Travis County Commissioners Court

March 13, 2007
Item 23

Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.

>> the only thing that we want to do separately, since we have some bills filed now, we want to review the priority bills. I know there's probably four or five or six different staff people here to discuss different bills. It's up to you if you want to take them in order.

>> the law may well require that we read this into the record so our residents will know what we are doinglve bear with me, bob, let me read all of this. You kind of like to hear me read anyway, don't you?

>> yes, your honor.

>> m, we already announced we would not discuss today. It will be back on next week. The matter involving senate bill 1204. 23 is to consider and take appropriate action on certain issues and proposed bills before the Texas legislature including h b 54 is relating to procedures for certain persons charged with administrative violation of a condition of release from the tex department of criminal justice on parole, or mandatory supervision. B, draft bill relating to the criminal and civil enforcement of the required payment of a toll for use of certain turn page projects. C, draft bill relating to the authority of a county to zone, apply building standards, and impose impact fees in an area fear certain toll projects , employing a penalty. D, had hb 2391 relating to the appearance of certain misdemeanor offenders before a magistrate. E, h b 937, relating to an exception from the payment of a toll for an authorized emergency vehicle. F, senate b 669 relating to erecting an off-premise sign add adjacent to and visible from certain roads. G, s b 137, relating to the prohibition of signs on certain roads. H, consider and take appropriate action on proposed legislation relating to revenue and/or appraisal caps. I, h b 1193, relating to the imposition of a county or municipal ty of fees related to certain collection service. J, discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary. K, we added h b 3229 relating to permitting procedures of the Texas commission on environmental quality for control of air pollution. We added l, s b 1489, relating to regulation of fireworks by counties in densely populated, unincorporated areas, providing a penalty, a criminal penalty. As we announced earlier, m we would not take today, it's been postponed. Okay and I have been working on probably for three sessions now. Bob and I have met with staff for several years now in trying to lower the number of parole violators sitting in our county jail. But what h b 541 in essence does thrire five parts. This bill would allow a magistrate to release a person on bond, what this bill calls administrative technical parole violations. The second thing would be to allow to dispose of parole warrant before the tenth day of arrest again, for a ten parole violator violator. Right now, the law requires that the parole panel dispose of the case within 41 dayslve I looked at January of this year and there were 121 technical parole violators in the county jail. And I kind of gave it a $40 a day cost. Savings would be $145,000 if the bill were in fact, sorry, the third thing this bill does, once this, sorry. Once this parole , excuse me. I am so sorry. Once this, if this bill were in fact made law, once the parole warrant is disposed of, the board, the county would be allowed to transfer the inmate within a 50-mile radius. So we have the travis state jail and the bart let state jail and we would be allowed to transfer the inmate. That's the three have similar c?

>> this aisle bill is actually from bexar county and the manager from there and criminal justice planning are the ones helped the representative from bexar account.

>> I’m suggesting the council of urban counties and also the Texas association of counties, they have, has this gone before them for support ?

>> I’m in the aware thought it's gone to them to seek their support or not, Commissioner. I do know, though, that the five urban, the larger counties, are very much in favor of this.

>> in favor ?

>> absolutely. At any given time we have over 100 technical parole violators sitting in our county jaillve I would probably say it's a 60-40 split saying that most of them are technical violators. What I mean, that is a person there that has not committed a new offense, whether that be misdemeanor or felony office fen fen. So often times folks are sitting in the county jail for a positive ua or failing to pay fees. Now, what this bill does, excludes those individuals that might be on parole for an aggravated offense. They don't want to include in this bill some . Murder or aggravated robbery. What this bill also requires or takes out of the language is, if p b cj is full, we know that they really right for you have no beds. Tdcj, this bill, regardless of whether they are full or what they say adequate space, this would law the counties to transport those inmates that are paper ready, that have all the information and documents required that the state mandates that the co tness card just to save time.

>> what about know that we enthusiastically support this ?

>> yes, we can go to all the offices and communicate that to them and they will also know that by the depositing of a witness card. If the court does want a resolution, we can do that but our recommendation wbe a witness card.

>> why don't we do both ?

>> generally, if you are opposing a bill, then in that situation it's very important for us to write something down and here are the reasons why this is a concern to the county. But on those bills that you are supporting, first of all, it is, as sally suggested, they like you to put a card in support of their bill at the hearing. I’m not sure the other offices would, that this is going to rise up to their attention. Particularly at the committee level because if they are not on the committee, they are not going see that letter anyway. So, point want to know the coun position, they have the resolution there. One of them, if we are lucky, one of them may be on this committee.

>> there are not.

>> that's what I am saying. If they don't read our rest , let's stop doing--resolution, let's stop doing them. I know one of them told me, hey, we didn't know where Travis County stood on that bill anywa.

>> the other option, judge, we are able to pull the minutes to see how the court votes on bills bills. Often we do have members request that as verification that the court supports the bills. So we are always able to pull that as recognition of the court court's vote. Also, I did want to add that the staff, the Travis County staff would request not to do resolutions if the court beliefs that we can achieve the same end end.

>> I don't believe that, but if you are telling me I’m wrong, I won't like it but I can live with it. Okay. If the resolutions are a waste of time, we ought not do them. We seem to have done them in the past. I thought they made sense because member of the Travis County legislative delegation, we ought to proactively let them know stuff that we support and oppose. But if the resolution doesn't get us further down the road on that, let's stop doing that.

>> I don't want to say it's a waste of time but I think if you are to poll they will, if they are not in that committee and the bill is not going to get out of committee or the bill may get to the floor, if the bill gets to the floor, then we are using, if it's something we support, we get by and drop something off saying that you support it. We draft something ourselves, a one-pager, give it to the staff person so they can put it in the member's bill book for the floor floor. But I would venture to say that those members, if they are not on that committee, they have got you know, a thousand other things to consider that day, they are not going to see it. And so, but, when you oppose some one's bill, I think it's very important to set out in writing, as you have done in the past, what those concerns are. That helps us when we go over there we also need to do that because if we are going to be opposing someone's bill, they want to hear from us and know the reasons. On a support bill, if we put the card in there, that helps another member of the legislature when they hair that the Travis County Commissioners court supports that bill, even though they are not from the delegation if the delegation is not on the committee they are not hearing this anyway.

>> so when we support, just do a call. If we oppose the resolution, do a letter in opposition or what ?

>> a letter laying out our concerns with the bill so that we can then explain why we are opposed to the bill. But for the support reasons, a witness card will be submitted into the public record and supporting the bill.

>> all right. When I’m at capcog or before another group, and they want to know Travis County's position, sometimes we formally take a position, sometimes we have not. Sometimes, frankly, I don't remember. I always have a position. Whether my position is the same as Commissioners court is another matter. I remember when I was before the clean air coalition we were discussing action that the court took in opposition, and sort of a request for clarification of s sb 12, I think the air quality bill. I mean, it was kind of important to go through the different reasons why. But that was one of those in opposition. But we had just done that the day before. And had reduced it to writing, so at least hi an opportunity to refer to different pointlve but we really discuss the those points. Because members of the coalition did not want to be over telling the sponsor of the bill that we opposed it without having meaningful reasons.

>> the other thing we did in past sessions was provided you with a list of bills that you have taken action on. So on those support items, the report should say you have voted to support this and then we can put a summary. Because we have a summary of all these bills. We can put that in the come section and make that part of what we provide you each week. So you will have a record, every single week, of every single action you have taken on a bill with a little summary of it if you would like that. That way in terms of need to go know what your position is and the background of the bill, you would have that u1dm

>> does the matter with me. If it doesn't make a difference, so be it. But we get inundated with bills and people coming in, asking for our support or opposition. When I’m out of here, you know, often I don't fully remember everything that happens. So we need something in writing. If it's not a resolution, we need something from somebody.

>> yes. If the report reflecting your action would suffice, we can do that. Of course there's no problem with us doing both as well. Even if you want the resolution.

>> the report doesn't say why. I remember, you remember the county immunity waiver bill? We had ten reasons why that didn't make any sense.

>> now, that--

>> reduced to writing and supported by the Commissioners court.

>> right.

>> by a vote of 5:0.

>> that was a bill we opposed. I’m saying, on the bill to oppose, absolutely, we want a letter in writing that we take to the author of the bill to say here is the issues that the court has. And the report that we will do will reflect that too, that you are opposed to the bill. Then whatever we put in that letter, we will put in the the comments and it will appear there just so you have it all in one place.

>> I think, judge, we will be happy to come up with something that will make the court aware of the votes taken on the bills. We would just like to get away from the resolution for support because we are perceiving that they are not as effective as the time it takes to put them together.

>> I think that puts on us responsibility to get n court o in the resolution of we ought to get them though.

>> it would be extremely helpful if when the staff comes every week on a new bill, that they just have a half a page as to why they support, why you should support or should oppose I it, then we can incorporate it into the report. You vote and we record the vote and the reasons and put it in the report and you got it every week and it will be there.

>> what you are suggesting is that let's say a representative of a department comes up before us, fan they have reason to oppose or support a bill, they verbally tell us that. You are saying reduce it to writing, if that's the case.

>> yes. Generally in the past, Commissioner, if it's important enough to the staff people, either they feel strongly in favor or strongly against, they will be willing to reduce it to writing. If they don't, they won't.

>> I’m worried less about the staff than I am about me. Any staff member can go to the legislature and get done whatever the staff member can get done. Before we go over and say the Commissioners court did this, this and that, we ought to formally deliberate. I don't know how we do that without the specific. You are saying some stuff we support, some stuff we not only support by advocate for it. We ought to have that in writing consultant strategy. Not the but the legislative consultant strategy. Let's be efficient. Your recommendation is what ?

>> at the committee level, what we will do is fill out one of the witness cards on behalf of the Travis County Commissioners court that you support the bill, with no testimony.

>> that card goes on public record. It's read aloud.

>> but what if we want to give testimony ?

>> that's no problem.

>> on this right here it seems to me that we should send somebody over there to say, hey, we not only support this but we are willing to come over there and answer your questions and advocate for it.

>> we would love that.

>> it's a big deal.

>> absolutely encourage that. In that situation, we don't need now, the staff person coming over can have written testimony that they can get to the committee and they can testify , and that's great also. And in that situation, you are write. They will need to put something in writing. But if they would, when they come court with their issue f they have something in writing ahead of time that they give you and give us, then we have it set and you can vote not only to support the bill but you can endorse those comments that they put down in writing and they can submit as written testimony.

>> what if I don't endorse the comments? What if I endorse six of the ten they gave but think the other four make no sense.

>> then we have to re-do it and then the one that we re-do will appear in the report.

>> the thing is, judge, in a hearing, what will impact will be the witness testimony. The resolution does in the add or detract from the witness testimony. So putting in a card if we really support it will have some one there to testify. If we oppose it we will have some one to testify. But if we just support it, the resolution does not add or subtract from that. So we do want to continue to communicate with the written word, but the resolution of support will not help us in those situations.

>> my belief has always been, I try my hardest not to go over there, period. But if they want to know where I stand, look at the resolution, and that's where the court stands. Let's try you all's strategy. If we apply that to this 541, it would be basically us submitting a card in support and indicating our willingness to come testify in favor. I do think we ought to indicate, we are willing to come over here here. We here in Austin, somebody may not want to travel there, sit around there like you norlally have to do, may be called or not notlve it's easier for us. Give us 30 minute, we can go over there and testify. We ought not take a position if stuff doesn't matter. Whether it's for or against. We have enough headache already. See what I’m saying? So why formally support something that we don't care whether it passes or not. Let's spend our time on the other stuff. On the stuff that we we-- we--formally support and advocate for, we ought to be willing to go the distance.

>> absolutely. And in those situations, when a member of the staff come before you to lay out a bill, seems to me that that would be the appropriate time for the court the toe say, and we want to you go and testify on this bill because it's important enough to us. If not, then just say, you know, the consultants can attend the hearing and fill the card out in support or in opposition on your behalf. You can make a decision on a bill-by-bill basis that way the report , back to us, for these reasons we want a resolut may come up with ten more reasons why thisjg.ing make )u if we put them in the resolution and they don't read them, it's all for naught. If I were called over there, I grab the resolution. If I have these reasons plus ten more, I would give all of them in they allow.

>> at the committee hearings.

>> wherever they ask me to come talk. Cuc, capcog, then other counties there. It's probably not on their radar radar. You say hey, you ought to do this, by the way, take this and read it. If it makes sense, do it. On something like this, what we ought to be doing is making sure that every county at least knows about it and urning --urging them to do it.

>> pac and cuc do that with all their members. They let them all know. They should all know, all member of the Commissioners court should know this.

>> that actually could solve our issue. Cuc has the policy platform that they have, they update continually. Perhaps we should adopt that practice of creating a policy platform where we have, as you say, one document. Not only the bills that we are supporting but the positions that we are supporting, whether or not a bill has been filed on it or not.

>> I think that's a great idea make sure that all of you have record of the votes you have taken and why, and backup information.

>> it would also encourage some discipline on us to have a more cohesive approach. For instance, for a bill coming up later. We have developed a position on how we want to handle misdemeanor arrests. It might create a more disciplined cohesive approach.

>> alison spent a lot of time communicating with all of us, the ten member counties. So they all know pretty much what's going on item b, this is toll road bill. It does have a bill number now, b 3196. You should have a copy of it in front of you. I believe it was included in your packet this week. This is a bill that you all should consider as partially resolving our concerns with the potential problems of clogging the jp court. This bill leaves a lot of the provisions up to tex dot, which we hope will reduce the number of cases that we see in front of our courts.

>> my an understanding on this bill, while it does take care of some of the constitutional infirmities that we had discussed about a previous possible bill that never got filed, it still I don't think addresses, I think Commissioner Gomez's point, there is an un unfunded mandate here. But that said, it's far better. I understand the county attorney attorney's office is looking into our ability without legislation to name a midge straight to handle specific case cases in j p. I don't have the answer for that at this point

>> at the moment I would request that it be reviewed and we consider if we want to t

>> all right. I’m glad you're comfortable with it.

>> I don't feel bad if they call me a judge list ?

>> yes, sir. C is senator bat son's bill. Joe is going to be presenting it to you also handed out copies of another bill, which not posted for discussion, your thicker packet. And that is, I threw my copies away, 169s s ckonond d d d toto eses let's stop doing--resolution, let's stop doing them. I know one of them told me, hey, we didn't't't't't't't't't't't'ts hoe e rt esesls o atl ayay bibi te hambst ththvecacat t e e s s e to sls.. Ths s gnite s s alali ntntaat tt ululesest t st rereon ie rtie e e acththmeme enend.d.

>> so when we support, just do a call. If we oppose the resolution, do a letter in opposition or what ?

>> yes. If the report reflecting your action would suffice, we can do that. Of course there's no problem with us doing both as well. Even if you want the resolution.

>> the report doesn't say why. I remember, you remember the county immunity waiver bill? We had ten reasons why that didn't make any sense.

>> now, that--

>> reduced to writing and supported by the Commissioners court.

>> right.

>> by a vote of 5:0.

>> I think that puts on us responsibility to get n court o in the resolution of we ought to get them though.

>> at the committee level, what we will do is fill out one of the witness cards on behalf of the Travis County Commissioners court that you support the bill, with no testimony.

>> that card goes on public record. It's read aloud.

>> but what if we want to give testimony ?

>> that's no problem.

>> on this right here it seems to me that we should send somebody over there to say, hey, we not only support this but we are willing to come over there and answer your questions and advocate for it.

>> we would love that.

>> it's a big deal.

>> what if I don't endorse the comments? What if I endorse six of the ten they gave but think the other four make no sense.

>> then we have to re-do it and then the one that we re-do will appear in the report.

>> at the committee hearings.

>> pac and cuc do that with all their members. They let them all know. They should all know, all member of the Commissioners court should know this.

>> I think that's a great idea make sure that all of you have record of the votes you have taken and why, and backup information.

>> at the moment I would request that it be reviewed and we consider if we want to t

>> all right. I’m glad you're comfortable with it.

>> I don't feel bad if they call me a judge list ?

>> yo, here is an extra.

>> 1688. 1688..

>> yes, 1688. These bills probably should be talked about in parallel. 1690 applies to the county's authority of land use controls in the sh 130 corridor. 1688 refers to the city of Austin's authority in the same corridor. And then there's another bill that deals with small cities in the same corridor and that's a third bill. All three of them are part of a packet of bills that relate to the development of 130. As I said earlier, we are only posted to talk about 1690 today. This is the bill that basically addresses the impact of sh 130. The scope of the bill is only a swath of land 15 miles from the center line of sh 130. It only applies to Travis County and Williamson county at this point. It does not go further west than the rat rat delete than the corporate lynch. It's basically is a miles on the eastern side of 130. The remaining unincorporated area between 130 and the city of Austin on the western side. The notion is that the counties would have some land use authority outside the corporate limits dealing with development as a result of s had sh 130. This is basically a zoning authority bill. It allows the county the same authority the city might have for zoning but in at the un unincorporated area d. What it does not do, it does not overlap the city. If the city chooses to use its authority independent under 1688 that they would be able to limit and annex an area within this corridor. We would not overlap our jurisdiction. One or the other but not bothlve the extent to which a city annex annexes for lilled purpose any purpose--for limited purpose any of the area, we are basically out of the hunt. The city applies their zoning authority. That's one element of the bill to avoid duplication. The other element is the ability to levy impact fees. That basically is the ability to provide infrastructure that's paid for by the development as it occurs. Roughly proportional to the impact they are putting on either the road system or sewer system, water system, basically able to charge that development depending on its intensity, a few for the infrastructure needd to serve that development. Those are the two key provisions of the bill, zoning on the one hand, the il pack --impact fees on the otherlve including is the building standard. What it tries to do is match the development likely to occur because of 130, with the infrastructure that's needed by that same development, after give you the means to pay for the infrastructure through the leavy of the impact fee--levy of the impact fee . For years we have been struggling with challenges of how we accommodate economic development in eastern Travis County and northeast and southeast Travis County. Sh 130, which is the new road, the new toll road , of course, is moving very fastly and of course will be completed pretty soon. But the main portion of sh 130, a portion of it going through precinct two which Commissioner eckhardt represent, precinct four which Commissioner Gomez represents and precinct one which I represent, we do not want to see a situation where we have an I 35 where we get an ease versus west type scenario. I think this bill has the kind of tools in it where by we will be able to address those challenges to accommodate and the kind of growth potential that's coming to this particular quadrant of the county. I think we need to do everything we can possibly do, to be sure the bill is filed and we support it whole heartedly and do what we need to do to get a clear an understanding that ease of--east of sh 130 needs to have the kind of tool to support the develop development potential that needs to take place there with this particular corridor for sh 130. So it's very significant. I’ll really in full support of this. It's been a long hard struggle working with the community for a number of years, asking them what they would like to see. Again, the input from staff, community, senator watson as far as sponsoring this portion of the bill, it's very significant that we get this legislation passed. I want to thank ago.

>> yeah. And you know, I’m a little nervous about that. Maybe I shouldn't be nervous about it because this doesn't apply to any part of western Travis County.

>> that's right.

>> but I will say this. There are going to be some people east of this town that will be equally as excited about or maybe not excited is the best word, electrified over what this thing is going to give the county the ability to do. I would be willing to bet you that the developers and the people east of this town are going to be very nervous about this because this effectively takes and gives the county the same, if not more, authority than the city, sos, whatever. This allows you to go into the county and basically impose extreme extreme impervious ground cover. If that's something you think they are going to be supportive of, have they been at the table ?

>> everyone has beenall the stakeholders at the table. Trying to come up with tools that everybody needed. But also, remember that this is the development, the preferred development area. So that we can keep the sensitivity of Travis County is not in that part of Travis County. So I think all of that has been taken into consideration and we had many many meetings.

>> Commissioner, I want to go back do a meeting that I remember you partially attended once, and that's why I say prior to senator watson having these meetings, there were a lot of other underground, not under underground meetings, but a lot of meetings that were held premature to all of these things that senator watson has brought forth. And in the interests of economic development, there were some meetings, and I think you attend attended one, we looked at a lot of things but also talked about land use. We also talked about how can we get authority to deal with land use. And this is the reason for a lot of things that have happened, looking at the big picture, looking at the development community. And I can even remember pete guy guyerpete--dwyer attending one of the meetings and discussing economic opportunities for the area and looking at this bill here, we are talking about residential zoning per se, talking about residential, commercial and also industrial zoning type situation situations where we will have a say to how they locatelve right now there's no authority that the county has to direct such zoning. That is very important. Especially when we starred looking at the divide of this community. East versus west. We do not want to see an east- east-west scenario repeat itself such as the east-west on I 35. On the other side of I 35, you don't have the type of investment and ability to do things. We don't want to see that happen with this new sh 130 where the west side gets all the benefits and the eastern part of sh 130 don't get anything because there's no governmental authority to deal with a lot of things for the growth potential coming there. I think it's very well needed. I have invested, a lot of us have invested many, many years into the challenges of how we can address our economic opportunities east of sh 30, in this particular case, just as east of I 35. So it's a continuing movement of continuing struggle and this is why I think what has come to pass is a move in the right direction. I’m going to make sure I do everything to make sure that this bill passes. So I’m going to really work lard to do that because the folks in this community have been desperately needing this for a long long time. I want to make sure that it happens. Thank you.

>> you are saying that you want to have the ability as a county to just go down through the numbers, the highest number of building, percentage of lots that can be occupied, size of yard and other spaces, population density, location, use of buildings, building construction standards, if you say that you have the buy in from all those folks east, then go for it because as much as I am looking for west to help with the right kind of development that we know that we need to get our arms around in western Travis County, and I have some issues in western Travis County that perhaps you don't have in eastern Travis County as well. All of us are looking for tools to be able to make sure that we develop the way that we need I’m just not, I’m uncomfortable, you know, maybe I should be. You all on the east side, if that's what you want to have, beware of overreaching because I think that the legislature will slap you if that is, if that is what you are trying to do I know that, because I do understand what the senator is trying to do. I mean, I’ve been more than just to a partial meeting. And there are reasons to have the kind of things that the east needs. But you also know that you have to get a bill passed. And this is giving county authority to do something that I’m not sure that the legislature is going to, even if you say that you just want it for this area. I do think that there are some people that probably would like to come and speak to this thing. One of the things that is a little disconcerting for me is the thing that we signed, I think it was the 13th, that the court signed, being supportive of having some authorities that we needed in order to do some sort, have some sort of control, that I thought was going to be in the billrb that's not in the bill, is the opportunity to have this go before this citizenry for a vote. Now, that's no longer in this. I don't think that's in the bill bill. I mean, this is just going to give the county the full authority to do it. I know that--

>> I don't think it's a concern of giving the county the tool that the county needs in order to handle the development of that area. And I just have never perceived Travis County staff to be really wild in what they present, you know, to anybody. I have always perceived a lot of care was taken to make sure that it's progressive but at the same time reasonable.

>> I agree with you. , quite literally, add water, instant community. . So I think that makes it distinct from the western portion of the county. Second, I think the powers enumerated here, as you sayrb the number of stories, size of building, percentage of lot occupied, size of yard, population density, location of the building, construction standards, that's a list of things that could be used in you're willing to use them and to pay for using them. There's an implicit fiscal constraint on the use of these powers as well. I think they would only come into play if we, and I think they will come into play in certain pockets of the 130 corridor where it really is going to be add water, instant community, we need to get down on the ground quickly so that we can use these tools for creating stable, co-he'sive residential and economic development in the area. Otherwise it's the wild wild west.

>> yes.

>> let me also inject a piece here. Typically these tools, be they subdivision authority, which we already have, and zoning, which we are seeking here, are based on a comprehensive plan that goes through a very public process. These are not just random tools you throw out there. There is ultimately a master plan that you are trying to implement with these tools. And so, that is, quite frankly, where the community comes together and agrees on where should the commercial areas be and what are incompatible uses, and once you go through that process you come behind that with some type of zoning ordinance which says, okay, now that the community has basically laid out what they expect to see in the future, here is the tool too bring it about. The other thing that you mentioned in terms of the height of the budding, population density, what not, in part are tools that keep the infrastructure in sync with the uses. If you are fixing to go but a major capital investment in say a 20 inch waterline somewhere, you want to make sure that investment materializes. The demand that actually gets developed out there is in sync with that 20 inch line. If you start having the mismatch the uses are going one way and the infrastructure going somewhere else, you are creating a tremendous tax burden that you may never recoup. That is the reason the land use and the fiscal impact or whatever other means you choose to finance the infrastructure, go hand in hand. All of that has to be based on some type of come prehncive plan. And that planning process should be a very very public process with everybody participating in how the uses of the property get mapped out.

>> I would expect that h as stae all of the stakeholders at the county level talk about the plan planning appropriately. And so, I don't see us just doing willie nilly with all week.

>> could we also post for next week at the same time a discussion of 1680? I think--

>> what about 1680 now, which is the small town.

>> they need to be.

>> the waterfront.

>> look at all of them.

>> 1688 plus 1689.

>> also, judge, the small town f.

>> do you still have a copy of that, joe ?

>> I still have it. I think that was mainly dealing with our own authority, not necessarily how we are complimenting the city's request for authority.

>> don't worry about reading it in preparation for this next week.

>> not really.

>> we already have something on record in support of the principles .

>> that's right.

>> some of the stuff that we put in there, at least one of the things is development regulation regulations authorized by locally election. That is no longer part of this. This gives us the full authority as the county.

>> but the authorities haven't d this one. This one doesn't have a number zet.

>> . Moving along.

>> item d, judge and commission, is house bill 2391 by representative m.d. Madmad-- madmad--immediate arc dcious immediate dmadden. This bills compliments our own bill brought to us by the sheriff as office. It will achieve the same result as our bill it goes about it a little differently but on the whole we have the support of the sheriff sheriff's department and the constable's department. We would request the court to support this bill as it does follow the vote of the court on our own bill.

>> move approval.

>> I it comes up for committee. Thank you.

>> item e is h b 937. Joe, did you want to emergency vehicle is still on here.

>> basically this was the one where the bill that basically said all types of emergency vehicles as long as they have a light bar and sign basically ride for free, without having to justify what they went on the toll road for. Think, if I’m not mistaken, last Tuesday the court supported this one. I’m not sure if it's actually a resolution or card or whatever we decided to do basically it cleared up for us the sheriff would not have to produce some document justifying each and every every--emergency use of the toll roadlve this would say if you have a light bar on the car, you are exempt from the toll.

>> we think the bill does that . We think it's a good bill.

>> apparently there's no vote on record that last I’ll say about that.

>> judge, I can say I’m committed to finding you something even better for the future. Items f and g I’d like to discussion together, if I’m allowed to do that. They are both bills dealing with billboards. Commissioner Davis had brought to our attention concerns over certain areas of road that we now have come up with language for. Both of these bills would potentially be good vehicles for those amendments. We are working with the oh thorse to see if somewhere down the road we can add our language on. S b 137 in particular has a clause at the end of the bill that would give Commissioners court the authority to instruct tex dot of certain limited areas of roadways that they would like restrictions placed upon. This is a wonderful bill for the court to support. But there are a handful of other billboard bills out there that we can also consider.

>> so g would this language ?

>> both of these bills are still in the early stages of the process. So we have plenty of time to add ments on and we have been--to add amendments on and we have been discussing that option with them. Sb 137 actually as written a will take care of our needs.

>> you don't need to tag anything onto 137 if you can get that passed. That gives you, Commissioner, what you the sh road east of I 35.

>> yes, all the roads mentioned in the backup, 71, 138, 812.

>> any road on the state highway system.

>> yeah.

>> any unincorporated area.

>> item f is senator watson's toll roads bill and we have been discussing possibly adding our amendments to them but we'd like to wait a little bit and also see the progress of the five or six billboards bills there are out there I think any of them, we would be able to insert our language. It's just a matter of if the author would be nguage is nelson's language. I think that is exactly what we want to insert. If nelson's doesn't fly and watson's does, is is that the a motion to support f because it may be our vehicle as well.

>> right. I second that on you that bill. Representative iset filed hb 35 3534 which is the revenue cap bill. It may be up for hearing fairly quickly. We don't know at this point. It hasn't been assigned to a committee yet. The one request that we have had from some of the legislators that are in the same, that support the same position you do that is to vote to oppose revenue caps, have asked in the next week, if you would personally visit with members of the local delegation to express your opposition to revenue caps. And so, if you want, we can divide the delegation up and assign you each one or two to call or however you want to do that. That would be the main thing right now. Judge, this is probably a good example of what we were talking about before. This is one place where the paper probably isn't going to help that much. We really do need conversation directly with the delegation to let them know this is an important issue to you

>> now, we have plenty from your statewide organizes that you belong to, lots of stuff in yig that we are making available to those offers right now at the staff level. But if you want to put together something separate, we can deliver that as well. That would be great, to

>> ...historically. I’m suggesting that our reason reasonable legislators will want to know, why this is a good thing? I don't know that they say the state will impose first if it's a good thing.

>> is this the rule that we should draft a letter of opposition sm.

>> since are you opposed, yes, this should have something in writing. All that I was saying, if you don't want to take those steps right now, we would welcome this and get that distributed for you you. But there was a request made specifically to us to ask the courts, the Commissioners courts to make calls to the delegation within the next week to ten days in the event this comes up in the next at I think what the me of our delegation need is a one- one-page or two-page bullet formatted summary. Reasons why we think revenue caps and I would venture that ar susan has that in hand. Or not ?

>> we probably have a lot of materials that we used in prior sessions. We certainly could pull up the reasons that you had expressed previously and then decide whether those are still the reasons or do you want to add or subtract from that. I’d be happy to do that.

>> one or two page. Bullet summary.

>> you recognize that we don't of reading material. They will appreciate one or two pages of that is spoken as two- two-time legal counsel to the house labor committee and the law clerk at the copy of the bi. Related to collection of delinquent court fines and fees. We have been working on collections program here. This would change the bracketing that's currently in state law. Right now, only the city of houston can charge an up to 30 percent service fee for internal collections of delinquent court fines and fees, oath otherwise the account has the option to go to a third-party vendor. This takes off the bracketing and would allow, it's permissive would allow the county to have an in house collections and serve, and charge the up to 30 percent service fee for the collections on delinquent cases. Industry that collects fees for the same service.

>> you don't have to do it, it would just gift--give the county the flexibility. Right now we were asked to put the rfp for countiwide inventor to do delinquent court cost collections. We are still working on that. Nty in a position where it would want to hold things longer, thinking that it could, because that's what we are going to be accused of. You guys want it, you all are going to be able to, quite frankly, we probably, even if we collect 30 percent, we probably don't cover our costs but we probably could never convince anybody of that anymore than appraisal caps are a bad idea. You just can't, I don't think that you can win that argument out on the street. I mean, so I am nervous about it for that reason.

>> the other thing is, if people are independent gent and can--in can--indi and cannot pay to begin--indigent and cannot pay to begin with, where is the safeguard to be sure we weren't piling on additional debt.

>> right, I did print the code of criminal procedure where all this is located and there is a specific segment where indigent cases are sent back to the judge to be discussed. And it laws for serving out of jail time and also for community service to be considered. So it's not just an automatic, you go, you have a 30 percent tacked on, and you have to do that. If there's extenuating circumstances, inability to pay, they are referred back to the judge.

>> you would not serve time because you could not pay a deb.

>> for the misdemeanors, that would not be the program we would want to follow?

>> I want to make sure everybody understand that as time goes by.

>> representative is from ?

>> I’m not sure.

>> -- going--Commissioner Daugherty. Any under k ?

>> if we can cover k and l and jump back this bill would require tc e q to be more diligent in regarding of the issuance of air quality permits. Specifically, it requires tceq to consider best available col technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, and cumulative impact of facilities down wind of the facility for a significant source. This bill would also apply to permits issued or renewed but still pending in which construction has begun but the facility not operational. This bill would protect the public health, the environment, along with the interests of Travis County. Because of the more strict requirements placed upon pceq in reviewin .

>> second. I second that. I want to be sure we get a clear an understanding of the cumulative winds, prevailing winds coming from all different sources. That accumulation as far as the modeling, the amount of pollutants, that would be taken into consideration. We know this stuff is still not restricted within borders. There has to be prevailing winds other impacts, that surge here within Travis County as far as the air quality concerns. So when you refer to the cumulative aspects of this, can you help me out a little bit ?

>> yes, sir, I can. I’ll use an example. In the coal plant issue, there are three permits that are currently being considered by tc tceq that would have an impact on the Austin area even though they are not being built in Austin. The facilities are outside of the Austin jurisdiction. But this bill would require the impact of these facilities on all three of them, the cumulative impact on the Austin area because we are down wind from these facilities tty fash r giving tceq the ability to effectively stop a permit, especially if you are all tering a permit. I would imagine industry is probably pretty interested in this.

>> I believe they are.

>> knowing that part of our issues is with the prevailing southeast winds, that we take a lot of pollutants our direction from the coast. On the surface, you know, I think it's a great idea to let somebody know that hey, we need some help with that. I would manualen this thing has a lot of opposition before industry.

>> there bill would only apply to significant sources.

>> what is the difference between a significant and in insignificant business ?

>> the alcoa power plant compared to a small mom and pop body emissions repair car proba you. It's based upon the amount of ton emitted. My mind is a little rusty on that. I believe it's 250 tons per year year. I could be mistaken. I could get the answer to we know we have major issues here with those kind of things.

>> it's tons--

>> you don't know what impact it's really going to have. There are things, if you just take the thu stuff, yes, we need to stop the pollution, especially from the other power plants. But at some point in time, you know, forcing people into things that may have, you know, a consequence that, you know, your electric bill just went up 25 percent. How do you like that. If you get the every day person, oh, it was easy for me to tell me that I am against air pollution but I didn't know that's what it was going to create. So it's a little hard to take by just kind of going, yeah, we are for this thing. We are spending 15 million to bring every business that we can imagine into this town d. I would think that some of these businesses might go, you know, we are sorry we got you to come to town.

>> it only requires tceq to consider. It doesn't require them to en enforce bact best available control technology, or the low of the achievable emissions rat.

>> it's very guarded.

>> the point is this though. And this is factual stuff. The point is this. We are right at the brink of bidding. Right now you have attainment and nonattainment. All indicators are showing that we are getting pretty close to being in nonattainment status. I think we need to aggressively, in my opinion, because there are serious consequences if we have to be mandated to come into attainment situations as far as air quality is concern. That's going to be tremendous impact on all of us. I think we need to aggressively, in my opinion, do what we need to do to make sure that we stay within the status that we need to be in so we won't be assessed other consequence entative howar. And in this situation, this is a support bill, if you would just let us ask her or her staff what they want from you. They may want a resolution. They may want some one to come over and testify. So if we can handle for our own delegation a little differently, we'll find out and then we'll just go ahead and let you all know. If they want a witness or they just want a card or they want a resolution, we.

>> okay. Consider me in support of whatever you choose to do on that. By senator watson. This bill gives the Commissioners court the authority to designate specific unincorporated areas as population with a density equal to that of the city. So can then enforce burn bans or restrictions on fireworks. So this is a bill that we would be in favor of. It would make an offense under the section of class d misdemeanor.

>> move approval.

>> s .

>> other than that, we have the status report in front of you. If you would like to us go through all the bills that we have filed on your behalf to just give you a very brief up update. We now have bill numbers for all of our bills. They have all been filed.

>> all right. Anything that needs to be highlighted ?

>> I don't think so, your honor. It's a three-page report and it gives you the latest action. Summary of the bill.

>> okay.

>> everything has been filed that you requested. Several of the bills have already, are on the local consent.

>> okay.

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 14, 2007 8:00 AM

March 13, 2007 Item 23

March 13, 2007
Item 23