Travis County Commissioners Court
April 26, 2005
Item 39
Let's call up number 39, which is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the sfinth Texas legislature. -- 79th Texas legislature.
>> sherri fleming, executive director for health and human services. On last Tuesday the court asked health and human services to provide an update on our analysis of house bill 470, which in effect establishes a system of regional service coordination for the mental health mental retardation system. And I believe we've provided that to the court. We also were asked to check with the conference of urban counties to determine their position not only on 470 and the second committee substitute, but also an additional bill, house bill 2572 by truitt that is also related to mhmr. Just in brief, 470 has been around for a while. We've talked with the court. I think we've indicated in our report to you previous positions the court has taken on this bill. What the cuc has said to us is that they have not, based on the committee substitute that has passed out of the house human services committee, they have no reason to change their position basically, that they are still opposed to 470 and don't see any particular advantages to the committee substitute. House bill 2572, they see some parts of it that are better, but have not taken a formal position to support or oppose that particular piece of legislation. And the basic difference is 2572 assumes that the current structure remains the same. That's the basic difference, whereas 470 speaks to a regionalized approach to the delivery of services by mhmr and will put Travis County into a 30-county region.
>> so Austin-Travis County mhmr opposes hb 470?
>> they, they continue to oppose 470.
>> what about 2572?
>> they do see it as a better bill. It actually, I think, has some I am put on community mhmr centers in the drafting of that bill, so they are definitely more supportive of 2572.
>> so we are formally on record in our position to 470?
>> yes, we are.
>> and we are formally neutral on 2572, right?
>> we are basically silent. We haven't said anything about 2572.
>> any action necessary today on either one of these?
>> not upon my recommendation. I知 looking over at the lobby team. Any action? No action is requested today. We'll continue to monitor the bill, and should there be a call for action, then we will return that to your attention.
>> thank you. And our legislative consultants iew fa mystically called our lobby team. Next?
>> where do you want us to start?
>> let's start with 2833. We discussed this a little bit last week, and there was a meeting scheduled with stakeholders last Thursday.
>> correct. And I and bob canned and rob kitchenson discussed our issues with the bill, which is mainly that we felt like it was drafted so broadly that it might have unintended consequences for existing county regulations. And we talked through some of those issues with them, and I think they recognized our issues, but their basic response was we don't think it's going to affect your existing regulations all that often. I think there was some acknowledgment that that possibility did exist. A lot of it depends on how the bill's interpreted and so on. So we left the meeting without any sort of solid agreement on specific language, but I did work with cuc on drafting the bill language and cuc took the lead on that because I was busy with landfills and other items. And I had input on their language, and I understand they met with senator staples' staff this morning and presented that to hi the senate companion to house bill 2833 has a committee hearing in senate natural resources this afternoon, and cuc is going to testify on the type of issues we discussed with the landowner reps. And the language is geared to address those type of issues. So that's going on this afternoon. I just need to know do y'all have any interest in me or bob cam or anyone from Travis County testifying or putting in a card for that committee hearing?
>> do we know specifically what cuc will say?
>> yeah. It's basically what I just laid out, that we think the bill as drafted probably leaves open -- certainly leaves open the possibility of even under just existing county regulations cases where the county would have to compensate landowners or would have to relax the regulations just to address basic public health and safety issues and not the kind of density or water quality issues that we think is the real concern of the landowners who are supporting this bill.
>> cuc would have specific language to offer?
>> they will. And they will have specific examples which i've given them of specific scenarios where I think those unintended consequences would arise. Of course, from cuc's perspective, they don't have anybody that lives this stuff day-to-day, so if they start getting a lot of questions from the committee, they might not be able to elucidate as well as they could, but they are going to testify and present those points.
>> I think if you were there, that would be helpful to answer some of the specific questions. If at all possible.
>> the only other issue I would point out is I do have some items on executive session this afternoon that really can't wait a week.
>> yeah.
>> so even if you authorize me to go, I need to stay here for those, and I may miss the opportunity.
>> we've got revenue caps going on in the house this morning.
>> the other option is just to go not testify, but put in a card of support of cuc's testimony. So there are different ongss you can -- options you can take.
>> what's your understanding of the -- those percentages that I put may my e-mail, the 55%, 25%, how do they come into play?
>> well, those are really the -- the definition or the threshold for a taking under the bill. And there's two different ones. One is if your regulations have the effect of limiting a development to below 45% impervious cover or if your regulations have the effect of reducing the fair market value by 25%. So there are two different triggers. And I think our key issue in the bill is the use of the word effect. If density regulations are the concern, I think the bill ought to say if density regulations limit you below 45% or density regulations reduce your value by 25%, then that's a taking, but the idea that basic public health and safety standards are like how much right-of-way do you need for a safe road or retaining the 100 year storm or making sure your soils will support an on-site system, those are basic public health and safety issues. Braij easements, public utility easements, sight distance easements for intersections. When you add that all together you can trip either one of those triggers. In that case you've got a situation where either the landowner is relieved of having to meet these very basic public safety requirements or the local government has to pay him to meet those requirements. And that's what I think the unintended consequence is. If density is the issue, just say you can't have density regulations that can't do these things.
>> so if you have the authority in Texas to regulate density?
>> well, I think it's an open question. I know there are specific bills filed this legislative session that say counties can't. From that I conclude that if those bills need to be passed so that counties can't, then at least reasonable minds can conclude that counties currently can. That's another issue we raised with the landowners. These bills that specifically address the density issue, do those not solve your problem? The other bill out there is the one I mentioned in the work session last Thursday that basically says counties can regulate water quality, but the water quality regulations have to be approved by tceq. So there's a lot of built out there that seems to touch on the issue that's apparently driving this for the landowners.
>> what if we this afternoon try to take your items first. We will know at 12 noon whether they're out of session, whether the senate is out of session and into committee meetings this afternoon, right?
>> right.
>> the house has been meeting until late in the day, right, bob, and committees have been convening past 6:00 o'clock.
>> yeah.
>> the senate has been doing the same thing or getting to committee --
>> 1:30 to 2:00.
>> anything else on 2833? Okay.
>> the other bill I just wanted to mention was house bill 2236. That's representative baxter's bill on city and county development fees. Commissioner Daugherty and I just met with him Monday morning and the one last issue we had he agreed to address with a floor amendment. So I think we're okay on that bill.
>> what issue was that?
>> I think it was really just an inadvertent drafting error. It's just to make sure that if the cost of infrastructure and improvements like road right-of-way, for which we imposed fiscal requirements arise, that we can increase our cost recovery on that. Basically I think the way the bill was drafted it sort of left that piece out of it. The infrastructure improvements. And so if those costs were going up, if you just looked at the bill on its face, we couldn't recover those increased costs. But he agreed to put in language that addressed that issue. So if those costs go up, we're still allowed to recover our actual costs. And I had raised that issue, but I had not seen the substitute at that point, so that one had already been addressed.
>> okay. Questions on hb 2236? Anything else today?
>> I知 with Travis County tnr. I wanted to update you on house bill 1704. It did pass to enrollment, senate bill 848 today. The senate concurred with the house amendments from the floor. Both bills passed in both houses with more than two-thirds of the vote and it's now being sent to the governor for his signature. So since they both passed with more than two-thirds of the vote, that bill could go into effect immediately, which would change some of our --
>> what does that bill do again?
>> approval processes.
>> remind us what that bill does.
>> that's this session's grandfathering permit applications.
>> meaning?
>> I think going to take some time to figure out what it means. The one thing it definitely does is most local governments say you're not vested from rule changes unless the application you have on file is administratively complete. It definitely prevents local governments from having that administrative completeness requirement to grandfather.
>> what does it mean? Does it mean someone can submit any type of paperwork? And it still has to be taken into consideration?
>> amendments were added to allow the local governments -- the applicant has up to 45 days to complete the application, and if they don't complete the application within -- give us the complete application within 45 days, we do then have the right to deny the permit, but we have to do that in writing and they have up to 45 days to come into compliance.
>> how does that change the current business practices to comply with this new law, then we're assuming this will become law soon.
>> yes.
>> unless the governor vetoes it, which I would think is unlikely.
>> so are we looking at significant changes on how we do business, joe, or are we looking at us basically making sure we dot our i's and cross our t's?
>> I haven't seen the completeness part of the bill yet, so I don't know exactly what -- the last time I looked at this the requirements for putting the county on notice were fairly vague, and I think if that's still the way the bill is written, then it's pretty easy to get your foot in the door. And the 45 days is a clock, then it basically allows the applicant to perfect whatever they need to put in their application to meet our completeness check. Which, you know, I suppose if there's a good bit of engineering and plan preparation that's necessary, that could weed out some of the more flimsy request for grandfathering.
>> the responsibility is on us to influence specific deficiencies in writing.
>> yeah.
>> as it's always been. And then the applicant has 45 days to basically meet those.
>> that's right.
>> we can deal with that.
>> we'll have to, looks like. [ laughter ]
>> next?
>> judge? Let me ask a question of staff. Is this applicable to city municipalities and the whole nine yards.
>> not school districts or --
>> pardon me?
>> districts, right. But counties and cities.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> good morning. Dana debeauvoir, Travis County county clerk. I have to discuss before the court this morning house bill 3278 by representative isaac. Buried in the very back page, back two pages of 3278 is a portion of the bill that will be detrimental to county and district clerks, and the cuc has also indicated that they're not interested in supporting this bill either. And I got tipped off to this bill by michael over at cuc because it was an elections bill that was in -- rather, a records fee management bill that was in a completely different committee than I would normally track. It's in section 5 and section 6, and what it does is it refers to the records management fund and the archive fee fund. And basically what it says is the Commissioners court may use the fees for records management that are not needed for use for any county purpose. I have not -- we agree on a budget every year, and I have more projects to do, just like every other county, than I have money to get it done. Sometimes I have to save up over a couple of years to pay for a project that needs to be done. I知 no different than any other county in that regard, especially with the archive fee because that's dealing with the old records and sometimes the restoration of those could be a little more complicated. The county and district clerks association has asked for representative isaac to strike section 5 and section 6 from his bill. All it does is take the money. My last estimate for the archive fee is that when it sun sets, if it sun sets, but that when it sunsets, I will only be 50% completed with dealing with our records prior to 1990. So this extra money that he's talking about is fantasy land, and to be used for my county purpose -- the reason why we created the archive fee and the records management fee and have had a gentleman's agreement for so many years is because old documents simply can't compete with indigent health care on a level playing field, so we had to create a pocket of money that would undo about hundred years worth of damage and neglect. And one we're really just now getting into it. I've been working on this for about 10 years now. So the request of the court is to talk to representative isaac about striking 5 and 6, county and district clerks are doing the same thing. And that was the testimony that I gave in the -- is it transportation? It was some committee I知 not real familiar with.
>> cuc and Texas association of counties are in opposition to sections 5 and 6?
>> I知 sorry, would you repeat that?
>> do both cuc and the Texas association of counties oppose sections 5 and 6?
>> yes, the association of clerks both oppose 5 and 6.
>> has cuc taken a position?
>> I don't recall the issue coming up.
>> they just found it.
>> it was the last minute, judge.
>> michael told me about it last Thursday night.
>> dana, does it just give the court the option of using the money for that? I mean, obviously with the relationship that you have with this court and always coming in with a good presentation about here's the reason I need this dough, that if you got a good, responsible Commissioners court, then most likely they'll say, okay, you're fine.
>> I agree with you.
>> we do have the option -- generally when these bills get done, somebody comes to somebody and says, this has happened and I think that you need to do something so that it can't happen again. Now, unfortunately, it throws a pretty wide net and probably bright enz brightens everybody. I can't imagine with us having the option, knowing the money is there, that this court wouldn't still allow you to use whatever monies you needed to get the job done that you're doing. But I can see where clerks are kind of like, hey, don't just give the courts, the county court or Commissioners court the autonomous ability to do this.
>> yeah. Although the language says may, the decision regarding whether or not the project is needed does lie in the budgetary process with a five-vote margin. So the answer to your question is, it's really not permissive. Any court can simply step in and take it away for very lght reason. They can just simply say, no, I don't think that we're going to need to have that project done, therefore I will pay for potholes instead. The word is "may", but the decision-making process is controlled by the Commissioners court. It underlines the previous lawsuits that have been in place. And not everybody is as lucky as I am to have a Commissioners court that's as well informed about the need for this fund and what good it does, and what good i've been able do in county government by sharing that fund with other entities. And I assure you they're low on the priority list for the county clerk's records. They would be the first to be cut. So it's going to be someone else coming in here saying I don't have the resources I need, what are you going to do about it? And you're going to be back in a position of coming out of the general fund rather than her taking my help. So even though it says may, it really is not permissive. And not every county enjoys the respectful relationship that we do.
>> if we simply continue to sustain our cooperative working relationship in Travis County, this bill does us no harm. And this may well be a let's get the county clerks, district clerks and the county Commissioners courts working together more closely. Now, I think we have a fine relationship 11 and a half months a year. [ laughter ] the other half month where we're dealing with budget stuff like you say, there are competing claims. The bill says when you run out of records management archive stuff, the court may. Doesn't that mean that the priority should be given to records management, archive type stuff.
>> but the decision making for whether they finished project or not is with the court.
>> this is the problem, judge --
>> I know.
>> what we have here is a dedicated fee that they're writing permissive language to say we didn't really mean that we were going to raise it for that particular purpose. And it seems like if you're going to have an archive fee, it ought to be spent on archives. And if there's no longer any more projects, then take away the fee and let the fund set.
>> we will probably always have records management archives initiatives that need funding.
>> yes.
>> I would say you would always have records management that needs funding. Archive is a static thing that we will see completed some day. Hopefully I will leave that legacy to county government.
>> I guess I feel differently if the money could be taken away by somebody other than that county's Commissioners court. I think we ought to take it to cuc tomorrow and see what cuc's position is and be consistent with them would be my recommendation.
>> do you know anything about it?
>> I知 glad you caught it because it's little stuff like this --
>> yes. Of course, county clerks are going to be speaking in opposition with the bill and we've already met with the representative's office. We do not know the source. All we know is that it's --
>> it wouldn't bother me if it disappeared overnight. But I think if cuc says we ought to put this on our list of bills to fight, then we ought to do it.
>> is this a return date on this?
>> 3278. I've got too many numbers cluttering my mind. I'll have to see if it was scheduled. It seems like they left it pending. So it could come up at any time.
>> okay.
>> I知 sure they left it pending, the question is when it will come up for second reading.
>> okay. Because we would still have the opportunity, judge. The luncheon is tomorrow --
>> but I will bet you there are counties where the clerks and the Commissioners court fight.
>> disagree, absolutely. Fight all the time. And what this does is open the door for a real battle and we don't want a battle.
>> whether it's records fight, sheriff's fight, constable fight.
>> I知 on record of supporting the records management and archive activities and funding.
>> fight, fight, fight. [ laughter ]
>> no fight. I don't want to fight with you, Commissioner. [ laughter ]
>> should we repost this one back for next Tuesday? Because then we will know where cuc is landing. You already with the district and county clerks, you've already raised the point.
>> and they're working on it.
>> how many more can we piggyback on top of it?
>> exactly. Thank you very much.
>> let me ask this question while we're waiting on the next one. The Commissioners court did formally take a position in support of representative dukes and senator bar yes or bill.
>> we can do that.
>> i've been asked by representative dukes to come over and testify in support of that bill. So we need to take a position one way or the other.
>> what's the number on that one?
>> is it 1904?
>> yeah, I got the same thing, judge.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. ... Senate bill 478 relating to the authority of certain counties -- [ inaudible ].
>> that's it. On the other one, basically it would go to voters with a specific proposal and ask for the funding increase and either the voters vote it down or up. It was -- at campo several people came and as an option for toll roads. And I would think that for specific projects, we may well reach the point where we say, I mean, either this road has to be tolled or we can raise additional monies for it by increasing the gasoline tax and we will in referendum form will allow Travis County voters to let us know what the preference is.
>> is the companion 1964?
>> I don't have an hb on the list.
>> but it's listed here. I知 making sure that we're all looking at the second to the last page of the priority tracking bill report you can find hb 478. I知 at the same place the judge is. House bill 1964 and 478. I知 like give the voters the option. If they say yes, great. If they say no, great.
>> I guess -- I don't mind looking at this and dealing with it; however, there is still lurking out there bill 2702. I believe that's the bill number sponsored by representative krusee and his people, a transportation bill that the way I知 understanding, it may suggest that proposed tolls on existing roads be actually grandfathered. So if that bill picks up steam and it passes, then it appears that Travis County may be the only county in the state of Texas that has proposed tolls on existing roads. I don't know where that bill is going. And it may undermine what the voters may do as far as these particular bills that we're talking about here, making it a local option. And what overrides what? This bill -- the voters of Travis County support this to use the gasoline tax to deal with toll roads in Travis County. What would 2702 do if that bill passes to grandfather the existing tolls on existing -- tolls on existing roads proposed here in Travis County? Now, that is something that in my opinion is a little touchy. I don't know exactly what we need to do on this, but I do know that there has not been any -- appears to have been any backup of moving away from tolls on existing roads here in Travis County. It's in the 2030 campo plan, which I definitely oppose. So it's kind of put necessity in a tough situation to ask voters -- if it pass, I don't know what the status of these two bills is going to be farce the local option. I don't know.
>> it's two separate things, Commissioner, if I can help. Senator barrientos has said that his is a stand alone proposal and representative dukes from what's going on in 2702, which is the omnibus transportation bill. The senator will be the first person to tell you that even if the local option passes, it would not eliminate toll roads in Travis County because the dollars raised simply do not cover eliminating all toll roads.
>> 2702 really, the way I understand it, relates to not being able to take the roads out of the phase 2 toll plan.
>> correct.
>> and we -- it gets back --
>> there are the four roads that are still threft in there -- left in there. But we still get back to the question of tell me is a road an existing road -- if you go to 183, Commissioner Davis. Is what they are building between i-35 and the bridge, is that construction along that line, is that a new road or is it an existing road? Because what they're going to do is the existing road that we all drive on now, that we all know to be 183, that is going to stay intact. What the toll part is going to be is going to be a new road that does not exist today.
>> I see what you're saying, Commissioner, but what bothers me, we have -- Travis County is the only one, I think, in the state of Texas that's subjected to this 2702 toll road -- grandfathered up toll roads. I don't think there's another county in the state of Texas that is under this type of examination. There may be somebody else. I don't know.
>> what does this --
>> let me finish, Commissioner, please. I understand what you're saying, but the way I知 seeing it is the way I知 seeing it. Everybody may have their own ideas and the way they see things, which is fine, that's your opinion. I知 not arguing your opinion. But what I am arguing is that yes, this 2702 could, and I guess supersede anything that a local option vote would take to take gasoline monies to end up paying for the operation and maintenance of the road, because that's exactly what I think this is supposed to do. Whereas tolls would have generated that same revenue to operate and maintain roads. We have three of those over in my precinct. Of course, one of them, sh 130, which the voters have decided to do. That was just an out right vote that the voters of the Travis County decided, listen, we would like to have sh 130 as a toll. However, these others there was nothing that the voters were saying they want tolls on these existing roads. So I am definitely kind of in a crossfire here because I don't know what would supersede what, if 2702 does pass in the big omnibus transportation bill that representative krusee is proposing, then it just -- this area may -- I don't really know. But I知 kind of at a crossroads on this, but I do know this, that I知 not supporting any type of toll on existing roads throughout all of Travis County. Now, I do know that. That's my position I知 taking.
>> I have the exact language that is in 2702 that talks about that in terms of where is the definition of where this point is. And it says anything that is designated as a toll project in a plan or program of a metropolitan planning organization on or before September 1, 2005. And for all of us who have been on campo, all of the mpo's, the eight largest in the state, were required to turn in their toll plans, for lack of a better word, to the transportation commission in the August time frame. So decisions made by campo, decisions made by bexar county, decisions made by harris county and all of the other eight largest mpo's in the state would be included in terms of if an mpo made a decision prior to September 1, which all eight did, then they don't count. They're not going to have something that will undo decisions of an mpo. But as we all know, the mpo can change its designation. So this would still allow if campo decided that they could figure out a way to not do any of these things as not toll roads. The plan can change.
>> is that five or four? Because we haven't gotten to September of '05. I do think that all of these eight mpo's are going to have to comply and put their plans in by September of this year.
>> it says here September 1 of 2005.
>> that's what they're expecting. I do agree --
>> but ours are already in, Gerald. As is bexar county. Bexar county has 410 miles of new toll roads going in. The numbers from up in tarrant county were -- blew ours completely out of the water in terms of number of lane miles. We like to think we're the only ones in this situation, but we're not the only ones in this situation.
>> I don't know what their roads are, but I will agree with Commissioner Davis that --
>> it's 435 miles of new toll lanes down in san antonio.
>> I知 not --
>> including taking 1604, which is an existing roadway in the same kind of situation that we can describe 183 and 71.
>> when you see 1604, you clearly understand what people I think understand is a true and accurate toll road. It is added to capacity road. That's the reason that it passes. We do have some added capacity road, which is the reason -- the definition of what is an existing road and what isn't is still puzzling to everybody. And I just wish that we could get that one definition clarified. But I don't know how to do that.
>> if you do the tax on gasoline and the money is given to the regional mobility authority on projects that Travis County has identified, then you would need toll fares to those.
>> as much.
>> so you would-- this came up because the various citizens who came to campo and testified were looking for a local option tax. They were saying let's let the voters vote on that. To the extent that you raised -- even eliminated toll fees, it can certainly reduce toll fees. But what I like about it is you lay the facts out there, and if the majority of the voters like it, they'll come out and vote for it. If they don't like it, they'll vote it down.
>> right.
>> judge, it's a great -- I think it's a great tool for us. I wish that we would have known 14 months ago that that was even a remote possibility of doing it, then it probably wouldn't have put as many of us as it did in the crosshairs --
>> except the same bill was in the last legislative session two years ago and it went nowhere. So the answer is 14 months ago we didn't have that option because two years ago we were not given that option.
>> and I don't know that we have the option today because I still haven't heard from the highway commission as to what they're going to let us do. The whole deal, I thought, was predicated on whatever we were asked to pass this toll plan is that if you don't do this toll plan, you don't get the Texas mobility fund dollars. Now we have a question, we don't even know -- I think that the lieutenant governor is speaking today with make barrons and krusee and somebody about what's going to happen with the Texas mobility fund dollars. So if we have all been dropped into grease to vote on this plan only to find out that, do you know what, your Texas mobility fund dollars are subject to not even coming our way, then it truly is a mess. But --
>> your comments on this?
>> I just wanted to say that the bill was sent to tnr for comments. We sent it over to the auditors and I知 not making a recommendation either way of whether or not to support the bill. I just wanted -- that the auditor's comments were in order to process a local option tax, we would have to get into a new line of business. So I just want that thought to be kept in mind. If the voters approved it, it would just be some new f.t.e.'s that we would probably have to get. Or not if they don't.
>> we already have the collection of a state and a federal gasoline tax, and it doesn't require any of us to do anything other than --
>> the comptroller's office does that for us.
>> it is the appropriate entity, of which it is not Travis County. It would go to the regional mobility authority, not us.
>> and both representative dukes and senator barrientos will need our support if we support this. That's why I move that the Travis County Commissioners court take a position in support of house bill 478 and -- sb 478 and hb 1474.
>> representative krusee is a moving target. We really don't know exactly where that big overall transportation bill is going to land. We just don't know what's going to happen. I don't know what's going to supersede what. Number two is that in conjunction to that we still have another bill out there that's floating around that has some type of similar relationship. That's house bill 3363 sponsored by garnet coleman who is basically trying to get the -- identify the revenue that is assigned to each district in the state of Texas, so we'll exactly know where the money is per district, which is another good question. There will be a public hearing held on that, which i'll be supporting. However, this particular bill is something that, as I stated before earlier, is maybe the taxpayers here in Travis County may be doing two things, paying for a toll and also paying to generate revenue for operation and maintenance and also paying a gasoline tax to do the same similar thing. So we are kind of lost in the crossroads. At this time I知 going to have to abstain from this because of the fact that I do not have all of the pertinent information for me to make an intelligent decision -- not necessarily intelligent, but an informative decision whereby I don't have all the tools in the tool shed to deal with this particular vote at this time. I need to have more information. Thank you.
>> in my view this is a let's give Travis County residents an opportunity to have a say, and you can put it on the ballot and if it's voted down, you don't do it. If it's voted up, you figure out a way to do it. All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor.
>> and I知 going to abstain, judge.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining. Next bill?
>> do we need to send an appropriate letter to senator barrientos and representative dukes or authorize the court to be able to put in the appropriate cards and/or testify?
>> I was asked to come over tomorrow. It looks like the house is meeting all day. I said I would. So if the court, though, could have like a letter that the whole court signs and send that over, I could take that over with me. I committed to be able, notwithstanding that lately the house has been meeting all day and the committee has been meeting after 6:00 o'clock. Tomorrow is when it's set also.
>> it gives us the maximum number of options to be helpful.
>> this may be something that we never do, but at least there's the authority to do it in the right circumstances. It seems to me look at the circumstances, figure out whether you want voters to consider this option, and if you do, then you give them an opportunity to vote on it. Next bill? Okay. Can we get that drafted, do you think? Late today or by noon tomorrow? Thank you. Should I share with you some points that representative dukes' office provided me yesterday in e-mail?
>> yes.
>> move to recess until 130.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:40 AM