Travis County Commissioners Court
June 7, 2005
Item 44
44. Receive update on various proposed legislation before the 79th Texas legislature, and take appropriate action. We did get requests from several individuals for us to either send letters in favor or in opposition on various matters that ought to be before the governor.
>> did you want to start with Commissioners Davis' requst to hb 1609
>> that's as good as any. Is this the one with the changes?
>> no that's the one... I guess... It mentions dissallow of public hearing but yet they have public input before the tceq on issues related to landfills and also hazardous waste.
>> okay.
>> so it's kind of a big deal. The last minute deal that got passed, from what I understand, and of course we hope the governor does not sign that particular bill because I think public input and public process ought to still be adhered to. So that 's bascically what that is and i'd like for if possible for us to send a letter to the governor to let him know that we are definitely in opposition to hb 1609.
>> I was going to say is that it took 'shall' and made it 'may' and that is just not a good thing.
>> is shall in the current law?
>> yes.
>> shall is current.
>> okay. So basically we want to urge the governor to leave shall because of the importance of public hearings
>> yes, public hearings. They disallow it, so we definitely...
>> second Commissioner Davis' motion. And who's our letter drafter? And that is going to the governor like this. Okay, miss walker? And so the motion is to authorize the Commissioners to sign the letter -- you anticipate this letter will be signed by the Commissioners court.
>> yes.
>> that would be best, if possible.
>> I would be highly recognized and recommended.
>> I guess time is of the essence so we need to get this out as soon as possible.
>> he has until the 19th to either veto a bill or sign it. If you doesn't sign a bill and doesn't veto it, it becomes law without his signature.
>> there are some bills already.
>> we'll get it out as fast as we get it drafted.
>> yeah, to veto it, right.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and jamar is also here looking for a letter of support in hb 2572. This was the reorganization of mental health delivery that passed. This is not hb 470. They are looking for a letter of support. I have spoke to sherry fleming. She has no objection to that. Our lobbyist, mr. Shields, would welcome a letter of support with the governor's signature.
>> did she indicate they would write that letter?
>> mhmr offered to.
>> move we sign that letter and send it to the governor post haste. Discussion? This is one we kind of worked as hard for as mhmr.
>> the court never took an actual position on 2572, but --
>> we a pose 470. You will in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Let's get that letter as soon as possible and get it signed.
>> and that will probably be tomorrow, if that's okay, but we'll have it tomorrow. And then cc had sent some requests. They were looking for a veto of a bill that I didn't circulate. I didn't know if folks wanted me to bring that forward today or tomorrow. I would be happy to bring it tomorrow, but this is one that would change the way mobile homes are dealt with. When I’m speaking to dusty knight, when you sell a mobile home now, you have to show that the taxes are current, and that was stricken from this bill. Something the county tax assessor-collectors had opposed. It would mean more manual check to go see that taxes are up. I can have him here next week if you guys want that or you can see cc take the lead on it. I didn't know if folks --.
>> may well just [inaudible].
>> okay.
>> based on the tphaebgt you ou think it will have. This will be the impact on travis and other counties.
>> mr. Knight indicated about 20% of their delinquent property tax cases relate to mobile homes, and once they go delinquent they are hard to track down and collect on and this is something they've long had issues on and this is a fix that got put in last session so that part may be a little fuzzy, but they were not happy to see this pass on the last day.
>> mobile homes can go mobile.
>> it's like beware of somebody's home that has wheels on it.
>> my guess is that dusty and c.u.c. Probably has put together draft language.
>> I can get together with c.u.c. Or dusty on this.
>> move with working with c.u.c. On this.
>> any more discussion? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the last request from c.u.c. Was a letter in support of 1704. This was the bill that increased jury pay from $6 to $40 per trial. That was after one day of service, by the way. The bill changed and it became a self-funded program. There was a point at which they will pay -- we collect the money, send it to the state and the state will reimburse us for costs. Any surplus funds will be used for indigent legal defense work. But the bill -- our auditor's analysis of the bill is that there was a need for it, and c.u.c. Was urging you write a letter in support of that bill as well.
>> [inaudible] it hasn't been changed in something like 50 years. It's beyond time. And it's self-funded. It's not an unfunded mandate.
>> it is self-funded?
>> that is the analysis of carolyn dameron who can speak more clearly than i.
>> the last time it was updated we thought it may have a half million dollar impact on Travis County.
>> right.
>> it may be something that we would just absorb anyway, but --
>> carolyn dameron with the auditor's office. This bill and now in its final stage includes a state court cost of $4 on all convictions except those related to pedestrians and parking. So it essentially means every conviction that goes through any of our courts as well as municipal courts get this $4 fee tacked on. And it's just like all other state court costs, we collect it, send it to the comptroller, and then we're able to bill them for our costs on this. So theoretically this should not increase our jury costs at all.
>> before, judge, it was on a very narrow group and that's when we were very concerned because we had exact counts on what was going through our criminal district courts, and that was that scary number. They've now changed it to a much broader base of convictions.
>> okay. So we need a letter of support?
>> c.u.c. Has requested it. It's your call.
>> move approval. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and that's it for me. We're looking, unless there is something the court has, we're looking at a bill that dealt with d.n.a. Testing, but there's really nothing to report at this stage. We'll keep you posted if there's an issue.
>> okay. Anybody else with any issues, any legislation we need to be proactive on? No. Thank you all very much. We'll have it back on next week.
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, June 8, 2005 7:12 AM