Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0026

Texas AG KP-0026 opines on whether Galveston City Charter provisions govern a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) board under Tax Code ch. 311; analysis presumes Charter applicability for the legal questions presented but declines to construe the Charter; questions concern residency and term-limit provisions vs. §311.009(e) and (c); §311.009(e) sets eligibility with residency or property ownership depending on subdivision, and §311.009(c) sets two-year terms with no explicit total term limit; there is no complete preemption by state law over charter provisions; a city residency requirement likely conflicts with §311.009(e) and would be void; a charter term-limit provision likely conflicts irreconcilably with §311.009(c) and would be void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Galveston Charter residency provision apply to a TIRZ board?	Charter residency applies to board eligibility.	State law §311.009(e) controls eligibility.	Charter residency likely void; irreconcilable with §311.009(e).
Do charter-term limits conflict with §311.009(c)?	Charter limits restrict service despite statute.	§311.009(c) allows two-year terms; no total limit.	Charter term limits likely void; conflict with §311.009(c).

City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Tex., 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990) (general-law vs. charter/ordinance conflicts)
Canyon v. Fehr, 121 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003) (charter/ordinance applicability with general laws)
Houston v. City ex rel. City of West University Place, 176 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. 1943) (Home-rule limitations on charter power)
Proctor v. Andrews, 972 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1998) (limits on home-rule city taxation powers)
Talley v. City of Killeen, 418 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. App. Austin 2013) (charter/ordinance provisions must align with state law)