Travis County Commissioners Court
January 11, 2005
Item 22
Number 22 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and bills for the 79th Texas legislative session.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> secine walker and joe geiselman. Just a few brief items really quickly. Last week the conference of urban counties policy committee adopted a policy platform. There were six new amendments regarding subdivision regulations in that policy platform. The cuc board will formally adopt that at their luncheon tomorrow. That is posted under the open meetings act so at the quorum of Commissioners attend that's fine. I was asked just to bring you those six amendments to discuss them in case there is any confusion about what the court's stance on those positions should be. Before I do that really quickly I just wanted to bring to your attention two companion bills that were filed by members of our own Travis County delegation, senator barrientos and legislator rodriguez related to an air quality control. Those two bills are actually related to testimony that judge Biscoe wrote and was delivered to the senate natural resources committee during interim session. There were several questions raised during the tceq's when they were considering our early action compact about the actual authority tceq has to implement air pollution control measures in areas that have not been designated non-attainment under the clean air act such as ours. And so this is legislation that our delegation has introduced in attempt to clarify that authority. We recommend -- t.n.r. Recommends that you add those two bills to the legislative priority list for the county. There will be further discussion about the exact language in those bills. We've already talked to tceq and they have some questions. I just wanted to get them on your radar screen as we are one of 14 e.a.c. Counties that would be impacted by those two bills. All the bills do say that tceq has the authority to adopt air pollution regulations if the county and the largest city in those counties ask them to. It doesn't require tceq to adopt any measures, it doesn't allow them to adopt any measures unless the low level jurisdictions have requested them, as we did. It just clarifies that authority so if there's questions in the future they understand that the legislature has given them explicit authority to proactively address air pollution before we get declared non-attainment. I don't know in you want to take action before we go on to other discussion on that or move on.
>> so senator barrientos and representative rodriguez really filed these bills at our suggestion, and we think that clarifying tceq's authority really helps the region.
>> yeah, they wrote the bill after some discussions with us and others and after hearing several testimonies during the interim committee. We did not sign off on the language, they just went ahead and draft the bills. So we just would like to continue working with them to make sure those bills say what they need to say and if they get adopted, we think they would be helpful in the future that if we need to do come back and substitute any measures for any reason, tceq would clearly understand that they have the authority to deal with us.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> I do think it's important to work with both legislators to achieve this. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> so moving on, the conference of urban counties, the six amendments that they added to the policy platform are listed in your backup. Basically t.n.r. Had recommended that those policy statements be supported. There are already several bills filed on some of these amendments so I just wanted you to be aware that there probably will be bills filed on most of these policy issues and just wanted you to be aware that there are some issues involved in them and I can go through them within by one quickly. Should I just start with amendment 1? Support authority for school districts to assess impact fees to cover the cost of growth in new districts caused by new developments. The c.u.c. Is supporting the ability of school districts to collect impact fees to construct facilities, school facts, and that's all the impact fees would be allowed to do. We have consistently talked about the fact that we -- the county gets severely impacted many times by school siting situations and because school districts are independent and do not have to follow our development guidelines at all basically, this oftentimes creates safety issues, quite frankly, for the kids. We've had to come back several times, as you know, and retrofit these projects to great expense to the county. All we would -- since this bill is moving forward, it was introduced last year, it did make it out of committee and into the calendar's committee, it did not make it out of calendar's committee, we would just recommend that the court discuss with c.u.c. Approaching the sponsor of the bill, senator vandepu tufplt and talk to them about adding language that would say please coordinate with these counties when you are making these siting decisions. We would love to be able to use the impact fees for infrastructure issues as well, but at the very least we would just merely like tore the school districts to understand it would be helpful if we could solve these issues up front before the schools actually get designed and it would be a lot less expensive for everybody, it would be a lot safer for the kids, a lot of transportation could be -- transportation issues could be solved proactively.
>> so when legislators ask us if we have on our own contacted school districts and asked for this advance notice, the answer is yes, we've done that and [inaudible].
>> and the results has been mixed. I would have to say some districts are better than others about coordinating before they start building.
>> and others -- i've actually even been shocked by some sites that you find out after the fact that were really actively being looked at for major high schools and it didn't turn out that way. And you are like what were you thinking, well, the land was going to be free and given to us, yeah, because you are going to dump on the county to fix everything that was wrong with that site which is why they couldn't sell it as a commercial site.
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, but I think joe has -- I think joe has raised some good points. That at the same time the counties are saying we support the school districts doing this, this is a good chance for us to have an in and go talk to the senator and others to say, you know, we agree here, but is there any way you can kind of soften things with the school districts that they need 20d a back at you with the counties related to being more voluntarily working with the counties up front related to school sites. Because it's problematic. In the same way it's problematic for these subdivisions to come in and dump on the school districts. It's also problematic for school districts to dump on counties and cities.
>> any more discussion of Commissioner Sonleitner's motion?
>> I don't have enough background on this. Give me a couple of examples of what a school district has done that has proven to be so detrimental to the county. I guess there's --
>> let me give you one without mentioning names. We in our bond election we had money set aside to up great one of our county roads to major arterial and we did that. And multi-lane arterial. Quite frankly the whole purpose of the arterial is mobility, move traffic. Higher speeds. The school district in question purchased the site or was given a site on that arterial. Was totally within the incorporated area. The road is in the county, but the sited is in the city. We did not even know that the school was going in until it was there. And so the ingress and egress to the site became problematic. We were asked after the fact when that became a problem to zone the arterial to -- where basically the school crossing. And so totally contradictory to the purpose of the roadway. They are now asking to us slow the speeds down to 20 miles an hour on a very busy arterial. That's the type of issue we could have avoided had we just coordinated ahead of time.
>> okay. Makes sense.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Okay.
>> and amendment 2 is county's -- allow counties to assess impact fees to cover rising cost of infrastructure structure and maintenance caused by new developments. This is just an issue that has been talked about for a while amongst counties and our own senator wentworth has introduced every session a bill to allow counties this authority he's introduced two every session. They usually get hearings. I don't think they've usually made it out of committee, but those bills have been reintroduced, senate bill 141 and 142. 141 would expand subdivision platting authority for accounting year and international border to include any county that elects to adopt -- to adopt those provisions under that chapter. So basically the Commissioners court would vote to opt in. Senate bill 142 permits the county to hold an election to get more authority. And so the voters would have to approve the new authorities. Either way, it would be a local decision. Knob would be forced to take on the authority, it would be totally permissive. These are the same that have been filed session after session so there are bills that have been filed to support that policy platform. I just wanted you to be aware of them. There will probably be others and pat fees is always a high-profile issue. How far they get is anybody's guess.
>> the former Commissioner, I think he has a real good idea of the impact on this and I?m sure that's why he's submitting the bills to try to help counties. And whoever wants to opt in, which is fine. I would move approval.
>> second. I think it's just a matter of time that these bills do make it through. Maybe this will be the time it does.
>> what is the -- so why do they get defeated? I mean if this comes on --
>> we don't get defeated. They never -- they very rarely make it out of committee. Because as we all know --
>> [inaudible] get them killed before any significant progress is made. So they get killed before they see the light of day. Basically.
>> and the biggest argument for defeating them is just strictly the fee?
>> driving up the cost of development. Housing and what have you.
>> because basically they want to dump the costs on to the general taxpayers.
>> we met with cruz and some others.
>> and you are right, the impact fee always sends up a flag.
>> make somebody else pay it.
>> and because there's likely to be multiple bills in this general area of county land use regulation, impact fees, I think it would probably be wiser to understand where -- to instruct us on a framework to live within as opposed to specific bills. I think yes, we are interested in impact fees. I think we're interested in basically reaching a way to fairly distribute the cost of infrastructure to everyone who is subdividing property. I think that's kind of the principle and we certainly want to be within the framework of the supreme court ruling on proportion at. That's a given. But within that there's always going to be various methods and means and so I think this is something where we're going to end up negotiating with the development community if we go to fees so that, you know, we're going to -- if we ever get something that will pass, it will be something in our interest and their interest as well. The other thing I think is a more public -- perhaps more on a defensive measure. There's a saying be careful what you ask for. Once you start in this direction, you open up territory for other changes to take place. And one thing I think that as a matter of principle we have senate bill 873, which in previous sessions has granted counties some additional authorities that we are looking at at this point in time. I think it's important that we as a county take a position of perhaps more defensively defending the authority that we have from deterioration. There may be some interest in making sure that we never get the opportunity to do -- exercise any authority under 873. But I think that's the other side of the equation of maintaining what you've got and be careful what you ask for.
>> proactive [inaudible].
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Daugherty.
>> and then the last four amendments, amendment 3, 4, 5 and 6, to my knowledge, no bills have yet been introduced on these issues.
>> but they are policy positions.
>> they are policy positions, right.
>> so I move approval of those amendments.
>> second. And basically for Travis County we would simply be monitoring these things.
>> yes.
>> to see if indeed legislation comes out.
>> okay, now, on that amendment 4, [inaudible] on building code -- hmmm.
>> basically last session legislation passed that mandated that the international building code applies statewide. So it is now the state building code. The only problem is counties don't have any authority to enforce a building code. So they self-certify it. Right now builders are expected to self-certify under that program. This would simply provide counties with the authority to enforce that code should they want to. The policy statement as I -- as has been explained to me is in support of authority to -- to enforce that code if you request it or if you decide to opt in. Again, there has been no bill filed that I know of so it's hard to say what the actual language is.
>> and Travis County is going with the international fire code. We are choosing not to do a building code at this point. So it's permissive for those who want to opt in.
>> and amendment 6 --
>> I?m sorry.
>> amendment 6, I know very little about it except that was brought by colin county just very recently, like last week it was offered. And I assume it fits in with some of the issues that we've had here and it's requiring that the Commissioners court approve a m.u.d. Before tceq approves it.
>> it's part of the policy that covers all of the urban counties.
>> that c.u.c. Has already approved.
>> well, they are asking the courts to approve it and then we'll take it back to the policy committee and the membership will approve it. Have final approval.
>> so is our approval subject to subsequent approval by c.u.c.?
>> the board will consider it, the full board will consider all of these. The entire policy platform tomorrow at the luncheon.
>> of c.u.c.
>> right.
>> we're supportive, but I assume the others may have reasons why these are good or have no idea. But our approval, we're saying it makes sense to us so we're passing it on to the board for approval by c.u.c.
>> right. And we always ask to run these issues by our Commissioners court so that we'll have a better idea of where the county stands.
>> okay.
>> could you explain to me a little bit more about amendment 4 as far as the building code? What does that -- what -- just explain it to me. In other words, are we talking about building code that is in compliance with residential or -- I know we talked about the fire code this morning.
>> plumbing, electrical, all the buildings per se. We have subdivision authority currently that regulates the layout of the land, the roads, the storm sewers, stuff like that. This pertains to the buildings that go on the lots. The electrical systems -- how the electrical systems are hooked up. How the plumbing is put in. And right now the international building code is one of several building codes available, but the state has adopted the international building code as being the standard for the state of Texas. As she indicated, it's self-enforcing.
>> in other words, county by county.
>> well, actually builder by builder.
>> or builder by builder rather.
>> in unincorporated areas.
>> it does not duplicate the fire code --
>> that's what I?m trying to get to.
>> counties -- if anything the fire code I would assume -- this is a minimum. Anybody is allowed to adopt something that is more stringent than the i.b.c. And so --
>> if we adopt the international fire code next Tuesday, which we have said we would do, do we need this?
>> yes. It takes care of other things.
>> now, hold actually be looking at -- who would actually be looking to make sure things are in compliance? Who would be responsible for doing that?
>> first the court would have to decide you wanted to do that.
>> I?m saying if the court decided to do that, then -- I?m looking at on further down the line, you know, how it will impact us and what do we have to look -- if the court decides let's enforce compliance, who will actually be responsible for -- if the court decides to do this, for going out and doing all this kind of stuff?
>> you would have to hire, you would have to increase -- approve f.t.e.s to enforce the building code and that may or may not be supported by fees depending what happens to the bill.
>> that's what I?m trying to get to. In other words, looking at the -- is there any way -- let me ask this question. Is there any way possible for us to get what type of impact would we have by approving this looking at the overall picture, I guess what other counties are doing, how are they funding it? Is something generated from those type of inspections to make sure people are in compliance? Is there a fee assess odd that? Do we have any of that kind of information as far as a model of someone that's already doing this?
>> probably your best example would be city governments, not county governments.
>> whomever. City. Do we have anything out there that can suggest what's generated?
>> I think we could find some information.
>> we can get that, but again, no bill has been filed yet so we would be --
>> right.
>> -- discussing as to what the impact would be until we see how they are proposing to implement it.
>> I would like to have more information on that.
>> and I think we would at the time that we made a decision to do that, but right now we're just supporting a policy position that is general. It's still general out there. No bills have been filed on it. And so -- but when we get down to the detail, that's when we make a decision do that.
>> even so I would like to have a -- just a generic way of going bit. Other states -- but I still would like to have the information. So I?m requesting that personally that I would like to have that information.
>> and so meantime can we approve our motion?
>> any more discussion? So the motion really is to approve these for --
>> the amendments.
>> .
>> -- referral to the c.u.c. Board or policy consideration thinking if the board approves them at some point there would be specific legislation to look at. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners -- approved by unanimous vote. We'll hear further later when the --
>> specifics. Right. I would like to see that.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> looks like we'll very next week an item I guess indicating the process that bob cam's request we'll have it on next week as well as an item legislative stuff today, probably have our running weekly item involving legislation in the -- in case that we need it. Anything further on this item today? We'll have it back on next week or a similar worded language.
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, January 11, 2005 7:58 AM