Travis County Commissioners Court
March 20, 2007
Item 30
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
Duties of a transportation infrastructure services district created by a municipality imposing taxes and authorizing bonds. E, s b 1689 relating to the municipalities that may annex an area for limited purposes. F, senate bill 1690 relating to the authority of a county to joan, apply building standards, impose impact fee fees in an area near certain toll projects, providing a penalty. And g, discussion of other bills and legislative issues and necessary. Morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners am we only have two presentations for you this mork. One would be by me just going over the priority bills in the new reporting format. And then joe is here to discuss some of the lan use bills. If it's okay--land use bills bills. If it's okay with the court, I'm jump in on the priority bills and the new format. I think talia passed out this form to you, priority one bills. The format has the bill number, the author, the relating to clause, companion bills, remarks, generally what the bill does and then below that Travis County, what our position is or what we say about it. Then finally, the action taken of the court, vote five-zero on 1-2-07 to support. And the last action is the last action the legislature took. For example, on h b 1388 has been recommended for the local and consent calendar. I would note that the senate bill 355 which is the companion, has already passed the senate and it's on its way over. So we'll hold up this house bill and then just go with the senate bill to get that one passed. On h b 1488, the next one, which is, deals with the creation of additional county court law number 8, that is on the local and consent calendar in the house for this Thursday and the day after tomorrow. And we expect that to pass. The next one, h b 2365 is the house version of gasby 45, and that's been referred to the house committee on pensions and investments, not set yet. The next one, hb 35059 by pe penya, this is what we have been calling the misdemeanor citation bill and he is the chair of criminal jurisprudence in the house. It's been referred to his committee. Has not been set for hearing yet. Hb 32934 by stroma, this is the bill that addresses the writ of execution issue. That has been filed, has not been referred in the house yet, so nothing we can do on that one yet. Same for h b 3383 by nastat, these are the recommendation recommendations that judge h hoengarten had made to you. The bill has been filed in the house, has not been referred, so no action then. Sb 355 we have already talked about, that has passed the senate. Senate bill 660 by went worth, this is the version of creating county court at law number 8. And senator went worth is not going to be in town tomorrow. It's going to be bumped until next Wednesday. The caveat we want to advice you of, there's another bill out there by senator dunken that would reform the current system and try the make uniform the just difficult unlimits of the county courts to $100,000 throughout the states. County courts above that amount would be converted. I think there's an option in there, but converted to a district court. In even event, senator duncan's office came to senator went worth's office and said, would you except an amendment to your bill on county court law number 8 to either make it a district court or to go ahead and drop the jurisdictional limit from 250,000 down to $ $100,000. And we have discussed that with senator wentworth. He is having an amendment prepared.
>> drop the difficultel limit to what ?
>> --just difficultel limit to what--jurisdictional limit to what ?
>> to 100,000. The it is our understanding that they are going to prepare an amendment that would drop the jurisdictional limit down to $100,000, con din gent on the passing of sb 1204 but duncan. So only if duncan's bill passes would the jurisdictional limit drop down to 100,000. If his bill does not pass, and assuming sb 660 passes, then it would, the only condition on that court would be a preference for criminal case. It would not have, the jurisdictional limit would stay at the 250,000 like the other county courts. Any questions about that one one? Okay. Next page, sb 1102 but kung kungen, and that's the senate version of gasby 45 that was heard yesterday in committee in the senate state affairs committee. We had brilliant testimony by susan safataro and judge briscoe. I guess judge, you actually actually--
>> brilliant standing by.
>> okay.
>> but he was there and supporting it. And that bill is pending. I support they will wait a week or so before they decide to vote that out. Finally, I think our last bill, no, we have two more. Sb 1269 by west, and that is the senate version of the writ of execution bill. Finally, senate bill 1622 by senator watson, and that was the warrant fee bill that constable elfont brought to you, raising that fee from 50 to 75, and also clarifying some language within that bill. And that has been filed. Has not been referred so we can't do anything yet. That's the format we'd like to use. If that works for you. We'll update you on the relevant bills, the priority bills each week, just the ones that have had some action. Then we also have for your information, Travis County priority two bills. Those will be every single bill that you take a vote on during the session. And it will be in the same format. It will have comments, it will have the actual vote that you took. We will update this as we go through the session. And this currently it's at 2 22 bills. I would imagine at the end of the session it's probably going to be 50 or 60 bills that you will probably have taken a position on. And that we will be taken some action on that we will recommend to you based on what the author of the bill, if we are supporting it, suggests to us. If we are opposing the bill, most likely it's going to be a letter from you all, stat stating what your opposition is, or testimony from either from one of you all or from a staff person here. And finally, if we haven't given you enough reports, we have one final report, which is Travis County monitor billings. And those are county bills in general that affect the county. Late at night when you can't sleep, if you pull this one out, it will solve all your sleep problems. With that, junk, that will conclude our report. Unless you have any questions. I think the only other ones are from joe senate bill. 1688, 1689, and 1690. 1688 by and large are the authorities granted to the city of Austin within five miles of sh 130. 1689 relate to the powers of other smaller cities within the 130 corridor. And 1690 is the county land use bill. All three of them are related and are somewhat spawned from the discussions we have had about the impact of sh 130 in the development that will come about as a result of a a major thorough fare like that. The bill laws the city of Austin to create a transportation infrastructure service district. In reit's it's more than transportation. They can do water and wastewater, drainage, regional detention, sidewalks, road waist, basically an infrastructure district as opposed to a transportation district. Transportation only in that it's related to sh 130. But it grants the crit council the--city council the authority to great the district. No election is required. Within the five miles of sh 130 they can create the special district. Within that district they can apply beth a sales tax, a two percent sales tax, as well as a property tax not to exceed the tax rate applied by the city of Austin currently within the corporate . And upon the creation of the district, the area within the district is automatically annexes into the city for limited purposes. To understands the nature of this bill, the city of Austin right now has the ability to annex for limited purpose but they have to provide full service to that area within three years. So there's somewhat of a break on how much land they are going to anincome because of the cost of providing full service--a service--anext because of the cost of providing full service. What this bill does, after the district is created, it's automatically placed in a limited purpose annexation status. But the lilt, they have up to 15 years before they have to annex for full purpose d the district itself, then, has the taxing authority to be able to provide infrastructure to develop development within that limited purpose area. So they have both the wherewithal to finance the infrastructure, but also the full regulatory framework of the city of Austin, which would include all their building codes, zoning, all of the authorities they would normally exercise over development, as if it were in the corporate limits. So for all practical purposes, it's, when they create the district, it is somewhat like the corporate lynch of the area in terms of their ability to generate tax revenue as well as regulate. But other items regulation development. And the city somewhat can preempt us on financing the infrastructure within that same area. How the city will apply this it's probably primarily within their water and wastewater service area. Even though it says five miles within 130, I believe they intend to apply this to a much, perhaps a smaller area. And that area is the service area of their own water and wastewater service. That is pretty much west of sh 130. It includes where it is east of 130, an area like wild horse ranch, which pretty much stradles 130. Then there's ania to the northwest of manor, a large chunk of area up there also on somewhat both sides of sh 130. For the most part what you are looking at is all of the area, the unincorporated area between sh 130 and the current city limits. That is the bulk of the area that we would expect them to form this economic district and become city limited purpose area.ccm . Pretty much .
>> as far as what they are able to provide the water.
>> right.
>> just basically following that type of jurisdictional boundary.
>> they are not limited.
>> not limited.
>> by this legislation to provide service only one their ccn.
>> correct.
>> they cr, if they have an agreement of an add joining ccn, they can use the proceeds from the infrastructure district to finance water and wastewater improvements in an add joining ccn.
>> right.
>> they would need the approval of that ccn to do that.
>> exactly.
>> just like they can build roads in and outside the infrastructure district. I think economics itself is going to probably limit just how much they do that. Ner not going to collect sales tax and prompt tax within the district and start financing whole sale improvements outside the district. They won't have enough money do that. There's constraint in just how much taxes they can collect and how far it will go.
>> who is the sponsor of 168 1688. Watson. Watson is stoncerg all three of these. D?b sponsoring all three of these the cosponsor is cruse in the house. I don't know ho the sponsor is on 1689 in the house. Oh, stroman is the costoncer of 12689, which deals with other municipalities. 1689 is somewhat similar to 1688 in that it grants Pflugerville, Round Rock, george town, some of the smaller cities, the ability to annex for current purpose purpose. They will be grant that had authority under 1689. There's a couple other things I want the say about the city's bill. They will be able to enter into agreement with private entities to reimburse them for infrastructure costs they do not have, surprisingly, they do not have the power of eminent domain, which could become problematic as they start to implement the infrastructure infrastructure. And if they cannot acquire property to run the line, then they may run up into some issues.
>> this will be land outside of their corporate jurisdiction.
>> that's right. Yes, that's correct. It will be within their limited purpose incorporation. I don't know what, in terms of condemnation, whether that grants them the authority to condemn within a limited purpose area, whether it's the same as corporate limits. That's probably a legal issue.
>> should I assume the cities want this new authority ? The table for the discussion discussion? The three bills in combination, I mean, they were constructed together. Just you're dealing with the authorities where those authorities want additional authority. Our bill, for instance, will pick up where the cities leave off. Our bills go beyond the interest of the small cities and of the city of Austin. We are actually going out into the area where the cities do not have water and wastewater service areas. Some areas it goes out where there are no other city regulations. They go beyond the e tj, where in fact there are no development regulations other than the county. So we go beyond these areas. Under 1690, rather than an economic development district or infrastructure development district, where the county would levy a property tax or sales tax, we're relying in 1690 with an impact fee to finance the infrastructure. What we would do is create fees that roughly tie the cost of the infrastructure to the intensity of the development that is coming forward. So we have a development coming in that has 1,000 single family units, we would calculate the demand that those thousand units put on the transportation system, the water and wastewater system, and we would basically, from the fee collected, it would go into a pot to finance the regional infrastructure. We would be required under 1690 to put together what we would call our capital improvements program. We would have to map out what we expect to spend money on with these fees. So there would be some master plan that says o kay, we're going to do, you know, a widening of such and such a road in the next five years and it's going to cost this, and this is how we expect to use the money derived from these fees. But all of that in the sh 130 area. Our bill, 1690, has a scope of 15 miles from the center line of sh 130. So it literally encompasses all of eastern Travis County pretty much though the county line. Again going back just wreave wreavejust--briefly to 1688, the city's bill, it's not clear in my mind whether county property is subject to the property tax levied by the infrastructure district. That may be something the court would want to consider amending the bill to make sure that tax exempt property, which would the 3 300 ache--which would include the 300 acres of southeast central park, are not subject to the city's that question. Our bill, 1690, basically does two things. It grants the county the same authority the cities would have to zone. And that gets the ability to regulate. Density, height of buildings intensity of use, the type of use, the location of the use, I mean, I think you have heard this morning the litany of things that we talked about on that particular subdivision of those are the type of things that would be granted to the county in this area. It will also law us to calculate and leavy an impact fee as prescribed already in the local government code. Impact fees are not new. The cities currently have the authority. The law is pretty specific on how you do that. Have you to have a basis for it. You have to have a plan. You have do have a program of improvements, you have to do some accounting for it. Basically, it's pretty much you have got to show how you calculate the fee, what it's going to be used for, and then report on how it's used over time. We would just basically tie in to that existing coast, but for the county outside the corporate limits. In this case, it only applies to the 15-mile year on either side of sh 130, exempt where that 15 miles west of 130 is limited by the corporate limits of Austin. So it doesn't reach beyond the city going west. You are really just taking up the area between the city of Austin's eastern most limit to sh 130. And understand that a portion of that area is going to be within this infrastructure district that the city creates that will have probably superior authority to the county. I think in program-- program--practical terms, the authority that 1690 gives to the county is east of sh 130. Perhaps a little bit down towards creed more and Mustang Ridge where the crit will will--city will probably not include that area within their area of limited purpose. It kind of flares out. We probably pick up all of far south Travis County to the hays county line, between I 35 and 130. That would also be area covered by this particular bill.
>> would the county be able to do that under 1690 in areas where there is already where there are already small cities ?
>> no.
>> Mustang Ridge, they would would--
>> they supercede.
>> cities are going to trump us in all case.
>> do we think that 1690 is a good thing for us ?
>> I believe so. I mean, if your objecttives are to control development within the sh 130 corridor, you really have to have two things. You have to have the ability to regulate the land use and the ability to finance the infrastructure. That way you can get the orderly development that you are expecting to get. If you do not have these authorities, you are pretty much falling back to the authorities you currently have, which you can regulate subdivisions. To the extent that you want to issue county debt to pay for the infrastructure, you can certainly continue do that. As we know, we bump up against our own debt limits doing that. We'll be able to do some infrastructure improvements but probably not on a grand scale give than that same source of debt is countiwide countiwide. Not just 130. What you may have, and this is probably the biggest danger here, the cities may get their authorities and the county won't. And there I think there's a danger of seeing kind of an east-west divide where you will have the ability to finance improvements west of 130 but not the ability to finance east of 130. You will have regulated development west of 130 , un unregulated development east.
>> that was my point.
>> you can have a dynamic set up here that you will get interior development or at least unregulated develop development east of 130.
>> exactly.
>> and it doesn't take long for the development community to understand the difference between regulations and sort through what they can do on one side of the finance or the other. So that's one of the things I think we need to be conscious of. These bills were proposed together as three bills, complimentary bills.
>> is are they not part of the same bill? Basically 1688 and 1690 ?
>> I think there are probably some practical considerations given to the ability to get some adopted and not others. In all candor, we are county government. We asking for authorities that we don't have. The other bills are really asking for an extension of authorities that the cities already have authority for. They have the ability for limited purpose. They want to relax the three three-year full purpose or full service. They want to get 15 years. It's always easier to amend existing legislation than to governmenter brand new stuff stuff. I think it's a--than to go after brand new stuff. I think it's based on our limited legislations with the builders and some other groups, I would say it's going to be a very, very uphill struggle. That's not to say that they won't sit down the table and discuss it. I think they will. And if the court ends up voting in favor, we will do everything we can--
>> the court has already voted in favor. On it not knowing, I mean, there is some differences in what we voted on and what's in this thing.
>> the only difference that you cited is the difference in a vote.
>> I don't recall that we voted really.
>> I don't think we didif our goal is to get 1690 enacted, what's the best strategy, are we best not discussing that ?
>> I'd recommend we not s oustrategyn time. Thbis have rec lot of attention over the last session of the legislature, so there is a historical track record for us to look at as to what the legislature has done with these billings. The legislature has not changed dramatically in terms of how they are likely to look at these bills, but I think that the necessity of grappling with these issues get more and more obvious every session. My hope is that there will at some point be an engaged discussion about what to do with these bills or about this issue. Thus far, from my perspective, all that's happened, two sides very very far apart have focused on their positions rather than trying to find the possibility of middle ground ground. I'm not sure. Maybe there isn't middle ground on some of these bills.
>> the point is this, though though. Here is the point. I don't know how to say it any clearer than what I have said here for a long long, long long, long long time. We do have a divide in this community. Who --whether folks will admit it or not, we have some very unstabling quality of life issues here in Travis County. I'm going to take a position to correct that problem. If this bill 1690 is a way to alleviate some disparity treatment of one portion of the county with the other portion of the c?lt, I'm going to stay up for s b 169 1690. That's very plain. Let me give some examples of what we are talking about here. Yes, it does giver you some zoning authority. Where by we will be able to locate commercial with commercial, residential with residential, and industrial with industrial. Which is very critical. Why, you say , Commissioner Davis, do you say that? I say it because of this reason and many, many, many, many other reasons. No doubt about it that sh 130 will become an economic divide, east versus west scenario, again, as demonstrated over the years by I 35 it will be a similar situation if we do not do anything about this right now as far as land use planning, as far as sh 130 is concerned. We are not really asking for a heck of a lot. We are just asking to control a destiny in some type of way where we will have some type of regulated growth in the area where we can assemble these particular, in common, type of development in defined areas. I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see wrong with it is when, in operations. If folks don't know what those are, I'll tell you. That's where you take the septic sludge out of septic tanks from wherever and deposit them in that part of the community, which is a problem for folks that live over there. Quality of life issue. Quality of life issue. Same thing as far as landfills. Landfills, where are they? On the eastern side of Travis County. We are struggling with that right now. We are trying to regulate it where by we can locate common development where it won't be an impediment toward this particular community. And folks have said, this is what we want. Sick and tired, every time you look around, you come down here and have to fight some of these. We have will many battles, even had to come up with a solid waste ordinance looking for ways to deal with stuff. So it's a serious problem as far as dealing with this issue in this part of the community. I'm going to stand up. I don't care if I'm the only one up here to stand up for it. But I'm going to stand up for my precinct. And that's a position you take. We are electd to take positions. If we are electd to vote on how we see things and how it affects the community, the well being of all of Travis County when I vote for things on the west side to protect the interests of the west side, I expect the same treatment for the east side of I 35. I expect the same treatment. Now, it's not --sometimes it's not delivered that way but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I don't know how to say it other than what I am saying now. This bill does give us something where by we will have some type of authority to dictate what's happened with this massive brand new corridor sh 130 where counties will be able to regulate with some degree the future of growth. Otherwise it will be left out and we will have to wait on the mercy of someone to bring us the type of infrastructure, future annex annexation possibilities east of sh 30 that are not there now. I think the folks are for some relief--are ready for some relief. We are fighting battles continuously on this side of the community. I think it ought to better myself. I will leave it at that.
>> there's a motion for us to put together a strategy to try to garner support for 1690 if we support it? Legally without doing it in open court. I guess the process here is what I'm asking for.
>> I would suggest, judge, that you and perhaps another member of the court, perhaps Commissioner Davis, might consider sitting down with one or two of the key legislators that we can help direct you to, where they can understand the issues that you specifically have concerns about. And you can help figure out whether there is some portion of these bills that might represent a first step and be accomplishable this session. Maybe there is a path to the top of the mountain as opposed to us getting there all in one fell swoop. I'm not sure that's the case case. I think that's one scenario for you to consider. I would also point out that these bills kind of cut both ways in terms of development in this sense. They both will prohibit potentially certain types of activities that you might not want in a particular area. But they also, the develop development community, as can you see from vary your parts of Travis County, has expanded dramatically in areas that are not subject to these type of regulations regulations. In other words, the type of growth and tax base and all of that that's occurred in some parts of western Travis County, is because there is no effective regulation. So it's a complex issue that cut all different kinds of ways. My sense, judge, you need to get a firsthand sense from talking to some of the key policy makers, where they are coming from. There are several bills filed this session, too, that come immediately to mind, that represent an exact opposite philosophy, I think, than these bills do. So a good place to start might be sitting down with the author of those bills and trying to understand where they are coming from, and seeing if maybe there is think we ought to adopt one. To explain the vote, our policy is if four or five of us do not support the position at the legislature, we don't take one formally. I think the strategy is important because I have seen the thing voted downtime and time again. I think the other urban counties time and time again we have seen Travis County specific legislation, what I thought was that, die slowly over at the legislature. I mean, if agony doesn't bother me, we can go through it again. If we are going out there, it seems to me we ought to give ourselves the best slot to get it done. Commissioner Davis and eckhardt are a lot more enthusiastic about this than I am. There are other matters that I'm working on that will cut into my time. I really can't take another commitment of this nature now.
>> let me say, you brought up the development community community. Let me say this for the record. There are a lot of develop development communities that are in favor of 1690.
>> yes, sir.
>> let's don't look at this and say, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Gomez, eckhardt we have a loft folks, we are committed to do--we have a lot of folks committed to do just this and hopefully the county will take a position. Because they have been here all along working on a lot of things over here because they understand that the future potential sh 130 corridor is a very viable option and they understand these things.
>> I agree.
>> it's not that when you say development, it's bigger than what we are talking about here. There are some things that maybe latent and have been flushed out, but there are folks that aproof of sb 169 on 0, and I'm saving from the development world.
>> do we believe senator watson has a strategy for 1690 ?
>> judge--
>> do we believe that senator watson has a strategy ?
>> yes, sir, I think he does have a strategy for it. I think he has visited with several senators about it. He's very enthusiastic and maybe even optimistic about making progress with this bill.
>> okay. Commissioner Daugherty and Davis, you all any other community inside Travis County in creating quality of life and making this growth so as Commissioner Davis scrikes, --describes, we can chart our own destiny and not leave it to the market.
>> I don't know that lofty speeches will help us. There is a reality we have to deal with.
>> one of the reeights is this court voted unanimously in favor of the intent of the bill before it was filed.
>> that was the intent.
>> and the only thing that was different substantively was the moratorium vote.
>> if it was than house, I must have voted for it then. I did not today. But I can if there is a strategy, and I would start with senator watson, chatting with hill, to see exactly what he has in mind. There are other steps I think that need to be taken. Mr. Camp.
>> the other comment I would make, first of all, the bill it's brought by one of our local tell tages, for that reason I'm sure--delegation, I'm sure he would love to have the Commissioners court support. The other part, you know the legislative process, it's a negotiation process. We need folks just to get in there and start talking and see what is possible. That didn't happen, partially because senator watson was just elected. He didn't have the benefit of interim to work this. So when I was responding that this is an uphill battle, what I'm saying, we are here in the middle of the session. It's going to take a lot of meetings and negotiations. We can help facilitate that through joe and other Commissioners that would like to do that. I think we can make some progress. I think senator watson would appreciate that as part of his strategy to get the bill passed. I think he would appreciate the endorsement of the court for us to work on it.
>> I will commit to chatting with senator watson and having this matter back on there.
>> this does not proinclude us individually--preclude us individually as we did in the past. If I support something and somebody else doesn't, I can still submit a letter from my office saying that I support this particular bill.
>> have I no problem with that.
>> just to clarify, judge, our general position as your consultants is not to work on matter unless the court gives us instruction to do so. I think it would be consistent with what the curt has has--the court has said for us to continue visiting with senator watson watson's office and doing due diligence on where the bill stands and what its prospects are and what strategy might be being develop sod that we can report back to the court on that. I'm assuming that's consistent with our charge.
>> I don't have any problem with it.
>> okay.
>> my commitment is I will personally try to chat with senator watson myself about 190 between now and next-- next--about 1690 between now and next Tuesday and have it back on.
>> okay.
>> these bills are entwined yet standing alone. And it's kind of like riding throughen my territory. A group of you, one of of you may survive. One by one you get pecked off. And there is a political reality here that we have to deal with whether we like it or not.
>> one thing I might point out, judge, just to put this in a little bit better context, I drafted, and the legislature adopted, a strat stratstatute that is not wildly dissimilar from this one called city south for the city of and of--san antonio two or three session sessions ago, intended to help with the land use planning where the toyota facility has been belt, with a Texas a and m campus is being placed and the former kelly air force base is located, a huge develop the area. That bill was not ly as far reaching in terms of the some of the authorities granted to that special district, but it did provide baseline planning and land use authority.
>> for bexar county.
>> bexar county. It's the law today. San antonio has implemented that. So my only point of that is that it is not beyond reason reasonable expectation that if a local delegation supports a particular planning mechanism and it fits within at least some parameters, that the legislature might approve it
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 21, 2007 8:00 AM