Travis County Commissioners Court
March 27, 2007
Item 38
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
38. Consider and take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature, including the following: 1. Senate bill 1204: relating to reorganization and administration of, and procedures relating to, courts in this state, including procedures for appeals; 2. Senate bill 1688: relating to the creation, powers and duties of a transportation infrastructure services district created by a municipality; imposing taxes and authorizing bonds; 3. Senate bill 1689: relating to the municipalities that may annex an area for limited purposes; 4. Senate bill 1690: relating to the authority of a county to zone, apply building standards, and impose impact fees in an area near certain toll projects; providing a penalty; 5. House bill 3305 and senate bill 1553: relating to personal and monetary bail bond requests; 6. House bill 3738: relating to the establishment and operation of personal bond offices; and 7. Discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary. 8. Added item: house bill 3447: relating to the authority of certain counties to regulate land development; and 9. Added item: house bill 1: general appropriations.
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> I believe that item is going to be presented by transportation natural resources.
>> which item ?
>> the one you just announced, 3447.
>> hjust for the court's information, all three of those bills are set for hearing tomorrow, Wednesday.
>> do you know what time? Set for hearing?
>> ...we discussed but did not take action on 1688 and 1689.
>> judge, would I move approval...
>> ...upon the following. One is support from city of Austin and the other powers that bebe of 190 in--of 1690 in exchange for our support of 1688. Second is our agreement to try to implement a strategy that will help us get these passed if we in fact support them. And that involves workinging with conference of urban counties, seeing where tack tackstands and if they are not supportive, if they will remain neutral. No way to get around probably the state association. I don't know whether the Texas municipal league is important or notlve seems to me at some point they will get ingained, won't they-- they--engaged, won't they? My own view is if we support these we ought to try to get the work necessary to get them passed. Otherwise, I know 1690 will be doa. It is easy to soot down one of those and pass the other two. If we don't have in exchange for our support on 88 and 89 seems to me that we ought the get their support on 169 1690. That was east Texas common sense. I felt that way before I finished high school. The question is whether there's any okay.
>> ...i mean, for example, I think if we can get the county having control over imim---- imim----impervious ground cover , even though it doesn't affect eastern Travis County, everybody know how electrifying that ground cover and water quality, because it is a mechanism to take your property. I will tell you that there are no people on the east side anymore supportive of that than on the west side if they really thought that the county was going to come out and impose what you could put on the property that you own. I know that that is a major sticking point for 1690. I think that you probably could find a way to sit down with the senator, not like anybody wants to disagree with senator watson. We all know what he is trying to did with the other two, with the city of Austin giving him help. I'm supportive of that and I think hose people are. The thing that absolutely electrifies a large number of people in the state is when you start dealing with impervious ground cover limitations because you basically are taking people people's property. That is at least mentality that you have. So if there's some way that you can deal with that so that it tells people, you know, maybe that's, you can build on 50 percent of your land. I mean, give somebody the authority. Let's fateface it, if you use sos rules and regulation regulations in in community, if you take a 50 percent imp impervious cover, there are part in this community where you absolutely cannot build on your prompt. No one is for that, whether you are in east Travis County or west Travis County county. There has to be a way to sit down and say, senator, can we either give the clarity that you can at least use 50 percent of your property but not caught in the deal with it's a taking of your property. I think we probably could work with the senator on that. And from the conversations that I am having that is really the deal with 1690, as it is the deal with representative rosen's deal, because it again starts talking about impervious cover as it relates to water quality.
>> isn't it...
>> ...a number of interested parties out there that will focus on some of the issues that Commissioner dougherty has identified.
>> also in os cover and density, and perhaps tnr could speak to this, that since 1690 and the other two are confined the a corridor related to the 130, that this is in a portion of Travis County where actually what we have seen in the past we will see a 180, actually density is preferred, impervious cover is not as big of an issue. We don't have carst fee ours or bluff or the sort of fee that require a reduction in density and in impervious cover. The only obviously environmental feature we are dealing with is the colorado river. So in regard to this bill and where it applies, what developers complained about in the past regarding density limitations and impe impervious cover will not most likely be an issue in 9 99.9 percent of the case. Is that a fair statement, tn tnr, since you all deal with this region all the time as far as position platting ?
>> to my , I would say say-- say--to my knowledge, I would say that is an accurate statement. I don't know what karst features we have specifically in that area. I think we usually have the floodplain and the, what's the thing, no, I will think of the word.
>> drainage.
>> not the drainage. The leachate and the plants that grow out there. I will think of it.
>> what's the word.
>> wetlands.
>> thank you. Wetlands. That's probably the major area, environmental feature in that area, would be the wetlands that I recall that we have. So, she is right in that.
>> but caro...
>> ...meeting with the builders and with a lot of developers property owners, everybody at the table, and say do you understand what these things are. Now, I think joe has told us that that has not been the case...
>> ...bill as it's been filed.
>> I think it's the time to talk about it. I think once you vote on it, you know, it's got that momentum. Why do you have the incentive to sit down with somebody and say, okay, let's talk about it. I think--
>> because it's good policy.
>> hu people in eastern Travis County who moved out there to get away from urban regulations. To the extent that a bill like this restrict others, they will welcome it. To the extent that it re restrict them, they won't. And when they, the impact, it cuts both ways. Cut against your neighbor and cut against you too in terms of how you use your property. But if we are in agreement on the strategy and moving on these, I I think council woman cheryl col erk was outside of the room when he mentioned the co...
>> ...over the years looking at the possibility of having land use and the economic development scheme of things, what a lot of concern is in the community is not having any control of unwelcome things that have been overwhelming. If you look at the dispro disproportionate assignment of unregulated, I guess, un unregulated placement of un unwanted things right next-door or in close proximity to neighborhoods and stuff like that. They are really concerned about that. Of course, I think this will give an opportunity to look at land use. Again, all the economic development meetings that I have had over the years and all the input, again, I keep going back to some type of situation where we can look at commercial going commercial and residential going with residential and industrial going with industrial. The bottom line, when we look at this, of course, who is all in support of it and stuff like that. We have had several persons that are in support of sb 1690 as it is now and they understand that it needs to be worked on and stuff like that and flushed out. I think at the end of the day, just from the service and things like that, we have had had a lot of support for that. So again, looking at support I guess it would be good for the city of Austin to take a position on 1690. I guess if council member co cole will come up I guess and maybe tell us what we can end up doing from the city's perspective, hopefully leading to something where the city could say, hey, we would like to maybe share in the support of sb 1690. It's a county deal in the un unincorporated area. It even even what is bigger, this is a really big deal, as I keep seeing. Let me give some examples of some other stuff with the transit oriented development stuff, looking at the rails. That's a hot topic in the community. A lot of the rail coming in from here, downtown, for example, one of the proposed routes goes through un unincorporated area of precinct one and some into precinct four. So it is a big deal across the board. How are we going to deal with this kind of stuff. We don't have any tools, folks. We don't have any tools. We are just going to lay lay lay--back and say hey, you all, let's just let it happen we don't have any tools. If we don't do anything about it. That's exactly what is going to happen. Not having any tools to deal with growth coming to this area. Now, it appears to me that we have a golden to--golden opportunity to say, senator watson, here what it is, we know you are working on it, we know at the end of the day the may need modification , but I think there needs to be a clear signal in my opinion coming from this Commissioners court, nothing this is not always where it's going to ends up at, let's move forward because of all these things happening in the eastern part of Travis County, not only with sh 130 but also some of the potential of some of the transit oriented development and also the ddz, with the city of Austin looking at, the desired development zone if folks don't know what that is. I'm going to let the city speak to some of that. We are going to need some tools to work with folks, that's all there is to it.
>> the motion before us is for us to support and work to obtain and secure the passage of 1688, 1689, 1690. 1690 is Travis County. The analogy, my position is in exchange for our support and willingness to work for 1688 and 1689, those affect affected by those two should agree to support us on 1690 and work to get it passed. The analogy that I used last week, and I believe is true today, is that if you are riding throughen my territory alone--through enemy territory alone, you will get picked off. If you are riding through that as part of a group, you stand a better chance of survival. So it's the group survival that I'm searching for. I didn't want to you answer the question today. My thing was to condition the support and let the city know. But if you have a response, now is your opportunity.
>> we have been involved in a thing called a process with the parties on 1688, 89 and 90 since the very beginning. The city strongly supports all three bills including 1690.
>> okay. Matter of record. I'm glad to hear you make those . I'm I'm...
>> no.
>> I mean, you put somebody in a spot--
>> I think there's time to get a separate vote.
>> if the two of you want to vote, I don't have a...
>> ...house bill 3305 and s b 1553 relating to personal and monetary bail bond requests.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> .
>> I'm with Travis County regional services and I also brought with me Ron morgan training education coordinator. I wanted to first of all take time to give you a quick thanks for your historical support that you have offered pretrial services over the years. I've been with track have several concerns regarding h b 3305 and sb 1553 and h b 373. It does--338. It does post a significant impact to how we do business at pretrial services one of the things that is we have prayed, and you are familiar with this, we have played a critical role in the managing of the Travis County jail population. We would hope that we continue to play that critical role with managing and helping the sheriff's department in that managing that population. One of the things that I also wanted to stress is that our role at pretrial services is to make recommendations to the judge judges regarding whether or not someone should be releas released from jailjail on a personal bond. The ultimate discretion, how does belong to the district judges or county court law judges or municipal court judges or jp 5 judges one of the things, in cerk all the factors of the case, it really goes back to deciding whether to release somebody from jail on personal bond. The thing about the legislation before you is that it does limit those directives with the judges and the courts... ,
>> ...h b 3305 and s b 1553. The specific issues that raise concerns in our office with those two, first of all it removes specific classes of individuals from eligibility for release on personal bond. It specifies that individuals who have a felony conviction within the past ten years or a consult conviction within the past ten years are not eligible toer considered for release on personal bond, nor individuals on probation or parole, nor individuals currently on bonds, nor individuals who are arrested for certain offenses in the penal code, certain felonies enumerated in the penal code they are as a whole not eligible for being considered by a judge for release on personal bond. Our concern with those issues is that it may result in a need for these individuals then to have to post a financial bail either in the form of a surety bond or by posting the bond at 1 00 percent k whatever the amount has to be. That puts a strain on that particular defendant. Whether or not it means he or she can't make rent or mortgage for the month, or, whether or not it means they would be able to afford to get their own attorney. The impact then that that could play for the county would be an individual who could in the afford to post financial bail will remain in jail. An individual who remains in jail may have to have an attorney appointed. So you will see potentially appointment of attorney numbers go up and the expenses associated with that rise. For individuals in fact released, they have potentially put aside some money just to get out of jail. That money they may not have access tor getting their own attorney and again, they may have to reloi on the appointment of an attorney by the court.
>> assuming the bail is dropped, actually they get an attorney surety, so that some portion of what they are putting up for their bond, usually about ten percent of the bond, goes eventually toward their attorney fees, the attorney who act as bail bonds men, is that correct ?
>> that does happen from time to time, as does attorneys posting personal bonds on behalf of dents.
>> the attorney doesn't post a personal bond.
>> the attorney presents it to a judge.
>> the attorney is not responsible for a personal ...
>> right.
>> that's a fiction district judges and county court judges and I received response from judge baird that he will support us and he would be willing to testify for us if need be. So far that's the only response that I received but I'm hoping that other judges will respond back with input to our department. We are also in communication with other pretrial services across the state of Texas, and I do know for a fact that harris county is also getting together with their legislative aid in trying to oppose some of the bills that we brought bwhat that would do then is result in the fact that on evenings when district court judges are not available, on week weekends and holidays, individuals who would otherwise be generally-- generally--eligible for release would not be able to get out of jail because there is no judge with sufficient jurisdiction to sign a personal personal bond. To give you a snapshot--
>> are you sure that by simply asking the bill sponsor to authorize the district judge to delegate that authority to the county pretrial services department department?
>> we would have to, obviously, ask whether or not that would be an option optionoption. We would have to ask.
>> that would put us where we are today, right ?
>> right now we bring those to small court judges and manage straights in the-- the--magistrates in the jail.
>> the district judges have delegated authority to pretrial services plus the municipal court judges ?
>> the municipal court judge judges have the authority to sign the bonds based on our making a recommendation. The bonds are brought to the municipal court judges for signature. Whether or not it's a matter if it was delegated from the district court judge, I don't know whether or not there was an actual delegation of authority that took place there.
>> is this one of those, have we tried to work with the bill sponsor mthis case? Why wouldn't we support trying to get with the bill stoncstonce--sponsor to make changes that we think are appropriate ?
>> I think that's better.
>> that's a little better than opposing the bill. It is intended to increase the use of bail bond services and to eliminate many categories of the use of personal bond. To that extent I think it's going to be pretty hard to negotiate that philosophical point. We might be able to reduce our increase or keep some of the places where personal bonds are currently being used, for example. The whole point of this bill as I read it, is to enhance access to bail bond services services.
>> what should our petition be then? To oppose it and call the reasons for the opposition to the sponsor's attention? Attention??
>> that's our office's recommendation.
>> not like everybody gets out on personal bond. We at least want to consider consider. If we think personal bond is appropriate, have the powers to be do it. Otherwise we require bail of some so sort.
>> correct.
>> I mean, I would think that the facts would be help helpful to a person whose mind is still open.
>> to give you a snapshot of just how much impact that may have, so far this fiscal year, October to the present 1,347 felony bonds have been signed by judges other than district court judges. Those would be individuals for whom we would have to, whether it's a nighttime or weekend or holiday, or a daytime during the week that a district court judge maybe isn't available, have to hold on to these individuals until we can get the bond signed.
>> if you are not a risk we let you out on personal bond bond. If you are a risk, we require bail bail. But we need the ability to make the call because we eat the cost in in this.
>> exactly.
>> so everybody that fall nooze one of these categories is costing us $40 plus a day. Plus court appointed lawyer. I would put that, I mean, my motion is to oppose but to put together an explanation of reasons why and share that with the bill's sponsor and the other counties so that they will take, and ask them to take pretty much the same position is this.
>> right.
>> and put together a written explanation of the reasons why, share those with the bill sponsor, but also share it with the other counties and try to garner their opposition.
>> judge briscoe, they have already prepared a letter. They should th?b --be in in your packet, lope fully.
>> there's one more house bill we wanted to present.
>> let's get a vote on that one first.
>> okay er eckhardt. If we look at the letter and have comments, call them to your attention ?
>> yes, sir.
>> whaught the other bill ?
>> the second bill is 3738 which at least cording to the long as we see it requires our office to supervise and monitor compliance of all defendants released on a pretrial release of any kind without regard of the type of bail whether out on a personal bond or a cash bond or a surety bond. Our concern with the legislation is that it has the potential to cause a significant increase in the number of individuals who are assigned to super vision by our office. Currently we project having about 6,400 individuals being supervised by the 20 full-time positions we have managing case loads at this time. According to this legislation we could be responsible for over three times that number if the language in the current legislation is what is adopted. Additionally the legislation stands in opposition to the standards of pretrial release produced by the american bar association which calls for release of individuals on the least restrictive conditions necessary in order to ensure their return to court and protect the community. So simply put, there are certain defendants for whom direct supervision is not a necessity in order to get them back to court and protect the community. There is research out there, at leads certainly with probation, that if if--if you overcondition an individual, put too much burden on them, they are more likely to fail. While we don't have empirical certainty to say this, I would venture to guess that also applies to individuals on pretrial release. The legislation runs count tor guidance promulgated by our own association of pretrial service agencies such that we should ensure that responsibility for supervising defendants who are released on financial bond, posted in many cases by a compensated surety, lies with that sewer ty-- ty--surety. The language of the legislation seems to indicate that our office, a public agency, would be responsible for supervising individuals released on compensated surety bond, in essence providing what seems to be a public sub sidiz sidization.
>> pretrial services is funded by Travis County.
>> 1 00 percent.
>> another one of those un unfunded mandates. You all don't like it and think we ought to oppose it.
>> there is a seg element to the bill which is it increases the administrative fee for being released on a personal bond. Right now it's greater of $ $20 or three percent. The language in the statute appears to increase it to the greater of $20 or five percent and then splits the proceeds of that fee between the pretrial services agency and drug courts that meet certain qualifications. We have actually been advised by our colleagues in harris county that they are looking into whether or not that actually legally can be done. Aside from legally, our concern is that it actually raises the cost to an individual of being released on a personal bond. And we would in the like to see that make it something that someone could not attain.
>> what's interesting about that issue, they have to look at all those things and then bring it to the cuc membership for a vote.
>> judge, I would move that we oppose this.
>> yes, sir...
>> ...country land use authority bill. Actually, judge, I'm--
>> judge, I'm going to get john white to speak to that. He perform the analysis on this. Basically in terms of Travis County this speaks to the area that is covered under tv rioritgroundwater management area, which in r case Travis County is not the entircounty but the southwestern corner which is basically underlying the trinity formation. Basically anything to the west and south othe edwards is covered by this and gives enhanced land e authority to municipalities who do you want to addnything ?
>> my name is john white. Progm manager with tn r. I would point out that the bill wouldubstantially increa the county's authority to regulate land. Presumably the restriction is where the authory would apply to prioty groundwar manament areas however e bill is not ve precise and could interpreted to be countiwide countiwide. I thk that would be a very serious consideration. There would probably be some signifant workload for our development services people. However, the tools that are contemplated in this bill would certainly the kind of thingsthat staff would appreciate in terms of environmental quality and environmental otection in a lot of our developing areas. Ain, the focus of the il is priority groundwater management areas. John correctly identified the southwestern part of the county as the area in wch that would be directly applicable. Again, the bill is ambiguous with respect to the extent of the authority.
>> judge, I have a phone call into representative rose because I understand th when he wrote this thing, he really was trying to do something, but obviously with that being part of it, this is exactly what senator watson's bill does, brings it over to the west side.
>> right. 1690.
>> when you start reading, you know, prescribing the density, number of residential units, adopting regulation as to regulate and manage land development, we may have some need for some environmental standpoint. But it is, in my consideration, quite onerous onerous. It will stir the same thing that we had when we were doing the interim rules. The one place that we didn't want to go interim rule were imper--imper vious cover because that is divided.
>> I of course would suggest that on the western side of Travis County, considering that it does contain a portion, has a source of car carst, water recharge, bluff environmental features that make this kind of authority not just desirable but necessary and that there is sufficient pushback from the development community that the likelihood of abusing this authority is rather remote.
>> so you have chatted with representative--
>> chniqually talked.
>> he offered to chat with you ?
>> we already spoke with his office, ust generally asking the qstion out the bill and why they filed it. They did make the comment that they thought it need some work before they could get it passed, that, you know, that it got a lot in it and they know they will haveto negotiate to get something done. In essence, that's what they told us. Probably likmost bills up there.
>> we could support it with the understanding that it requires some work.
>> I'm willing to go and get some information from patrick but I think that what they are saying, there's nothing ambiguous in here. It's pretty clear. I mean, what you want to do with this thing.
>> when you look the information behindhe bill, there are actually a numb of areas throughout the state that it plies to. What they call the ll country, lake --
>> defi that.
>> it's the acronym pgma, priority groundwater manage management area. Basically is a partof the state where nobody, no enty has stepped up and put a groundwater conservation district in place. However, he tcq recognizes these areas as sole source a aadacquifers. Theyeserve e right to take ste action at some pot in the fewerlve they han't acted on that our area but that hangs out there as a possibilitlong term.
>> we are, would--working in western Travis County towards a groundwater did it it. Senator watson and the representative have been working on that. The unfortunate thing is with the likelihood of needing a vote in order to create the groundwater district out there, there are some areas that you have to include like lake way and b k and every one knows that if you include those areas in the groundwater district, those people are most likely going to vote know because there likely will be a charge through them and they already have water. So we were, we went to them hat in hand and said, you know, we really would like to create these district. Because we do need a groundwater district in western Travis County. Especially during these times when we have the drought conditions that we have, because you have to somehow get the people that are already paying for central water and sewer to not, you know, kill your deal. I mean, if they are going to be in it and going to get charged something, and apparently there is something in the legislation that doesn't allow you to, okay, if you are not on a well, then you don't have to worry about it. But apparently you can't exclude that. So therefore, if you are in the pgma, then have you to vote. I think that's the classic example of everybody getting being able to say the camel ub ub--under the tent syndrome. If you vote for this thing even though you say you are not going going--to be charged for it. I think at this stage both the senator and the representative are of the opinion that they are probably not going to be able to legislation-wise get something done unless somebody tags it at 11:58 at night before everything closes or whatever. So that's why we are with this. And if you have read what's going on with a very, very large development in blanco, slash, vernon county, there is some real opposition to doing that. I would suppose that this has--has something to do with that. It's ununfortunate that the way it's written it kind of snares up western Travis County into the thing that causes so much controversy.
>> as it's written right now we thing that it includes ?
>> it definitely does include southwest Travis County, yes, sir. There's even a map that goes along with it.
>> plaiy incles exactly. I guess if you can clarify that
>> yeah. Some of thisstuff, at least the three members of the coissioners court, it's kind of ringing a bell am waback when we were looking at aluvialaquifir, we talked about the way the district are formed and whether or not they become tax district. I guess what you are talkin about is the apprehension for fos primily already on surface water like lake way have a concern that the's an entity out there that may not necessarily en envoc its taxing authority t has the tential to do that.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> am I correct in my reading of this bill that this bill does not correct added taxes, it creates added authority. And the only revenue generator in here is impact fees to the development of areas inside the bill's affected area.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> that is correct.
>> unlike a water district, this does not create a tax taxing entity.
>> judge, if you don't mind, let me get some more information from representative rose and bring it back.
>> that's fine with me.
>> we will give y all bit enhancednalysis.
>> county.
>> we will try to nail down the ambiguity issue.
>> exactly. Thank you.
>> next Tuesday is April.
>> 3rd.
>> okay. Did get a note, no reason to take up a today. The generally appropriations house bill number 1.
>> that was a health and human services request, judge.
>> health and human services step forward. We'll have it back on. They had three or four minute update from the priority legislation. If you want that or we can. If you on the very first page. H b 1388, that is with the 147th district court on the issue of cleaning all that up. Its companion senate 355, s b 355, has already passed the senate and it's been referred back to the house committee. So I think that will be eligible on the local calendar in the house on this Thursday.
>> okay.
>> anyway, thought close to to--that's close to getting done. H b 1488 is county court of law number 8 and that is up in the senate, actually s b 660 is up this afternoon. Excuse me, tomorrow afternoon. So that one also is close. There's a hearing today on the gas by will in the house house. The senate bill is still pending. The misdemeanor citation bill, we're trying to get that set for hearing, 1359. I think we're close to getting a date. The bill by stroma, the where it of execution, wn, wn,ne primarily pieces of farm implements that. As great point because I do not have the expertise to evaluate all of those artifacts. His agency does or a contractor with that expertise might. That was sort of our whole rationale here is that our primary responsibility is as a political subdivision of the state to comply with the state law and this seemed like the simplest way to do it. That's all.
>> can we give the state two weeks or three weeks to let us know what it has in mind? Mr. Denton you know mr. Oaks better than we do. If he were here, would he ask for two or three weeks.
>> I am sure at least three weeks. We could talk with some of our counterparts, particularly lcra and parks and wildlife department very quickly and let you know what they feel bit. Because obviously it will have a fairly big effect on them. Relative to if we decide we are going to head in that direction and develop rules, then we would probably ask you to hold off until after we had those rules in place. And regrettably that would probably take about -- about four to six months to go through that process. Of state rule making. But it's feasible that we could move forward quicker than that. So yeah I think within three weeks we can get back with you about our discussions with lcra and parks and wildlife department.
>> we are planning to take three weeks on...
>> ...i think we're close to getting a date. The bill by stroma, the where it of execution, we are trying to get that set next week.
>> do we know whether the other counties are working to secure the passage of that bill ?
>> we are working closely with harris county but all the large counties are aware of it and supportive and cuc is supportive as well.
>> other counties are letting their delegation know how par it is--how important it is. Yeah, and once we get a hearing date next week we will coordinate with the major counties for them to touch with their delegation.
>> okay.
>> there is some negotiation going on with the Texas trial lawyers right now. There was a few items in there that they were looking at. But they are not opposed to the bill. They are not opposed to the generally purpose of the bill but there were some things in there that we're working with them on. Nastat's house bill 3383 is the mental illness bill and we are trying to get that set for hearing very soon.
>> we'll talk to them today.havn next week.
>> and on the priority list, sorry, we have on the very last page, we have s b 1622 by senator watson. And that is the bill related to the warrant fee. And we need to get that set for hearing. So we are working on that. Those are the priority bills bills. There are three or four bills on priority two list. If I can direct your attention to that. Page 2, house bill 604 at the bottom by don howard, relate to the appraisal for tax purposes of certain land use for wildlife management under conservation ease am, that is a bill that you voted 5-0 to support and that's been recommend for the local and consent calendar. That bill is moving along. The very next one after that h b 937 by martinez, another bill that you supported 5-0, and that's the shun from the paper of toll--exemption for the payment of toll for emergency vehicles, and that has passed the house. That's moving along also. If you could move over to page 8, at the top, s b 12, the county supported that with recommended changes. And that bill is over in the house, passed the senate, it's in the house. We are working with the house members over there to try to get some changes that have been recommended by Travis County staff and supported by you allcan we get an update. Can we get an update next week on the revenue caps, appraisal caps and related bills.
>> yes. We will do that.
>> so we know whether to relax or get real mad.
>> don't relax. That's the short answer.
>> we will do that, yes.
>> okay.
>> on page 9, s b 137 by nelson, this was the billboard bill we had talked about.
>> where are we on that ?
>> Commissioner Davis, it was voted favorably from committee yesterday.
>> good.
>> and the substitution was bracketed to counties with a population of 800,000 or more. I understand that is Travis County.
>> takes care of Travis County then.
>> so you are in it right now. It does contain the language authorizing the Commissioners court to make the decision.
>> good.
>> I will say, though, there was a billboard bill in the house yesterday. And it got attacked pretty well, as isler's bill, and there was an amendment that was offered to require that whenever, when a landowner could not put a billboard up on his land, that the state would reimburse him for that that. And that amendment was overwhelmingly supported by the house. So just keep in mind that all that is going on up there.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> the next on there, sb 668 by watson relating to the operation, pousers and duty of--powers and duties of a toll project. That is a bill that you have supported 5-0. That is set for hearing tomorrow. 3-28. Today is 27. Tomorrow. 7:30. We will, on this bill, unless you want us to do more, we will put a card in support by the Travis County Commissioners court. That is, those are the ones on the two lists that have had action or priority two list. And that's all we have. Unless you have questions.
>> so the hearing tomorrow on the three bills, earlier bills, 38 d and other, the public hearing is tomorrow but as far as having the senator and other supporters I guess, to know what position the Travis County Commissioners court has taken on this bills, what type of instrument will be in place to let the participants in the public hearing know that Travis County has taken a position ?
>> what I recommend is that recontact senator watson's office to see what they want and then coordinate with Commissioner eckhardt's office and daniel in terms of whether they want a witness necessary. I believe they are probably going to want a witness from the county to testify in favor of the bill. If we can, we will coordinate that. Now, of course--
>> in addition to something in writing, how is that done done?
>> you are saying you want something in writing? We could submit written testimony and file that with the clerk.
>> I'd like to see a paper trail on this also, if possible. If it's the will of the court. Personally I with like to, even if I can submit something personally. I differently want to paper trail.
>> for example, if joe giese gieselman was going to testify, he could file his testimony with the court.
>> as far as the court ace position. Anyway, I wanted to know what the format would be like other than just testify testifying. Showing that the court had supported the bill.
>> the other thing that we will do is visit with smat senator watson's staff. Whatever he wants, we will do.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> to the extent that it requires participation from the county, we will coordinate through your office.
>> bottleneck for this...
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 28, 2007 8:00 AM