Travis County Commissioners Court
March 29, 2005
Item 31
Item number 31 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. Last week we started dus scusing a bill -- discussing a bill 2585. And we may as well call it up first, mr. Davis.
>> good morning. I知 harvey Davis.
>> morning.
>> manager for the Travis County corporations? And I sent around to the Commissioners court a memo summarizing the issues regarding house bill 2585. And as you requested last week, in the audience are representatives from aqua Texas and representatives from dr horton who are here to answer the questions that you have regarding house bill 2585.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I知 andy barrett. [multiple voices]
>> I guess if you could, I guess -- you can formally identify yourself and who you are associated with. I guess the first person that I would like to ask is d.r. Horton representative, if you can -- if you can answer this question, before you answer it, please identify yourself but my concern is the -- is the impact of -- of high, according to sources, very high extravagant utility increased rates, in the subdivision that would basically geared to look at, I guess, basically low -- a component of having low income residents mixed in with the overall view and participation of the subdivision, can you basically tell us of the I gs, do you have any inklings of data to support the concerns of the residents within -- within the subdivision of brier creek that are experiencing high utility water bill rates?
>> I知 john carlton, I represent d.r. Horton and the briar creek hoarngs. We have been named a party in the rate application pending before the tceq that's been filed by aqua Texas. Your question is basically do I have information to support the rate increase that's proposed by aqua at this time. At this time we have not engaged in discovery. In this application. So I don't have a lot of details on aqua's request for a rate increase. I do know, though, that the residents in the neighborhood have been -- have been extremely adversely affected by the increase in rates. That is why there is such -- such an outcry in particular in that neighborhood over this proposed rate increase because of the -- because of the substantial nature of the rate increase. You know, this is a small system that's relatively new as you all know. This project is something that you all have been involved in, in terms of providing affordable housing to the county and these folks are living in -- in new homes with new water lines, new wastewater system, it's hard for them to understand why their bills are going up. In the way they are right now, will increase even more over the next five years. So that's why there is such an involvement. During there's such concern over the rate increase. I don't have documentation yet. But as we proceed through this rate process, we will begin to look in detail at that information. But I can't tell you that I can verify one we or the other Commissioner Davis why this rate increase is the magnitude that it is now.
>> okay. Can you -- can you tell me, have there been any disclosure to the residents that are looking to buy or have bought homes which really have not really reached its full potential as far as buyouts in that subdivision. Have there been any disclosure to the event of the high utility water bill rates prior to them purchasing or being engaged with a purchase of a home?
>> I have spoken with some of the representatives of d.r. Horton who are involved in that subdivision and they were not aware of -- prior to this rate increase being filed that there was going to be a substantial rate increase coming from. Since that time, it's my understanding that they have -- they have made function aware who are coming in to buy the subdivision, there is a substantial portion of this development that is undeveloped at this time, there will be new houses built, new people moving in. That is a -- that is a serious concern to d.r. Horton because affordable housing includes not only your payments on your house, but also your utilities and the costs just to occupy that house.
>> thank you, sir.
>> john -- I知 sorry, go ahead.
>>
>> I guess I would like to just maybe ask a couple of questions to the utility folks. Texas aqua. Could you possibly tell me the justification of why you are raising -- why your rates have continued to increase according to the sources and I wouldn't say out of control pace, but a -- but a pace that -- that is really -- really appears to be a -- a -- a purr den to low income -- a burden to low income residents in a subdivision that's basically designed to accommodate moderate but also low income residents. Can you basically tell me the justification for those increasing utility rates?
>> thank for you the opportunity, Commissioner Davis. My name is bob lofton, the president of aqua Texas. Our rate requests that we submitted to the Texas commission on environmental quality in July of 2004 was representative of capital expenditures in excess of $80 million that had been spent throughout the state since 1999. On top of the $80 million that have been spent, we have budgeted and have begun the process of spending an additional $25 million, in upgrading the systems not only in the briar creek subdivision but throughout the 50 counties that the aqua Texas operates in. Which this rate increase request represents.
>> okay. So this is just within the state of Texas or is it I guess -- do you have jurisdictions in other parts of the country other than the state of Texas? Just -- is this increase for infrastructure of capital improvements just within the state of Texas as far as capturing that increase?
>> aqua Texas is exclusively within the state of Texas. Our parent company, aqua america operates in other states, but the aqua Texas rate application is exclusively for capital spent in the state of Texas.
>> okay. And I guess is this -- is this your parent company? Is this a -- is this a publicly traded type of utility?
>> yes, sir, it is. It's the oldest u.s. Investor owned utility in the state -- I mean in the united states. Been in operation since the 1880s.
>> so one of the largest public utilities, also, in the nation?
>> correct.
>> it is?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. I guess my concern is that were there any more telling gestures or suggestions made by your utility with persons that came into the subdivision that you subsidized infrastructure, capital type of things, may be a part of this particular increase in -- in their rates? Across the board there? Did you actually justify, suggest to those residents that there would be substantial increase because of what you -- your structure and you formally suggested to recapture your expenses.
>> specifically to the subdivision, there were notices to all of our residents, as required by tceq, for rate application requests. That -- the public notices and the information regarding our rate increase requests was made as per tceq requirements which are very specific in terms of contacting both our customer base and making public notice of such requests.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I have got a couple of other questions, but I know that you have a couple of them that's --
>> I did read the very extensive information that harvey got for us. I really do appreciate this. But I知 at no different place than I was last week, that is that I don't believe the Travis County Commissioners court ought to be taking a position for or against this bill. I think there are other advocates and -- to fight this and certainly you have got the standing over at the tceq related to the rates. There's no guarantee to anybody about what the rates are or are not going to be. The question that I was going to ask you, john, if somebody butt a brand new home within the city of Austin, they would also be getting hit with what are anticipated to be five to eight speakers increases in your water and wastewater bills in each of the next five years, because all of a sudden where we've been blessed with having very stable and very low we are water rates, there's no $500 million worth of work that needs to be done on the system in order to meet e.p.a. Guidelines. So that same person could wiped up moving into the city of Austin going I知 in a new area, my papers are just fine, it's a -- my pipes are just fine, but it's part of the system. While it's much easier to diffuse that debt over the city of Austin's utility, with this being part of a system, there are still responsibilities in terms of these folks moved into a place and there's no guarantee on the rates. So I think it's appropriately fought at the tceq in terms of whether this is reasonable or not. And certainly Commissioner Davis you would have the opportunity to weigh in as an individual or as a Commissioner over on representative middle brandt's bill -- hildebrandt's bill, but I don't think we ought to be taking a stand on this, we don't have a dog in this hunt. It just not something that we should have standing nor do we have standing. We are not the regulators here on this.
>> what the bill does is to -- prohibit I guess rate increases annually and forces -- but would force you to -- to do it once every five years. It doesn't address the amount that the increase might be, but the frequency of the increase. How would that impact your company?
>> again, we -- we're -- we have the good fortune of being a little bit larger than most. So that our cash flows could probably accommodate it. But the larger or the smaller utilities that would be dramatically impact, most of these are capital intensive, the water utility business is extremely capital intensive. To roll and to require utilities to wait five years could -- could have a dramatic negative impact on water utilities that are -- that don't have the cash wherewithal to be able to sustain such a requirement and maintain the requirements of tceq in terms of environmental quality of water.
>> so you don't support the bill at this time?
>> no, sir, we do not.
>> if --
>> I知 so he, sir.
>> when residents complain about various things, for example rate increases, what's the -- does aqua have an official company position about how to respond. Well, fortunately, due to the efficiencies of our size, we have been able to reduce overhead dramatically over the last five years since our last rate increase. So our response is that -- that the rate increase request exclusively is capital involved. It's -- it's improving the systems to assure water quality for our residents and we -- we are very, very specific on that in terms of what the rate increase requires. It's to maintain good water quality throughout our system, to maintain both pressure and water quality, I guess, that's another major --
>> two more quick ones. The rate increases really are intended to improve the overall system that -- that covers 50 counties.
>> that's correct. And do you know whether the other water companies apply pretty much the same strategy as to rate increases?
>> well, tceq encourages the regionalization approach where we can spread out those costs over as many residences as possible so when you are going into a subdivision where a million dollar expenditure is required. Rather than that install community having to absorb the entire amount, we can spread it over as much of an jury as we possibly can. That is something that tceq encourage and other smaller utilities have incorporated that same situation to take advantage of -- of a macro approach and break down the fragmentation that small individual systems would have to endure.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner Davis do you have a motion.
>> yes, I have one more question. Tom, I guess that I will have to ask this of legal, mr. Davis, if you would like to weigh in on this. This particular bill is this particular bill, 2585, sponsored by representative hildebrandt, is this specifically targeted at Texas aqua or just general across the board as far as any utility company here within the state of Texas will be impacted? I mean, can you give me a little more depth of the bill, as far as what kind of impact that it would have on other water utility --
>> I don't have the bill in front of me, Commissioner. But what I recollect is that it would apply across the board. State-wide to all utilities.
>> in other words, five-year moratorium I guess as far as increasing the rates. And I don't know if -- if representative hildebrandt, at this point, judge, specifically -- specifically identify this particular company as far as the rate increases. Mr. Davis, harvey Davis, I guess, did you get any further information on representative hildebrandt's bill as far as specifics?
>> well, first of all, that -- again, my understanding that it applied to all of the water systems in the state. I do know in talking with their office, aqua Texas does have water systems in the [indiscernible] area that also had some concerns I think that perhaps was the source of representative hildebrandt filing this bill. In talking with their office, it appears to be a high priority to try to get this bill, particular bill passed.
>> okay. Lastly, I would like to ask the operators and owners, of Texas aqua, what utility -- water utility, since you operate in a 50 county area, it imkts a 50 county area within the state of Texas, and the capital necessary moneys to -- to do your capital operations within the -- within this utility as far as providing water, water quality, you mentioned tceq, will there be a future decrease at some point that -- that the persons that are currently online -- an example, briar creek because I知 really concerned about the low income families having to end did you ever such tremendous increases, as far as water bill costs, is there any forecast of decrease in your water rates?
>> Commissioner Davis, I would be remiss to say that we have projected decreases in the future. As the requirements, water quality requirements continue to become more demanding and the water infrastructure requirements to find water and to make sure that we provide adequate water and wastewater services for the community, I think I would be remiss to -- to give any encouragement that I saw reduction in rates any time in the near future.
>> judge, I would like to move if possible that the -- that the d.r. Horton, along with these folks here of the utility, Texas aqua, I don't like to get basically involved with this, per se, but those folks are my constituents. But I would like to make sure that they have full knowledge of what's going on in that subdivision. Of course, since it's not specifically, this particular increase, there's no way in the world, but I would like to encourage representative hildebrandt maybe in the form of a letter from mr. Harvey Davis to direct him to see if there is any specifity in the general language --
>> the motion is to specifically address --
>> yes.
>> [indiscernible]
>> is there a second?
>> can I ask a question?
>> there's a second to the motion. Dies for lack of a second.
>> okay.
>> now, your question?
>> john, the d.r. Horton, did d.r. Horton have the ability to deal with anybody that could provide water service, water and wastewater service to this development?
>> d.r. Horton doesn't really make that call. The Texas commission on environmental quality has a regulatory program where they certificate service areas to particular utilities. This area is -- the certificate for this area, as a monopoly is currently held by aqua Texas for both water and wastewater. So at this point that is the service provider for the subdivision, regardless of what -- what d.r. Horton might want or choose at this point in time. So -- so I think the answer he is no.
>> so there's no choice --
>> so the answer is no.
>> there's no choice in an area of who provides water in a specific region development or whatever.
>> that's true generally within the state.
>> wow. I mean that's --
>> yeah.
>> well, then that --
>> you don't need to choose the city of Austin. They are generally going to be [multiple voices]
>> I understand. But it is pretty eye opening to know that you have -- [laughter] -- I mean these are the people that you have got to use and --
>> Commissioner Sonleitner raised the point earlier if you are in the city of Austin you are going to have rate increases. Your recourse is your vote on who is on the city of Austin council. In this situation that recourse is not available, so the recourse is to participate in this application process at the commission.
>> but I think the folks ought to be notified. I mean, we have what, about -- I don't know how many subdivisions in that that's left for buildout and that. But the thing about it is it was a big surprise when they saw people's rates going -- of course low income folks have to suffer along with everybody else as far as the rates are concerned. I think it's appropriate for letting people know we are going to continue for this to be a portion of this -- to be sold to low income residents that they -- they should be made full aware of what's coming up the pike.
>> certainly. D.r. Horton is committed to do that, as well as committed to making sure the rates are at a reasonable level, using their resources to make sure that happens.
>> thank you all very much for coming down.
>> thank you.
>> appreciate it.
>> move that recess 31 for a couple of minutes, take up item no. 27. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
court recesses item to take up item 27.
let's call back up item no. 31, I believe, the legislative item. 31 which is to take appropriate action on legislative issue goes and proposed bills before the 9 Texas legislature.
>> hello, bill.
>> mr. Hamilton.
>> judge, Commissioners, I知 bill campbell, the chair's financial director, chair of hamilton and at least two of our majors are at the capitol toll, unless they rescue me, with your permission I would lay out two bill. We would like your consideration on supporting. The first one is house bill 1290. By representative flynn. This bill creates a new $3 court cost fee. It says a defendant convicted of an offense in the justice court, county court, county court at law, district court or municipal court shall pay a $3 fee as a cost to the court. It continues that the clerk's of the respective courts shall collect the costs and pay item to the county treasury for a department and a fund to be known as the inmate medical expense fund. This fund may be used only to reimburse the county or a hospital district for medical, dental or other health care related services. Provided to inmates of the county jail. Any excess fee collected during the previous years shall be allocated to the county's general revenue fund. The auditor's office, estimated revenue at about $145,000. Their estimate was based on who the county -- the county courts. So the facts are that we would get about 145,000 if this bill passes. Which is a step in the right direction. As speculation, this bill covers, municipal courts at $3 per conviction. And while we don't have a dollar amount to offer you on what that means, the city of Austin website indicates that they may have as many as 300,000 cases. So the potential for a considerable at of revenue is here. Amount of revenue. For that reason the sheriff requests that you consider joining him in supporting this bill. It is scheduled for a subcommittee hearing tomorrow, I believe tomorrow afternoon, is that right, bob? Okay?
>> so all of that fee would go toward medical expenses for inmates or the county general fund?
>> any excess above the medical expenses would go to the -- to the general fund in the next year is the way the bill is written.
>> one hundred% of it?
>> yes, sir.
>> what happens in the next year?
>> it --
>> each year --
>> yes, sir,.
>> perpetual.
>> it would revolve each year.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> send a supporting letter signed by the court. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote of those present. Commissioner Davis --
>> show me in support.
>> -- votes in support, also.
>> thank you. The second bill, I知 glad t.n.r. Is here, is senate bill 270 by madelyn gallegos, it modifies the health and safety code by changing the definition of a mass gathering. What it add is is a mass gathering is more than 2,500 persons or more than 500 persons if 51% or more of those persons may reasonably be expected to be younger than 21 years of age, and it is planned or reasonably be expected that alcoholic beverages will be sold, served or consumed at or around the gathering.
>> consumed.
>> the sheriff supports this bill because of that second definition. We feel that it is very much appropriate that these kind of gatherings be regulated and be required to register in advance to that appropriate security can be arranged and that law enforcement in particular, but other agencies also know that a mass gathering is intended and planned. I think when we refer to t.n.r., because they definitely have a horse in this one as well.
>> t.n.r. Supports the bill as well. The court as you may recall supported similar bills in the last session that did not make it through the entire process. This bill has already made it through the senate. It has been noted unanimously out of the senate -- voted unanimously out, on its way to the house.
>> move endorsement.
>> second.
>> discussion? And that we send an appropriate letter saying so. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> thank you.
>> I知 shelene walker with Travis County's t.n.r. We are going to bring up three bills quickly that affect t.n.r.'s operations. The first bill is a bill that actually was scheduled for a hearing at 8:00 a.m. This morning. It was introduced by representative baxter from Travis County. The bill is 2236, house bill 2236. It would basically create some new restrictions on setting permit fees for residential construction and development. And the bill did not get a hearing before the committee broke for -- for the full house session at 10:00. So -- so there is an opportunity to perhaps go back this afternoon when they reconvene and express a court position if you and you will see, think that that's appropriate. Cynthia mcdonald is here from Travis County t.n.r. Financial resources to discuss the bill and to recommended changes that we would like to share with -- with representative baxter and other members of the committee.
>> is this the bill that we said last week we would try to chat with representative baxter about.
>> no, sir, this is a new bill.
>> t.n.r. Financial services. This bill sits on very rigid restrictions on what we can do with permit fees, imposing permit fees as well as the use of those permit fees. I知 not sure, according to the bill analysis that I submitted, several areas that -- of concerns to t.n.r., the first one, 247.002 a talks about fees can only be charged to cover the cost of the review and permit issuance. While we didn't have any proposed changes to that, one of our concerns is what -- it does not address inspection fees. So we are not quite sure what the intent is there. We do need to probably get some language in there with regard to the inspection. And the next section talks about fees collecting must only be used to pay for the review and permitting process, for -- for Travis County that's not quite an issue right now. I don't know that it -- that it could be, my recommendation was possibly to delete it. We need the agency that would be Travis County the flexibility to use the revenues that they see fit. At some point we may be at a point where we could be possibly collecting slightly more than we were charging. The cost of an -- [indiscernible] program. The next section talks about before January 1 of each year. A budget must be adopted showing revenue projections and expenditures, minor change there that I知 suggesting is to actually have it come inside with our fiscal year. Typically that's when we record our transactions, crossing over is not a big issue, but it would be a lot more convenient to us, make more sense.
>> that particular one, by weighing it has to be adopted before January 1, certainly by adopting it on September 30th or October 1 is before January 1. Right?
>> the beginning -- well, yes. I guess that you could look at it that way. I was thinking that you would -- the previous January 1 for the following fiscal year, but it depends on --
>> we teed to get clarification as to which January 1, I think that may be a comment that not all counties are on the October 1 start date, this is probably intended to --
>> if it's the previous January 1, you are like way off.
>> right. I知 just saying the beginning of the next fiscal year. I知 not -- you know trying to put in any particular month, you know, would be for that particular agency's fiscal year.
>> right.
>> if it's January 1, previous, it's a problem. If it's January 1 post it's not a problem because we are already there.
>> true.
>> got it. Okay.
>> the next section, 2470032 b talks about annual audits of fees collected versus the program costs would be done after the end of the calendar year. Identifying a surplus or deficit for each ye. This would add significant costs for -- for the t.n.r. To have to -- or possibly the auditor's office to conduct these audits annually. It's a long and drawn out process to go through and identify. I believe the language in the bill says for each permit fee. To have to break out the costs. I知 assuming by type, it is very significant for us, we don't currently do that. We look at permit fees in general. We don't necessarily go to -- to distinguish between one permit fee versus another, whether it's a final or preliminary or that kind of nature. And -- and from the language that's what it seems to be intending. In addition, the bill doesn't really state what is to be done with the surplus or deficit. I知 not sure what the intention is there. If it -- if it's meant to be refund anybody in particular or -- or certainly I don't think we are going to be able to collect if there is a deficit. My recommendation to be -- to delete that portion and recommend that the audit be performed as part of the agency's normal internal automatic did it cycle. The auditor's office conducts internal audits from t.n.r. Almost every year. So I知 more open to that. The resources would be between t.n.r. And -- and the auditor's office, that still is a significant additional purr den of work for us, but I think much more manageable. 247.004. This is a little bit confusing, we are not quite sure what the intent here is. It's proposed fees must be supported by study, by study conducted by an independent person who holds a license in a professional field concerns the permit. When we went out and did our proposed fee increase, we used deloitte. To do a management audit. The -- the phrase that says holds a license in a professional field concerning the permit is a bit confusing. We need clarification on what that means. From just reading it verbatim what I would like to suggest is change person to party. And delete the rerchts to license in a professional field concerning the permit, I believe that it is too narrow. [indiscernible] an independent party by an accounting firm should be sufficient from our experience. I think that's -- that was more than impartial and objective.
>> you don't think person would cover the firm?
>> we could. I mean that's -- I just think person says one. But I mean you can interpret that as you know an individual from a firm, yes, sure. But --
>> are these major issues for us or -- criticized representative baxter's bill writing ability.
>> I was really concerned more about holds a license in the professional field concerning the permit. I知 not quite clear on what that means.
>> the inspection fee not being covered.
>> inspection fee absolutely. And then another major issue is the last item that says fees may only be increased every five years, that I believe is something that is a big concern. We have always had escalating costs, personnel, health to limit us to five year increase and then to have the study done every time you want to do a proposed fee increase. It is a lot of burden. For us would be a loss in revenue if costs are escalating I can't change my fees for five years out.
>> I will go you a better one on that. It's really to not have a sticker shock because at the end of the five years it's very well that those fees have gone up. And what I have heard more from anybody else is they would rather have incrementalism as a little more every year, no one will remember five years that it's flat, they will remember that gigantic spike up. I think it's a whole lot easier to say let's go with the indecree mentalism. Seems like we ought to have good information to share with representative baxter about the process we went through related to 1445. Rather than getting into a pick the bill apart kind of approach, I think it would be helpful for us to share with him the process that we went through about how did we justify what fee increases we did, the kinds of things we saw such as health insurance increases, changing market, et cetera, et cetera. I have a feeling this is more targeted for people who didn't have a thoughtful process related to how they set their fees, we don't recover our costs. We recover most of our costs, but I think there's some concern that others might be getting more than their fair share of costs, it's not based on a full cost of recovery. Analysis. So I would rather not be a -- a pick it apart line by line, but to share some general observations, concerns, et cetera, and about what we did and whether that seems to be sufficient or there's more work that needs to be done.
>> absolutely. We definitely want dialogue,.
>> dialogue is good.
>> with representative baxter, this analysis was really just looking at line by line what -- what impact it would have. The intent is to take our concerns to representative baxter. To listen to his concerns about why this was filed in the first place, to be a partner in terms of saying well we get it. But here's some things that we need to -- to help us along.
>> > right. We do need some clarification, we have not had that opportunity.
>> we have a meeting from my office, set up a meeting tomorrow morning with representative baxter and your -- you are going?
>> it was my understanding [indiscernible]
>> while we have him, we might as well take -- if one or two of you want to go along with us to do that I mean so we can highlight these.
>> it would be helpful to share the experience that we have already gone through about what worked for us.
>> I guess -- I知 sorry, go ahead, tom.
>> I could come to that meeting because I have spotted an issue. This is probably an unintended consequence. But if you read this bill on its face, which is the way courts tell lawyers we are supposed to do it, this would prevent us from parkland dedication fees, fiscal for roadways, prevent us from collecting. Because it's not listed. That's a major clarification that we would need.
>> you want to go.
>> I could come in the morning to try to straighten that out.
>> 8:15.
>> the hearing is scheduled to tip, as I said. I don't know if they plan to vote the bill out of committee today. That's possible. They usually leave them pending for a little while. Just for background, I did go in this morning, bairght was scheduled did -- bexar county was scheduled to oppose the bill as currently written, cuc was scheduled to speak against the bill as currently written. So you will understand where those folks are.
>> do we want to oppose it as currently written but to indicate our desire to chat about the specific objections and maybe try to compromise? If it's tomorrow, I assume that -- that -- seems like we found quite a bit of -- quite a bit bad about the bill.
>> we have concerns that we would like to share with --
>> I mean I think it send a better message to him to say we want to come and talk to you versus voting. Voted against it. Give us a chance to talk to him about it.
>> so back on next week.
>> we will bring it back next week.
>> pick up momentum.
>> I would rather be going in tomorrow morning with a we want to work with you, let you know what our concerns are, as opposed to saying flat out we oppose it. It sends a not very helpful message trying to negotiate change.
>> whoever want to go. Wants to go.
>> thank you, the next bill from t.n.r. Is senate bill 1362 by senator armbrister. The language of the statute is again a little vague and it appears as though the intent, we have heard from the lobby team that it seems to be the intent of the bill to adopt density limits to prevent counties and cities from adopting density limits and impervious cover limits and subdivision regulations. And joe will -- will elucidate a little bit more on it.
>> it certainly would affect our ability to do some things that we were actually looking at as far as the -- the future use of senate bill 873. I don't know if that was the intent because it actually applies to municipal e.t.j.'s. So it looks to me like there are actually -- they are actually going after existing practices. As opposed to just going after future expectations.
>> it would apply outside the e.t.j.'s, too.
>> what I知 trying to say it looks like their intent wasn't just for counties, it was for cities. Cities may currently be practicing subdivision regulations with limits on density and impervious cover. I don't know what more to say about it. I知 pretty clear about the intent, what it's trying to do. And just it will hamstring the county in terms of what it might want to do in these areas. Actually what it's already doing and we -- we use density restrictions right now with the on site sewage program to know if -- I don't know if it will necessarily affect that, it will certainly affect our ability when we start talking about future ordinances on water quality.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...it's an area that you were considering, and this bill may impact existing and future. And we want to talk about the sponsor of the bill about what the possible impacts are going to be. I think that's what it talks about in the letter.
>> my problem is it's hard for us to approve talking. Even if we get it after the fact, at some point we ought to see what you're saying.
>> oh, yeah.
>> and the specific concerns and issues that we seem to have --
>> can we have the talking points and what is on the analysis for the bill, which outlines all of the concerns that she just talked about?
>> do we have that?
>> it's here.
>> the backup memo.
>> I知 saying do we have the talking points? That would be that right here in the memo. Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> the last bill is senate bill 1647 by senator staples. It has a companion bill as well. This bill deals with takings issues and tom is going to lay out the takings bill. We have again some concerns about the impact on the county under the last session senate bill 873 and things that you all are considering currently.
>> this bill would take a big chunk, if not all of the authority you were granted under senate bill 873, and the way it does that, it amends the current taking statute. And if you'll remember when we were discussing the interim rules, my advice was the exceptions to the takings act are really the most important part of the act because there are so many exceptions to it that it's rare -- and I can't think of a case where a government has really lost a lawsuit under that act because the exceptions are so broad and the courts and even the Texas supreme court has construed the exceptions to be so broad. This bill basically takes away all of the important exceptions that you were operating under when you were considering the interim rules and when you suspended the filing of the preliminary plans. So with the exceptions taken away, it really kicks in some very arbitrary limits. And the bill establishes a couple of arbitrary limits that really change the way the Texas supreme court has defined what a taking is. The Texas supreme court basically uses a balancing test where they look at a number of different things, such as the impact of a regulation on the fair market value of a tract, how much the landowner has invested in the tract, what are his reasonable expectations of a profit, and really on the other side, how important is the public interest that's being defended. And what the takings act does is throw everything out and hinge everything on market value. That's existing law. On top of that, this bill would add a new restriction that basically says, if regulations have the effect of limiting development of a tract to less than 45% impervious cover, then it's a taking regardless of anything else. Notice I said effect. It not that you're regulating impervious cover, per se, but if your regulations have that effect. And I would say when you look at our existing regulations and what we require in terms of floodplain, right-of-way, sight distance restrictions, on-site sewage requirements, parkland dedication, drainage easements, the land that's required for flood detention ponds or water quality ponds, it's highly likely that when you put all that together, you may trip this trigger and have committed a takings under this act. The thing to consider there is the way the takings act works, if you trip the trigger on one piece of land and you have to repeal the entire regulation, even though -- it may be the only tract of land in the county that you have that effect on, but if you have it on one tract, you have to repeal the entire regulation for the rest of the county for all tracts of land, even if you're not having that impact. So there are some very severe and very arbitrary limits in the bill, and in that respect I would suggest that it's very much like the appraisal cap bill. They just put in place these hard number limits and it's sort of regardless what happens, you can't go over that. I do think this is going to effect not only your ability to adopt regulations under senate bill 873, it's going to affect regulations you have in effect now that you I dopted before senate bill 873 was passed. So it's going to have a pretty severe impact on I think what you're contemplating doing as part of the southwest Travis County growth dialogue.
>> should we oppose in its current form or what sfwh. My inclination is to see what needs changing, but the list is so long that that would be a very difficult task.
>> where is it?
>> it just got introduced on the last day of the filing deadline, and it's been referred. It's my understanding that this bill is targeted at Travis County, so we should at least weigh in at some point what the impacts that we think it is going to have. [overlapping speakers]
>> I知 interested in what their thought is on this. [overlapping speakers]
>> good morning. We have not had any discussions with either of the authors. And I think that would be the starting point. We just need to sit down with them and find out where they're coming from and what we can do, and then come back to you and let you know when the landscape looks like.
>> do we need to share with you the list of specific concerns that --
>> yeah. If we could take that with us, that would be real helpful.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> and we need to do this I guess as soon as possible. Can we have a follow-up discussion next Tuesday? That means trying to get with him between now and hen.
>> no problem.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously. Thank you.
>> your honor, I知 with the Travis County fire marshal's office, assistant fire marshal, here to discuss some bills involving fireworks. I'll try to be as concise for the sake of time as I can be. This initiative began in harris county, and has gained momentum to several counties, including carlson county, collin county. These bills are in committee and you'll be notified of any of the status change with those bills occurs. There are 12 bills to be exact, two of which we are asking that you don't have any action on. The other 10 we're asking your support. And also to give the fire marshal and myself permission to go testify with the comprehensive backup that you were provided prior to the court in our testimony. And to sign cards, if necessary. Those bills started out as one big bill originally with harris county and other counties came on. It took a shotgun approach, they'd have different bills and have them all combined as one omnibus bill. It takes the occupations code where most of the fireworks related stipulations are presently. It also adds those to the penal code so it's more accessible for peace officers to enforce.
>> these are basically class c misdemeanors, I guess?
>> yes, sir, they are.
>> so they're not criminalized at this time, it's just something that you ought to not do?
>> that's correct. You can give citations for some of the distances that will change. That's part of the bill's -- the change distances that are currently at 100 feet, change those to 300 feet. That's because of tests that have been conducted with actual fireworks, actual realtime testing where those fireworks actually project over 200 feet. Distances that are already listed at 300 feet are to be moved to 600 feet. Those would include places like livestock facilities where people have horses that are disturbed by the noise of fireworks and run fences because of them. It also has new legislation that will be put into the penal code and the occupations code where it changes the age to be able to sell fireworks or to be able to buy fireworks from 12 years to 17 years of age. It also -- the omnibus bill, companion to house bill 2272 and senate bill 76 would also change the fireworks advisory committee from all solely industry people and put public safety officials on there. It also asks for somebody from the insurance board, the insurance industry itself.
>> your recommendation is we support all of these?
>> support all of those except for 1408 and 1458. House bill 1408 deals with deed restrictions in subdivisions to allow -- to allow subdivisions to regulate fireworks. We don't believe the county ought to be in the business of selling subdivisions what to do with deed restrictions. House bill 1454 speaks of breath analysis of the stand operators to use intox liesers to determine whether or not the customer is intoxicated or not. That's kind of a farfetched thing. Take no action on those, but support the other 10.
>> move that we support the 10 listed. I don't think the other two are on our list, right?
>> they were down at the bottom.
>> move that we take no action on those indicated under no action. Discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> thank you, sir.
>> thank you. Ms. Pierce?
>> yes, I知 here this afternoon to discuss house bill 926. What this bill would do would create -- if they abscond, they fail to report to their parole officer, it would be a fourth degree felony, which completely contradicts everything that the state jail was built for or they came up for. The state jail was to be for non-violent, property offenders. What this bill would do is place very violent offenders in the state jail for a technical violation. From what I understand, there are some folks in houston when went to the representative and requested this bill. Apparently there was a parolee that has got an aggravated offender on the board, and the parole board did not send hill back to prison. So these folks in prison said what this would do is allow the district courts to send someone to prison if the parole board chose not to. I think that's for the bill. It has a public hearing tomorrow at 2:00. I can go through a list of things where I think this bill is bad for Travis County, but I think just on the reading of it, it's pretty bad. I can certainly go through some of my little bullets if you would like.
>> it's one of those that if we put in the state jail a violent offender and the purpose of the state jail is just the opposite.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's the main reason.
>> that's one. It would also cost the county a pretty big chunk of money as well. Senate bill 7 says that we've got indigent defense, people on parole that are in custody, normally they are indigent, so we will have to get them a defense attorney and they'll be in our county jail for a lot longer than they would be on just a technical violation. Furthermore, there's not very many offenders on parole that when they do violent are not revoked. I知 not too sure what the specifics are in the case in houston, but my experience is a majority of them are sent back to prison on a technical violation.
>> move that we oppose this legislation for the reasons stated.
>> second.
>> and indicate our opposition. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 12:15, is that yours, bob? Which one is 12:15? It's the one that deals with --
>> 1214.
>> 1214.
>> okay.
>> we'll just make that technical correction. I知 sure that's all right with legal.
>> that is a bill that's on your priority list, and what it does, it would authorize a county to use a broker of record for obtaining any of your insurance coverage. The background of the bill was that the city has already had that authority -- I think cities and other subdivisions except counties had the authority to use a broker of record for the procurement of surplus and excess insurance, not for your primary coverage. And this bill goes further and it is for any insurance, primary and excess. And so as a result of that, there was some concern from Texas association of counties that with the smaller areas, if you have an exclusive broker, you're going to be making some -- making some enemies down there at the local level. And also the cities and counties have risk pools, and they provide coverage for a lot of the small, medium size cities and counties, school districts as well. So there might be some impediment to competition there if you just had this one broker who has paid -- he doesn't operate by commission, he's just paid a fee. So what the compromise was was to limit it to Travis County and any counties that are larger than us. So this would be the large urban counties that would have this tool. And I think -- i'll let dan talk about that. I think that's acceptable to them. And if it's acceptable to them, it's acceptable to the Texas association of counties, and I think --
>> this is our bill?
>> it's your bill.
>> maybe I do like this bill. I didn't like it when I first heard it. This is a good thing then?
>> yes, sir, it is.
>> that's why I move approval of the clarification -- limitation really.
>> we'll have a substitute drafted and go forward tw that. > you will get that support?
>> that's correct.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Anything else today?
>> there's david right there.
>> I have 3363 also.
>> what is 3363?
>> 3363 is a bill that is is looking for moratoriums. And I had -- I had to look at this face value as far as coming from a perspective on toll roads as far as a moratorium on toll roads, two years. But I looked at that. And tom, if you would for me -- and I guess also from the staff, bob and those folks, looking at this particular on face value, can you basically tell me is that applicable -- this bill is applicable to existing roads? Sh 130, for example, which was a toll that they approved and of course we issued bonds to acquire right-of-way, but everybody in Travis County knew that that was going to be a toll road. But if this particular bill supported by representative coleman also puts sh 130 under that type of two-year moratorium?
>> well, it depends on how the language of the act's interpreted. It's one of those issues of like what's a new road for purposes of tolling? And i'll just read it. I'll read the language. The Texas department of transportation may not impose a toll on any portion of a state highway or roadway that did not have a toll in effect on or before the effective date of this act. What does in effect mean, does it mean they have a toll plaza out there with people collecting money? Is that what they mean by infect? Or do they mean a road that's planned as a toll road all along? In other words, in effect means when the transportation commission approved the road, they approved it as a tolled road. I don't know what the author means by saying did not have a toll in effect on or about the effective date of this act, so it's hard to say exactly what the bill does. It puts some sort of moratorium on tolling in effect, but we don't know exactly what subject of that moratorium or not.
>> I received a lot of e-mails in regard to this particular bill, and of course, folks are wanting us to support hb 3363; however, you were getting ready to say something. I知 sorry. > I was going to say that bill was filed on the very last day it could be filed. And it's been our impression that right now it doesn't have a lot of support. What we would recommend is that we be able to monitor that bill for you and visit with -- I think we have visited with their office already, and they know that at least we're interested in it. But I think let us watch it. If it doesn't get heard very soon, it's probably not going to have much of a chance.
>> but still I guess, in my opinion, whether it's got legs or not, it still would appear to me that there needs to be clarify in the language that tom -- the county attorney just brought up.
>> and that's what I would suggest, that if they start to move -- if they get a hearing, then we immediately go forward and try to get some additional language in there if that's the court's desire.
>> okay. That's what I move, that we end up doing that, at least give them direction to follow this and let's see where it goes at this time.
>> anybody second? That motion dies for lack of a second.
>> okay. Anything else?
>> where did david go? There he is. We have one more, 3071. And whether we believe that the problem has been taken care of or whether we need to make sure we monitor to make sure that the problem has been taken care of.
>> remind me which one this is now.
>> we visited with representative gibb bones office and they said that was an unintended consequence. That are drafting a substitute to delete that from the bill.
>> this is a bill that does what?
>> it's a bill on the tax code cleanup. And there was some inadvertent language which was discovered that could have impacted our ability to have in-house delinquent property tax collections, and it turns out that may have been an unintended consequence and they want to fix it so we would not be penalized if that's what we chose to do.
>> I have not made it a point to memorize these numbers of different bills.
>> I don't remember any of the numbers myself.
>> so without action by the court, you just keep monitoring for any movement.
>> seems like a friendly fix is underway.
>> anything further on legislation?
>> judge, if I could just mention one thing for future reference. The package that we gave you, if you will look at those-- the second group of listings is called tier 1 bills. Those are the bills that we take action on every Tuesday. There is now an updated -- under the remarks section, if you look at that, you will be able to tell what action you took in the past. If you've got that question. We'll update that every single week so you will know exactly what bills you've taken action on. The 20 something bills you've taken action on already, and that way we can all keep track of what's going on.
>> so priority bills are tier 1 bills?
>> well, -- yeah. Those are the ones -- the priority bills are the ones you voted on back in November for us to try to pass. They are essentially ones we're trying to pass. There's eight or nine of those. Tier 1 are the ones that have come up during the course of the session you've taken action on.
>> and like monitor, would be under monitor.
>> that's correct. Monitor, if the staff asks us to monitor a bill, we put it on that list and we watch it.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you 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 30, 2005 12:50 PM