With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of that inconsistency. 496 S.W.3d at 15 (instructing that the City prosecutor can proceed with criminal prosecution under the Ordinance after the TCEQ receives proper notice and timely determines that administrative and civil remedies would be inadequate or inappropriate, or after the TCEQ failed to make such a determination within forty-five days). We find no legal support for the dissent’s application of the “extent of” language to the Ordinance, however. See City of Brook-side Vill., 633 S.W.2d at 796 (explaining that no conflict existed between federal and state acts that “to an extent, preempted the field as to construction, safety, and installation of mobile homes” because the ordinance at issue regulated the location of mobile homes); In re Sanchez, 81 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Tex.2002) (<HOLDING>); Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers v. CenterPoint

A: holding that no conflict existed between an election code statute that expressly allows homerule cities  to establish their own application requirements in municipal elections and the ordinance at issue which did just that
B: recognizing the conflict
C: holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed
D: recognizing conflict
A.