Travis County Commissioners Court
March 1, 2005
Item 33
Number 33 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. A list may be obtained from any member of the Travis County Commissioners court. We were sent a list and we do have some of these that we need to discuss. Morning.
>> good morning. Shaleen walker with the transportation and natural resources department. I believe tnr sent over four bills that we would like to discuss with you today. And I will just begin with them. We have technical staff here in the audience if you have specific questions about some of the recommendations. The first bill is house bill 848, introduced by representative herrero. We believe the gill is a good one -- the bill is a good one in that it would have positive impacts on the city's road and bridge fund if it passes. It allows the county to double the optional vehicle registration fee by raising the current limit from $10 to $20 if you so choose. There's nothing in the bill that would mandate this increase, it would just allow the Commissioners court the authority to reaz that fee. -- raise that fee. The bill is important, tnr feels, because it will offset reductions in revenue to the road and bridge fund that are currently resulting from the passage of house bill 3588 last session. That bill moved 10% of the vehicle sales tax revenue from the road and bridge fund into the county's general fund every year over the next 10 years, starting this year. So this would be a mechanism to offset those funds back into the road and bridge fund for road maintenance and issues. So tnr staff recommends that the court vote to support this bill.
>> but it is an actual increase from 10 to $20?
>> this would give you the authority to raise that fee $11, if you'd like, up to $20. Right now the cap is 10.
>> okay. I mean, I think the only one of those issues with this -- because obviously if we're going to ask for the passage of this we would have intent of taking that up. And it kind of gets into all of the stuff about are there fees being increased from toll roads to -- you name it. It comes at people from a lot of different directions. I mean, I'm still anxious to see how everybody feels about the emissions testing. So there are going to be some things where people are going to recognize that you have been fee'd. And not to say this is not a good bill to pass because it at least gives us the flexibility of doing. And I certainly don't mind talking to folks and saying, you know, we've really got to have a funding mechanism to take on the issues that we have at hand. So judge, I can't imagine why we wouldn't at least be for allowing it.
>> does cuc take position on this or do we know?
>> they have not. We asked them.
>> okay. Motion to support it by Commissioner Daugherty?
>> yes.
>> seconded by yours triewl try l.i. Any other discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the next bill is house bill 749. It also relates to the road and bridge fund. Basically this bill would amend the transportation code to allow vehicles transporting, quote, agricultural products and equipment used to transport or process agricultural products to exceed the dimensions and weight limitations currently in the transportation code. The exemption according to the county attorney's office is very, very broad and it could include a truck shipping groceries to the grocery store, a cattle truck, a tanker truck full of corn oil, etcetera. The bill would impact the county fiscally because as with the state it would increase the number of oversized vehicles travelling on our county roads, and all of these vehicles would not necessarily have to go get an overweight permit like they do at the moment. So there are two impacts really. More heavy trucks on our roads, causing more damage, and less money coming to the county from these overweight permit fees. And there was a change made in the law last session. We don't actually get dollars from those permit fees any more. We get equivalent road material from txdot. We used to get about $37,000 per year in excess weight permit fees. As of fy '05, txdot has provided us with approximately 93,000 dollars' worth of road material that we can actually use on our road. So it's unclear as to how that number would be impacted, but it was likely decreased if this bill were to pass. So we are concerned about those impacts and recommend that the county oppose the bill.
>> what's the number again?
>> 749.
>> who's advocating it? Thisbill has actually had a hearing before the agricultural committee. There was one witness in favor in addition to the bill's sponsor, and it's the farmers in west Texas, according to the testimony -- the summary of the testimony that I read. They're trying to impact farming transport out in west Texas. It clearly said west Texas. And I'm not exactly sure where.
>> (indiscernible).
>> because we believe it has unintended consequence oz Travis County. The bill is written to apply statewide and the agricultural exemption is written very, very broadly. At the very least we would like to go talk to him and the sponsor and make sure that they understand that this is going to impact not only west Texas, but in urban counties as well.
>> do we oppose it? Do we go talk to them and them come back and take a position?
>> I have not heard from our lobby team whether or not they're open to discussion about it. Because the bill has already had a hearing, we're just trying to bring it to your attention as quickly as possible. We found out about it after the hearing happened. So right now as written, we're recommending that you would oppose it, but we would definitely go and talk to the sponsor about our concerns. If you're not comfortable with opposing it --
>> we need to make sure we understand it if it has a harmful effect. Do we have a week?
>> it was left pending in committee. It's probably coming up again this week. It may pass out of committee.
>> this is one of those things that you think that it's insignificant and you vote against it, then what you have is you go over and you want support from some of these people on some things that really mean something from us, and they go, you know that bill that you -- that you did on us? I would tread lightly on something like this. I can see where it means something to the west Texas farmer, you're right. I drive out there quite a bit and I can see where -- that they're looking for some relief on something like this. But I would careful about it.
>> I think I would get with txdot also and ask -- i'd ask them, now we got -- how do we get $90,000 of material from you. If this bill passes, do you have any idea of how it may affect that material that Travis County receives?
>> the state will -- doesn't tend to do fiscal analysis on our level, but there was a fiscal analysis done on the bill that said it would have negative impact on txdot and have negative impact on county budgets as well.
>> the problem is that they all say that. [ laughter ]
>> I guess if you get over there and get where that pile is and get our share right now.
>> I think the key is to let the sponsor at this point know that we're concerned about the broad language in the bill and that it would apply to us.
>> make sure we understand, if the facts show we would be harmed, then I think we have a duty to take a position.
>> okay. Right now our position will be to monitor and go find out more about this.
>> I think, unless there's a motion to the contrary.
>> okay.
>> 749 ought to be on our monitor list, I guess, to watch out.
>> house bill 1511 is a bill that was introduced by representative chisholm about the vehicle repair. Which the county is about to implement. This is a bill that we have actually worked with through the Texas clean air working group on this -- we've met with him during the interim session to discuss potential changes to the lirap program based on the program in dallas-fort worth and houston areas and some of the lessons they've learned. Representative chis hom is the representative who originally wrote the low income repair vehicle assistance language, so he is carrying these amendments forward under that guise. Basically the bill would stipulate that the program be administered in accordance with uniform grant and contract management act items, and basically the whole point of that part of the bill is currently only five percent of the funds can be spent on anything other than actual repair costs for these cars. And the tceq has interpreted that statutory language to mean that you can't use any of the 95% of the funds to actually operate your program, such as pay somebody to look at the receipts that the repair facilities are doing, so pay somebody to answer the phone calls when people are trying to apply for this program. There are uniform state grants guidelines as to what our programmatic costs, versus what are administrative, and this would allow us to use some more money to actually run the program and then the five percent because five percent is probably not going to be enough to administer the program. It hasn't been enough in dallas and houston. And they've been subsidizing the administrative cost of that program to the tune of $500,000 a year. That's for nine counties, not two, but that's a big concern for us. So that's very important. They've always -- the representative has agreed to reduce the amount of time that a vehicle has to be registered in a county. They have in there two years. There are a lot of cars evidently in dallas and houston that have owners who meet the income limits for the program, but their car hasn't been registered in dallas county for two years. They just moved there. Thaifer lowering that threshold to one year. That's the goal of the program. And finally, this is an issue more in dallas and houston, but hopefully it might be an issue here as well. If there are unused lirap funds, and again, these funds come from two dollars and in our county it will come from two dollars of everybody's inspection fees that go unspent because there aren't enough applicants out there. You are allowed to use those funds for other air quality, and very specific air quality improvement, emission reduction programs in our county. They don't just go back to the state into the general fund because those dollars were collected from residents in our county for air quality purposes and dallas and houston actually have a lot of leftover funds right now and they want to use those monies for other programs.
>> so it would be our county, not our region.
>> yes. Right now it's by county.
>> we think this is a good bill.
>> we do indeed and we recommend that you please support it.
>> that's why I move approval. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and the last bill is landfill siting bill that I'm going to call others up to talk about a little bit more. This bill is house bill 1053, introduced by ruben hope. This is the same representative who introduced another landfill siting ordinance that you all addressed a couple of minutes ago. And the bill basically would put into state statute some requirements for buffers. They're larger than current state statute, but not -- I believe they have some conflict with our current siting ordinance that you're cg or considering or that you've adopted. I'll let them discuss that in more detail.
>> morning, judge, Commissioners, john pool, tnr. This bill does two basic things. It would put a thousand foot buffer in place from the boundary of the landfill to certain sensitive receptors, including established residences, places of worship, schools, day care centers or dedicated public park. The other thing -- the second thing it would do would be to increase the distance requirement from the active landfill, in other words, whether they're putting the waste into the ground or whatever, to the outside boundary of the landfill property. From 50 feet to 75 feet, the current requirement is 50 feet. This bill would change that to 75 feet. So those are essentially the two things that the bill is doing. As you recall, the siting ordinance that we have in place right now here in Travis County, which is chapter 62 of the Travis County code, does not apply to municipal solid waste landfills, it only applies to what we called minor facilities and major facilities. So it's not truly applicable to this legislation; however, our setbacks that we had in that section of the code are greater. In general, we're 1500 feet from these type of reseptemberers and as much as a mile from a neighborhood. Again, that doesn't apply to msw landfills, this does. However, as you will recall, perhaps painfully, we originally drafted that for the siting of municipal solid waste landfill. So that is contemplated by this court at one time. So we're just pointing out that this is a change in state law that is better than the status quo if you like buffers and setbacks. It's larger than the status quo right now, however, it's perhaps a smaller buffer or set back than what y'all had contemplated originally.
>> is there any point of entry into this legislation which would allow the county to continue to adopt separate ordinance outside of this legislation? Let's say as an example the setbacks may not be as what the proposed adopted solid waste siting ordinance landfill that we had. Is there any prohibition to not maybe -- not make adjustments to those particular requirements as far as buffer?
>> tom, do you believe that your recommendation would accomplish that?
>> yes. And Commissioner, one of the thoughts that we had was it's unclear whether the intent is to override local authority, so we might ask the sponsor to include some clarifying language that nothing in this bill prohibits counties from adopting stricter requirements.
>> is everybody saying that if there's a thousand foot distance requirement, this would add to it a minimum. If you say a minimum of a thousand feet, wouldn't that make sure that you leave authority to exceed that -- (indiscernible).
>> that's really what it says right now.
>> oh. We don't like that current language. We think it's not -- we think it does not leave the authority for local governments to exceed.
>> let's say it raises an issue.
>> move that we support the knuckles recommended amendment and the recommendation.
>> second.
>> again, we have talked to representative hope on this bill and they seem amenable discussing this bill. That's why we're bringing it to your attention.
>> they want to see the local government -- if the local government has the nerve to exceed it, don't they? [ laughter ]
>> we'll try to get an amendment where we can exceed the minimum there. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show a unanimous court on the landfill issue.
>> thank you very much. That's it for tnr.
>> any other items?
>> April bacon with the Travis County auditor's office. There are a number of bills that are being proposed currently over at the legislature dealing with judicial compensation. This is an issue that they have undertaken to try to address this session, and of course there's 16 different ways to skin a particular cat when you get into the middle of the session. We currently have a statute that is specific to Travis County that sets a specific amount to be paid to participants on the juvenile board. As some of these bills are coming out addressing the compensation issue in different ways, we feel that having this particular statute with its limiting language in it may be harmful to the district judges in their compensation. So we're asking for support on a very minor change. The statute says that the juvenile board membership shall be paid, $4,800, and we're asking that we just change that to say a minimum of. That way depending on what comes out of the session at the end of the day, we won't have that language to come back and haunt us in some fashion.
>> what's the number of that bill or are there several?
>> it's not -- there are several bills out there right now. The big bill that has come out is a bill by senator duncan, and I think it's 368. But we're seeing a whole lot of things. It's like the tax things. There's always -- everybody has got an idea on how to address it and there's a lot of them coming out. And we're just concerned that with the limiting language on this bill it may be caught up accidentally into some of the fixes as they go through the judicial compensation fixes. So by giving y'all a little more flexibility on setting that, we can ensure that we won't be harmed by some of the language that comes out, depending on what they decide.
>> move that we support continuing flexibility at the local level.
>> second.
>> thank you.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. There is before us a letter dated March 1, 2005 regarding house bill 470, senate bill 194, and different other matters. I guess it's all of them. And have we acted on this before?
>> no. We asked them to prepare the letter for us, judge, bated on the information -- based on the information that was available to both sherry and michael. And so they prepared the letter because it contains all that they want to address.
>> okay. Any comments? Recommendations?
>> I move approval that the letter be signed by the members of the court and sent over to the appropriate committee who are considering these bills.
>> I second the motion. Discussion? Do I also have the original if this passes? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Do you know whether I have the original of the letter?
>> I'm not sure.
>> if you don't find it, we need to get one.
>> it's got something written on it, but it's in ink or pen. We'll find that and get it to you later today. Is that good?
>> okay.
>> anything else?
>> yeah, there are a couple other issues. We want to revisit some of the items that were brought forth and the court approved on the taskforce agenda. One of them has to do with the issue of options for detention of parole violators. There was an issue brought to you about the fact that currently the jail houses parole violators that are brought in on warrants and currently there is no provision for allow any other facilities to do that. The fact that we have a state jail, we thought it might be good to have something where at least the possibility would exist to house the folks that are brought in on a warrant on parole vital and house them in some kind of state facility if that was feasible. As you can tell, the way things have been going, especially with the prison population, that is less and less feasible. So at this point we're finding a lot of obstacles to getting this pushed forward, we're recommending no further action. That's based on discussion with c.a.n. As well. The other issue is the fee for nonpayment of fines and court costs. We had brought an issue to you about there was a stipulation in statute that someone who hadn't paid their court fines or fees within -- by 30 days would have to also -- there would be an additional fee that they would have to pay. And the way the sheriff's office had been enacting that was having them lay it out for an additional day. That was obviously costing additional jail time. But on reviewing it, a couple of issues came forth. One is that they did some further analysis on the number of folks it would impact and it wasn't a large number. And that was brought back to our attention when they tried to get a sponsor for this and they asked what would be the impact. And so further analysis showed that it wasn't going to be substantial. Also, based on discussions with the county attorney's office, it seemed that it may be the way of interpreting language where we may not have to have them lay out that additional time payment fee in the first place. So we may have to seek an additional opinion on that or additional interpretation on that, but at this point to get some type of change in statute is not necessary. So I'm recommending no further action on that one as well.
>> it seems to me that we would punish ourselves and spend another 40, $45 a day keeping you another four or five days and you won't get the right to ever get that fee. You substitute the punishment for the fee basically.
>> I think the issue was that in the way the law is written, if someone had paid some part of it and then has not paid -- the issue was people who aren't going to pay would have to have the additional fee put on and they would have to lay it out. And the issue is if he the had some part of it -- the way we're interpreting it is that we're saying that someone who hasn't paid anything and then they get this additional fee attached and there was an issue of perhaps is really applies more to the folks who have paid some portion of it and then having paid the full amount, there by showing they have some type of ability to pay. I think that's where the interpretation of it actually came into play. Do you have anything else to add?
>> yeah. When we look at that statute it appears that the statute says if a person pays some portion of his fines and costs and fees more than 30 days after the time that he's supposed to pay or when he's sentenced, then this time payment fee applies. And I think the plain language of the statute would suggest that if the person never pays anything, which is most of our cases apparently, then the time payment fee would not apply. That's just the plain reading of the statute. It doesn't appear to might to people who never pay at all and lay out the entire amount.
>> so you think the bill is doa basically?
>> right. And the issue that was raised was is this really going to affect a substantial impact on the number of folks that this applies to? And again, based on analysis, even the way they are applying it right now in practice, it wasn't going to impact a whole lot of people. We're talking about I think between 60 and 70 folks I think based on the sheriff's office analysis.
>> okay. Anything else?
>> judge, we have a report on a bill. We want to leave that with you and highlight two bills that have been filed.
>> okay. Do you normally get one of these? Let's give the county clerk one, bob. You may need a favor from her at some point in the future. [ laughter ]
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. A couple of items here on your priority list that have been filed, and we've attached those bills. The first one is house bill 1492 by naishtat. And senator barrientos has filed that in the senate as well. That was the one that the sheriff's office had requested to amend the health and safety code where someone is working at the jail and if they believe that they are exposed to a reportable disease, then that person is authorized to have that person who exposed them to it, who they think exposed them to it, to have them tested. And so we have -- the language in the bill as an employee, contractor or volunteer, other than a correctional officer who performs a service in a correctional facility. So that language should now cover everybody that's in the jail and that would need to do that, a nurse, for example. So that's -- that is that bill. Then the other bill --
>> did we already approve this?
>> you've already approved it. We wanted to show you the language and we'll move forward now to try to get that passed. And then the other bill that's attached to your packet is senate bill 767. And that was introduced by senator wentworth the end of last week, and that relates to the issue brought up by Commissioner Sonleitner on the valuation of a conservation easement. And if you'll look at -- if you've got the bill there, it's a one-page bill, but subsection b of that bill states that in appraising land that is included in a habitat preserve and is subject to a conservation easement created under the natural resources code or other law that restricts the use of the land to protect endangered species under a federal permit, the chief appraiser will consider the affect of the restriction on the value of the land. And so we wanted to attach that bill so the county attorney's could look at it and make sure it does what y'all want it to do. If so we'll move forward to get that one set for hearing.
>> you've checked with Commissioner Davis and Sonleitner also?
>> yes.
>> and unless you have -- the remainder of the bills here are all drafted and should be filed within the week.
>> on number 7 do we know whether the governor has changed his position on that voting precinct size bill? The last time there was some question about that having a chilling effect on voter turnout. Confusion.
>> yes, exactly. Having to stand in line for a long time or having to travel further from their home to vote. We have, as we report, we've visited with the governor's office. I think it's fair to say they're open to other suggestions and we have a sponsor on the elections committee who will file that for us. Commissioner Daugherty has offered to go over there and visit further with the governor's office, so at this point we filed the bill from last session as a place holder and it's just a matter of trying to find some language that will be acceptable to everyone. It's a statewide bill, and so we'll be workogthat one. We'll have something filed before the dead klein.
>> were the other counties supportive last time?
>> yes. It passed the legislature.
>> because I would think larger counties would have more impact than we would. There's a whole lot of precincts.
>> we need to put Commissioner Daugherty to work.
>> you're waiting on me to come over.
>> for lunch.
>> yeah, for lunch.
>> okay.
>> and unless you have questions on anything else, that's all we have.
>> thank you.
>> susan had one. You had one too?
>> the only thing I want to mention is rumor has it that some revenue cap bills are now going to start to be heard. I'll be testifying against those -- revenue caps. Caps that would cap the revenue or push back the rollback rate. I will be testifying against those bills as much as I can. And I guess my question is can I represent y'all on that? What mind are we on that?
>> to oppose the revenue cap in this session and regular session?
>> yes, we did.
>> move that we continue our opposition and put together a document indicating reasons why and shower that with the powers that be.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any discussion of that? I think we may ought to --
>> what I did is i've got what we did last time, and let me just give you rough drafts of that. We've updated some of the data for this year, but some of the things need to be reworked. I'll get a copy to your office today, all of you.
>> so are we looking at the appraisal caps plus revenue caps?
>> yes.
>> and --
>> I think our testimony should be on revenue caps.
>> okay.
>> and differentiated between appraisal caps.
>> we need to have these gentlemen's office.
>> that's the reason I came up to the desk also. This is just a critical issue that we visited at great leng the last time, -- length last time. Judge, I think one way to describe what's going on right now is because of the resistance to appraisal caps, the response from the leadership has to some extent been, well, golly, maybe we'll just go back to this other issue and then we'll see that maybe appraisal caps won't look like such a bad thing. But in any event, it is clearly and squarely back on the table, possibly to be a bill to be laid out as early as tomorrow on this effort in the house ways and means committee, and there are some other efforts underway as well on it. So we are going to be fully engaged on this issue again over the course of the next several days.
>> is representative gat advertise on -- representative gattis on appropriations or ways and means?
>> he is on appropriations.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> so has cuc taken a position on the revenue cap bills? I guess they know they're coming down the pike.
>> uh-huh.
>> anything further on legislation? Thank y'all very much.
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, March 2, 2005 10:31 AM