Travis County Commissioners Court
May 17, 2005
Item 28
28. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed before the 79th Texas legislature. Some of these bills are hot because they are on the move one way or the other. Susan?
>> I just wanted to give you a brief update on the judicial bills. There was a bill on judicial compensation, it was not as good as we would like. But it's slightly better than what they have got now. The state pays more of it. That's good news. It passed the senate this morning. It passed the house. And so we'll see how that goes. We are very hopeful. I spoke in favor of the bill as I said we would have liked a little bit better, but it was a lot better than what -- what the current state is. So hopefully that will -- will pass. The -- the creation of a new criminal district court, we had supported that, we had an individual bill that passed house judiciary, went over to the senate, in the senate they put together an omnibus court bill, all of the courts together, that bill back to the house, it is pending in house judiciary, hopefully that will move, we will get a new criminal district court. The date that we finally settled on was -- was January the '07, it would not be in this budget year but the next, that was kind of a financial compromise type of thing. I think we could justify the need next year, but just from a budgeting viewpoint. It looks like that bill is moving, we will have a new on court. On the revenue caps, that is kind of I think still kind of a tenuous situation. A house bill 1006 which you heard was very hotly debated in the house, did pass the house, moved over to -- to senate finance and is sitting there right now, has been since may 2nd. On the senate side, inter18, which -- sb 18, which really did include things that we could live with was added to house bill 3, then came out with the state property tax and then s.b. 18 moved. It is now sitting in ways and means on the house side. So from our viewpoint, s.b. 18 is the bill that reflects what we think we can live with, it is a very strong truth and taxation bill. There are -- there's a lot of -- of disclosure for the public. Hearings and y'all supported that as well. The rollback rate stays at 8, that was a very critical issue for us in terms of mandated services. I did write a letter to senator williams on my own behalf because I didn't get a chance to really I thought a letter needed to go out. And I知 going to give you each a copy thanking him for listening to our feedback and basically amending s.b. 18, which I think is a reasonable compromise. I also think that it is important that there is not so much acrimony between the counties and states that you can't do business anymore. I think williams' bill is a good one. I think it represents some of the things that they want. Also protects our ability to fund the services that -- that we need to. So I think that it's a good compromise. But I don't -- I think nothing is over until it's over. I don't think we want to be clapping our hands quite yet. That I think is a good bill. That's really it. Just kind of a brief summary of where we are. I will be glad to answer any questions that any of you have.
>> questions?
>> thanks for everything that you have done, susan.
>> judge, could we get tom because I知 going to have to leave at about 11:40 to be out to Lakeway. I have asked tom to perhaps lay out a little bit for us 2833. Which is the -- I guess the takings bill, if you will. I know that they debated that pretty heavily yesterday. I have been asked to see whether or not Travis County would have an opinion on -- on how we feel about that given that -- that some of the folks have talked to tom with regards to -- to what could there be in that that would allow us to be -- to be not adversarial with it, but tom, why don't you -- why don't you lay out what you were asked and what you think that 2833 does to us county-wide.
>> i'll do that as part of that when -- when you asked me to call dan wheelis yesterday, I had my discussion with him, he asked me to basically send him an e-mail with the language, I will just give that to you all, I think that best sums it up. And to the extent, you know, they want something in writing, in essence I have already put something in writing, so I wanted to share that with y'all. I think my concern with the bill has always been that -- that it was over broad and did more -- it addressed more than what the folks that were supporting the bill were talking about as the problem. And to sum it up, I think that the people that are supporting the bill are worried about -- about density regulations, lot size and impervious cover. I always felt that the bill was drafted so broad that it not only covered those type of regulations, but just our very basic road construction standards, and drainage construction standards. I've had various discussions with folks, according to the bill, various discussions with cuc, at some point you get down to okay what's the one thing that you have got to have to make this a palatable bill, that's really what's in this e-mail. I told dan and his folks that, you know, if you change one word in the bill, i'll be satisfied that you are not having unintended consequences with regard just to our very basic existing regulations on the roads, drainage, on site sewage and the like. That's really what's in here.
>> what difference would that make now in the real world context?
>> well, to me --
>> I know the definition of these two words but what is the significance.
>> to put it in context, I think it gets -- it gets rid of the unintended consequences of the bill. As I said, I think the intended consequence is basically to prohibit local governments from adopting impervious cover limits below 45%. And if they make this change, I think that's what the bill will do. And we don't -- Travis County does have impervious cover limits in our joint code with the city of Austin. As you know under our agreement with the city, they enforce those and you all don't. So again I知 looking at it in terms of what business the county is currently in. If you make this change, I don't think it affects our business a whole lot in terms of what we do now. So --
>> can you read the old sentence that has effect and read the new sentence that has regulate?
>> and this is the section -- as i've told you before, the key to the takings statute is the list of exceptions, generally there is an exception for everything Travis County does. The impact of the bill was it was going to take away the exceptions for any action that affects building size, lot size or impervious cover. Well, even our roadway standards can affect lot size, building size and impervious cover as can our on site sewage regulations, drainage regulations, et cetera, et cetera. So this -- changing this word would basically take away the exception for any action that regulates building size, lot size, or impervious cover. And right now, like I said, our only regulations on lot size, building size and impervious cover, per se, are what we have in the joint code with the city of Austin. Let me throw in, dan also agreed to one amendment that clarifies the on site sewage issues. We really have two amendments in here, this one and the one on on site sewage issues. That really gets rid of the unintended consequences, leaves you with the policy issue of what are the intended consequences. The intended consequences are to put, you know, very tight restrictions on impervious cover limitations. That's a policy issue. I haven't ventured any opinion of that because you all haven't ventured any opinion on that.
>> deeper, I would like to go maybe into another direction on that. The situation that I discussed with you yesterday. And since it's -- we have now -- okay. That is how and what kind of impact would this have on existing ordinances that we already have adopted, regulations, things that like? An example, solid waste citing ordinance for non-landfill issues, setback, buffer, that we are looking at, if a person is not able to use a certain portion of -- of their property, for whatever intended purpose because we have policies that restricts that. What does this bill do to add that? And if you can answer that for me, does it address the fact that --
>> I think that I would say the same thing, Commissioner. I think with this amendment I would be in the comfort zone that the bill would not affect the solid waste citing ordinance. Again, under the old language of -- of you are not exempt if you have any effect on building size, lot size or impervious cover, if you will remember, wmi came in and got a subdivision plat for their proposed expansion and they designated one lot for their disposal area. I mean clearly absent some of our restrictions on the floodplain and the like, they could have had a biggest lot on waste disposal. Under the old language I would have had a concern that the bill would basically impair the solid waste citing ordinance, because clearly our solid waste citing ordinance has an effect on how much of a lot they can dispose of solid waste on. If you change the word effect to regulate, I mean, you are clearly talking here about regulations that specify building size, specify lot size, specify impervious cover and outside, on site sewage, which they have agreed to an amendment to address that, and outside the joint code the county just doesn't have any of that type of regulations. So changing one word here can -- can like I said give me a whole lot of comfort that's stuff that you have already got on the book that's not going to be impaired in any way.
>> I didn't bring my last e-mail which there could have been more over the weekend. I haven't seen them yet. Cuc had a lot of issues with this. And the question is whether this proposed change takes away all of those concerns or it just makes it a slightly better bill, but it's still one that cuc opposes.
>> I think clearly it makes it a slightly better bill, but cuc still opposes it. I have worked with the cuc people, I know where they are going, they are out there still wanting broader exceptions for the county, you know, I told dan this is, you know, a whole different deal. This is Travis County saying, you know, this gives us comfort on our existing language. Cuc is still out there asking for broader stuff, I don't speak for them, so --
>> you don't speak for the city of Austin, but the city of Austin is still opposed and they are our partners in the joint code and we certainly have jurisdictional issues being all of one called Travis County.
>> did dan agree to change that one word? Or is he still considering it?
>> I think that he pretty much agreed to do it. I listened to the hearing yesterday, I even heard senator staples, the bill's sponsor talking about making that change. I haven't seen the actual language. I told dan, I know there's a lot of other amendments that are probably going to be put on, it's -- it's hard to say the bill is okay when you know there's other pieces that are in flux. But I feel like they are going to make that amendment change --
>> do you know anything about -- about this?
>> it's my understanding [indiscernible]
>> come up to the mic phone.
>> sorry.
>> there was some e-mails floating around yesterday. The issue popped up yesterday. I haven't seen the final language, but it's my understanding that they will accept that amendment. And -- and we have visited with the other side on that and I believe that will happen. And we'll make sure that happens today then. Follow through. It's the bill has not been voted out of committee. They didn't have a quorum last night. So it's still sitting there. But we'll make sure that it gets done.
>> bob, do you have a list of what the concerns are for the municipalities, for example Austin, cuc, issues as far as those things that they are opposed to as far as this particular bill is concerned?
>> we have --
>> that language -- what does that list look like? Is there an available list somewhere?
>> the conference of urban counties has provided us with their amendment, we have provided -- they have provided them to tom as well. I don't have amendments from the city. I don't know if you have seen those.
>> no. That would be good to see that. That's what I知 trying to put it altogether in one pile. Commissioner Sonleitner brought up a good point. And --
>> is this bill likely to -- to move during the next two weeks, do you think?
>> yes, I think the bill will pass. I think the votes are there. It will likely be voted out of committee as soon as they can get a quorum. They may just do it at the nor's desk. At the senator's desk. It will go on to the full al door. I do suspect there will be attempts to amend it on the floor. I don't know what those amendments will be. We will try to get a list of proposed amendments from the city and get those to your office.
>> where is that delegation? The Travis County delegation representative over there, that represent Travis County, where are they in this, on this issue? Right now?
>> they -- I would say most of them have been supportive of the changes that we have been trying to make. But there's different opinions in that delegation, too. I think there's members of the delegation that fully support the bill as it was filed. And as it is -- as it exists right now. So there's a bit of a split.
>> well, sounds to me like what they wanted to know is how the court would come down on -- given that the language was -- was changed for what tom asked, would the court be willing to say we are accepting of that? I did say that, you know, I couldn't speak for the court, I mean, as the precinct 3 Commissioner. Then I知 in favor of the bill given that it's had the changes and it's taken effectively the -- the harm out of Travis County. That still doesn't say, you know, address the issue that -- that the city and tml is -- I understand probably still against the bill. I understand yesterday there was quite a flurry of comments, you know, about it. I mean obviously it is better than what it was, I mean, which got me, you know, a lot more comfortable with what was going on. They know, I have tried to work with them and just said, you know, we've got to make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences that's going to happen to Travis County. I think we are fine with that. Now whether we are fine court-wise, firing something over there that says, you know, given that these changes have been made, we are not in opposition to 2833, I think that's what they are asking.
>> assuming that they vote the bill out at the senator's desk today, it's still going to take several days for us to get the substitute that's coming out. We can get that to you, you can review it to see if you want to take a position on it. As tom mentioned, that substitute then will go to the full senate floor and it could be -- there's still opposition as you all are aware. I would suspect that we are going to see amendments on the senate floor. Now based on the vote in the house, I would think that the author might be able to prevent those amendments from going on in the house floor. I mean, I think he's got some good votes. But that's -- that's unpredictable, too. So I think what we can tell you for sure is that we can get you the bill coming out of committee and that will confirm whether or not tom's changes are in there and then if you wanted to take a position as the bill is going to the floor, you could do that. And we could communicate that to the delegation.
>> maybe we ought to see what the -- if the cuc and the city of Austin have offered up amendments, I would like to see what they are. It's hard to -- it's hard to determine whether to make sense -- whether it makes sense without seeing them. But legally, the committee can meet at the chairman's desk and vote it out of committee?
>> they have already closed the public hearing on that last night. So what they would be doing is voting the bill out of committee. It's pending business. So if they have a quorum there --
>> doesn't have to be like a formal preannounced meeting in a meeting room.
>> that is -- that's correct. Now, what they do is they do announce it at the end of the session. At the end of the senate session that they are going to have a formal meeting at desk so and so and then they do have someone there from the senate that records what happens and it's open to the public. So we can go and watch the vote. It's good democracy, judge.
>> we have a good strategy on a lot of bills, big bills, that it's better to be inside the department than outside the tent. On some of these I won't say we have been neutral, but I would say proactive in trying to seek the kind of changes to make things a better bill. I have the president clinton on 2833, with the clock ticking on where we are in the session, that it is helpful to have this language there. But that doesn't make it a good bill. And if -- if you are going to ask today well shall we take a stance, it's still a bad bill, I want to al line myself with the conference of urban counties that has huge issue was this bill and many of our state legislators from Travis County have been trying without success to try to get some changes here that will lessen the impact. We are partners with the city of Austin, they have huge issues. We can have a long discussion about whether some of the actions in Travis County, certain jurisdictions triggered this thing, it is still not a good bill. Ask you are asking today what my opinion is, it's I知 glad we tried stay at the table and push for as many changes, but I don't think it even goes even close to being far enough and I知 still at the place where cuc is and that is that this is a bad bill that ought to be defeated.
>> I would suggest that we wait and see, you know, what happens to it in the next couple of days.
>> but if cuc and the city of Austin offered up amendments or written objections, I would like to see them. Maybe it will clear our intention to address that next week.
>> we can get that list but it's my understanding, though, from the lawyer from the c.u.c. That sat down to negotiate, that their amendments have been rejected.
>> sometimes honored even a bill that's going to go through and pass to say you know what we object, we object.
>> I would like to know what I知 objecting, to, that.
>> I have been going to the c.u.c. Luncheon so I know what I知 objecting to.
>> we are saying monitor, monitor, seeing with where it goes, what changes are being made et cetera, I know we looked at it, but it must have been weeks ago.
>> [indiscernible] discussed interim rules at one time that we were looking at. As far as employing those particular rules for the county, basically we sent it back, setbacks, creeks, stuff like that.
>> it's hard to say, there are other bills that are moving in the legislature that touch on the same topic, the main one that I知 referring to is senate bill 1858, which basically says any local government, including counties, can -- can have water quality regulations, they just have to be approved by tceq. Which would obviously clarify the issue of -- of exactly what authority do counties have in the water quality area. The answer if that bill passes was whatever authority tceq says they have. So --
>> [indiscernible] 2833 or --
>> I mean I think the thing to say about 1858 is it makes the issue what the. A water quality issue. If local governments are going to address water quality regulations, I think it's not unclear to say they have to pass water quality muster. The water quality agency with the state of Texas is tceq. So it removes the issue. What I hear, when I hear people talk about some of the density regulations that local governments are -- have adopted in central Texas and the proposed regional plan for the edward's is that they are not really water quality regulations, they are back door land use regulations. I think one thing 1858 does is say: okay, we are going to address that issue head on, we are going to let the state water quality agency decide whether these are valid from a water quality perspective. If they are not, you can't do it. So that gets rid of the back door land use control issue.
>> but weren't there amendments put in lately that said if there are existing, if they are in place, then tceq does not supersede -- wasn't that bob -- hasn't that been put in? That was the thing that made it at least palatable to, I mean, the city and some folks went okay what we have got in place, I mean, you are not going to overturn? You are shaking your head, isn't that effectively --
>> I didn't read it quite that broadly Commissioner. I thought it was more of a timing issue. As filed it said if you have existing water quality issues you can't enforce them until tceq approved them. I thought the issue that was addressed, they stay in place unless tceq somehow nullifies them.
>> if you can show that they are necessary to safeguard public health and in emergencies, but there was also a memorandum, I thought, I am just reading this from newspaper stories, sorry, that these -- the state would be sort of minimum standards and if a local jurisdiction came in with an exceeding standard, that that would be --
>> that would apply.
>> that would apply. Senator armbrister went on to say that was always his intention, to bring those areas that have low quality water standards up, not to punish those who have --
>> higher standards.
>> high standards.
>> we went through this related to septic, in terms of when we were dealing with state minimums. There's a huge fight as to whether you could exceed the state minimums and the kicker was always but it had to be based on science. That seems to be something re-emerged here. The minimum state standards, if they do, is it going to have to be based on accepted science. I remember, you know, separation to ground water, good golly, we spent months on whether the science did or did not prove it and fortunately that was like one of the few exceptions that we got to the statement amongst related to septic and it was distressing to find that -- you know, even things within the scientific community you could have one set of scientists say one thing, another say the other, but if the -- if the set of scientists were on the side of the tceq, you lose. If your scientists felt something else, felt it very strongly based on what was going on in our very unique jurisdiction. You need jurisdiction. We think that looking at either 2833 or 1858, might we end up with both? I don't think it either on because --
>> okay.
>> they are both moving.
>> so it's a big issue about 2833, clarification or water quality, regulations versus land use regulations, also. Or is that just a -- just a sort of clarifying intention of 1858?
>> well, I would say -- 2833 basically says thousand shalt not have -- thou shament not have impervious cover regulations under 45% under any circumstances.
>> 45% applied to the land?
>> 45% of the land exclusive of floodplains and slopes over 35%.
>> so 45% must be developable.
>> right.
>> even with -- with water features?
>> correct. The only exclusions would be floodplains and very steep slopes.
>> so you could have things that are accepted, critical, environmental features and they still count against the 45% in.
>> tom, correct me if I知 wrong, you can have regulations but then you have to pay the taking for them.
>> although the -- I know this was discussed in the hearing yesterday, too. The way I read the bill, anything below 45% is void. You don't have to show any impact on value. It's defined as a taking per se.
>> exactly.
>> regardless of whether --
>> you can set the regulation baugh you are going to have to pay the --
>> if there is a violation or takings,? An authorized amount, you simply pay the appraised value --
>> that's one option. You either have to pay the landowner or you basically have to void the regulation or give them some sort of variance. It's the local government's choice. You either pay them or you -- you void, repeal the relationation or give them a variance from the regulation.
>> it's that based on add value which is practically nothing, in which case ooh, sign us up or is it highest and best use. You could have somebody that doesn't want to go by the ordinances and they get paid. You could actually have developers who -- who voluntarily want to do the right thing, wind up getting their stuff paid for.
>> it's market value. Which I would interpret to mean highest and best use.
>> bankrupt us all.
>> so do we have the bill sponsors trying to meet with stakeholders, ie c.u.c., city of Austin, trying to work out differences still?
>> are you talking about 1858?
>> or 2833. Back to that one?
>> 2833 tom nuckols has been really the main negotiator on county's behalf.
>> for Travis County. But I知 hearing a lot of other entities are more actively involved in this than we are, c.u.c., city of Austin.
>> senator staples indicated yesterday that he met with assistant city manager laura huffman from the city of Austin, I know the Texas association of counties testified against the bill and seemed to have some suggestions for ways to fix it. I don't know -- their suggestion was to take counties out of the bill basically.
>> and -- I think at least we ought to make a phone call to the assistant city manager to see what the city's position is and c.u.c. And -- and we are kind of running out of time. The session will end the last day of may, right?
>> that's correct.
>> whether it falls on a weekend or not?
>> that's correct.
>> and the bills actually have to be out by a week from tomorrow. The second reading, I believe, is the 25th. So --
>> so next Tuesday is a very important meeting. Can we get that?
>> well, in the next week or so, yes, going to be very important.
>> anything further on these two?
>> well, let me -- judge, just to clarification, it's my understanding that the court has not taken a position on senate bill 1858. I don't think that's -- I don't think that's -- if you want us to, we have not worked on that bill because of that. And if you want to give us instructions to -- to work on it, I guess we need to know what we need to do.
>> if we do get those instructions, at what peril to other things that we have got out there that we need to -- there's only x amount of time and what other kinds of things are pending out there, that you know is that the best use of the time.
>> that is not posted?
>> that is not posted.
>> what about -- I知 understanding that great harm will not result. It's just that if we want standards, water quality standards, that exceed tceq minimum standards, then tceq has to approve them.
>> it's hard to say, judge. I haven't looked at the bill that closely. I've sort of skimmed it a couple of times. I would be happy to look at it a lot closer and send you all an e-mail or something.
>> why don't we bring that back next week, too, try to find out where it is, what changes if any will be made to it.
>> I would say by next week we are going to be too late.
>> it's already passed the senate and been received in the house, I know that much.
>> that's all I know about it, also.
>> the interpretation we are given today is, if it's accurate, I don't think great harm will result.
>> well, I --
>> I will let the staff speak. But in fairness the reviews that we have gotten are through the atlas review program. The feedback that we have gotten is that this bill is probably okay. So I think it's been a decision on the staff not to present it to you for an action item.
>> I got the impression that it's okay, too. Which means if we do nothing, if it goes through, fine, if it doesn't, fine, too.
>> yeah.
>> any reason to think otherwise on 1858.
>> we will get it posted for next week, find out what happened if anything.
>> let's post it next week, report back on it for whatever news there is.
>> okay.
>> okay. Next.
>> can I give you a quick update on s.b. 727.
>> what does that one do.
>> a couple of weeks ago the Commissioners court presented that. I presented it to you, wentworth's bill dealing with open records. There are two sections that you authorized me to go contact the Commissioner -- the senator's office and marisa gonzalez and I along with julie joe we discussed that with their office. They were interested in looking over some amend. We drafted some amendments. They decided it was -- they didn't want to slow the bill down. It's gotten through the senate now, over in the house. And they just didn't want to take any amendments that they thought would slow the bill down. So I知 now asking for your consideration of how much more aggressive do you want us to be on this? The two provisions that we were interested in changing dealt with if we sent comments to the attorney general's office, we need to get copies of those to the requester. We were concerned about the cost of that. So the amendments that we drafted just said if requests are asked, then we would have to give it to the requester. But it would really be an administrative nightmare for us to have to give copies of those requests every time we get an open records request. So you know how aggressively you want us to pursue those amendments in the house. In the face of the author.
>> what's number two?
>> the other one dealt with -- there was something -- it was a less of a consideration, there's a committee that -- that has the ability to comment on certain actions and rules and things. It would -- it would remove the county, a county from being able to be on that committee. Representatives from the counties. It would just be the attorney general would be able to establish policy without our input. I知 less concerned about that one than -- than the administrative one.
>> well, if we send copies of comments to the requester, we can also send an invoice for --
>> to the requester.
>> the same invoice.
>> no.
>> authorization -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> not the way they are doing it now. It would be a requirement that we would have to give those comments to the requester.
>> can we send it as an e-mail? Can we just start being smart, rather than assuming it's going to be such a large printing bill, a lot of what you all do is completely electronic. If they have an e-mail address, zap it to them.
>> you raise a good point. Other thing that julie was concerned about, sometimes these folks come in and drop off these requests to us, all that we have is a phone number, when we come pick it up. We don't have an address where to mail it, let alone an e-mail address like the one that's are dropped off at the sheriff's office.
>> I知 thinking in terms of when we do subdivisions. We have to have a completed application should sure.
>> rather than simply saying hi here it is, somebody going too darn, too bad we didn't ask. We ask, say I need to fill this in, I need an address. If you have an e-mail address we need it. It's like rather than saying we are going to put up with the minimum, we ought to say we have some minimum requirements so that we -- it's all about just simply trying to get back to somebody and especially if somebody has a phone number, I can't tell you how many cell numbers I have gotten, on their temporary cell things, they don't exist. How are we supposed to find these people?
>> that was julie's real concern about that. The real concern was the cost. If we had to start making copies and sending those things out every time. A copy of the updated report is what's going to have to be sent to them. If a copy can be an electronic copy, that does not seem to be a problem. A lot of the times that we are concerned about what he is the proof that we have that -- what is the prove that we have that we sent it to them. If an e-mail copy is enough, maybe we could experiment with that.
>> other urban counties concerned about the provision?
>> I have not heard whether anybody else has raised the issue. It may just be -- may have just missed it.
>> not waste our time.
>> I wouldn't get crazed about it.
>> let's apply the good government rule here. [laughter]
>> next.
>> where are we on the bcp bill? I didn't see it really updated here. S.b. 767, judge, the one about the pushing through related to the conservation easements.
>> it's in the calendars committee, we are trying to get it set on the house calendar. We are working actively to do that. Hopefully that will get on in the next couple of days.
>> okay, who is on calendars? Patrick is on.
>> we have stopped by his office, given him a ready, done some other contacts to get it on.
>> do you still have reason to feel positive about the passage of that one?
>> yes.
>> senate, which was --
>> it's passed the senate and just waiting to pass the house.
>> then on the elections, what's the latest on either the house version of it taylor 2759 or the jackson version, which is 1272.
>> it appears that they are going to go with the house version, house bill 2759 on the very first page of your priority bills.
>> okay.
>> the third one down there. It's set for hearing Thursday in senate state affairs. And so we are -- we are not expecting any problem with that. There is also the language is also in house bill 2309, which is just above that, and that's by chairman denehey of the elections committee, that is an election omnibus bill, we also have the language in there going from 3 to 5,000, it's in two places, I think we are looking in pretty good shape.
>> one of the compromise that's we worked on was on the senate side. Did that get incorporated in? Because if it goes back over to the senate without that, we are back into the buzz saw.
>> > my understanding is that 2759, when the heard on Thursday -- when it is heard on Thursday, that it will be -- it will add the compromise language from the senate.
>> great.
>> that was the provision that said if you make a change in that precinct or if you have changed someone's voting precinct, they can't drive more than 25 miles from their house to the voting place. So we have been told by senator jackson's office they will keep that amendment in there.
>> great, that was really what was key on the senate side.
>> we have gotten e-mails from Austin Travis County mhmr about the mental health bill. There are two bills, house bill 470, house bill 2572, 2572 was heard this morning in the senate health and human services, so it has passed the house. It is in the senate. My understanding is that that bill is likely to make it through the process. There are various -- is likely to make it. There is also significant discussion that house bill 470 will be amended into either house bill 2572, or into the medicaid bill, which I believe is senate bill 1811. Senate bill 470 is not dead from what I understand. Furthermore, it is my understanding while Travis County mhmr prefers the 2572 approach, 470 has been amended dramatically from the point in time at which we originally brought it to the court's attention and expressed concerns about it. Such that I believe sherri has now appeared before the court and said it's kind of a mixed bag for us. We would like a lot of things in it, we do not think it will dramatically affect Travis County. I don't think mhmr, Travis County mhmr has quite the same sentiment about it. But it is not the bill, 470 is not the bill that it once was.
>> well, would 470 still create multiple jurisdictions for central Texas?
>> yes, sir.
>> that was the -- the most objectionable part to it. And it doesn't make sense unless you really dramatically increase your funding. What it means is that you got multiple additional jurisdictions sharing the same funds and there's a shortfall today. And a growing need. So to the extent that's therein aspect, I think we ought to remain in opposition for this 470 or the son of 470. I mean looks like every other day I get an e-mail from mhmr saying, you know, we have to keep -- we have taken a position against 470, right?
>> yes, sir. You did take a position on 470, which has been communicated repeatedly at a number of different meetings. I do think it's [indiscernible]
>> what is the medicaid bill, basically 1811, you brought that up.
>> yes, sir.
>> the possibility of that -- 470, may be amended, merged with -- into that bill. What does 1811 basically do under the medicaid --
>> I do not know. I received an e-mail this morning, alerting me to a discussion that house bill 470 may be amended into that bill, so I need to go read that bill and see exactly what it does. I assume that it -- it probably adjusts things like that eligibility for certain services for certain populations and those sorts of -- of changes to the state medicaid program, but I have not read 1811.
>> okay. Huh.
>> any other key legislation we need to discuss today?
>> judge, I might just mention for 30 seconds that the conventional wisdom at the capitol has begun to change significantly in the last 48 hours, regarding the likelihood of passage of house bill 3, which is the tax restructuring bill. I only mention that because we've mentioned this issue to the court a number of times and -- and at previous discussions of this, we have represented to the court that it appeared unlikely that that bill would make it through the process. I would say that the consensus at the capitol has shifted to be above the 50% range, which is a pretty dramatic shift. That there is a real possibility that the conference committee will put a bill together and get it on -- on the house and senate floors, that's not to say the bill will pass, but -- but it is in dramatically better shape than it was just maybe 10 days ago.
>> speculation as to whether the governor will sign it if it does pass.
>> yes.
>> another day.
>> yes. Any reason we ought to be concerned about -- about recent developments or new developments?
>> no, sir. I really don't think so. I think susan spitaro really addressed the issues that you were concerned about with that legislation, I didn't listen to all of her comments, if she didn't say, let me say I think we are not out of the woods yet on senate bill 18, I think it could go to conference committee, come back, in a way that we would not deem acceptable. We still have some work to do on that, but I don't think that's going to get rolled into hb 3 as it once was.
>> okay. Anything further today on this item? Anybody?
>> we put 758 on.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...anything else today? We'll let you know of our decision and they can do what they see fit. Can we do a short letter to give them if nothing else so they will know our formal position taken today.
>> move the hungry.
>> until 1:30. All in favor say aye? 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, May 18, 2005 7:54 AM