Travis County Commissioners Court
February 15, 2005
Item 31
Somebody mentioned a couple of presentations.
>> hi, Travis County transportation and natural resources department. We have three bills that we would like to bring to your attention. All three of them might impact Travis County transportation and natural resources operations to greater or lesser extent, we wanted to make sure that you were aware of them for the most part. The first one is a bill that's actually getting a public hearing on Thursday. House bill 266 filed by wayne smith. The bill would -- would basically require all county development permits, no later than the 45th day of a the -- after the day it was submitted to be either granted or denied or the county provide written notice to the applicant. Stating the reasons why the county has been unable to act on the permit and reach written agreement with the applicant providing for a deadline for when the application will be approved. Stacy sheffel and ana bow lynn is here about how that process currently works. I wanted to note a couple of things. Our lobby team met with representative smith indicated that his main goal is to get permits approved quicker. There are several players in permit approval processes, the county doesn't just approve these by ourselves, we also have to work with the city of Austin, lcra, I believe texdot as well. So oftentimes we are waiting on decisions by those other entities before we can make a final decision on the application. So that's an important issue to be fair representative smith has recognized that partly he's introduced other bills that would require that the cities do the same thing as this, that would require that texdot have 42 days to approve applications. I don't know how those deadlines really stack up. But that he is introducing legislation to make other entities comply with these same kinds of deadlines as well. Like I said the hearing is on Thursday morning. Staff has -- is recommending at the moment that -- that you guys make a decision whether or not you have heard it from your constituents, this is a huge problem, we recommend that you at least monitor because we do feel like it would have a fiscal impact. We would likely have to hire at least one additional f.t.e. If not more to comply with what is basically a paperwork requirement that this bill would create and that in turn would likely increase the cost of the application permit. So we could comply with the bill, but the costs, the fees would probably have to go up to cover -- us complying with it.
>> representative smith is from harris county?
>> yeah. Around there. Senator gallegos has introduced the companion bill.
>> is it possible another tactic that can go here is that they get a bracketed bill. If harris county has a problem, you have two harris county representatives that are speaking on an issue here, then they ought to, that might be another thing that we might offer them is get a bracketed bill and show us that that's something that could work but -- but I'm not seeing where -- hey, believe it, it used to be that we had people all the time complaining about the time it takes to get through the permit process. With the elgin case that decided a lot of things and with Travis County taking back its septic program, that settled that one. We're just not getting the kinds of phone call that's we used to get when there truly was a problem and -- and it needed to be addressed. Is there going to be referred to county affairs?
>> it was actually referred to land and resource management. That's where the hearing is unfortunately -- yeah.
>> who is on that committee?
>> nobody from our region, it's -- it's chaired by representative moberty from fort worth. I think bobby cook might be the closest one in eagle lake.
>> maybe another tactic to at least discuss with representative smith does he need a bracketed bill and if it does do something in terms of having the intended consequences, that it's something they can then lower the bracket and bring more folks into it. But if this is a harris county problem, give harris county the tools to -- to deal with it.
>> one other note. We asked the lobby team to discuss with cuc the position. They have not taken a position on this bill yet. But they did discuss last night, I guess they had a weekly meeting, going to go out and talk to some folks, come up with a position in time for Thursday's hearing. I think it would help to hear from you all if you have a position one way or another on the bill. They need to know that and because they would like to be able to express that position. That's why we are bringing it forward --
>> but the impact on us is it would require additional personnel to comply.
>> that's t.n.r.'s analysis, yes.
>> in order to hire additional personnel we would have to increase the fees? So it becomes a consumer issue to that extent.
>> uh-huh.
>> yes, sir.
>> now, can we honestly say we don't think this is an issue in Travis County?
>> we don't get as many complaints as Commissioner Sonleitner said about the septic permits. We are real good at calling folks, saying, hey you need to do this, you need to do that. The problem here is that we don't give out written noifbs for about 25 -- notification for about 2500 permits per year that we are holding. We don't get a lot of complaints that you are jest taking too long. If somebody does call and complain, we will do everything that we can to get that permit issued for them.
>> what's the state's fiscal note on this one?
>> I have not seep a fiscal note -- seen a fiscal note yet.
>> there is no fiscal note.
>> the truth for us, we have looked at this, in our view it would require additional personnel to comply, which means we would have to increase the -- the fees to pay for the personnel.
>> yes, sir.
>> and is our bottom line that -- that in the -- in the grand scheme of things, we believe the money could be better spent? We think it would be a good investment or what?
>> I believe we think staff time could be better spent actually reviewing applications rather than writing a lot of letters that we feel like that information is already getting conveyed to the folks in Travis County who are -- who have these applications with us?
>> move that we put together a written statement where we can convey to the -- to the representative and senator Travis County's position basically is what you just indicated. What the facts are?
>> I think one of the most effective things, correct me if I'm wrong, bob, is probably if you all feel that it's appropriate we would try to send at least our lobby team or our representative from t.n.r. To the hearing to just be a resource and let them know --
>> I was going to have them deliver -- my motion basically is to have them deliver a letter setting fort the facts signed by the members of the court. And with the lobby team doing whatever I guess it can do.
>> second.
>> I mean I don't -- seems to me we can't do more than that. This is not -- not an earth shaker. But it will -- it will --
>> right. We also need to let cuc know.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? Any better ideas? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all.
>> the next bill is a -- is a set of bills as well. I'm sorry, I misspoke, I believe, this is the bill that has senator gallegos with the companion bill. Another bill filed by representative smith. Recovery costs for cleaning you will spills and leaks in the area. We are already in the hazard materials cleanup, melinda is here to discuss this further. Basically the bill for the most part t.n.r. Would recommend supporting, it would -- it would basically codify what we were already doing, we feel that there is a section that could prevent the county from recovering costs or cleaning up hazardous materials. And again our lobby team we ask them to just look into this and what was behind it and the staff and -- and representative -- in representative smith's office indicated that the language that we have particularly interest in, they are in no way tied to and they are more than happy to discuss it with us and we are just bringing that issue to the court's attention. So that would also affect the county attorney's office, the enforcement staff's office and pete baldwin's staff, the work that they do, we have been trying to work with them to just nail down exactly what the impacts would be, but we would like to go and discuss the bill that language in particular in detail with the representative smith and just make sure that it's not having any unintended consequences for our operations. And melinda can answer any questions that you might have about that.
>> this authorizes the county or this requires counties? To do this?
>> it's my understanding that it authorizes them. Is that correct, tom?
>> says under a may charge.
>> just to emphasize, it's authorizing us to do something that we are already doing.
>> well, there's some twist on that because -- the key thing to understand about the bill it authorizes the county to set a fee for cleanup. Right now if there's a hazardous material spill in the right-of-way, and we go clean it up, yeah, we try to collect from the spiller, but it involves, you know, basically threatening litigation if you don't pay. And I think you are in a whole lot better position if you have got authority to just assess a fee and send them a bill for any fee than to, you know, litigate how much you spend, whether he was actually at fault, so on. So to the extent --
>> this is primarily what it does.
>> yeah, I think that's the most important thing that it does.
>> that's a good thing.
>> it's like you have to pay the fee, end of story.
>> what's bad about it.
>> as we said before, we support that part of it. That's great. That's fine. But it actually excepts individuals from responsibility. That could have unintended consequences, there could be more spills in the right-of-way, it speaks about abandoned drum and hazardous materials. So we would support the bill if -- but ask them to remove the language that would exempt or except individuals from responsibility.
>> what's the purpose of that? Do we know? Why individuals are excepted?
>> I don't know exactly why. All I know is that -- [multiple voices]
>> as I recall the language that you are exempt from you are an individual and it's a spill in the quantity, you know, you bias a consumer. I think it's sort of like, you know, if you go to home depot and buy a gallon of paint thinner, and get them to wrap it on the way home, the paint thinner is thrown out the window and breaks on the right-of-way, then that quantity you wouldn't have to pay the county a fee. Sort of a small quantity exemption.
>> it speaks to three different areas. First of all, you must be operating personally like tom says, not commercially, second kind of restates the same thing that you are not hired by somebody to be in the transport business and that it -- it involves personal home type amounts of quantities. Our concern is that we clean those things up all of the time, we pay a contractor do that, it's not free. So -- so, you know, there is a recovery and identifiable recovery that we are already seeking when we can. Second, we feel like it would be a -- somewhat slippery slope that might end up with a little cottage industry, you know, kind of --
>> do we need to indicate our support but --
>> yes.
>> caution against excepting individuals from personal responsibility and just give some example.
>> that's the recommendation.
>> and the thing about that is if a person is liable but simply cannot pay, we are stuck with that anyway, right if.
>> right.
>> right.
>> and I assume that these are quantities so small that the -- that the cleanup costs would not be enormous, it would be -- why don't we just do that, support the bill and indicate -- the individuals -- exempt the individuals because the other taxpayers end up picking up that cost, how do we say but in hardship cases county would be reasonable. I don't see us spending $2,000 to recover 200. We don't do that, do we? The answer is no.
>> instead of obligating us, we would still be able to make that decision internally, wouldn't we?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> it's early enough for us to have more discussions about it anyway, right?
>> yes, sir. They said they would love to talk to us about it.
>> they would have real life examples that we would share with them. It may set an example in that you don't learn your lesson about being more careful next time if there's a lesson to learn. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and one more that again goes with solid waste siting, house bill 786 introduced by representative ruben hope. The bill allows tceq to override solid waste siting ordinances in some cases which takes back authority from the counties and gives it to tceq. Considering all the issues that you deal with on this, we wanted to bring this bill to your attention. And john cool, the environmental officer, will discuss it in more detail, but we would recommend at this moment that the county oppose this bill.
>> where's representative hope from?
>> montgomery county?
>> what the bill does is say what now?
>> it basically provides -- the ordinance that we've passed, for example, that applies to floodplain, well, the second one that applies to the siting of everything but type 1 landfills essentially. Okay. For example, if we have one of those applications that comes through, if this is in effect what it could allow tceq to do is to say, although that was a properly adopted ordinance and it happens to be in a place that this county has stated they do not want or didn't want to allow such facilities to be sighted, we feel, number one, it is an inappropriate site, tceq, that is. And second, the areas that they have already designated as not prohibited areas -- well, let me back up and just say that it will change it to say that tceq's determinations if deciding it's appropriate in any area that's not prohibited or in the areas not prohibited are unsuitable. It's a confusing little double negative filled situation here. Tom, would you like to explain? [ laughter ]
>> when you boil it all down, it let's an applicant who wants to permit a facility that would be prohibited by our county ordinance go to tceq and say the county really got it wrong. The county says this is a bad area for a waste disposal facility, but tceq, you can declare it an appropriate area and issue me my permit.
>> move we approve hb 786. It takes away from hard fought --
>> why don't you come back when Commissioner Davis is here.
>> on behalf of Commissioner Davis I move that we oppose 786.
>> all in favor? That that passes by unanimous vote.
>> that's it.
>> what is the opposition?
>> first of all, we've got one in place that we don't care to have overridden by tceq. We did it for reasons that we thought were important. So we have some investment in terms of --
>> we will do a good job and consider local input.
>> right.
>> to the extent that a state agency may well be unable to do.
>> local control.
>> is that too strong? Local control, people's input.
>> opposition needs to be put in whatever form and sent to the sponsor.
>> however best to get across this opposition, be it orally, written or in the form of opposition at any kind of public hearings.
>> I do think there ought to be a reason given for it rather than just voting to oppose it. I think they ought to know what our thinking is.
>> got it. Thank y'all.
>> anything else?
>> it's 12007. Please come forward. 12:07.
>> i've looked at this -- I'm sorry, I'm manager of the housing finance corporation. I've looked at this proposal, this legislation on the bk development district, and this is -- this district would encompass 156 acres totally within the town of bee cave. And I think the rationale for the district is there is proposed development of businesses, a mixed use development and road improvements that the businesses want to do, and so they want to create a district to separate themselves as far as taxing authority from the village of bee cave, the residents of the village of Bee Caves. The proposed district would have the powers of a housing finance corporation, so if they're on the 156 acres, if they chose to have an affordable housing project, then the district could issue the bonds instead of the Travis County housing finance corporation. So that was -- that was sort of the only negative part that I saw in the legislation. Chris blunt, our housing finance corporation attorney, has looked at the legislation and didn't really see any problems other than their having the powers of housing finance corporation or an industrial development corporation --
>> just the competition factor.
>> right. I will say that --
>> but that will only be within that district. It won't is the ability to do things outside the district, correct?
>> it's just for the 156 156 acres.
>> and that there's affordable housing on this 156 acres.
>> although I don't see any liability in the district to the county, as far as I know, this is not something that the county attorney has looked at this legislation with that in mind that they should look at before there's any position that the court would have.
>> it's an economic development district.
>> yes.
>> has anybody asked for our input? Support or opposition? Or are we treating it like any other bill?
>> well, I think the people who are here, there are representatives here from the district, and of course they would I think certainly like the county's blessing for the legislation. But they're here to answer any questions you might have or to clarify anything.
>> do we have the sponsor?
>> I don't believe they have a sponsor. This is charlene collins, who is an attorney with arm brewster law firm and john kelly who is with the developer.
>> thank you, Commissioners. We didn't know until Thursday this was on your agenda so I apologize for being unprepared. This is a essential district based upon -- special district based upon a management district. It is for 156 acres across from what's going on the shops of galleria. It's undeveloped right now. It does have substantial road improvements for highway 71 in that area and also the development of what will be called the galleria parkway, which will connect bee cave road to 620 directly, which we think will be wonderful for the people out there. We do not have the bill filed yet. The notice of intent was filed -- was published on the 24th of January, and we have to wait 30 days. We have been visiting with representative keel and also have contacted senator bar ientos. We don't have any assurances on their part they will carry the bills for us, but those are the folks we're talking to at this time. We'll be glad to answer any questions.
>> with muds and all those kinds of things, we get notices of intent, which is good, and it's according to the law, but the Commissioners court is not asked to take any kind of -- i'll use the word partisan although I don't mean it to be in that stance, on those things. If Bee Caves want to do it, so be it. We've had similar conversations with Pflugerville whether they're going to do a municipal management district. I've got my own personal district about whether it's a good idea for them or not, but it's not your decision. I don't want to do anything that either helps or hurts. Let's face it, this particular area out there is a little bit controversial. And I can see that there are people in the community saying why is the Commissioners court doing something that is only going to encourage activity that they disagree with, whether that's my opinion or not? I don't know why we would ever get involved in something like this unless it was required. If it's not, i'd take note of this, but I don't want to get into a fuss with folks in this community who have a very vocal opinion for what's going on out there and equally there are people that have very vocal opinions against it. To me it's local control, and if bee cave wants to do it, they ought to gut it up and take the slings and arrows, but this is not what the Commissioners court ought to weigh in on.
>> we understand your opinion. We will have resolution from the village of bee cave hopefully next week. They've had some flu out here and our hearings have been delayed a little bit, but when asked whether or not we would like a letter of support, and certainly if you were willing to do that we would be delighted. We're not necessarily asking you or expecting that support, but anything that's a positive is certainly a good thing for us.
>> I can understand what you're saying, but as the precinct 3 Commissioner probably don't have a problem with it, if they want to ask you the question. It's going to be bicial, and you're right -- beneficial for the roadway system, which is tremendous out there, but I'm certainly willing to work with you. From the court's standpoint, if someone's nervous about that, that's fine, but contact my office.
>> but you're trying to work with the city of bee cave?
>> yes, sir. We have been working with them from the very beginning on this bill. They are very, very familiar with it and again should pass a resolution on I think the 28th or 29th in support of this bill.
>> okay. Keep us posted.
>> good luck.
>> we done?
>> anything else?
>> we're here to listen and answer questions.
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, February 16, 2005 8:38 AM