “Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act”, which is intended to simplify the certification of licensed healthcare professionals who go to a state under a declared emergency, where they are not licensed, to offer services to relief organizations or government response agencies.

Status:  Passed House; awaits Senate vote


HB 1491(=SB 1130):  Suspends certain dentists from full licensure requirements if performing volunteer services.

Status: Passed the House and Senate; sent to Governor


SB 766:  Exempts volunteer firefighters from meeting certain state and local government certification requirements.

Status: Passed the Senate; reported favorably from the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee


SB 1324:  Exempts from certain licensing laws the “volunteer safety groups” supporting religious organizations and facilities. HB 2535 exempts from licensure security personnel volunteering for a religious organization.

Status: Referred to Senate Criminal Justice Committee

Comment:  The bills listed above reflect a new trend in that they suspend ordinary licensing and certification requirements for volunteers or in certain situations. While it is beneficial for legislation to encourage volunteerism at every level, is the public good properly protected by suspending the formal qualifications of certain volunteers?


HB 2811:  Regulates volunteer programs in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice institutions.

Status: Passed the House; referred to Senate Criminal Justice Committee


HB 676 & HB 1730:  Requires use of the E-Verify system to clear the employment eligibility of the employees of all state contractors/vendors.

Status: Referred to House State Affairs Committee


HB 954:  Requires an employer or entity receiving any “public subsidy” funding from the state for economic development or job creation to use the E-Verify system to confirm work eligibility of employees. See also HB 2301.

Status: Referred to House State Affairs Committee


HB 22:  Requires undergraduate students at Texas higher education institutions to perform 20 hours of “volunteer” service time as a requirement to graduate. Each college or university would be responsible for identifying eligible nonprofit organizations or causes and to manage record keeping to verify the student’s service.

Status: Pending in the House Higher Education Committee

Comment:  TANO has publicly expressed concern regarding this bill and whether “mandatory volunteerism” actually fosters a culture of genuine civic involvement and heart-felt personal service. It can take on the appearance of “community service” mandates that are common in court post-conviction probation or parole sentencing. Making this service a requirement for graduation would entail ongoing record keeping duties by the recipient charitable organization in alliance with the higher education institutions involved. The nonprofits receiving these services would become the keepers and reporters of the students’ compliance in what essentially would be a required course for graduation. Also unresolved is the selection of “approved” nonprofit agencies and whether unpopular or controversial causes could be banned as eligible for service.


Open meetings / open records issues

SB 895:  Extends full public access to the books and records of a nonprofit entity supporting the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas program (CPRIT).

Status: Passed the Senate; awaits final House vote

Comment:  SB 895 demonstrates that a separately chartered nonprofit organization that exists solely to support a public entity usually—at the end of a controversy—is deemed to be a quasi-governmental entity and thereby subject to the open meetings/open records laws that must be observed by government agencies.


HB 1933:  The official books and records of condominium associations would be available without restriction to any owner/member or its designee.

Status: Action pending in the House Business and Industry Committee


Amendments to the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Law, Chapter 22, Business Organizations Code

No bills have been filed that directly affect the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Law, unlike the activity seen in previous legislative sessions. Any change to this law would affect some or all of the nonprofit organizations organized under Texas law.


Fundraising activities of nonprofit organizations

HB 394 (=SB 282):  Amends bingo prize restrictions.

Status: Passed House; awaits Senate vote

Comment:  Often, what does not appear is of importance. Unlike past sessions, the current session has not seen the filing of numerous bills to further regulate (or liberalize) the state laws and rules relating to bingo, high-dollar charity auctions, casino night parties, raffles, poker runs, fishing tournaments and similar fundraising activities and charitable solicitations. The questionable charitable purpose of those donated goods collection boxes that are multiplying in shopping area parking lots resulted in new laws in 2011. As a practical matter, what goes on across the state with these kinds of promotions is hard to quantify. State agencies charged with monitoring and enforcing existing laws (the State Comptroller, Office of the Attorney General, and others) often enter the scene when harm has already been done or legal boundaries have been exceeded. Most states have fairly comprehensive registration or licensing of charitable organizations and formalized regulation of charitable solicitations from the public. Texas is among a dozen or so states that have a very “light” regulatory environment for nonprofits.


Exemptions from taxes now extended to nonprofit entities

SB 106:  The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission would periodically undertake a re-examination (“sunset”) of all ad valorem tax exemptions, including the property exemptions enjoyed by charitable organizations.

Status: Referred to Senate Finance Subcommittee

See also HB 537, similar to SB 106.


SB 140 (=HB 3045):  The State Comptroller would develop a review schedule of state and local tax preferences and exemptions that reduce government tax revenues to determine if the cost of the preference fulfills its purpose, and recommend its continuation or end. Each tax preference enacted by the legislature after 2014 would be given a six-year “shelf life”, when it would then expire unless reauthorized.

SJR 12:  Would authorize a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment to implement SB 140 on a permanent basis.

Status: SB 140 pending in the Senate Finance Committee.


HB 1556:  A select state commission would undertake an ongoing scheduled review of every state or local tax preference, exemption, preference, credit or other benefit to determine if it is justified, with every such tax provision being reviewed once every ten years. Any new tax preference enacted would have only a ten-year life cycle and would be subject to legislative renewal.

Status: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee

Comment:  The three bills referenced above reflect a trend nationwide to initiate periodic top-to-bottom reviews of the tax structure of state government and, in particular, to question any tax credit, preference, incentive, exemption or other tax benefit conferred under state law. This approach not only impacts the state tax laws relating to private interests, industry and business groups, it also puts into question the tax exemptions traditionally enjoyed by nonprofit charitable organizations. In Texas, the exemptions are from property taxes, sales and use taxes, and the business (franchise) tax. Under this thinking, all tax exemptions are first viewed as a “cost” to state government in that they represent tax revenues not received but that may be available to tap in times of tight government budgets. Charitable tax exemptions are seen as the same, and some critics are unhappy with the “cost” of these lost revenues not collected from tax-exempt entities and their properties. This challenge to nonprofits is not speculative but is being played out now in the U.S. Congress, where the individual taxpayer charitable deduction is constantly under attack and is likely to be trimmed to some degree in the near future.  This same scenario could unfold in Texas. SB 140 was the subject of a debate in the Senate Finance Committee, and bill sponsors promised that these issues will not go away.


HB 440:  Would require a religious organization to file with its local appraisal district a public annual report of its real estate that holds a property tax exemption, list the current use of the property and any income derived from each parcel.

Status: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee


HB 1459:  Property leased to a charitable organization that would qualify for property tax exemption (if the organization owned the property) would be exempt from property taxes if the rent charged for the property on an annual basis is not more than five percent of the property’s market value and the property is reasonably necessary for the operations of the organization.

Status: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee


HB 1360 (=SB 1455):  Property leased to a tax-exempt school could be exempt from property taxes if the lessee’s rental rate reflects a reduced amount equal to the benefit of the property tax exemption to the lessor.

Status:  Passed House; pending in Senate Finance Committee


SB 1131 (=SJR 44):  Property leased to a school would be exempt from property tax if the annual rental on the property does not exceed one percent of the property’s market value and the school owns the facility or building on the property.

Status: Referred to Senate Finance Subcommittee


HB 3767:  Property is exempt from property taxes if owned by a charitable organization that uses the property in growing or maintaining trees for public beautification.

Status: Referred to the House Ways and Means Committee


HB 2599:  Property owned by a political organization (as defined under Texas Election Code, Chapter 172) would be exempt from property taxes.

Status: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee


SB 193:  Certain property used to provide low-income housing is exempt from property tax.

Status:  Passed Senate; passed House

Comment:  The property tax exemptions available to nonprofit organizations in Texas are found generally in Section 11.18 et seq. of the Texas Tax Code. Therefore, any proposed bill amending Section 11.18 and related parts is to be watched. However, over time there have been numerous specific exemptions expressly written into the code (as reflected  in the above bills), so that the original property tax exemption policy expressed in Section 11.18 is becoming bottom-heavy with all the exceptions and is difficult to read and understand. At some point, this general issue will deserve a thoughtful review and possible legislative attention.


HB 697:  Exempts from state sales tax food items sold by a sports booster club as part of its fundraising support of school programs at public events, and also exempts “school spirit merchandise” offered as part of recognized school activities or programs.

Status: Passed the House; voted favorably from the Senate Finance Committee


HB 2941:  Provides a sales tax exemption for property related to qualified research.

Status: Pending in the House Economic and Small Business Development Committee


HB 3767:  Provides a sales tax exemption for materials used in tree planting in public areas.

Status: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee


“PILOT” fees imposed on property of nonprofits

HB 1168:  Property constituting a dedicated cemetery would be exempt from public agency drainage assessments or fees.

Status: Awaits House vote

Comment:  “PILOT” means payments-in-lieu-of-taxes and reflects a growing trend by state and local governments nationwide to impose various kinds of taxes, assessments and user fees on properties owned by tax-exempt charitable organizations—without calling them taxes. The end result would be to tax the assets of tax-exempt entities, an illogical result (nonprofit advocates argue) because it directly diminishes the resources and the public benefit provided by charitable organizations. In the 2011 session, Texas legislators filed numerous bills to clarify which tax-exempt properties or owners were to be free of locally-imposed PILOT fees, such as the Houston area drainage fees that raised such vocal opposition from charities, private schools, faith-based organizations and universities. There is very little “anti-PILOT” activity in this legislative session.


Public advocacy / Ethics Commission (lobbying) issues

SB 346:  Seeks to regulate the claimed improper political activities and expenditures by certain Section 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations by classifying them as “political committees” under the Texas Election Code; would require them to file disclosure reports regarding any donor exceeding $1,000 if the organization had $25,000 or more in such political contributions or expenditures in a calendar year.

Status:  Passed Senate; passed House; sent to Governor

Comment:  See notice on SB 346 at the top of this summary.


HB 905:  Forbids former legislators from lobbying for two years, except if lobbying for nonprofit organizations, disabilities groups and low-income advocacy groups, and if acting without compensation.

Status: Referred to House Elections Committee


SB 1254:  Extends the same lobbying restriction to former state agency executive heads.

Status: Action pending in the Senate State Affairs Committee


SCR 2:  Urges the Texas Legislature to advance an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed many prior restrictions on the advocacy activities and fundraising of corporations, unions, political committees and nonprofit organizations that advance a particular cause or issue.

Status:  Referred to Senate State Affairs Committee


Volunteer food preparation for sale by organizations; farmers’ market food regulation

HB 970:  Expands the new health regulations from the 2011 session and definitions of “cottage food products” produced by individuals in a home or other location for direct sale to consumers; prohibits local governments from enacting land use regulations to limit such activity in a “home”.

Status: Passed House; awaits Senate vote


HB 910:  This bill addresses a health department’s temporary food establishment permit that could be granted to a farmer, vendor or other food preparer selling products at a local farmers’ market. This proposal follows efforts in the 2011 legislative session to clarify the line between formal commercial food product permitting versus occasional permit-exempt sales by volunteer and charitable groups and individuals.

Status: Reported favorably from House Public Health Committee


HB 1382:  The public health services would have no authority to regulate or license food samples offered at a farmers market or related cooking demonstrations offering samples although current sanitary standards are preserved.

Status: Passed House; referred to Senate Agriculture Committee


HB 1392:  The state health department must provide a definitive answer within 30 days to a request for a determination whether a proposed food preparation or sale activity falls within food inspection or licensing regulations.

Status: Passed House; awaits Senate vote


HB 1393:  The kinds of food preparation or sales operations conducted in a “home” (defined in the bill) are clarified with reference to existing state health department inspection laws.

Status: Reported favorably from the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee


HB 2113:  Regulates “cottage food products” by prohibiting use of an ingredient not intended for human consumption, such as an edible decoration.

Status: Referred to House Public Health Committee

Comment:  The bills listed above reflect a re-heating of the 2011 session’s “home baker” debates and the controversies and hostile public reaction to state health department’s proposed regulations issued in 2012. While these may seem to be obscure issues about innocent and well-intentioned, home-based foodies versus overbearing government regulators, nonprofit organizations are pulled into the mix. The real concern is the level at which state and local health officials should regulate, monitor, inspect or license home-produced foods (whether for incidental sale or fundraising efforts), food-related activities at the ever-popular local farmers’ markets, raw dairy product sales, large-attendance gatherings with volunteered foods, inspection and licensing (or not) of church kitchens, and a host of real world activities that occur every day in every community. These bills were the subject of a lively discussion on April 10 before the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee, with local health authorities and inspectors taking a hard line based on their concern over public safety from unregulated food products.


Other Bills

SB 403 (=HB 1221):  A “healthy corner store” could be established and operated by a community development agency in a qualified “food desert”, receive loans and funding through existing community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and participate in SNAP and WIC food programs. See also HB 725.

Status: SB 403 reported favorably from Senate Government Organizations Committee; on Senate intent calendar


HB 1362:  Expands the existing “loanstar” loan fund that promotes beneficial financing terms for energy efficient systems for charitable organizations and houses of worship.

Status: Referred to House Energy Resources Committee


HB 2189:  The return of an attempt to modify the English common law “rule against perpetuities”, following an attempt to repeal it in the 2011 session.

Status: Action pending in the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Subcommittee


HB 371:  Makes qualified nonprofit corporations eligible to receive ownership of remainder right-of-way properties determined by TXDOT to be unusable for its purposes.

Status: Action pending in House Land and Resource Management Committee


SCR 12:  Designates pecan pie as the Official Pie of Texas.

Status:  Passed Senate; passed House; sent to Governor

Comment:  The Senate debate on this resolution produced differences of opinion whether a pecan pie containing chocolate ingredients (chocolate chips or popular “brownie pecan pie” recipe variations) disqualifies the dish as true and official pecan pie.

Also, HCR 36 has passed the House and designates February 16 of each year as Homemade Pie Day in Texas.

Status:  Passed House; passed Senate; sent to Governor


*Above list does not include bills introduced relating to the following:

Nonprofit hospitals, health care or health plans; credit unions; electric or agricultural cooperatives; private and charter schools and colleges; quasi-public nonprofit entities. This summary does not track the state budget, legislative appropriations or riders, or other legislative funding related to the bills and issues included.

**Many bills have an identical “companion” bill in the other house bearing a different bill number. Access bills, background information and current status at Texas Legislature Online: www.capitol.state.tx.us