Overall Vote Recommendation

Vote Yes; Amend

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 3195 would create a new Chapter 786 in the Health and Safety Code establishing resident-safety requirements for certain senior retirement communities. The bill applies to senior retirement communities with at least 20 residential units in one or more multiunit buildings that are available to own, rent, or lease and that provide common amenities. It excludes certain health care institutions, boarding home facilities, federally supported elderly housing facilities, centers for independent living, and facilities regulated by the Health and Human Services Commission or under federal Medicare or Medicaid rules.

The bill would require covered senior retirement communities to conduct criminal history record checks through the Department of Public Safety’s computerized criminal history system for each community employee. It would also require the community’s resident contract to disclose whether the community requires outside businesses hired to provide services at the community to conduct criminal history checks on employees who will provide those services.

The bill would require each covered community to maintain a resident safety and communications policy addressing criminal activity that poses a risk to residents. That policy would have to require written notice to each resident and conspicuous posting on the premises regarding known reports of potential criminal activity made to law enforcement from or at the community, and known instances of criminal trespassing, within two business days. The community could remove personal identifying information from the notice but could not refuse to provide notice solely because of concerns about disclosing that information.

The bill would protect a senior retirement community from civil or criminal liability for complying with the employee background-check and resident-notice requirements. It would also prohibit a community from preventing or penalizing a resident for communicating with law enforcement, a social worker, a family member, or another interested person about community safety and security. In addition, it would prohibit the community from preventing a law enforcement officer or court officer from entering a common area to conduct a voluntary interview with a resident as part of an investigation into criminal activity at the community. The bill would take effect September 1, 2025.

The originally filed version of HB 3195 placed the new senior retirement community requirements in Title 8, Property Code, as new Chapter 95, and described the bill as relating to the “regulation of certain senior retirement communities.” The Committee Substitute instead moves the new chapter to Subtitle B, Title 9, Health and Safety Code, as new Chapter 786, and narrows the caption to resident safety from criminal activity in senior retirement communities. That change matters because the Committee Substitute frames the bill more specifically as a health-and-safety measure rather than a broader property-law regulation.

The Committee Substitute also revises several definitions. The originally filed bill defined “common amenity” by listing examples such as concierge services, a library, common dining services, housekeeping services, and full-time security; the committee substitute removes those examples and uses a broader general definition of an amenity or service offered or provided to residents. The originally filed version applied to communities with units available to “rent or lease,” while the committee substitute applies to units available to “own, rent, or lease,” broadening coverage to ownership communities as well as rental communities.

The core resident-safety requirements remain largely the same. Both versions require covered senior retirement communities to conduct employee criminal history record checks through the Department of Public Safety system, disclose in resident contracts whether outside service businesses conduct employee background checks, maintain a resident safety and communications policy, notify residents and post notices about certain criminal activity or trespassing, protect identifying information, provide liability protection for compliance, protect resident communications about safety, and allow law enforcement or court officers to enter common areas for voluntary resident interviews related to criminal activity. However, the committee substitute makes some wording changes, including referring to businesses “hired by the retirement community” rather than each business “that will provide services,” and narrowing the notice requirement from known instances of “trespassing” to known instances of “criminal trespassing.”

The most significant substantive deletion is that the Committee Substitute removes the originally filed bill’s prohibition on lease, rental, purchase, or amenity-contract provisions that control the content or execution of a resident’s advance directive or testamentary documents. The originally filed bill also included a transition provision applying that prohibition only to agreements or contracts entered into or renewed on or after the bill’s effective date. Because the Committee Substitute deletes that section, the latest version no longer regulates contract terms related to residents’ estate-planning or end-of-life documents and is focused almost entirely on criminal-activity safety practices and resident communications.

Author (5)

Cassandra Garcia Hernandez

Jared Patterson

Penny Morales Shaw

Mitch Little

Candy Noble

Contact the Author

Rep. Cassandra Garcia Hernandez

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0468

Capitol Office:

EXT E2.712

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated for HB 3195. The LBB assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill could be absorbed using existing resources. The fiscal note identifies the Department of Public Safety and the Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, as source agencies, which is consistent with the bill’s use of the DPS computerized criminal history system and its provisions involving law enforcement or court officers.

The bill also is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. The LBB fiscal note states that no significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. The bill does not create a new grant program, require a state appropriation, impose a direct local government spending mandate, or establish a new state-funded administrative structure.

The principal costs would likely fall on covered senior retirement communities rather than state or local government. Those communities would be responsible for employee criminal history record checks, contract disclosures, resident-safety communications policies, written notices to residents, and posted notices regarding certain criminal activity or criminal trespassing. The LBB does not quantify these private compliance costs, and the fiscal note’s finding is limited to state and local fiscal effects.

Vote Recommendation Notes

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3195 while also considering amendments as described below to strengthen the bill because it addresses a real and serious safety concern in senior retirement communities while remaining narrower than the introduced version. The bill analysis explains that the legislation responds to cases involving Billy Chemirmir, who was alleged to have committed more than 20 murders in North Texas independent living facilities after posing as a maintenance worker to gain access to facilities and elderly residents’ apartments. The bill’s purpose is to reduce similar risks by requiring employee criminal-history checks, requiring disclosure of whether outside service providers conduct background checks, and requiring notice to residents of certain known criminal activity that may pose a threat.

The bill is also meaningfully limited in several respects. It applies only to senior retirement communities meeting the bill’s definition, including communities with at least 20 residential units in one or more multiunit buildings that are available to own, rent, or lease and that provide common amenities. It excludes health care institutions, boarding home facilities, supportive housing facilities for elderly individuals, centers for independent living, and facilities regulated by the Health and Human Services Commission or under federal Medicare or Medicaid rules. These exclusions help keep the bill focused on independent senior residential settings rather than duplicating existing regulatory structures for health care or assisted-living facilities.

The substitute removes the introduced version’s prohibition on contract provisions controlling the content or execution of a resident’s advance directive or testamentary documents, which reduces the bill’s reach into estate-planning and end-of-life legal matters. The substitute also moves the bill from the Property Code to the Health and Safety Code, narrows the trespassing notice requirement to “criminal trespassing,” and does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase criminal penalties, change eligibility for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, or grant additional rulemaking authority to a state agency.

According to the LBB, no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated, and any state costs associated with the bill are assumed to be absorbable within existing resources. The LBB also anticipates no significant fiscal implication to units of local government. This means the bill does not appear to create a new state-funded program, require a major state appropriation, or impose a significant fiscal mandate on local governments.

The bill still imposes new statutory compliance duties on private senior retirement communities. Covered communities would be required to conduct employee criminal-history checks, revise or structure resident contracts to include disclosures, maintain resident safety and communications policies, provide written notice to residents, post notices on premises, and manage personal identifying information. Even though the LBB does not anticipate significant state or local costs, the private compliance costs are not quantified and may be passed through to residents in the form of rent, service fees, ownership assessments, or other charges.

The most important amendment should clarify that the bill does not expand government access to private property beyond existing constitutional and statutory authority. The bill prohibits a senior retirement community from preventing a law enforcement officer or court officer from entering a common area to conduct a voluntary interview with a resident as part of an investigation into criminal activity at the community. That provision should be narrowed to make clear that it does not override leasehold rights, private-property protections, warrant requirements, resident consent, or other limits already recognized under law.

The notice provisions should also be refined. The bill requires notice of known reports of potential criminal activity made to law enforcement from or at the community and known instances of criminal trespassing. While timely notice can help residents make informed safety decisions, the phrase “potential criminal activity” could sweep in preliminary or unverified reports. An amendment should limit required notices to credible reports involving a reasonable safety risk to residents and should require notices to avoid naming or identifying individuals unless disclosure is legally required or directly necessary to protect residents.

The employee-background-check requirement should also be made more targeted. The bill currently requires criminal-history checks for each retirement community employee. A narrower approach would focus on employees with access to resident units, direct resident contact, security responsibilities, maintenance access, or other positions that create elevated safety risks. This would preserve the bill’s core protection while reducing unnecessary compliance burdens for employees whose duties do not present the same level of resident-access risk.

With those amendments, HB 3195 would better balance resident safety, transparency, and limited-government concerns. The bill’s core policy objective, protecting seniors in independent residential communities from criminal activity, is legitimate and sufficiently narrow to support. The amendments should ensure that the bill remains focused on preventing access-related criminal threats, avoids overbroad reporting and privacy problems, and does not become a broader regulatory framework for private senior housing.

Free Enterprise

The bill imposes new operating requirements on private senior retirement communities. Covered communities would have to conduct employee criminal history record checks, include required disclosures in contracts, maintain a resident safety and communications policy, provide written notices to residents, and post notices on the premises. These requirements may increase compliance costs and administrative burdens, particularly for smaller communities, even though the Legislative Budget Board anticipates no significant fiscal impact to state or local government.

Property Rights

The bill affects private property rights by regulating how senior retirement communities manage employees, communicate with residents, post notices, and allow access to common areas. The most significant concern is the provision prohibiting a community from preventing a law enforcement officer or court officer from entering a common area to conduct a voluntary interview with a resident as part of a criminal investigation. That provision should be amended to clarify that it does not override existing constitutional protections, leasehold rights, resident consent requirements, or private-property protections.

Personal Responsibility

The bill supports personal responsibility by giving residents more information about potential safety risks and allowing them to make more informed decisions about their living environment. The required disclosures about whether outside service providers conduct employee background checks also help residents evaluate the practices of a community before or during residency. The concern is that the bill substitutes a statutory compliance model for voluntary community policies, resident associations, private contracts, or market-based safety practices.

Limited Government

The bill expands government involvement by creating a new statutory framework for resident safety in senior retirement communities. It does not create a new agency, grant new rulemaking authority, create a new criminal offense, or impose a significant state or local fiscal burden, which limits the scope of government growth. Still, it establishes new state-mandated compliance duties for private residential communities. The limited-government concern can be reduced through amendments narrowing the background-check requirement, refining notice obligations, protecting privacy, and clarifying law enforcement access limits.

Individual Liberty

The bill has a mixed but modestly positive impact on individual liberty. It protects residents’ ability to communicate with law enforcement, social workers, family members, and other interested persons about safety and security concerns, and it prohibits communities from penalizing residents for doing so. That strengthens residents’ freedom to seek help and share safety information. However, the bill also requires criminal history checks for community employees and requires notices about certain criminal activity, which raises privacy concerns if reports are preliminary or identifying information is not carefully protected.

Related Legislation

SB 1283 (Similar To)

View Bill Text and Status