Travis County Commissioners Court
May 24, 2005
Item 32
32 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. I guess we should discuss -- (indiscernible) because i've gotten e-mails on those in the last couple of days. So I do know they have been moving through the legislature. Tom, is that your cue?
>> that's your cue.
>> I think so. Thank you.
>> last week I updated y'all on my discussion with the supporters of senate bill -- house bill 3833 and reported I thought they had agreed to certain changes that mitigated my concerns about the bill; however, I had not reviewed the entire substitute. They did make the change I had asked them to make, which was in the section on the exceptions to the bill, to qualify those exceptions if an action does not regulate building size, lot size or impervious cover, a bill that formally sets that effect. I think regulate gives me a whole lot more comfort that they're not going to affect your existing regulations. And they did make that change; however, in another part of the bill, the effect language creeped its way back in and so i've got to say they have sort of addressed my concern, but not all the way because there is some of that effect language back in the bill. So we're most of the way there, but not all of the way in terms of making sure the bill doesn't effect the regulations you already have on the books today.
>> as far as time is concerned, if there's an action that the court takes today, where would that -- where would that place this action as far as the bill itself, the status of it? Is it too late?
>> it's on the senate intent calendar, so it could be called up at any time. And I think -- it's in the senate and I think bills have to be called up for third reading in the senate by tomorrow.
>> by tomorrow.
>> so its facing a deadline. I知 sure the sponsors are trying to get it called up asap.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it was on the schedule yesterday.
>> tom, have you tried to contact them to ask them about the creep factor?
>> no, I just got this. I stumbled across it the first time last night. I got the substitute Friday afternoon and gave it a quick read, but I didn't catch that the first time. I took it home last night to give it another read. It's a very lengthy, convoluted bill and I didn't catch it until about 11:30 last night. But i'll be happy to call them and say, can you tweak this the way we talked about on the other one?
>> I guess my question would be is does it make any difference given that I know that the -- that my read on this is that the court is very nervous about this? I make no bones about understanding what these people are trying to do with the intent of this thing because people are very concerned about very strict rules and regulations and ordinances and things that we deal with in this community that can potentially have a taking of your property? And I知 very sensitive to that with people. I wish that we didn't have things that basically scared people to death with regards for what are we going to do with our property values? I think that's a legitimate, american concern. Now, are there things that frighten us because something may be happening with us that we can't deal with. I understand that and I continue to talk to that group about that, but I am sympathetic with what they are trying to accomplish here. And obviously 2833, one of the things that ignited this was our interim rules. I don't know quite frankly what's going to happen to it at the end of the day, but I do want those folks to know that I have some real sympathy with regards to if they don't do anything, what might happen to them. I don't know what we can -- if we were to give it to you and say you draw it up and give it to them and say, okay, how about this and the Travis County Commissioners court, and I知 not so sure that we still wouldn't swim upstream because we've got tml, we've got a lot of folks that are nervous about this kind of legislation, so it's the typical deal where people are trying to get something filed that protect what they fear to be an overreach of government. And yet we find ourselves in a spot where we've got to give ourself the ability to deal with growth, and that's what we're trying do do with the interim. The interim rules are going to come back to us within a couple of weeks and somebody is going to expect us to do some of these things. Maybe we've done as much as we can with this. I think they probably know where we are with this because even if you could get this little thing that has caused you some concern -- we thought we had that creep out last week, and I read that the court has some real nervousness about it, and I think it's understandable. And I think they understand what it is about this bill that makes us nervous as a Travis County Commissioner's court. I don't know, judge. Whoever wants to weigh in on this.
>> Commissioner, I guess --
>> let me ask this question. Has there been any input from tml? I don't know -- as far as what Travis County is trying to put forward, has there been any concerted effort from those groups to address even the portion of the language that seemed to creep back into the bill? Have we heard anything from those folks?
>> I haven't talked to cuc or tml directly, so I can only tell you what i've heard. What i've heard on tml is that they amended the bill basically to say it didn't apply inside the city limits. And that supposedly made tml neutral according to what I heard. So I guess I can report what i've heard is that tml is neutral on it. Cuc is still trying to get an amendment, I understand, that basically carves out county subdivision authority, but i've heard that people supporting the bill haven't accepted that amendment and aren't amenable it at this point. That's all I no. So if tml sort of -- they're agreeing not to oppose any longer is what I take it to mean neutral, cuc is still trying to get an amendment and again it deals with the exceptions to the existing bill. They're trying to get an exception added for county subdivision authority.
>> (indiscernible).
>> so what do we think that the greatest harm of 2833 or from a county perspective would be what?
>> well, as it currently stands, they were obviously working with someone who was concerned about floodplain regulations and water quality regulations because the exception language where the word affect crept back in deals with those two. And this may be just one of those cases where -- they're working with so many people on the bill and not everybody is talking, so this may be totally inadvertent, but by letting the word affect back into the bill, what that does is in the area of floodplain regulations or water quality, you may not be -- you may not have impervious cover limits, per se, but if you've got restrictions on development in the floodplain or water quality restrictions and you have a tract of land say that's got a lot of floodplain on it, by restricting development in the floodplain, you could easily affect the land's value and hit the 25% trigger that's in the bill today. Even though you're not regulating density or anything, you're just saying if you don't develop in the floodplain or if you develop in the floodplain, you actually have to elevate your structures, which can add costs. The added cost can reduce the value of the land. And those are existing regulations that you've had for a long time on elevating structures. So that's not anything -- since i've worked at the county nobody has told me that they a thought our floodplain regulations were a taking.
>> is this bill suggesting that?
>> when you read it on the face, that's what I would have to conclude. It certainly creates that possibility. Today your floodplain regulations, I would say are exempt from the bill, but this basically says if your floodplain regulations have a certain effect on a tract that you're going to be subject to the liability for the 25%.
>> for the taking that's -- that's the bottom line.
>> tom, what did or did not get clarified or not related to fulfilling obligations mandated by state law or fulfilling obligations mandated by federal law? Because certainly with regard to the floodplain, if we don't do what they say, we cannot offer flood insurance to the people of Travis County.
>> and it's even more than that. The state legislature has mandate that had you do that, so that's federal and the state.
>> let's talk federal.
>> the federal and state mandates an existing provision in the bill. And that part of the bill they have basically said you stay exempt as long as you're not regulating impervious cover, lot size or building size.
>> so walk me through that again, is a if we do have an obligation mandated by state and federal law and let's just stay there with the floodplain stuff, then how is that not going to be an exception that it wouldn't be part of this taking then? Because clearly it is all about the floodplain. I mean, there's even a separate person that we've got in tnr if they all work together, but it is a totally separate kind of analysis is what is is in it for the floodplain? It's a totally separate thing as opposed to saying it's an afterthought that gets blend understand as you go through the subdivision process. It's not just a regulation, it is, if nothing, number one on the list in terms of, okay, so what are you trying to build? Floodplain. Oh, go see stacy.
>> and I guess my answer is that's -- this new language that I hadn't seen last Tuesday, that's what raises the issue. Because in that section where they use the effect word, they specifically cite the statutory authority for our floodplain regulations, so it appears to me they're changing that existing exception we have and we're -- they're saying if your floodplain regulation vz a certain effect, you're liable under this statute.
>> okay. Let's go there again. So why is that not a lawsuit fixing to happy? Because if they basically say we're unable to enforce our floodplain regulations and mandated by state and federal law, that's basically one of those, see you in court, if you cannot erase a floodplain ordinances.
>> I agree with that.
>> so in terms of overarching public safety mechanism.
>> so the new effect is only in one place?
>> right. And it's pretty much confined just to floodplain and water quality stuff.
>> so we think if that had been left to regulate, then we would be able to at least live with the bill?
>> right.
>> I think we need to get a message over there to him about that. Are they trying to supersede our floodplain regulations?
>> I wouldn't say supersede, but they're basically saying if your floodplain regulations have a certain effect, you're either going to have to compensate the landowner or you're going to have to wave the regulations for that landowner.
>> I think we need to bring it to their attention.
>> it seems to me that I thought we had a deal on changing the effect to regulate, but if you went back in one place -- at this point I don't know that it helps to just generally oppose, but it seems to me that if you've got a specific issue. And the fix on this would be just to put regulate back in.
>> it may be an oversight on their part.
>> we could pinpoint the paragraph and page and let them know as well as our delegation members.
>> time is of the essence and at this point writing letters is not going to do a darn thing -- anne is saying, thank you for saying that, Karen. It's not about writing letters, it's about being over there. And literally calling every three seconds telling us here's what they're doing now because there are amendments like crazy popping up at every second of things that we are clearly unprepared for. We had an interesting one yesterday about election equipment. It just came out of -- stuff is coming out of nowhere in terms of people trying to slap on amendments.
>> so you need to get direction from us.
>> right.
>> move that we authorize county consultants and appropriate staff to notify the bill sponsors and our legislative delegation of Travis County's opposition to 2833, unless and until the second effect is changed to regulate pursuant to what we consider to be a previous agreement. Or understanding, whichever word is better. Now, what page and paragraph? We need to point that out, don't we?
>> page 9, line 1.
>> and judge, with that, is there any way possible we can make sure that the direction not only go to the authors of this particular bill, but also to the Travis County delegation so they'll know exactly where we're coming from on this? I think they should know that.
>> that's part of the motion.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> and we'll tell them communicating this by phone and e-mail this afternoon.
>> yes. [overlapping speakers].
>> and also, just so you know, some of the senators have threatened to fill buster the -- fill la buster the bill, so its final fate is still uncertain because there has been enough opposition expressed along the way. But it's -- that's where it stands today.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. I guess this is not one we like, but one we live with if this change is made. What about 1858?
>> what you need to know on this one is there were a lot of amendments to it in the senate, and I would -- a lot of amendments from I think city of san antonio, city of Austin. They were fairly happy with the version or at least willing to live with the version that passed out of senate. Whenever the house started changing it back to the original bill, so I think it's headed to a conference committee to resolve those differences. The house version, I think what you need to know is it basically says if a county has a water quality program, then it overrides whatever program the city has in the e.t.j. It makes -- county trumps city in the e.t.j. The senate version basically said the stricter of the two control, so that's a big difference. And then the senate bill basically said under certain circumstances a local government can adopt water quality regulations and they go into effect immediately, are subject to later review and have to be approved later by tceq, but they can go into effect immediately. The house bill basically says, the local government adopts the regulations. They do not go into effect until tceq approves them and the bill has tceq adopting regulations for those programs in September of 2006. So I would say with this language it puts off your ability to adopt any sort of water quality regulations probably until September 2006.
>> been here done this. What we found out in dealing with tceq is that state minimums really became state maximums. That it was difficult, if not near impossible to get anything beyond what they adopted under the misleading title of, these are the minimum standards. No, they weren't. They were the maximum standards. And we had to fight to get something even based on science, and then you have the war in the scientists about what is or isn't. And the one thing we got some slack on was a separation of groundwater. And it was science said two to four. We said two. One and only one thing. So the idea of minimum water quality standards to me, we're heading down a path of maximum water quality standards. And I don't think that's what everyone has said in terms of intent, oh, no, you can go beyond, but the reality is tceq has made all this stuff minimum. You throw in what our experience has been on landfills and I知 not sitting here as a very happy consumer related to what our fate is over at tceq based on what happened on septic and what all is ongoing on environmental and what is ongoing related to landfills. Minimums or maximums. And they offer no protection.
>> okay.
>> the senate version was fairly clear that the minimums were the minimums and that local governments go beyond that based on good eye science.
>> I appreciate that.
>> the house version doesn't say that.
>> and what are the way to get -- go ahead, I知 sorry.
>> it's passed the senate, it's now in the house. It's on the house calendar for today.
>> so it's another one we need to --
>> if it's up in the house today, then that makes a conference committee likely in the next step.
>> right.
>> I just want to bring to your attention sb 1704, which is a jury bill which would increase jury fees once its I am paneled from six dollars a day to $40 a day as a minimum. The way it's structured right now before any amendments -- last week it passed the senate and then went right through the house, clean process. It was approved on first reading on the house floor yesterday. It's on second reading on the state calendar today. The way it's structured right now, there is a fee that would be assessed, a $4 per conviction, which would be about $32,000 a year for Travis County, that would hopefully support the impact of this particular thing. However, there's an escape clause in the bill that basically allows the state to say, well, we don't have enough money, that's okay, you will just have to take up the slack. That cost would be about $580,000 to Travis County. However, I have been told by mar ris is a here that cuc is going to try to get an amendment on to the bill on second reading --
>> today on the floor.
>> which basically -- i'll just summarize quickly -- says if payment of the county's climb for reimbursement is not made as required by the bill, the Commissioners court may reduce the pay of the jurors serving more than one day by a proportionate amount. A reduced rate of pay remains effective until full reimbursement is provided. My quick feeling on that is that there still might be some impact just mechanically, and I知 sort of a problem solving person here. But it seems to me that since there's quarterly payments that you might wind up with a one-fourth impact of $580,000 at least on a passing basis if this bill passed. With the amendment. But it's certainly a great deal less. It would be a one time impact.
>> and that is disturbing about this potential piece of legislation is that on the fiscal note that's attached to it, there is no fiscal cost because, well, it's not going to be their fiscal cost. Can we say unfunded or in this case underfunded mandate. And that is really disingenuous for them to continue to say because it doesn't cost the state that there's no fiscal cost. There is a true fiscal cost to this if indeed they do not come forward with the extra bucks.
>> now, my understanding is that we're not posted for anything on this, but it is our on our monitor list and we wanted to bring it to your attention at least.
>> going back to one we're posted for, 1558, do we want to notify the powers that be that we favor the senate version? 1858.
>> this is the water quality?
>> yeah, the senate version.
>> so far we have not had to choose between the senate and house version, right? Are we on record as supporting the senate version?
>> no.
>> my motion is that we do so.
>> and tell us again the senate version is what.
>> is relating to the authority of a local government to enforce a water pollution control and abatement program and establish standards and practices for water quality. And it is -- it's on the calendar today. It's at the bottom of the calendar list, so there is a chance that if it doesn't get done today, then this is the deadline by midnight.
>> okay.
>> we need to let our people know what our preference is in case?
>> yes, I think that would be good.
>> my understanding based on tom's analysis of house and senate versions was that the house version is a lot more restrictive. If you get into this area, you may as well have some flexibility, I guess.
>> I guess to make sure the public understands the difference, the house version is what I知 really hearing a lot of folks out there not supporting. And that's the one -- what is that, the 1858?
>> no. The senate -- let me look back. Senate bill 1858. And it passed out of the house committee. Senate bill 1858 passed out of the house.
>> it hasn't passed out of the house.
>> the committee. It still hasn't gone to the floor. It goes to the house floor today.
>> judge, your motion is that if we have to pick between the various versions of this, we prefer the senate version as to what to articulate as to our preference.
>> and we let the powers to be know that.
>> second that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote too. Communicate in the same manner that we communicate 2833.
>> okay.
>> now, on bills -- we're not posted for the jury fee bill that --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we could discuss anything on here because we are one week out. I thought everything was up for discussion.
>> senate bill 142 --
>> but on the jury deal, should we at least say it needs to be funded? I mean, I have no problem with going from four dollars to 40, but it seems to me that the ones that authorized that ought to send funding. Should we make our position known?
>> it would probably be good government, yes.
>> this is following what the cuc's platform is and says this is now part of the cuc platform and we're covered in that way. This is kind of like adding on.
>> any objection to giving those directions? It's not quite action. Now, 148?
>> bill 142 by jeff wentworth. I understand that that one has died?
>> it's set for intent today. And it keeps on getting set and then it doesn't go. But today's the last day. It's never gone through the house. Today's the last day for second reading for house bill, so effectively it is dead because even if it came up on senate intent today, it couldn't make it in time.
>> to do what?
>> land use. It would allow counties to hold an election to increase their regulatory authority.
>> what I did do was from the previous things that were discussed by the court in support of that, I submitted a letter of support from my office to senator wentworth, and of course the last I heard it hadn't moved too much. According to their staff, as of yesterday they said it was dead. Now, I don't really know, but that's basically what i've heard. I don't know. I don't know what's going to happen today. All right. Thank you.
>> what about the mental health bill?
>> 2572? That's up on intent also today. And it is -- it's looking like it will pass.
>> 2572?
>> 2572.
>> was it amended to pull in harmful parts of 470?
>> let's see.
>> there was the creation of the 30-county region with Travis County in number 7 I think that I understand was most objectionable without additional funding necessarily.
>> from what I understand, its status is held as far as what's been added to it or subtracted as it was last week, and there hasn't been any more changes besides 440, but I can double-check. 470.
>> because Austin Travis County mhmr has been real upset about the possibility of features of 470 being pulled and added to 2572. So we need to remain on guard about that, I guess, and to the extent that our voice matters, let our folks know that we are still in opposition to any part of 470 that's been added to.
>> right.
>> sherri fleming I know has been following that bill very closely. I've checked with her too.
>> the community action network sent out e-mails almost on the hour.
>> so when we chat with our consultants and delegation members, I think that needs to be one of them.
>> okay.
>> what other bills have been important to us?
>> I know that y'all are tired of hearing this because I know you're looking for other avenues as well, but where are we on the election precinct size bill, 2759?
>> 2759 is set for local calendar tomorrow.
>> and the other one is the -- I call it the beck bill, the bcp bill, senator wentworth and representative baxter were trying to get it out of calendars. Anne, do you remember the number real quick?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> sb 767.
>> yeah, that one didn't get on the final calendar for tonight, but right now we're in the process of amending it on to another bill.
>> okay. Just keep on that one. The election bill is a big one in terms of potential stuff.
>> I just wanted to note that the transportation -- omnibus transportation bill got heard in the senate on Saturday. There were 47 amendments considered. Many of them adopted. So that bill has changed and it will go to conference committee and -- (indiscernible). We don't know who the others are at this point. There are components -- I just wanted to alert probably dave mcguire that there are component to elections there that need to be looked at in the senate version. I don't know how it's going to end up in the conference committee, but it would require more elections, so I know that's something the court is really concerned about.
>> yes and no. There's only going to be two election dates by the time they're finished over there in terms of having elections just in may and November. And we've already been looking to cuc about the election dates and representative krusee as well and having no unintended consequences related to potential elections. But there are a lot of other issues that we'll get to you as soon as we can. I know that there are monorail issues, no billboards on sh 130, amendments like that that were added on the floor of the senate.
>> so what is the latest word on the public school finance and their budget?
>> I think that with that i'll probably have to pass to chris to update more.
>> y'all want reality tv, channel 6 last night was hopping in terms of the whole debate on touchers. I listened to about three hours of it off and on in between commercials on watching vegas and flipping over, but man, it was hot and unbelievable last night. They were on fire in a good way in defense of public school teachers.
>> so do we have a feel for whether we think those two bills will be completed before midnight, may 31st? There by -- (indiscernible).
>> I understand that the attempt is to get everything resolved to obviate a special session, but it's still a bit uncertain.
>> anne, and was it last Thursday, I think 1006, which is the infamous revenue cap bill, it was back over in senate finance. Did they indeed substitute 1006 with the language from senator williams, senate bill 18, which gets us away from revenue caps and to more of the accountability transparency related to the rollback rates and effective tax rate, etcetera, and notices and hearings? That's my understanding from susan.
>> I saw the committee substitute on the internet this morning, but I really didn't get deeply into it because the 1704 thing kind of popped up.
>> but that doesn't mean that revenue caps may not come out and try to be tacked on during a conference committee, so it ain't over until it's over on revenue caps.
>> okay.
>> I thought they went through midnight the 31st?
>> no, 30th. That's the 140th day.
>> anything else today?
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> that's fine with me. Motion? Until 130. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, May 25, 2005 7:48 AM