Travis County Commssioners Court
February 25, 2003
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.
Item 18
We will try to call up the legislative item. That is number 18-a, discuss legislative issues including proposed bills and take appropriate action. And we did attach a list as an addendum. And 18-b is other bills bilz that may be considered in response to action taken by the Texas legislature and take appropriate action.
>> judge, are we still taking a break at 11:45 so people did appropriately plan?
>> yes. I have to leave by 11:45.
>> I do as well. Is this going to be the last item before we break?
>> unless there's no action -- unless there's nothing to do, I don't see us --
>> I don't either.
>> I don't see us taking less than 15 minutes. So I will say if this is not your item, it is your intention to recess until 1:30.
>> yes.
>> so you're not here on 18 a and b, I'm sure it will be this afternoon before we get to your item.
>> yes, sir. I'll be real quick. And I apologize this was not brought up on February the 13th. I think it is something that -- it is an item and a change that we can all agree to. It's very simple. It's the open meetings act does not allow the county to discuss the private medical information needed to decide an appeal of the benefits denial in our health planning executive session meetings. We would really think that it would be not unlike other issues when we discuss personal items -- personal information that it would be a closed meeting and that we would allow it to go into executive session, even if it is for a committee as opposed to just for the commissionrs court.
>> so can the appeals committee -- the appeals committee deliberations are open?
>> [inaudible - no mic]. The underlined portion represents the changes we would hike make to a section. The experience that i've had, which is very limited with this sort of thing, is that if you're dealing with an exception that they've already created, you're more likely to succeed than if you're trying to create a new exception. So we have some possibility of success there, but I don't know how much.
>> right now the medical records, psychiatric records of an individual would be part of the open deliberation before an appeals committee, notwithstanding the other circumstances.
>> okay.
>> you would think this would be fairly easy and straightforward.
>> I would hope that the legislature would see it that way.
>> especially in the new world and everything that we have to do relating to that. Alicia, have we check with who might carry this? And my thought was senator wentworth has been the one that's primarily on the senate side chos whos a Travis County -- who is a Travis County state senator, has handled a lot of these kinds of open meetings things that are really intended to protect where it's supposed to and not to go overboard in terms of denying the public access to these documents that they should be. And I would suggest that senator wentworth be approached at least on the senate side because he's had a long-standing history of handling this.
>> are you saying today that we authorize drafting of an appropriate bill?
>> yes.
>> I'm assuming that we asked for an appropriate bill, then that means we work on it? Can we get that? When we ask that the bill be drafted, I'm assuming that we want that -- we want it done?
>> right.
>> worked on, etcetera. Or if somebody else's bill is brought to our attention. But whoever we can get to sponsor it is fine with me, senator went worth if he's available.
>> move approval that we submit this, judge. Submit by staff and talk to our lobbyist.
>> second.
>> an part of this will be trying to figure out the best way to carry this forward.
>> yeah. I think there's all sorts of open meetings things that are cooking over there.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>> [item was continued after the break]
>>
>> if you have an issue with us today, my recommendation is that you come forward. We have 10 more minutes.
>> judge, very quickly. In a conversation I had with commissioner sonleightner, we talked about -- she very much does want to do the discussion we had about on the prebid conferences. And her office is going to be working on drafting that. I just wanted to lay that on the table and see if the commissioners court was interested. We're getting kind of late on getting these bills drafted. So I wanted to make sure that the court would feel comfortable with going forward.
>> isn't that an issue that's already been worked on requiring prebid conferences?
>> yes. We had requested representative maxey to sponsor this, but he has declined. And sid is working to look for another sponsor.
>> okay.
>> I wanted to make sure that you know.
>> yeah. I had heard about it b.
>> we had heard that a mandatory prebid conference would have taken away issues here with prebid process. I would move that we give authorizations to the appropriate departments to work with our legislative consultant about drafting appropriate language related to granting this county and whoever else mandatory prebid conference capability.
>> second.
>> so we're asking for a mandatory prebid on certain bids or all of them?
>> on all of them, sir, but we would use it very sparingly.
>> so the --
>> discretion.
>> it would be the discretion of the person under the conditions -- [ inaudible ]
>> and before drafting the legislation, I would want to look at the language.
>> slut absolutely.
>> any more discussion? Fall in favor? This is basically to bring it back for the language.
>> right.
>> draft it and bring it back.
>> okay. All right. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> hi, commissioners, lee walker with tnr. We have two issues we want to talk to you. One is a bill that tnr had drafted with senator gonzalo barrientos with cleanup on house bill 1445. And I'm going to let anna and tom discuss that while I pass out something on another issue.
>> okay.
>> this proposed bill -- this proposed bill helps clean up some of the inconsistencies between section 212 of the local government code that the cities followed and section 232 of the local government code that the county follows. One of the things in here that I most appreciate deals with public notice. The municipalities and the county follow different public notice structures, and this would give us an opportunity to streamline that and just use one or the other process. And tom, do you want to speak to that?
>> do we have a procedural thing right here. It is not helpful for us to have mog nog in front of us. And our office said we would help coordinate and get everyone's books loaded up to have an orderly process here, but we can't load up what's not given to us. And I understand that with the weather, etcetera, but we need to figure out how to funnel this stuff to our office because this is not help tofl have things in front of us that we don't have prior knowledge of.
>> it is my understanding that it is in your books according to grech en. It had been sent over by senator barrientos office. That was my understanding. Sorry about that.
>> let me ask this question. Ow did this -- I understand there was a lengthy discussion on hb 1445 last court meeting of the 18th of February, and how -- not the disagreement, but the areas where we did not reach agreement of consensus with the city of Austin. I'm kind of concerned about that because there are still some issues that still need to be I think resolved. And I understand that that happens and that the city and the county have been able to agree as far as 1445 is concerned and stuff like that, however, there are still some things that both party have not been able to agree upon. So since that's the case, how is what you're presenting to us this morning impact the discussion that was held on the 18th of February, if any?
>> I don't think it affects it at all, commissioner. What is in this bill is really two things. One is some technical cleanup that Texas legislative council wants because that have ag opinion on house bill 1445. There were a very technical issue of what applies when, and they're cleaning that up. And the other element of it is really strictly something that Travis County thinks is an issue that really neither the city or the stakeholders involved in the 1445 discussions have raised as an issue as far as they're concerned. And that is the process for replats. Because under the statute, in a way the legislature has ordered that cities and counties handled replates and amending plats and plat revisions very, very differently. And it's always been to us a source of a lot more work than we thought was necessary. And really what this bill does is say that a county could handle replats, amending plats, revised plats under the same procedure as the city does. So really it sort of furthers the intent of house bill 1445 because notwithstanding a 1445 told cities and counties to do things the same way, you've still got all these statutes where the legislature is saying, no, have you to do it different. So we're frying sto get rid of that part that says we've got do it different so that the city and county can achieve some efficiencies. And this is really the notice procedure for replates and it sort of says the city and county can do a joint notice and gets the same frames and everything else in line so we can stop what we've got to do now, which is the city does its notice and process and the county does a completely different notice process. You're notifying the same people, so you ought to be able to follow the same process.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> so I guess what we're asking for is -- tom indicated that you might have some changes to this language. There is ths a draft that we've asked senator barrientos to send to the legislative council. This is the language he gave us back. We're still looking it over to make sure that it does what we are trying to get done, but we wanted to present it to you, and if you feel comfortable enough with the issues, we I guess are asking for you to indicate to our lobbyist that yes, we want to go ahead and get the final language done and get this bill introduced at the very least so we can meet the March 14th deadline and move on. And then we can bring it back to you if we have some language changes, I suppose, if you want to see the final language. I guess we're just asking that you do agree that we move forward and try to introduce this legislation.
>> what do the stakeholders think about this?
>> it's my understanding that they agree with these changes and have no problem with them, the home builders.
>> I haven't discussed it with them myself. I don't know if they've seen the draft.
>> I don't know if they've seen the draft, but the concept.
>> I don't think they would appreciate ploozing six-week in dual public notice. I doubt they would have a problem. I think they would be supportive.
>> it would be good to see that, though.
>> that's the question that I had. [everyone talking at once]
>> if there are problems, we'll have it back on next week. Bring it back next week.
>> okay.
>> the motion is to approve it subject to the state's agreement. And if disagreement, that be brought to our attention next week. How's that?
>> that's great.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and the second item that I just passed out to you, I'm sorry, but there was just a hearing yesterday and so I felt leak it was important to sort of bring this issue up. And if you don't want to action today because you haven't seen this, that's fine, but I did want to bring it to your attention. Travis County works with the coalition call the Texas clean air working group. It's all the metropolitan areas basically working on clean air issues who are either already did he declare non-attainment. This is the first three pages of what I just handed out is the resolution that they passed earlier this year, sort of the -- together, one for all, and those are the major issues that we had in terms of 'funding. This is related to sb five to pass in the last legislative session. The funding that declared illegal, so it got wiped out and nobody is getting funding right now to do this program to clean up the air. It's a major issue for dallas and houston because they're actually -- it affects their requirements under the clean air act. It doesn't do that so much for us. I drafted -- they got all the participating entities basically to pass a similar resolution. I drafted a resolution from Travis County perspective under the guise of all for unand one for all basically mirroring this same resolution. I would feel remiss if I didn't point out to you, however, that our priorities are not necessarily exactly the same as dallas and houston. And it's up to you all, but I would recommend a couple of changes in this draft if you so agree, and that is that they put it in-- if you go down to the bottom of the painful of our draft, number one, the last two pages, number one is says first and foremost, provide full and fair funding to the Texas emissions recollection plan. While we agree that's very important, most of that money is going to be going to dallas and houston to begin with. Our number one priority really is number 3, the first bullet, endorse the environmental qualities legislative appropriations request for modeling. This is the money we need to do to continue to do the modeling we're doing for the early action compact that we are putting together. So that really is the number one priority for us. Turp would be number two. And there is an additional bullet under number three that says especially doppler force additional legislative appropriations to the houston, galveston, brazoria and dallas air quality research initiative. That is a new program that is being promoted by dallas and houston basically to get them more research dollars. That's great. Everybody needs more research dollars, but in this tight budget, I don't know if you want to endorse that as well because it's going to be hard enough to get the money for turp. And if we don't get the full funding for turp, our area is not going to get new must be. It will approximate all go to dallas and houston the way the formula is set up. It goes to them off the top and then whatever is leftover comes down to the non-attainment areas. So I heard somebody from the houston area yesterday testify just for enough funding to get dallas and houston their money, and they didn't advocate for the full funding, which means they don't get the full funding, then we don't get any money. So I wanted to let you know while we're all trying to work together, there are different priorities going on with this group. I don't know for you want to reflect that in your resolution.
>> move we have this back on the agenda neck next week.
>> but that's because of the money allocated because of the state of the air quality that's in harris and also dallas county as far as has been mandated.
>> they are already under a federal mandate and we are not yet, but we expect to be.
>> could I have a suggestion? I know if I were a state legislator I would not find it helpful to have a whereas, whereas, whereas letter. And with sha lean's explanation there, which is a very good one, that really was focused on really one or two point here, it seems like we ought to write a letter that summarizes why we are in favor of certain kinds of things. Because I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped in on some of these other things that may have meaning beyond what I'm seeing here. I'm seeing one here about changing commercial building codes related to urban heat islands. There's stuff in here I don't want to touch because they don't impact Travis County. I think it's more helpful to the legislature to tell them very specifically about why Travis County wants very specific things and why it would be helpful or detrimental. And so rather than a two page whereas, I would like to see a short, succinct three or four bullet point thring tho a legislator about the things that we care about and leave it at that.
>> so you think we will have more impact with the legislature? Bob, a resolution or a letter?
>> [ inaudible ]
>> or anything else.
>> [ inaudible ]
>> let's ask -- what do we need to consider today on this item?
>> I have one, judge?
>> in what amount of time? I'm leaving, but the other four are staying. It's fine with me. I have to leave.
>> i've got like five more minutes I can spend.
>> we can --
>> I can bring this back.
>> on this um item I do think we need a take a week anyway.
>> i'll discuss it with bob and we'll bring back a couple of suggestions for next week.
>> thank you.
>> judge, mine is actually going to pertain to you because it's a conversation that occurred yesterday between you and betty. I do have a status. I can come back next week. But just real quick --
>> I don't have real quick.
>> you don't have real quick? I'll speak with you separately.
>> i'll be back this afternoon.
>> can you come back this afternoon?
>> I just with bun item set for hearing this afternoon that I know you will gray on. So if the judge is leaving I think you'll be okay with what to do.
>> we'll get it wrapped up shortly.
>> we do have a motion related to the clean air working group item, come back next week. Any further discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously. Show judge Biscoe having to go to another county commitment.
>> the bill that we've talked about previously on certificates of obligation thoorks coming up for hearing this afternoon. And we'd like you to consider an amendment that all of the counties are looking at. And what -- right now the bill says if you are going to issue a certificate of obligation that is in excess of two million dollars you have to go to the voters to get approval. The amendment that is being put together that we would take to the author would say that if the issue is in excess of $2 million and it exceeds eight percent of your total budget for that year, then you would have to go to the voters. Your bumg budget for last year was about $450 million, so that would equate to $36 million. So that if the issue was -- if it exceeded two million dollars and it exceeded that $36 million, then you would have to go to the voters. So any issuance in excess of 36 million under the amendment, assuming it would be accepted, you would have to get voter approval. Earngsd basically this would put us not in the same situation as pal low president clinton tow county and air ris?
>> you would be based upon each county's budget, so it allows for the size of the county to be taken into consideration. What I need authority for is just to go to the awe thur and say -- author and say that Travis County supports that amendment that will be brought by jim allison and don lee on behalf of all the counties.
>> and Margaret, you and I have be here eight years and I don't think we've gone over 28. I think that was the highest mark on co's, and that was a project that was quite unusual. So I would move approval of the motion that mr. Camp has laid out for us.
>> can I ask a question? What's magical about eight percent? Why couldn't it be 10%.
>> it dob. I think they put that because that's the percentage for the rollback. It was somewhat arbitrary, but they were looking for some number.
>> and when you go to new york in terms of what your reserves are supposed to be, it's between eight and 12 percent. I think it's kind of --
>> that's the reason 10% looks --
>> eight seems pretty reasonable when you're talking about -- [ inaudible ]
>> second.
>> we have a motion a sec. Any further discussion on this item? All in favor that passes unanimously.
>> an aisle report very quickly, the memo that you all approved last week for shave, action all of those bills are either drafted or being drafted. So that's all in the process. The other thing we would like to ask is if we would go to the ought auditor's office or the other appropriate office to have them identify the area in the budge that they think they will -- that they are not -- that you will not receive as much money from the state or federal government during this budget year so that we can then take it to our local delegation, probably with one or two of you to present that so that we can have them pinpoint those areas for the appropriations in senate finance committee.
>> if there's no objection, can we make that instructions from the court? So be it.
>> thank you.
>> you bet.
>> anything else that we need to handle today?
>> we still have one more week in which to endorse the legislation?
>> right. We're getting close to that drafting deadline. Sooner, not later.
>> that's it.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM