387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967))). These factual and prudential concerns underlie the court’s determination of ripeness, in which it considers: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship occasioned to a party by the court’s denying judicial review. Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex.2001) (citing Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507). This Court has recognized that, in the context of claims regarding the scope of agency authority, ripeness may turn on whether the issues presented are purely legal in nature as opposed to requiring consideration of particularized facts in light of agency expertise. Compare City of Waco v. Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 83 S.W.3d 169, 175-77 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>), with Beacon Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 86
holding that an argument that fails to cite to supporting authority in support of claim presents nothing for review recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded holding that whether a city has the authority to enact a particular statutory scheme is a purely legal question holding claim that agency action is beyond statutory authority does not make any difference for finality analysis holding that ud ja claim that agency acted beyond statutory authority presents a purely legal inquiry that will not benefit from the development of additional facts in connection with a specific permit application