Travis County Commissioners Court
April 5, 2005
Item 40
Now let's call up the legislative item. Number 40. 40. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. Somebody, anybody?
>> something morning, judge, Commissioners. On senator wentworth's bill on conservation easements, we did have a question that we wanted to bring up to the court that was an issue that senator staples raised and we would like to discuss that with you if you could at this time.
>> what's the number of that bill, if you know?
>> 767.
>> okay.
>> senate bill.
>> senator staples is interested in making sure that a third party would not be able to hold a conservation easement and there be effectively reduce the tax base for a county through this bill. And might be interested in a provision that tightens the language a bit in order to clarify that any easement to which this bill pertains must be held by local government entity. There be allowing the individual counties the ability to control their own tax base.
>> do we have any just -- I don't think there's any issue with that. But we don't have any conservation -- do we have any conservation easements for the bcp that are held by private entities?
>> the county does hold a number of conservation easements. I would have to check with the individual non-profits, but I don't believe that the non-profits -- necessarily are relying on this bill.
>> exactly.
>> I don't think it would impact them at all.
>> in terms of grandview, in terms of steinner --
>> those are all held by the county already.
>> those are already held by the county I don't think that's going to be an issue. But that's a good question to raise.
>> I think it does allow that if -- in each local government entity is required to hold the easement. I think it does provide an additional level of self control.
>> not a two step process, it's a three-step process.
>> we can amend the language for this afternoon's hearing.
>> that would be great.
>> sounds fine to me.
>> okay. Yeah. All right.
>> we'll do it.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> mike trimble, criminal justice coordinator. I wanted to bring a couple of bills to the court's attention. For your consideration. One is hb 420 by naishtat and this one, this bill would allow for the provision of tanf and [indiscernible] benefits with prior felony drug convictions. Currently this is the only office that there's a ban on these types of offenses. I知 here kind of in two capacities, one criminal, one as vice chair of the regional round table planning council. The round table has been looking at it. The reason that's so important is because these types of benefits are especially important to those people coming back and trying to reestablish them back in the community when they come back from incarceration, they may have a prior offense and be unable to receive these benefits. As they look for jobs trying to find slate and stylus to live, these benefits are so important for them to have. For your consideration, I want to -- to ask for your support in this bill. It's currently in the human services committee right now. The other bill is hb 967 by haggerty, this would cause the Texas department of public safety to accept identification cards issued by the Texas department of criminal justice as a valid form of identification in application for a state identification card or a driver's license. And again this is something that -- that we here in Travis County and the round table are tracking very closely because the problems with trying to get proper identification are such a big issue for people again reentering the community, looking for a job, not having proper identification. Obviously there are a lot of issues with them accepting tdcjid only. A lot of employers have a sigma with accepting that i.d., obviously you are a formerly incarcerated person. This would allow there to be a process for d.p.s. To accept the tdcv i.d. As part of verification for identification to get those state i.d. Cards to allow them to apply for work, do other processes that you need to do to get establish understand the community. Established in the community.
>> tell me why -- why does someone have difficulty getting some sort of an i.d. Card? I mean, why -- I mean why is that an issue? I mean, if I lost my driver's license, if I lost my billfold and I had to go down and go through the procedures of -- of getting a legitimate i.d., I mean, what are we really talking about here? Why is it that people have difficulty getting some sort of a legitimate i.d. Card?
>> well, typically when someone is incarcerated coming back to the community, you know, they are having to basically go through the whole process of again getting proper identification. Typically when someone comes out of for example tdcj facilities, they only have their i.d. Card on them. If they are going to try to get some other types of identification, they typically have to go through the entire process again of gathering the -- the right forms for certificates otherwise to go get that information. If your birth certificate, if you were born in another state, it will take you how long long it takes to get a birth certificate from that state to get that documentation. All of the while as we all know, that kind of stuff takes time to do. And when folks return to the community from tdcj they are required by them to immediately begin looking for work as part of a condition of their parole. So that's part of the ir, too, is it kind of ties one hand behind their back because they don't have proper identification that it's hard for them to find work but yet they are required to do it. So what we are looking at here is there's a lot of verification process that goes into getting that tdcj I did. So what -- what this bill would look at is trying to use that verification to say this should be an acceptable form of prior documentation so they can get that state i.d. To allow them to go out looking for work and those types of things to get reestablished.
>> before someone goes into jail, how -- what is the percentage of people that don't have a driver's license? I mean if you are an adult, I mean, it's got to be a very minute amount of people that don't have a driver's license. Before they go into jail and if you have to give -- I mean, I don't guess you have to carry your driver's license in -- into jail with you, but isn't there a place that you take everything that's on you before you get locked up, it's put somewhere? I mean is that what happens? Don't people have driver's license at that time or are you -- are we locking people up that have none of those things?
>> can I add to what mike was saying? As I understand it --
>> name.
>> I知 sorry, this is penny rayfield, I知 the chair of the planning council for the reentry round table. As I understand it, oftentimes when people are incarcerated they are not always properly identified in the system. So when they come out of the prison system and go to try to get the appropriate state i.d. At the department of public safety, they will not accept that because they cannot be 100% sure that the person's name on the i.d. Is indeed the person applying for the state identification. So this bill, as we understand it, will correct that problem and make it where the system will be required to do more work to make sure that they are identifying people appropriately.
>> so they don't have a picture i.d. Is that the opinion, I mean,.
>> well, they have a picture i.d., but they might be known as john doe, harry smith, any number of persons. So if someone is arrested and they do not give their true name and they get processed all the way through the judicial system under their incorrect name, that's how they are released. Under whatever name.
>> Gerald, you are also touching on another little ugly secret that is out there and that is that there are people that do go into, especially the state jail, which has a maximum of two years, with a valid Texas driver's license. And if they do not have somebody that they can ship their stuff to, it is possible that their license and other things that belong to them, clothing, boots, whatever, gets destroyed. They do not store that stuff. So that let's just say that, you know, you or I went in there with a valid license, we are not guaranteeing it will be there when we get out.
>> that's true?
>> so crime prevention institute told me about this, there are an awful lot of folks fixing to get out that they are having to haul over to d.p.s. To reestablish legitimate credentials that they had before they got in there because their stuff is not being stowed or safeguarded as though the same thing in our facility when you might only be inside for, you know, weeks, months, whatever. But --
>> is that legal? Do you not have any recourse, I mean, [multiple voices]
>> that raises an interesting question.
>> you don't have what you had coming in, I mean, what -- what's the problem --
>> that's the destruction of a government document quite frankly. I知 a little amazed by it. You should talk to the folks --
>> I think part of it is the rose for how that's handle. I want to add to that, too, if someone has a felony drug conviction a lot of times their driver's license will be revoked, taken away. There's a class that you have to take. Actually right now our counseling and education service is providing that class out at the state jail to get your driver's license reinstated. Even to go through that process now you come out, you have a certificate, you have to go down to d.p.s. And you have got to show them proper documentation of that, now you can get it reinstated, kind of back to square 1. Also a lot of those folks right now at our state jail. That's one of the things that definitely came up with this reentry round table, a lot of folks end up to not have the proper driver's license, i.d., whatever when they are coming out.
>> if you apply for a job, you need some picture i.d., even in Travis County.
>> sure.
>> we would like to see the picture i.d. With a social security number, other identifying information. It is a serious problem, I take it. I know it surfaced at the state jail a few months ago when we were trying to help defenders out there find employment. A lot of them didn't have the basic identification documents that employers were requesting. And then I assume if you could get your driver's license, work on, that but that probably is a little bit longer than just going out to dps and trying to -- some identification card with your picture is -- is the difference, right? It's like an official document from a governmental entity. Which is why a lot of employers probably accept it. I don't know that all of them will.
>> right. Aspen knee mentioned, I mean one of the issues has been d.p.s. You have some issues with the verification of who that person is, but this bill would look at tightening it up kind of on both side of the process. You would have to tighten up the verification process to make sure that there is verification, the person that you are talking about, on the d.p.s. Side now you have a duty to accept that, if it's going to be tightened up on this side.
>> so are these bills here -- for action this week.
>> not right now as far as I understand. Maybe bob you know something else. I don't think there's any action this week on them. Both of them are pending in their committees.
>> we have a little problem in that our policy has always been that at least four members of the court must support, support or opposition of a certain bill otherwise we take no position. We have two people out right now.
>> okay. Main the best thing is to have this back on next week.
>> Commissioner Gomez told me just to go ahead and vote for her [laughter]
>> did that include the campo comments? [laughter]
>> specifically, the campo comments. [laughter]
>> that will make the county attorney perk up. [laughter]
>> humor, john, that was humor. Just a couple of things on behalf of the reentry round table. I wanted to thank you for support, staff support, energy, resources. Also there are two people here with us this morning, a part of our collaborative effort that I would like to just bring to your attention and that's margie with the united way, and she is the chair of our evidence based research subcommittee. And also ellen halbert, the victim liaison person for the district attorney's attorney's office here with us this morning.
>> that's what I suggest is we postpone this. If we have additional questions maybe do some follow-up research questioning and try to be ready for action next week.
>> absolutely.
>> yeah. Full court.
>> thanks for bringing these forward, though.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> just --
>> Commissioner Davis did not want to us take action on 2266, but can we just lay it out, though?
>> I feed to get harvey Davis down here for that.
>> because we don't have enough to take action anyway. And see if we can get him down just to tell us about -- susan.
>> a real brief update on revenue caps. The appraisal cap and revenue cap bills have not gone to the house floor for a vote yet on the house side. Senate bill 18 did have a hearing in senate committee, that was the with himals janek bill, I testified against having the new property removed. Also the idea of lowering the cap from 8 to 5%. I have met with senator williams and his staff and are trying to educate them on some of the issues in that that we have. So that did not come out of committee yet. So I would expect that there will probably be some amendments to it. I don't know what those amendments are.
>> bob, do we think these will just keep resurfacing like -- might they just go away.
>> I don't think they will go away. After may 31st or may 30th they might go away.
>> that's a bold prediction there, bob.
>> well, that's -- that's not even accurate because they may come back after in a special session. So -- sorry, judge.
>> okay.
>> while we're waiting for harvey to come down, if you have any questions about the priority agenda or any other items I would be happy to answer those.
>> judge, if I could make a bold request, it seems pointless to lay out 2266 if we have two missing members who are going to need it to be relayed out again next week, we are just going to have to go through it again. That's -- I would rather they just say it once and we be done with it and people can ask their questions as opposed to three of us have to listen to it yet a second time.
>> I would like to hear it.
>> okay.
>> harvey is on his way.
>> whatever. Can I break the quorum? [laughter]
>> I would still like to hear it.
>> that's a joke. I知 sorry. Any questions of bob.
>> we are going this afternoon on the senate natural resources committee on the bcp conservation easement bill.
>> I will make a general comment about the priority legislation. Besides the one today, we anticipate several of those will also be set for hearing next week. We are continuing to -- to get those bills heard in committee. So it's -- moving forward, but a bit slow.
>> can you just make sure that we keep on top of the 5,000 cap on the precincts because that's -- that's a biggy.
>> just a quick update on that. Commissioner clark from galveston is trying to arrange a meeting tomorrow with -- on that bill, we will be involved with the meeting, hopefully that will push it forward a little bit.
>> cool, thank you.
>> thank you. 2266. What's this about you the point person on it for the county?
>> yes, I知 harvey Davis manager of the Travis County corporations. House bill 2266, which has been introduced by representative baxter, this bill the objective is to -- to not allow inclusionary housing programs in Texas. And inclusionary housing programs are ordinances or where a municipality has an ordinance that requires a developer to have an affordable housing component of their development. And in -- in my write up I gave the example of montgomery county in -- in maryland where they require developers that have a development of 50 units or more to have 12 to 15% of those units be sold to -- to persons -- have an affordable housing component, in other words, they would have to provide that family's below 80% median family income. Inclusionary housing ordinances are common in high cost areas around the country. They are very common in california, there are these types of ordinances in washington d.c., new york state, so generally in -- in very high cost areas. There are no ordinances in Texas. My -- my information was that two entities, the city of Austin and the city of houston are -- were going to consider having this type of ordinance so this legislation was introduced or is being introduced to -- to prevent inclusionary type of ordinances, I think in the backup that I have given some pros and cons of -- of, you know, why people think this is a good thing and why people think this is not a good thing and it's -- it's of course an issue that -- that is hotly debated and among the affordable housing community in Texas, they are strongly opposes this bill and the home builders association is very strongly supporting this bill.
>> right now there is not such a requirement?
>> there's not such a requirement, right.
>> now we encourage projects that come before us who have a -- an affordable housing component.
>> that's right. This -- this bill would have -- would have no direct effect on county governments because county governments would not be allowed to have these types of ordinances. And sentiment and representative baxter's bill is that -- that having voluntary agreements with the developers to have affordable housing components is a good thing. But -- but an did a inventory requirements in the form of ordinance has -- has unintended consequences.
>> okay. What we do right now is encourage you to have an affordable housing component and you don't and we can withhold the county's assistance fee. Right?
>> well, we -- we for example the county has the plat reimbursement program that -- that encourages affordable selling units to -- to persons below 80% Austin m.f.i.
>> it's become single family dwellings but not multi-family apartments.
>> as you can imagine there are hundreds of these ordinances around the country, there are all types of variations. Nobody knows if a city of Austin or a city of houston finally passed an ordinance you know what -- what you know components it would have. So it's -- it's sort of hard to -- to say what it would be about.
>> well, we have had a lot of -- a lot of housing projects come before us that have had federal set aside requirements.
>> right.
>> federal law would continue jurisdiction.
>> right, the types --
>> the question is I remember us sort of piggybacking the federal authority, the federal starnld, I thought we ought to make clear we can continue doing that. When you go out and do your audits for set asides for low income, those are set by the federal government.
>> that's right.
>> they are part of the agreement for the federal project to get whatever federal benefit comes with the project so those would stay in place.
>> that's right.
>> then I guess we would want to continue piggybacking that authority, because when we go out and do our investigation, we really are investigating compliance with a federal standard. Of the project in our imhiewnt, right?
>> -- in our community, right?
>> that's correct. We are reviewing a negotiated agreement, also, that has a federal requirement component of it, we may also negotiate additional requirements with the developer but again those situations are where there's been a negotiation and an agreement and we have a contract.
>> the home builders position is I take it that private developers have a right, should have a right to include affordable housing components or not. Right? If they get something in exchange, ie some federal benefit or tax credit, et cetera, that makes it worthwhile but without the benefit it should be the developer's call?
>> oh, that's a pretty good summary of their thinking on it.
>> they are in favor of carrots, but they are not in favor of sticks.
>> yeah, that's right. Of course they have also made -- [laughter]
>> explains it better.
>> it all tastes like chicken [laughter]
>> all right.
>> but it's a very interesting concept, a very interesting issue. But it really has nothing to do with county government for better or worse.
>> not yet.
>> well, I was going to say that's a little confusing after what we just went over about if you -- we do have the ability to encourage or to not do things for people in the event that they do not take us up on -- on our offer of why don't you do this.
>> discretionary.
>> but it does -- I mean when you make the comment that the bill has no direct impact on Travis County since the county government in Texas cannot implement inclusionary programs or ordinances, that's not exactly accurate, I mean, you -- you are right, I mean, it's -- it's option for people whether or not they want to participate. I mean it's a -- I would like to have hba come and tell us, you know, exactly, you know, how they would deal with this because everybody knows that you do need housing that, you know, all socio-economic areas can -- can purchase, I mean, it's --, I mean, it's only understandable that we need that. And maybe I ought to just call them and ask, so what is y'all's response for that area, I mean, I do understand when you take and you go and buy expensive property now granted I mean you probably don't need to be asking for assistance from tax credits throughout whatever you might be asking for because those generally are going to have some attachments. But I知 just trying to understand where -- where representative baxter is coming from on this thing other than the home builders association has gone and said hey, you know, we really don't want to be forced to do these things and now maybe that is where we have the luxury of saying well we're not going to force you, but you just are for the going to be able to ask us for assistance with whatever you --
>> did you see the e-mail, harry has an e-mail that's attached to the backup.
>> okay.
>> so it's -- it's pretty lengthy.
>> I --
>> the bill does clarify that there are several things that you can do aside from the ordinance. And we interpret municipality here as cities, basically.
>> yes.
>> and I知 sorry Commissioner Daugherty I understood that this was going to be pulled today. And the home builders association had planned to attend and I told them that this was not going to be here. So they would have been here.
>> no problem.
>> one of our more diligent members of the court wanted sort of a discussion today. We only have three members so we will have to have it back on next week anyway. I supported Commissioner Sonleitner's request to have a brief discussion.
>> did you say you wanted to have the discussion of this next week.
>> we have to because -- we have two members who didn't have the pleasure of hearing it the first time.
>> it covers the cities, I assume the main thing is to just stay out of the way, but makes sense to me. We don't have three so we wouldn't be able to take action anyway.
>> okay. So would you like notice invite the home builders association -- would you like me to invite the home builders representative to come, I would also invite somebody from the affordable housing community.
>> I say do it. If we think we may take action. If it covers cities, we are discussing it, my thinking was we wouldn't take any action today because we don't have to anyway, but we were discussing this -- what we just decided was to invite the interested parties next week for just a brief discussion.
>> on what?
>> 2266.
>> I知 sorry, judge. Just stepped in.
>> no problem.
>> why don't we do that and discuss it next week then.
>> that would be fine.
>> judge, would you like us to see if the city of Austin has taken a position on the bill?
>> let me say this, judge. I put -- I kind of wanted that pulled until further notice.
>> well, we pulled -- we decided not to take action today. According to policy we couldn't. When I looked at it. It looked complicated on the face, my decision was to have --
>> I know as of yesterday, I don't think the city exchanged -- they are not going to take a position on this at all.
>> just monitor it.
>> I think we just monitor. I would like to just do that if we do anything.
>> don't bother me because it covers cities anyway.
>> it does. Like I say, just monitor it, see what happens to it.
>> home builders expecting us to take any action?
>> not necessarily.
>> no.
>> their backup was in response to our request for information.
>> yes, exactly right.
>> right. Let me just monitor, I prefer that.
>> fine with me. We have enough to fight over anyway.
>> thank you.
>> I will monitor it and let people know what happens with it.
>> that works.
>> let's do that.
>> if there's a development that we should know about it, we should just have it back on.
>> right. Thank you.
>> anything else today? Thank you very much, that covers the legislative item.
>> actually, judge, that's real quick key. I think at some point bob needs to let us know when once a week in Commissioners court perhaps may not be sufficient to keep us up to date. There's also a -- always a point where there's a tipping point where it's fast and furious, one day a week is not enough. One of the possibilities so we are not disrupting everybody's schedules is perhaps the first 10 or 15 minutes of some of our scheduled work sessions might be posted so if there is something that they need to get to us, we are already here, it just gets posted to be a particular action item. We can't roll it over because there's two days in between. But that every other week we are already here on Thursday afternoons and I think at some point bob may need to request that there's just a second opportunity because things are going to be happening very fast and furious.
>> right. Judge, I kind of agree with Commissioner Sonleitner. In fact I would like a little more in depthness on bills that are coming up. I really feel really that there's some things happening so fast that we aren't really getting the full information I think that we need. An example, looking at a couple of bills that one was reduced -- [indiscernible] sponsored bygones gonzales, also -- sponsored by gonzalo barrientos also by --
>> armstrong?
>> anyway, the point that I知 trying to make, [indiscernible] strongly with another person] the other, landfills, other bills that are very much in opposition to what [indiscernible] and gonzalo barrientos is doing is something by armbrist that's just come up, you know, 1542, senate bill and of course 2758 which is another sister bill to armbrist's bill which is something that is in opposition to exactly what we are trying to do with the other two bills. All of this kind of stuff coming so fast you are really not -- I知 really not having a feel for what's coming down the pipeline so we would be able to adjust and maybe it have it on the Commissioners court agenda. I don't know how we can fix that. I don't know what you can do to fix it. But we advise you in my opinion to deal with a lot of this stuff. It's not getting to us in a timely fashion. I don't know why. Maybe it the way the bills are being filed, getting passed you, I don't really know.
>> while our office is very much helping out and coordinating what cannot happen and continue to happen and has been happening is for anne to be here on a Monday night until 9:00 and 10:00 at night because people are not getting the documents that are needed for the backup of things that they want to be on the agenda the next day and we're going to put a stop to that. She's got to get home to her kids at a decent hour. It is inappropriate that our office anne has been staying here 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 on a consistent waives, not one day a week, but five days a week because people are not respecting the deadlines to getting backup so we can properly get it distributed to everybody's office. We are going to put a stop to has.
>> right, that's a problem. I知 glad you brought that point up. It's not only a problem with the backup, sometimes all across the board as far as the agenda is concerned. Backup coming up here on the Commissioners court dais on the day that we are having the discussion. That's really in my opinion not acceptable. We look at it and stuff like that, but it's really a challenge for me to have to look at backup on an item that comes up here on the Commissioners court day on Tuesday.
>> that means people are going to have to respect the fact that if it's going to take a day or two to get the backup together, you can't ask for something in a Friday meeting about what's coming up for the next week and then all of sudden think this stuff magically appears. If it's not ready to be brought forward in the Friday internal meeting, then there's very limited time for people to pull it together. But I will tell you our office is not the one that is there to pull it together on behalf of people. If you want it discussed you need to get your backup together, discussed at that Friday meeting internally and not this last minute stuff because it is inpromote for our office to have to absorb those kinds of of overtime hours.
>> I guess my point is if I can have stuff in a timely fashion, that would be really great, especially on discovery of bill that's have been filed. And because we -- I知 getting information from the community out there telling us about bills that -- that have been filed and stuff like that, how we need to respond to them, of course sometimes it's not -- not in a timely fashion that we receive this information. So have along the line, I just think we have got to do better. That's my opinion. Thank you.
>> thank you, bob. [laughter]
>> you're welcome.
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, April 6, 2005 10:20 AM