Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 26
Mr. Eckstein, since we have you there and since you stimulated such a lively conversation on 27 let's go to 26.
it is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including, a report on governor's action on certain bills.
b, update on legislative activities including hjr 13, proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the election and staggering of terms of county Commissioners following a change in boundaries of a Commissioner's precinct.
c, redistricting of congressional and legislative districts and implications for Travis County, and d, amendments to the priorities, policy po igs iss--positions, and the positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
>> judge Biscoe, members of the court, thank you very much for your time today.
part one, the good news is that governor per year has released all his vetos as of Friday afternoon.
that of the seven legislative items the county really was focused on during the session, all of those bills passed and all of them were signed by the governor.
so we are actually very excited.
in your backup is a list of those.
I might mens a couple briefly.
one we think is very important in a county growing as rapidly as Travis County is, and we heard a lot of talk about that, is the conservation easements that would expand the tools the county has to be able to work to preserve open space, agricultural or conservation land.
we're very excited about that bill.
we have done a bill to imcollaboration between the county and state on records management that our records management people think will save the county about half a million dollars a year.
we have some bills, a couple bills on air quality enforcement including a clean-up of the lirap statute, which had two inconsistent provisions about eligibility which previnthsed so I Travis County people from being able to participate.
that got resolved in legislation that session.
a number of these bills that we're very happy about.
all in all, with the exception of the budget area where we believe the county will probably take about a $7 million hit in funding from the state, we think the session was a success for the county.
(stand by for change in captioner ( after that election was held, you all would draw lots, the four Commissioners would draw lots among yourselves, two of you would then stand for reelection again in 2014 and then in 2018, the other two would stand for reelection again in 2016 and again in 2020.
over the course of 10 years, all four Commissioners would have to run three times and then you would do other redistricting and start the process over again.
redistricting.
obviously from the perspective of county this is county disruptive to the continuity.
many of you and your constituents experience in terms of you being on the job.
a lot of the counties push back against this idea and there was testimony taken on the -- on the bill in committee last week.
Travis County -- actually Travis County did not take a position on it, but Commissioner Eckhardt did sign in, in opposition to the bill, the bill was left pending in the committee.
we are reasonably optimistic nothing is going to happen on that bill in this session, but it is such a profound change to the ways in which we do elections for our county Commissioners that we wanted to come to the court today to recommend that the court take a position in opposition to house joint resolution 13.
>> to the to mention the cost of elections that often.
>> yes.
>> so we put together talking points?
I would -- like a resolution --
>> I can come back to the court if you would like something along those lines.
I think there was some talking points that were circular to your offices but they are not included in the backup for this item, but I'm happy to come back to the court next week with maybe a specific resolution with respect to that.
>> yeah, I think we ought to try to pull some of the talking points that cuc and tac put together and add any ones that we think are appropriate for us and --
>> turn that into a resolution.
>> get the whole court to sign it.
because it will impose hardship that's the sponsor of the bill may not be aware of.
or may not care.
we ought to indicate what they are, though.
>> I second that.
>> I move approval of that.
seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
let us know when the next hearing is if there will be one so we can at least show up in opposition.
>> but we'll have it back on the agenda for next week for a resolution and with some backup materials for the court.
>> the legislature will still be in session, we think?
>> unfortunately, yes.
it's good for -- for the tourism business in Travis County.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> item c, Commissioner, as you know, the governor perry added congressional redistricting to the call.
there have been several iterations of the map, all of which included cracking Travis County into five different congressional district in my opinion of which the voters of Travis County or voters of Travis County constituted anything like a critical mass or a majority of the people.
so that -- the bill finally was passed the senate, passed the house, came back to the senate and yesterday the senate concurred in the house amendments so that congressional redistricting bill was now on its way to the governor.
as I said like the other versions of the bill, cracks Travis County into five different congressional districts.
I believe you have an agenda item either today or next week, about -- about a legal briefing on the status of what -- of litigation involving that.
>> that is executive session.
>> there's one today, yes.
>> executive session.
>> going today.
>> we have -- we have no changes with respect to the legislative agenda that we want to propose, although, of course, next week in connection with the hr 13 we may have have a modification to the agenda.
but I'm done for today, judge.
>> mr. Fernandez testified earlier that the governor had vetoed one of those bills that impacts Travis County.
>> homestead preservation bill on which the court did not take a position this go around, house bill 990 by representative eddie rodriguez was vetoed by the governor.
>> on a similar note, deece, can you give us an update on the sunset for the Texas department of housing.
>> yes, the governor vetoed that bill.
they were up for sunset which means of course that if legislation to reauthorize and continue the agency does not pass, the agency will start a wind down process on September 1st.
so he vetoed that bill for the housing and community affairs agency.
he also vetoed the sunset legislation for the department of information resources.
both of which obviously have important interfaces with Travis County and with other local governments around the state.
governor perry has indicated that he will try to get a reauthorization of the dir, I think, on to one of the existing bills in the special session and then will open the call -- call the special session to the housing and community affairs and allow the legislature to pass legislation to extend that.
I have not seen the proclamation yet, but it may have been issued today sometime to open the call to housing and community affairs.
that is why I suspect, judge, that we're going to go probably up to the very end of the special session, which is next Wednesday, the 29th.
>> these are two extremely important departments to us.
>> very important agencies and, as you say, they do interface with the county considerably.
>> when the governor vetoes a bill does he normally give reasons why?
>> yes, sir.
>> written that housing and community affairs was being targeted.
>> uh-huh.
>> as is sometimes the case with the governor, I think a lot of people were surprised by that, judge.
>> huh.
>> I'll be happy to provide the members of the court his veto messages on those two bills as well as on house bill 990.
>> I would like to see that.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
all right.
anything else on item 26?
thank you, mr. Eckstein.
>> thank you, judge.
>> see you next week.
>> yes, sir.
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.
