Travis County Commssioners Court
April 8, 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 39
View captioned video. (Entire item).
(Morning portion of item 39.)
39
>> it is 10:30 a.m., And we indicated our intention to call up the legislative item. Let me indicate our intention to take executive session. Hopefully this morning after the legislative item. We will take item 41 this afternoon so the regular session only has the two items.
>> judge, I have to leave at 11:45 to make a luncheon.
>> 39 a, discuss legislative issues including proposed bills and take appropriate action. 39 intvment other bills that may be considered in response to action taken by the legislature and take appropriate action. And if we could go through the bills we need to discuss this morning.
>> good morning, kimberly pierce, justice and public safety. Last week when we were discussing bills, I had a number of parole violator bills that the court approved. There was one bill, house bill 2728, by [inaudible] a parole violator bill that would make a technical violation of fourth degree felony. The court chose not to take any action on it last week. I said that I did not think the bill was going to go anywhere. Unfortunately it's scheduled for a public hearing this afternoon. So I知 here this morning to ask the court -- or recommend the court oppose this bill and i'll go sit in the public hearing this afternoon.
>> which number is that again?
>> 2728. House bill 2728.
>> and the problem we have with it is what?
>> well, [inaudible] our county jail waiting for trial [microphone static] on a tell knee conviction.
>> we we -- felony conviction.
>> we agree the ultimate affect would be --
>> to increase the jail population.
>> at our cost.
>> yes, right. And also increase the case load coming through the court as well.
>> okay. What about our sense of justice? Do we think that this bill ultimately will promote justice or --
>> no. It's basically taking what would have been a technical parole violation, which might have resulted in somebody going to either a intermediate sanctions facility or having parole revoked and having them go back to tcdj, making that violation a felony such they would then have both a new state jail felony conviction and a parole revocation. And would probable end up serving time in id or state jail or probably be probated on the state jail tell knee and ended being add to do the pro base case load. I don't see the reason for it. It's just adding a sanction on top of a sanction essentially. Probably would keep these folks incarcerated a bit longer. It's definitely going to increase the county jail population because it will take longer to get their parole revocations processed.
>> it does just the opposite of what we have been working on.
>> right.
>> we have been working on basically reducing the number of days technical violators are in our custody at our expense.
>> and it would basically do away with the category of technical parole violator and make them all new offense violations so they would take longer to dispose.
>> would we be able to have a nice letter enumerating the five or six points that we have heard today?
>> sure.
>> ready for the court's signing this afternoon?
>> sure. No problem.
>> and the public hearing is scheduled?
>> one hour after adjournment in the house, and they are meeting right now. I would probably say about 1:00.
>> oh, we think the public hearing is when?
>> a little bit after. The house is meeting right now and it's one hour after they adjourn.
>> can we -- is this a letter we can get together --
>> crank out.
>> we could probably do that if we could get the court's vote in opposition to the bill, at least mr. Camp could put in the card.
>> we were about to get that now. I was hoping not only a vote, but a letter having the reasons why.
>> we'll have it here by lufnlg time, yes.
>> second.
>> that's my motion, seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. That passes by unanimous vote. There were five or six reasons. I知 thinking opposing is one thing. Setting forth the reasons really is another. I think this bill going in the direction opposite of what we've been pushing for for the last two or three sessions is the point I would try to make.
>> right.
>> we'll do that.
>> leaving at 11:45 so it either needs to be here before 11:45 or will you have to wait until we get back.
>> i'll have it back here in an hour.
>> can we have any alternative that the county judge sign on behalf of the Commissioners court if we're running a little late? That way I can sign it up to 1:00, I guess, if that -- but I would have the matter -- by unanimous vote we voted to oppose it and the reasons why. If we can all sign it, it would be better than just my signature, but if you are not available --
>> if we can't get something over there.
>> my motion is if [inaudible]. All in favor say aye. That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Gomez seconded that motion too. Okay. Not everybody at once. Now, last week there were five people trying to speak to us at one time. Today we are pushing for one. Mr. Geiselman.
>> thank you.
>> we had an opportunity in visiting with chairman krusee on the r.m.a. Bills last week, and a little exchange of information, and he had several bills pending. The most comprehensive is house bill 2459, what is otherwise called the omnibus bill. It's very sweeping in its change to the law with regard to r.m.a.s. Suffice it to say, I believe that chairman krusee's view of this bill is to create a fairly broad authority for r.m.a.s to do many things as far as improve transportation in the state of Texas. And so his view is really statewide as opposed to merely central Texas. And he is also looking at a way to perhaps speed up what is otherwise an even couple berd process forgetting -- encumbered process forgetting transportation bills done. He views his bill as first and foremost enabling. [inaudible] might say bypass. But in any case, it does present a fairly new and powerful organization to implement transportation infrastructure throughout the state of Texas. With that said, I think our main message was, first of all, how different this was from where we started with the r.m.a. In central Texas. And no. 2, to hopefully put back into the bill some local controls. Let me give you some examples. Right now it is our understanding that the r.m.a. Can do only what's in the transportation plan adopted by campo. House bill 2458 does not have any reference to the transportation plan.
>> did we discuss that issue with him?
>> we did.
>> what did they say?
>> I believe his comment was that he would make reference to the transportation plan. We don't know at this point whether that means that the plan would become object bliger to or merely a guiding force in the selection of projects.
>> is another way of looking at this because this is statewide enabling legislation. Is it possible that a local r.m.a., And let's use ours as a for example, could adopt local rules that say while anyone in the state could bypass or ignore, that we choose to go by what is in the local plan, and basically that be a local rule as opposed to not?
>> actually I think, if I may, tom made what I thought was a fairly good suggestion. Because this is so much different than the assumptions we created our own r.m.a., That the bill provide a provision for the local entities in the creation of an r.m.a. So form a charter to be able to say the statewide bill enables you to do all of these things. But when you go to create an r.m.a. In any locale, let the locale at least have a [inaudible] in the chart their guides a menu from which the local r.m.a. Chooses. For instance, if central Texas wanted to have an airport as part of its menu of capital improvements, then in the charter they would so say that. The statewide bill would enable it, but the local charter actually says from this menu, this is what we want to do in central Texas. To allow some local control over what the r.m.a. Is enabled to do and what it's not. That would tie into the idea of saying yes, we want an r.m.a., But we want an r.m.a. That abides by the regional transportation plan.
>> could that charter be amended because it could be that an r.m.a. Said today we may want to get into the airport business, but let's say for the sake of argument that five, ten years down the line they go oh, my goodness this is something we would like to invoke. Could that charter be change snd.
>> absolutely. Ou can locally change?
>> I would say at least have you to have a local endorsement. Right now the transportation commission creates the charter. I would say there has to be some local representation in the desires of the local governments for what they want this r.m.a. To be.
>> so what does that mean? Does that mean a vote of -- since our r.m.a. Was originally created by the travis and Williamson county Commissioners court, are you talking about this board or our successors could simply pass a resolution saying we lack it, move on?
>> I would say yes. For instance, an r.m.a., They would have to have a resolution from Williamson and Travis County to amend the charter.
>> okay.
>> I guess -- well, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I know Commissioner Daugherty and I and staff did end up speaking with representative krusee last week. It was a good, thorough briefing, and I think the person that -- questions that were asked by staff and Commissioner Daugherty and i, I think she were to the point. My whole concern, though, in all of this is losing accountability on the local level. And as a dullly elected official, we are going to be accountable to whatever happens t. Board is not accountable to the voters out there, but we are. And my whole position in this is the level of accountability, who is going to be responsible for the decisions that are made by the r.m.a., And who are we going to hold accountable. Well, the answer real quick to me is that the folks are going to look at Ron Davis and the rest of us up here and say you all folks are accountable; we elected to you to be accountable to what happened. A good person did come up on the airport issue and I brought that up and representative did respond to it as far as robert mueller is concerned, but, however, he also responded about a general aviation airport being located next to s.h. 130, which that poses the problem for Travis County because we have already voted on -- as far as house bill 2522 to ensure that we have the authority and the jurisdiction to determine whether we would accept general aviation airports within our county boundaries. So accountability I think is very critical. Along -- joe, I kind of steal your show. But I think that somewhere as far as the [inaudible] are concerned, we appointed these board members for two years, and one thing looking at this r.m.a. And I kept harping out was that we have some type of power of removal of these board members for any reason. Of course, with this new concept, then we had six years and anything of malfeasance would be removal. So we'll actually lose authority as far as our r.m.a. [inaudible]. I think this is probably why, but I think that we really have to tie this down and let -- and I think I voiced my opinion then and still voice it now is that [inaudible] for accountability and who is going to be responsible for the direction we're doing. So it's very important on all of these aspects I think joe is bringing up. So joe, I知 going to let you go on, but I wanted to get that on the table because I think it's very important that the taxpayers of Travis County, the citizens of Travis County have a say in what we're doing from a local level instead of a statewide level.
>> actually, I guess that was the fourth point on the hand handout. Right now the term of office is two years. That would extend to six years. The bill provides four reasons for the recall of an aappointment. June of it has anything to do with your authority. -- none of it. Most of it is related to malfeasance. So you really have no control over your appointments once they are made. Except for at the end of their six-year term. Now, representative krusee, or chairman krusee, suggested that the reason for that is to give the bond holders more reasons for trust in the appointed board, that they are not subject to recall on a whim. That they are somewhat insulated from the political process. That the r.m.a.s would be run on business principles and not necessarily electoral politics. But with that said, there is a level of community involvement, so to speak, that is represented through the elected officials. And we believe there ought to be perhaps another ground for removal. Simply at the discretion of the Commissioners court.
>> how do they define whim?
>> yeah.
>> is it -- I mean, let's say that the concern is accountability, there is no accountability, would that be a whim?
>> I think you need to define what you want in accountability. Again, this is a policy issue. At what point do you feel that you will have to recall an appointment? On what grounds? Other than the four already represented in the bill.
>> I mean, in terms of just getting into a policy discussion here, that is very consistent with what basically happens right now related to a term on the university of Texas regents, any of our higher education boards, the transportation commission. While those are appointments of the governor and are quite, I guess you would say, political at the moment, just because you may change out a governor or even the political party four years from now, you don't have the yanking of people simply on the whim of politics. Things are -- people serve out their terms, and if there is going to be a changeout of personnel, it occurs in a very logical process. Lcra board is another one. I知 just thinking of some of these governor's appointments. This is very different for us to think about because we've always had this kind of at-will attitude. But this board is very different from any kind of a board and it really, I think, has to be, in my mind, thought of like an appointment to a higher education board, that there is a business principle and practice that needs to be respected and not simply that, you know, three of us leave and all of a sudden three other people with a different idea about who ought to be sitting on this board act. I mean, if we truly are going to act like this is a business board and not, you know, some other kind of creation of this Commissioners court.
>> in ten years from now, this board is likely to be making all of your transportation decisions.
>> I think that's likely.
>> who would issue bonds? The r.m.a. [inaudible] txdot?
>> the r.m.a. Would be authorized to issue revenue bonds.
>> so the r.m.a. Now is really sort of at the multi-county level. Would this change that?
>> no.
>> well, it changes it in a sense that under the law of central Texas r.m.a. Was formed under, it was the county decision to initiate the formation of the r.m.a. What this bill does is basically make that a Texas transportation commission decision. And the county is completely cut out of the process.
>> including having to issue -- I mean, have bond elections? Take responsibility for --
>> no election is required for a revenue bond issue.
>> but in case they are needed, they would also take over having the bond elections and --
>> if they are looking to the county to help support a project with general obligation bonds funded out of property taxes, you would still have to go through all the normal process including calling an election, putting that on the ballot. So they are not taking that election out of your hands.
>> right. But bond elections per se where they would have to increase the taxpayers' taxes in order to pay for those bonds, would they take over that as well?
>> I知 not sure what you mean --
>> they might have like a statewide bond election and we wouldn't have to have the bond elections anymore to provide the money to the state to build the projects. Or would that process continue? We wouldn't have the decisions for the projects, but we would be called on to have the bond elections to raise the taxes on the local taxpayers, and then we would just turn the money over to them to do the projects?
>> right. Sort of the way it works with txdot now, like you did on state highway 130, you call election for bonds and the state highway 130 and gave the money to txdot. You would be doing. [multiple voices]
>> the election is not the important things t. Important things is that we issue the bonds and wee liable for the indebtedness. So under this bill counties are in the same position.
>> right. If the project needs support from the county, yes, I guess -- there will probably be a day when projects are up and running and generating surplus toll revenue when the r.m.a. Might not need the assistance of the county to help fund a project, and one of chairman krusee's points was there may be fewer -- there may be less county input and influence under this bill than under current law, but as a practical matter, there are still checks and balances because certainly in the early days of the r.m.a., They are going to be looking to the counties for help funding the project with general obligation bonds supported by property taxes.
>> but I guess --.
>> what if txdot likes a certain project and we don't, but it's in Travis County and basically they expect us to issue bonds to cover part of the cost. So they would have the authority to create an r.m.a. And impose the funding obligation on us?
>> no.
>> no not general obligation supported by property taxes t r.m.a. Would not have any ability to tap into property taxes to help pay for a project. That's still solely up to you all even under this bill.
>> the other question that comes up is what about the cost overruns. And those have been there, and then they've come back to us repeatedly saying we were short with the amount of money, now you need to come up with this money that we were short on.
>> right.
>> and so, I mean, I can see -- what other kinds of controls then could we put in? Would that be through the charter, the local charter? Is that the route --
>> not really. Any time -- once the r.m.a. Is formed and they choose a project and they find out that the total revenues, the forecast of total revenues are not sufficient to pay for the project, they are going to come to the county government and they are going to ask you to issue bonds or to pay for right-of-way or something of that variety. That is going to take a legal agreement between the r.m.a. And the county. At that point, you have a choice. You can participate or not participate. If by not participating it makes the project infeasible, then it's not going to go anywhere. At some point, though, if they have a toll project up and running and it creates surplus revenues, so much revenue that they don't need the county, they have the authority under this bill to go out and do any project they want with or without the county approval.
>> in other words, the role or something that the county may have to deal with are within the city limits, a road that the city may not [inaudible] may not want a road built in a certain area that is correct authority would trump?
>> it has a lot of superior authority. The way the bill is written, the r.m.a. Has almost the authority of the railroad. I mean, they have so much superior authority over your right-of-way, county right-of-way. One of the provisions we would like to change in this is if they do a toll project, they can sever county roads. Right now the state of Texas can't do that.
>> well, joe, if -- let me ask this. The original intent of this when we first looked at it, I know we discussed a lot of things with this process from r.t.a. To r.m.a. And we're here now, but the original intent of the r.m.a. Was to look at toll road projects, generate the revenue. Of course, we knew we had some hurdles that need to be overcome such as giving the r.m.a. Authority to issue bond and also condemnation. And of course those bills are moving right along. But that was the original intent. And what I知 seeing now here, especially in the definition portion of 2459 getting into other areas such as rail, such as airports, such as a lot of these things that you just brought up, and also park, there was a possibility there could be a possibility of condemning park land s that the interpretation of what's going on here? Or what's that language exist there as far as park land?
>> that is in the bill, but I don't know that that's a whole lot different than existing law. To me the big change is under the current law r.m.a.s were authorized to construct and operate toll roads.
>> right.
>> and that was it. When there ended up being surplus revenue from the toll road, under the current law they were basically required to funnel that back to local governments to let local governments do projects. This change -- this bill -- the change this bill would make is the r.m.a. Gets to decide itself what to do with surplus revenue.
>> and the original intent was when we [inaudible] was to reinvest toll road generated revenue back into this community so in the future taxpayers wouldn't have to hit their pocketbooks every time we look around as far as revenue for projects, road projects. And it looks like this here bill is really taking a life of its own. Of course, it may be a statewide mandate, but the only r.m.a. In the state of Texas at this time is the one between Williamson and Travis County. So I have some legitimate concerns, not knocking what representative krusee is doing, however, I think that we need to get some kind of controls here especially if we divorced ourself from the original intent of what we looked at when the r.m.a. Was first put together. And that was the reason I could support the r.m.a. Because of its original intent. And of course now it appears that we're going to lose some control here big time and the intent has really been -- original intent has been followed up and what we have documented here proves that point.
>> where I see this going is that basically they are trying to get the r.m.a.s to be where the two toll authorities that we already have in the state of Texas already are related to surplus revenues and basically being able to have the flexibility and financial clout to go work on other projects. Certainly if you look at the harris county toll authority and what is going on with ntta, they are already light years ahead in terms of doing very create of projects, working with txdot, h.o.v. Lanes, extending over into fort bend county. It's hard to think about us being in that situation now because we're just barely getting off the map. Let me ask a more pointed question here. It seems like this train is leaving the station and that this is statewide authority, and while we're looking at it with our little central Texas r.m.a., The point which we should, it really is state authorization fnlght it seems to me it is much more advantageous for our court and our county to look at ways that we can suggest on ways to improve this bill in terms of some things. I think the receiverability -- severability is some concern because we're working on that on sh 130. And if they were allowed to do what they wanted to do, that could create issues not only for travis but Williamson county. That's one that I would like to have us spend some time on. But it seems like we are in a better situation of trying to talk about how to improve this bill and work on some things that, you know, we would like to see in a different fashion as opposed to somehow getting in a situation we're going to oppose something that quite frankly is moving. And it's going to pass.
>> see, I don't mind looking at this in a bigger picture, but I have to come back to the local folks that I was elected to represent as well. And on this point I agree with Commissioner Davis. As long as -- let's improve it then so we don't get run over by this train. And let's improve it so that they don't come back and hold our folks, our county folks responsible for things that the state is going to do. Because that will be another -- just be another added level of unfunded mandates. And I really would think that in the future, whoever sits on this court is going to want to be -- to have some accountability for what happens in this county and not that it just -- the state keeps running over, you know, Travis County or whoever -- especially Travis County, that's what I知 concerned about. So I mean I don't mind improving it. I don't mind looking at it from the big picture view, but I think that local controls need to be in place.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> where we would like to see some --
>> when it is -- when you said here's what's bad, 3 or 2 a, here are the changes that we think ought to be made in order to remedy some of these -- what we think is bad points. Now, assuming that they want our input, we ought to give it anyway, our question is how soon can we put that together?
>> with direction we could probably get it done by next week. What would you like us to say? I mean --
>> everything good, everything that ain't. And if it ain't good, in our view, we ought to say what it is about now. From our own view we spent a whole lot of time effort, agony, working on our r.m.a.
>> we sure did, judge.
>> are you telling us if this passes that goes away.
>> sounds like it does.
>> you know the person sponsoring this bill took the lead on that. I don't -- somewhere footnote that the county judge remembers that. I ain't sure that's right. You could have -- they could have told us that way back when. So I put it in the document. The train leaving doesn't bother me. Jump off the track, you throw rocks at it --
>> would that be light rail [laughter]
>> I do think we ought to say here's what's good about this best of my knowledge, here's what ain't. Here are the changes that we think ought to be made. If harris county and dallas are doing some of this to their advantage, then we ought to look at what third doing. What they are doing [indiscernible], with a state-wide r.m.a., It's state-wide in scope. Presumably. So in our r.m.a. What we got, if we generate a whole lot of additional revenue here, we can use it on regional projects.
>> exactly.
>> Williamson county, travis, to help with transportation issues here. When you expand that to the state, all of a sudden it's a whole lot bigger. And the needs are a whole lot greater. If they are looking at whether the state need, my guess is they are regionally a lot more in need than we are. I知 concerned about those, I知 concerned enough to dedicate Travis County dollars. I don't -- in terms of accountability, I think our responsibility is use local dollars for local projects, programs, et cetera.
>> uh-huh.
>> I don't think the bill anticipates a state-wide r.m.a. They are still talking about an r.m.a. For certain regions and certain Commissioners courts making the appointments. I don't think they are taking away the regional aspect of it. Basically they are just taking away the direct input from the counties.
>> it may be good that you leave it with the county, may be bad that you leave it with the county, take their authority. If that's true. Under 4 it seems to indicate that really the decision making is in the hand of the Texas transportation --
>> yeah.
>> [multiple voices]
>> -- commission.
>> tom, any excess funds, excess revenue generated from tow, is there any indication within the -- within this house bill 2459 means that just in a money can go to the [indiscernible], in other words, they actually can put money in that fund, generated from the --
>> I don't see that as a big change to what the law is now. The law now is in the r.m.a. Has surplus toll revenue, can't figure out what to do with it, I don't think anybody images that the r.m.a. Is going to run out of things to do with that surplus toll revenue.
>> in other words, local dollars for local projects.
>> the current law, really the r.m.a. Has to look to local governments to say what are you interested in doing with this money under this bill, you know, the r.m.a. Could act alone. There are still going to be county appointees, they are going to be appointed for six years, you really only have the opportunity to weigh in on what they are doing every six years. They can get a lot done in six years. If you are still comfortable with that, then there are adequate checks and balances, but -- but if you would rather have, you know, some sort of other way to make sure the r.m.a. Is focusing on the right stuff, then you would have to look at -- at, you know, clarifying some of the stuff in the on -- bill.
>> what I thought, what I -- when I really looked at those board members, appointed them, one of the things that we did stress when we interviewed, talked to them individually just like everybody else, that they actually look at what's in the best interest of Travis County. I hope that's still the case. We also need to look at them being removed for not doing [inaudible] performance or not letting Travis County know what's in this best interests. I think that is important points. That is the only linkage that we have now, other than those things, that's the only linkage that we have as far as accountability is concerned from that level. However, there's another level that's even higher than that. And that's the folks -- we have to represent here locally in Travis County. Now, that's the folks that's looking for accountability. [indiscernible] elected officials. That's the top of the pyramid.
>> I don't have any reason to doubt what chairman krusee was saying in regards to -- to a board with two-year appointments who can be removed at any time is going to make the bond investments nervous.
>> I agree.
>> so I don't know that that's the part of the bill that we want to change, but, you know, given that -- that's probably the way you need to set up your board. That's where joe and I started thinking, well, what other ways can the county have the assurances it needs that -- that an r.m.a. They thought was going to build turnpikes doesn't decide -- build airports, rail, whatever. That's where we came up with the charter idea.
>> right.
>> cuc on this, do we know.
>> pardon?
>> cuc?
>> I don't know. I have no idea.
>> is it possible that our r.m.a. Subcommittee might meet with your counterparts over in Williamson county and maybe see if the things that we as two counties mutually agree on and to see if there are things where we one county may have a concern, but the other county doesn't and vice versa? And I don't know, we did do this thing together. I知 just wondering if there might be a joint letter or not, maybe it has to be simply what our concerns are, but I would be very interested in knowing if our partners on this have similar concerns, different concerns. They may have something on their list that is not even on our radar screen related to this legislation, but I知 just -- it seems like all of us here have expressed various viewpoints, I think all of them are valid from everybody's points of view. I would be interested in a letter being crafted so that we can -- we can, you know, I don't want to say pick it apart but there may be parts of it that some of us wants in the letter. There may be other parts of it that others feel passionately about it. At the indiana of the discussion, people feel whether that's a letter they twoobt sign or not -- want to sign or not.
>> for instance, I really would object to having the wishes of voters locally overturned. I just think that is the worst thing that we can do to democracy --
>> I agree with you.
>> -- discourages people from ever voting again. I just would not want to have that disturbed at all.
>> since I was at this meeting last week, kinds of presented a little bit different train of thought here and I would like for job to come up here in a second because he understands how to read these tea leaves and being that's the profession that you are in. It was real obvious that -- that chairman krusee at first was not very happy at all to have any question about what was going on with this thing. I think that he saw that we were a little miffed that we couldn't come over and have that kind of an open dialogue with him and things kind of got back to normal again. But, you know, there are some issues, far it -- far be it from me to do anything that's going to stop building a road in this community. Because that's the reason that I am so -- so wholeheartedly behind this. Although I will say that I am -- that I am probably as nervous as anyone else because this thing has taken on a different life than what I thought the r.m.a. Was going to do from the get-go. And I don't mind approaching the chairman with that because I am a little confused. I知 -- I知 even confused that we have -- that I have heard that we have had one of our appointed Commissioners that have spoken in favor of this. Now, maybe that hasn't happened, but I think that that is the case. If that is the case, I mean, we don't know that as a Commissioners court. So I would like, I think that it's only appropriate that we would ask one of our appointed Commissioners to come and say, let us tell you of some of the issue that's we have about this before we -- before we are comfortable with you going and speaking on behalf of it. So there are a number of things that are disturbing about the direction that this thing is going. We all know this, you know, it may not be a train leaving, I mean, it's fixing to be an airplane leaving, a lot faster than a train is going to leave. I think it's a great idea, judge, here are the things that are still of concern to us. Hopefully the chairman will take that as constructive from Travis County. But approximate we don't -- if we don't watch it, it's going to happen. We are just going to be the recipients of -- of whatever the bill says. So, bob, would you -- I mean, comment on -- on that at all?
>> I think you all are right on track, no pun intended there. Exactly what you said. I think if -- my impression from the meeting was that chairman krusee and his staff are -- are open to sitting down and listening to us and I think the idea of -- of writing down exactly the things that we would like changed and how we would like to change them, give them the language, I don't think -- not necessarily going to get everything that you ask for, but I think -- I mean, that's the way the process works. I think if we can give them some good reasons, we have a chance of making some changes.
>> well, bob, do you think -- I know that judge, that was a good suggestion I think that the judge brought up and Commissioner Daugherty, thanks for getting on that again. However, is there a possibility, see, because I know state representative krusee is -- is in Williamson county. Have we got Travis County delegations that are involved in this, also, to some level and what I知 looking at is alerting the Travis County delegation also to what's going on, also what we have concerns about, because we have got to deal with the local folks, even though this pyramid outside of this little region that we are dealing with right now, the Texas region, just comprised right now of Williamson county and Travis County, don't mean nothing can't be added later to the region. However, right now it's just Williamson and Travis County. Since that's the case, I think it would be necessary for our delegation, to be apprised of what they are doing, not only representative krusee getting something, some comments from them, I think all of Travis County, because these are very legitimate concerns. The time is something that, you know -- need to be examined clearly.
>> the Travis County delegation, I think under the stuff that we have concerns about, we ought to quote the specific language of the bill.
>> yeah.
>> indicate what we consider to be adverse impact on bad -- or bad consequence and then what language we would propose instead. I mean, if I were -- because when I looked at the thing, 35 pages, if you are looking at a whole lot of other legislation.
>> yeah.
>> I mean the general objections don't make much impact, I don't think. Who is the senate sponsor of this? Or is there one?
>> senator ogden.
>> where is he from?
>> bryan/college station.
>> bryan/college station.
>> and [inaudible] Williamson county.
>> he also represents a portion of Williamson county.
>> that's -- well, okay.
>> now --
>> can I ask a process and protocol question, judge, before we get there. I think that you have raised some good points. That is would it not be better for us to try and take up chairman krusee on an invitation to be part of the process while it's still at the committee level and to see how my of these things we can cooperatively and collaboratively get addressed. And then whatever is left over, that is the time once it's made out of committee, it is going to be on the house floor and the senate, that's when we make our Travis County delegation aware of whatever is left over. Because the last thing that I would want to do is protocol-wise get our delegation -- activated on a particular issue and then it turns out that we can get a cooperatively and collaboratively worked out with chairman krusee, that is not a good use of everybody's time. Since it's still in committee right now, it's working at the committee level, which is chairman krusee, see what we can do and then whatever time is appropriate for us to involve the delegation, that's when we do that, to see what -- what if anything is left over that wasn't addressed.
>> well, I -- I don't agree with that. That's a good suggestion, though, Commissioner. I think right now it's very critical. We didn't find out about house bill --
>> [inaudible]
>> and since that's the case, and -- we had heard Commissioner Daugherty even make a comment on some things that happened with somef the board members, I don't know if that rlly happened as far as one of the Travis County board membersgoing and testifying before the bill or not. But I think the time is of essence, I think that it is a courtesy of notice since things kind of get boggled down, sometimes do not get the attention in a timely manner, I think right now, since we have been alerted to these particular -- this particular bill, I think it would be in the best interests to just put them on notice and let them know exactly where we are coming from, since we are going to -- to have a correspondence anyway. And -- and I feel very strongly like -- about that, because of the fact that -- that you are dealing with the situation here whereby someone may not get the notice in a timely matter -- how long is it supposed to be in committee or have we left committee?
>> I don't know.
>> pardon me?
>> I don't know.
>> okay. Well, at any rate, I think that -- that we are being placed on notice because I think basically that -- that we have an opportunity to notify those folks in a timely manner. So I would like to still make that point of what the judge's suggestion is as far as what is the motion, is that we -- even if it's just for notification's sake, letting folks know what is going on. I don't think the delays of letting those folks know would help the cause.
>> I move that we direct staff to put together an appropriate -- analysis and response to this bill. That we indicate what we consider to be good parts, parts not so good, or parts that concern us, that we point to specific language in the bill, indicate impact and recommended language that in our view would -- would be an improvement, that we plan to have a follow-up discussion of this bill, next Tuesday, you may want to get input from the Commissioners court, between now and then. It is okay for us to respond directly to staff and not --
>> each other.
>> one another, I understand. The other thing is that I move that you authorize me to contact judge doerfler and mike weaver to see if Williamson county has an official response, whether they have looked at it and if so what that response is. And next Tuesday, we decide who to send a letter or a response to.
>> second.
>> I second that, judge.
>> that it be drafted in a way that provides spaces for all of the members of the Commissioners court to sign and next week we will figure out who is supportive and who is not. If we could get a copy of that, by 5:00 Friday, so those of us inclined to engage in a bit of wordsmithing can -- can do that over the weekend and Monday. And Tuesday when we get here, we -- we hopefully will be able to move extinguish showsly.
>> -- expeditiously.
>> would that include later response to the delegation? When necessary?
>> I -- I think we ought to -- when we decide who to send this to, it may well be --
>> okay.
>> I think the world is the limit.
>> all right, thanks, thanks.
>> my imoal here is really to try to be constructive and -- and helpful. But at the same time protective of Travis County. Kind of consistent with everything that's been said today.
>> I think that representative krusee is very willing to listen to our -- I mean, he understands how important it is for Travis County to be -- to be comfortable in this. I mean, I -- he was very -- I spent some time with him afterwards. He said, Gerald, I want us to be on the same page. So his direction is, I mean, I know what he's trying to do. I mean, you know, he's frustrated like everybody is with the, you know, bogged down kind of -- maneuvers that you can see happening in this community. But I think that he will take that very district actively, judge. -- constructively judge.
>> I知 just making sure that I understand that this is the staff direction. We will see what the work product is, but it's not a final vote on what the work product is. Because I want to see what people come up with before -- you know, I don't want this to be misinterpreted that somehow we are taking a position for or against this bill. We have got a step to get there before we land on a letter. I want to see what the letter looks like.
>> that's the motion, basically.
>> okay.
>> my goal, too, is cooperation, collaboration, I don't want this action to be misinterpreted as anything other than taking the chairman up on his offer to tell us how we can make this a better bill.
>> absolutely.
>> and protect Travis County's legitimate interests and mandated duties and responsibilities. And accountability to the voters.
>> now, when I was back in tyler, though, my friends knew that I would disagree with them from time to time, and that made the friendship even better. Certainly the representative would understand that.
>> the only thing we were trying to check to see when that was going to come out of committee and the only thing that we would suggest is that the sooner the better. We really need the language. I mean, I think the letter would be good for getting to the rest of the delegation, all of that. But in materials of the language and changes, we need to get in there with them today or tomorrow. This thing is moving along, as the Commissioner said. And we have our opportunity and I think we need to --
>> yeah.
>> -- jump at it.
>> so, judge, would your suggestion before the end of the week, all of the comments that the Commissioners have on this particular bill, the good, bad, I won't say the ugly -- [ laughter ]
>> could be be.
>> depending on the good and the bad, we will supply staff with that [multiple voices] and hopefully we will have that before Friday and am I understanding that correct, judge?
>> well, there are practical problems with us doing it after today.
>> uh-huh.
>> between the end of business today and Tuesday. That's why we are calling a special meeting for which we need to post it 72 hours in advance. But --
>> go ahead.
>> maybe -- maybe you all don't know specifically the changes that you want to suggest at this point. And that's probably -- I guess that's the problem. If you did, you could authorize staff and kris and I to work with them. We would go sit down with his staff and start trying to make the changes. But if you are not at that point, let us, after this meeting, we will go talk to chairman krusee's office to see what they can do.
>> [multiple voices]
>> timing, if it looks like they are meeting before next Tuesday on it, then maybe what we want is a more limited response.
>> I mean, I would have two immediate -- this is just one person of five here. There are two things in this long list of major points to consider that are -- that are of concern is the words that I would use. Number 2 related to the potential severing of our county road projects. We have already been there and are doing this with texdot/tta related to state highway 130. A road of regional significance which this community has invested more than $90 million in, just on the county side, and there's more from the city of Austin. So that's a big deal and we need to let them know why. I mean, that's just me. The other one is under number 4, is if this is repealing the law under which our r.m.a. Was formed, I just need to make sure that -- that we don't inadvertently make our r.m.a. Go away and all of this hard work over the past 12 months has somehow disappeared, yet we want to have a comfort level related to whatever reconstituted authority it's got. So that's -- those are the two that just were just huge for me. In terms of -- if there has to be one, it's the severability issue, because that is a very big deal. Especially since some of those roads that could be severed may be c.i.p. Projects of a particular county. That's certainly one that we are dealing with right now related to howard lane.
>> any way to find out what the schedule is for this bill?
>> yeah. We will --
>> we still have that $200,000 in the county account?
>> $250,000.
>> still in our possession?
>> no. Not yet.
>> but it has not gone to the r.m.a. It's in transit.
>> that was a little eyebrow raising to chairman krusee. I might add. I mean, when he found out that had not been put in yet.
>> a little eyebrow raising to the Commissioner who proposed it as well.
>> well --
>> [indiscernible] further --
>> it hasn't even come to us yet, judge, so it can't leave us.
>> judge, would there be any objections -- I have a lot of my concerns, all my colleagues, I have been working on this, in you all [indiscernible] meeting with representative krusee, I do have mine ready to hand to staff as far as the things that I see that would be problematic for Travis County. With this particular bill. I知 not saying all of it is bad, a lot of it has some problems. Would there be any objection for me to submit this to joe gieselman and his staff --
>> no, sir, I think that would be an appropriate step to take now.
>> thank you.
>> if we find out over lunch that actually we need a much, much faster turn around then I think we need to get -- make what progress we can this afternoon and maybe handing you all something -- get the court to respond to something by the close of today. Even if we finish our other business at 3:00 or 4:00, I guess we can recess until like 5, couldn't we, if we need to do it today. Do we have a document to look at?
>> I need to be out of here by 5:30.
>> I知 thinking if there's a -- like a draft that we can look at, it shouldn't take that long, if there's not a draft, then obviously there wouldn't be any reason to do it. Let's play it by ear. If you all could let us know -- see if he has got a status reported now. Report now.
>> chris called over there, they may have a meeting at his desk this week and the bills would come out sometime this week. So -- so I think to do something this afternoon would be a great idea. Even if you can get the major points and if there's some other things that -- that you need more time to talk about, we can talk with his staff about doing it on the floor or doing it in the senate. But maybe the key items, we get to them now.
>> of course trying to have them ready by 4:00.
>> thank you.
>> joe and -- joe, tom, I will get with you --
>> you guys didn't want lunch. [inaudible]
>> before 4:00. Lunch time, probably.
>> any more legislation?
>> anything we can do in 15 minutes. We didn't have a vote, judge. The r.m.a. --
>> our direction is basically to come back at -- let's withdraw that motion, okay. Let's come back at 4:00, do the best we can consistent with comments given the court today and look at what we got at 4:00, maybe that's on that.
>> thank you, judge.
>> okay. Yes?
>> hi, chelene walker with Travis County t.n.r. Real quickly I was told that you requested that we bring the bills relating to billboards and no more billboards along state highways. So real quickly they were listed here. There are two bills that have been introduced, campaign I don't know bill, senate bill -- [inaudible] house bill 554. They would prohibit new billboards is the key word along interstates for home rule municipalities. It's unclear whether or not the bill as drafted right now would allow unincorporated areas, counties, to have this authority. Probably the best bet for -- I was told that the concern is limiting billboards along sh 130. House bill 678 by rob eisler has passed outs of committee, is on its way to the floor. It specifically lists segments of roadway that billboards cannot be built on. Sh 130 is not currently on that list.
>> why? Why isn't sh 130 on there if.
>> we didn't have any part of the bill. We didn't have any process in pitting together the bill. But -- putting together the bill, I知 told by sarah with scenic Austin who you all had requested to come here today, she was unavailable, but that would be probably the best bill to amend --
>> I would like to include sh 130 --
>> yes, sir, that's what we are trying to figure out is how we do that. And house bill 678 is probably the best bet to do that is amending that bill. Asking for an amendment of the sponsor. I am not sure where the whole delegation is on this. I知 told by sarah at scenic Austin that there isn't any opposition, there's not a whole bunch of people jumping forward to offer an amendment at the same time. But she doesn't know necessarily of opposition to including shhh 130. It would be a matter of going and talking to probably chairman krusee and senator barrientos, dawnna dukes, seeing if somebody would be willing to offer an amendment to include sh 130 in that list of roadways.
>> since krusee is already -- chairman krusee is already doing 1039 related to the state scenic buy ways program -- byways program which largely is sh 130, we all have to remember within Travis County, it is all -- there are very few segments that are city of Pflugerville, city of Austin, virtually all Travis County. If we are not included in the home rule municipalities under 994, perhaps chairman krusee could be of assistance related to sh 130 getting it into the 678 legislation.
>> it's my understanding that he was asked to introduce that bill and he declined at the time. He's not opposed to it is what I知 being told.
>> could be a workload issue.
>> maybe. But I think that again we just need to go talk to some folks, but if that is the will of the court, that we go and do that, we can -- we can ask the lobby team to just inacquire about getting -- incier about getting -- inquire about getting sh 130 added to that.
>> [indiscernible] I would like to see about getting sh 130.
>> is that a motion.
>> yes.
>> I知 sorry?
>> the motion?
>> to include the -- that sh 130 include the legislation whereby the billboard signs --
>> to get sh 130 included. I second that? Any more discussion of that motion to include sh 130?
>> that's any vehicle we can find via representative eisler's bill -- [multiple voices]
>> whatever vehicle necessary.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Have we got a chance to read the draft letter?
>> halfway through.
>> yes. I would like to mention one more bill real quickly.
>> if you give us 30 second, we will be right back. Looks good to me.
>> same here.
>> same here. See any major changes? Appreciate your quick turn around.
>> real quick.
>> thank you.
>> move approval of this letter in opposition to hb 2728.
>> second.
>> and that it be communicated to the committee. And the Travis County delegation. And any other appropriate persons at the Texas legislature.
>> may I offer one little wordsmithing? We say in the last sentence feel free to call judge Sam Biscoe. It would be helpful if we insert his phone number there so that they would know what number it is. That would be the only suggestion that I would make.
>> better yet, write the phone number under my name, on my suggestture, how is that? Signature. I知 about to get our signature on?
>> that's fine. Whatever.
>> that would be the personal touch, judge.
>> uh-huh. In fact this is the original right here.
>> oh, okay.
>> it will be in my own handwriting. So they will know I知 not afraid to chat with them. Another bill.
>> briefly I want to make --
>> I知 sorry. We need to vote on that. That was a motion I made. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We ought to execute two of those, can I have yours? Judge, f purposes of staff and attorneys who may be listening to us, is it highly unlikely that we are going to be hitting executive session in the next 3 minutes.
>> absolutely. We have nine minutes left, let's try to get this item covered. I tell you, we may be able to -- we can go with the executive session after -- well, when we go into discuss the 41, item 41, maybe we can take the two executive items first.
>> yes.
>> that's fine. So my guess is that would -- that would be 145, 245, between 3 and 31:50. Previous -- 3 and 3:15.
>> p.m.?
>> yes. [laughter]
>> [inaudible] daylight standards savings time.
>> judge, I want to say something [inaudible] Karen's office, and especially ann doing such a great job of putting this legislative book together. This is a great job on this dealing with all of this, a lot of work. Nice job.
>> well, it is -- it is all ann, I also want to make sure that barbara gets a lot of credit, too, because she is also putting in a tremendous amount of work and energy, I do appreciate it, barbara.
>> and edith on my staff.
>> and edith and everyone else, p.b.o., Auditor's office, staff. It's a -- it is a -- [indiscernible] [multiple voices] [laughter]
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> I second the brown noticesy motion. [laughter] brown nosey motion.
>> quickly, a hearing today, following up on a discussion with r.m.a., Chairman krusee has two bills that would also change the structure of the board of intermunicipal commuter rail districts, basically removing elected officials from that board and making it simply more like the current structure of the r.m.a. Board with the new six-year terms rather than the two-year terms. One of those bills he has to go for some reason, constitutional amendment to change it to six year terms, so that would be a constitutional amendment bill hjr 10.
>> what bill was that? What's that bill number?
>> I知 sorry. The bill number that would restructure the board is house bill 3411, and hjr, house bill resolution 10. [multiple voices]
>> were set for a hearing today before chairman krusee's transportation committee. Again, he usually hears them, waits for a week to kick them out. I wanted to make you aware of those. I know this was discussed at last week's commuter rail district board meeting.
>> yeah.
>> and the note that I received from that is that members of the board appeared less than enthusiastic about Texas -- about krusee's house bill 3411 which would reconstitute the board and that gonzalo barrientos told board members that he and senator wentworth would work with krusee on the intent of the measure. So I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
>> okay.
>> that may be one also in terms of try to address what I think is the biggest issue. 50,000 people on this board, Gerald? I mean, it is -- it is huge. And will only get huger.
>> bigger.
>> if that's even a word as more counties decide they are or are not on this. I think that we have seen at the campo level that having 49,000 elected officials on a board is probably not the right number, but I don't think the answer is also zero. So it's finding that nice balance of what the appropriate number is.
>> I think there are only 14.
>> oh, is that all?
>> the way the bill is written, any city that opted into the district would be able to appoint somebody to the board, but it could not be an elected official and any county who opted into the district could appoint somebody. Then the governor gets three members and then one additional member to cities that have an interest but aren't yet appointed to the district. So owe but none of the people can be elected officials which is the -- which is the major change from what the current board is made up of.
>> the only thing is elected officials are the ones who are accountable. They are the one that's make sure that there's some accountability. I知 not sure that I agree with removing elected officials from that.
>> good point.
>> I like senator went worth's and barrientos' suggestion of since they wrote the -- the legislation for them to work with chairman krusee and to see if there is something that is mutually acceptable and I hope gets brought back to -- to the rail district board.
>> right.
>> gets more comments.
>> Commissioner daughter, you are the appointed person for the commuter rail.
>> I am. That's -- everything that's been said is very accurate [laughter]
>> okay all right, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thanks, shelly.
>> any other legislation?
>> I had nothing that -- that I [inaudible - no mic]
>> three and a half minutes.
>> only if you want it?
>> anything that we need to know about?
>> no. Just -- there's a number of bills [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay.
>> if there's nothing further,.
>> move to recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM