Travis County Commissioners Court
April 24, 2007
Item 30
Now, number 30 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 0 0th Texas sleigh tour--80th Texas legislature. A is house bill 53 relating to the regulation of fireworks and fireworks displays. Should we just go down the list ?
>> that would be fine. There are several that we don't need to take up. I will identify those as we go on.
>> okay. But we do need a, right is this.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> we can that we another week on this one from last week because they were in the process of rewriting and amending it, and we just received a copy of the rewritten bill yesterday late, that they have. But we haven't had time to take a look at it. Brad is going to go over the major wul let points of this this--bullet point of this.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Brad beach from Travis County fire marshal's office office. The portions of the bill we feel are appropriate, and we have also talked to our peer peers around the state, and I'll go into that briefly if I may, the bill eliminates stick rock et cetera of a certain side. What that does, the smaller they are, the more problem they are. They don't go as high or burn out as easily so it makes them a little er, which fire marshals would like. It eliminates sparkers with narrow rods. There are some--issues with those. Quite frankly, kids like to make I e ds out of them so that's been a problem in the past. It raises the minimum age to purchase from 1 years to 16 years--12 years to 16 years of ache. Right now a 12-year-old can walk up to a stand without a parent and purchase, that certain seems to be problematic. It raises the able to sell to 16, with some caveats. It also makes most of the violations a class c violation. It takes more man-hours to go through the state this way if there is a violation, we can go down the road, the sheriff's office or con stabel, a peace officer could do that. The k b di was changed in the substitute to 600. In this present rendition it's 575. I personally think that is a little built high. We have always used 500. I personally think 500 is better. 575 we can live with. Just as a matter of disclosure f I can say it that way, 600 is the benchmark for us to have extreme fire danger so we are right up against the extreme at that measurement. I talked to harris county and they are of the same mind. Colin county is of the same mind and the Texas fire marshals association, and bell county responded. No respondants in the negative. The only delta we see in the bill is the civil action provision. And we think that needs some work. So whatever the court's direction would be on that about, we are asking for you to support that but that civil action needs some work work. Whatever the court's direction be on that. Also, cuc was polled, and did the judge speak to you about that briefly, sir ?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think there's just a little concern as to what exactly that subsection will cause the county. So as brad mentioned, we just received the substitute late last night. On the whole, the fire marshals believe this is a good bill for the county but there are a few kinks that would would like the see if we can improve upon.
>> what's the association with the civil suit ?
>> the actual wording in it says a cruise missile action against the county based on the county's action understand this section must be brought in the appropriate court in that county. Without having a lot of time to research it, my first glance at this, I think this is going back to the county where they band the sale and some of the fireworks industry people filed against them saying you can't do that, but then this would keep them from going and filing that civil action suit out in midland county or something when it has to comply with the act ?
>> I'm assume fñg they felt that you had band the sale of fireworks without meeting this, or if they had been damaged or some of thoselve like I said, without knowing more of the history of why that was added in there, I really can't say.
>> if this is taken out they still have the right the sue us.
>> certainly.
>> yes, sir.
>> it's just that we would think it would be more difficult to prove ?
>> what I was trying to say, judge, there is a suing provision in there and we have not had adequate time to research that we want to get that up on the court's radar. There is there is--language about specific action in the suit am we haven't had time because we got this late last eve do we want to support the--
>> do we want to support the bill but get with the sponsor on the section dealing with civil action is this.
>> that would be ideal. We were told it's supposed to be voted on in committee tomorrow. So there is a smat smat-- smat--small window.
>> this would be the time to go if we don't understand it don't you think is this.
>> yes, sir.
>> when you take the civil suit part out, the rest of the bill we think is an improvement upon the status quo.
>> that is correct.
>> I have a couple questions questions. The first provision, section one, does it expand or contract the list of impermissible fireworks ?
>> it contracts them, Commissioner. . The pop rockets, those what we commonly refer to as bottle rockets. Those have gone away for the very small ones but there are still degrees of bottle rockets out .
>> yes, ma'am.
>> section one,, does it increase the number of impermissible fireworks that could be sold ?
>> yes, ma'am, it does. Sorry, didn't understand your question. Forgive me.
>> okay. Section two, does it increase the representation by industry on the council? Or does it decrease it ?
>> the members, if memory serves me on that, remain the same. Thank you for bringing that up. It does give representation to a county fire marshal, and that has not been the case in the past.
>> okay. Harris county specifically was very positive on that. That would certainly be a nice thing to come to the table and have a representative from the county fire marshal.
>> under existing law, the council is composed of five members from the industry only.
>> forgive me, Commissioner. I believe there's an ad hoc member from the state fire marshal's office.
>> okay.
>> but there is no county reputation.
>> or it's not required.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and on the drought index of 575 or greater, you said currently we are using 500 ?
>> 500 has always been the been--been the benchmark that we have used. The it is not written in any particular statute but we have always hung our hat on that 500. Before we would even start consideringconsidering-- considering. We have been in times when we were much higher than 500 and still not running any fires. What this does is give a specific kdbi. And I know where this is going. They are going to come in and say if you are at 568 you can't pass your order to ban the sale when we know that in two weeks we will be at the 575. It is basically a mark used but probably something once standardized the it will make it easier across the state for people to understand and deal with.
>> currently it's a much more subjective determination, long-term deficit of moisture creating creatinging a severe condition blah blah blah, so gives the counties more latitude.
>> yes.
>> than the fire index.
>> yes.
>> okay. In b 1 of the same section it says the techation forest service--texas forest service in ordinary condition can look at average on any county requesting determine ation. What does it mean, it exists on average? Had.
>> currently if you go through the Texas coordinating council website and look up the kdbi calculate value by county, it will give you the mean, max, and the average. And basically, it will give you example, the last time we used this order to ban the sale of, restrict the sale of certain fireworks, we had one area in the southwest part of Travis County, like a four kilometer sized area, that was at 590 or something. Everything else was below 0 000. So our average was below 500 but based upon that one small sampling, we were able to implement. That is why I'm saying the average, it make it a lot easier to look across the board because we may have one area of the county that is green and doing just fine and another area that's been one of those anomalies that has missed all the rain. So you get into that, okay, are we running off average or are we running off the absolute worse case scenario scenario. All this is doing is going back that is what we were doing when we would declare with one sampling. We would say one cam sampl sampling, so therefore it's county wide.
>> is that a good thing or bad thing ?
>> it's something that we can live with. The average. It is not detrimental to what would be accomplished in there. I think the main thing is it makes it easier for that determination because you have a minimum and a maximum.
>> a bright line rule.
>> yes.
>> okay. Those are my questions.
>> so we ought to support the bill but spend a little time working with the sponsor on the civil suit subsection.
>> that would be our recommendation, yes, judge.
>> that is my motion. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much we need to get something in writing for tomorrow or just a card? The the--pardon that we have issues with, I guess we need something to get with the committee.
>> we need to have the reasons, what we want to change it the or delete it. Whatever the situation. We can work with them.
>> okay. B is how bills 2006 relating to the use of eminent domain authority.
>> judge, this is on there if you all want a report on this bill. I think there's a county attorney available to do that in the event you would like some feedback. It's--
>> I would.
>> there's a new substitute out.
>> should we do it in executive session this afternoon? You think we need to discuss with the county attorney ?
>> I don't know what the protocol would be. If there is someone.
>> if you all have questions about 2006 I can give you some generally questions. If you have further ones to go into executive questions, I suppose you can carry that that. How you would like to do it.
>> I guess we ought to know what this is about, whether you think it's good or bad.
>> 2006, as you saw it, and I only saw the committee substitute this morning, so I haven't had a chance to go through in some detail, but I would say some of the assessment that I looked at, one forwarded to me from joe joe, pretty much said it's going to delay and increase the account of public projects per k I certainly would not agree with that assessment. As you know we have been through many condemnation proceeding, at least in the 11 years since I've been here. Much of those, much of the subject matter of take litigation resolved around jurisdictional questions, valuation questions. We spent a great deal of time in text the as the last 20 years trying to establish what the the been of law is for those starred am my first blurb analysis is those standards are going to change. Ner, if this bill is adopted in the law, we going to see a lot of lawsuits, a lot of lawsuit filing and lot of fights about issues that pretty much are solved now. In other words, when you go out in this county particularly, we did a good job of making the public aware of the project that you are undertaking, making it available to them for comment, and then trying very hard to negotiate with landowners in good faith to purchase those for fair market value, which is the objecttive standard. As I read it under this bill much of what we consider to be the objective standard now would probably change and we would be fight being what is a fair market value, what is a good faith offer, when do you have to stop offering, whaught it's--what is it based on. We spent years now hiring third-party objecttive appraisers to establish that fair market value for you. And those, as I understand the protocol in tn rñcious, are what they base the purchases on. This would introduce some subjectivity to that again and it with clearly have to be litigated an as to when have you to stop negotiating and what constituted good faith negotiations, as happened last time. We spent a lot of time litigating those. So as far as that goes, this would change probably the process, if not on the front end certainly on the back end , when people were want to go contest your ability to take their property. Some issues would become jurisdictionalment I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that, tom. And that is just my first blurb reading of it going to have to get litigated out. The courts have fully developed the body of law. This tells the courts to go back, start over, and come up with something new. At the very least it means you're going to be spending a lot more time litigating eminent domain cases than you are now.
>> .
>> will that always also involve any new role that the special Commissioners sometimes have to set aside to deal with cases, especially trying to deal with the negotiation process and end up with the special Commissioners, does that come into play at all with any of this stuff ?
>> the special Commissioners are empaneled tor one purpose and that is to establish the value of the taking.
>> right.
>> what it introduces into that equation is information that they can consider in establishing that valuation.
>> their role won't change.
>> no, their role won't change. As as arbiter of that cost.
>> what will change is what they can consider.
>> yes, what will constitute good evidence they can consider with regard to valuation.
>> and would this body of evidence that could be considered under this law as opposed to the way it is now is it substantially different from what the market uses to establish ?
>> practically speaking, what we are rurd rurd-- rurd--required to do is offer fair market value. Those are presented to the special Commissioners as our objecttive position on the cost, the highest and best use, what that is valued in the market and how they come to that determination. Quite frankly, that is not ever what they have been limited in hearing. They can always listen to a real estate professional and the landowner. This allows more subjective pieces of information to be considered by them, which quite frankly, they might be doing now anyway. But our position would still be we are going to present them the best third-party basis for fair market value that we can, and that is why we are rigorous with the appraisers we use and the standards we give them.
>> is it in this bill it also changes the standard of proof as far as special purpose ?
>> I believe it does.
>> so it changes the standard from proof from preponderance of the evidence to the clear and convincing, which is a higher standards.
>> I haven't looked at it to determine if that has change or nompt that was what the previous version can.
>> that is an odd duck standard of proof in my understanding that standard of proof is used for, when you take someone's child away, that is the staud of proof.
>> it has not been the standard of proof we else on this ?
>> .
>> this bill has been the subject of numerous meetings of lawyers from all different venues, including counties and cities, public utilities, all different groups.
>> so it varies.
>> you know, it's gotten a little more acceptable. It's going in the right direction, it seems. I don't think the discussion discussions have stopped.
>> has cuc taken a position ?
>> the cuc has it on its watch list for concern. The cuc, urban counties, are concerned about the impact this is going to have fiscal fiscally on counties.
>> their general counsel has participated in most of those meetings.
>> why don't we oppose and put together reasons why and send it over? Being concerned, instead of being so passive. If that is our position. I say we oppose and set forth the reasons why. Even if they are just concerns. Ultimately the question is whether the present approach is more fair than what is proposed. We believe it is.
>> is that a motion ?
>> sure is. Is now. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez? So get the reasons why. And get with c c and whoever has been in the discussions and make as well incorporate the reason. This passes. All in favor that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> c is senate bill 1164 relating to the compensation of official court reporters for did it corts. This was of--for district courts. This was of concern, judge m meir to judge horn in den ton county, and parnly the language is what authorizes district judges to set the court reporter's salary, not the Commissioners court. And some counties have a problem with that because apparently they don't collaborate with the district judges, they get cross wise, and judge horn's position was Commissioners court has to fund the salary and whatever the it is set at, so they ought to set it also.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> Commissioners, let me explain that I have not read the bill in the entirety. We did discuss this last time we were at one of our judge's meetings. I had had understood that the bill actually had a, was amended and the amendment actually did not, what it change was that the judges would still set the court reporter's salaries but they actually changed it to what has been our practice in Travis County for decades now, and that is that we actually set that salary commensurate with whatever the increase for the standard countiwide employ ees are, motor to exceed that. The way the bill is today, I believe we do set it and the court then is obligated to pay it. Then if you give them raises it has a ceiling. By practice in Travis County we have always collaborated with the court and never felt like we were in a power struggle. So we have by practice gotten all of our court reporters to be paid the same, and that when we do their salaries each year , then we set it because we are required to order the salaries set at a certain time before the budget is set. We actually say, put a caveat in there that, to be reduced and/or to go to whatever the increase is that the county gives. It's not the performance wasted pay, it's the cost of living increases, cola , that the county gives the other employees. I may be wrog, but I thought thought how the new wording is on the bill bill that has come out.
>> let's delay until we see the substitute. Can we do that? That is all right is this.
>> yeah.
>> it may not be an issue after allthat is my understand--
>> that is my understanding. I will check into it.
>> do we need d today ?
>> we do not.
>> e, 3004.
>> no.
>> f is 1634.
>> yes. I think Commissioner Davis would like a report on that.
>> okay. Relating to incentives for the phil, television, and multimedia production industries.
>> judge and Commissioners, we had talk about it last week. The bill has passed out of the house and now been picked up by senator dool in the senate. It seems to be a good bill. It rearranges a little the structure to encourage film and television to come to Texas. The issue we are waiting on now, which chris had touched on last week, is that we will need some state appropriated funding for these changes. It appears that all is well. The house, I believe, recommended 20 million. The senate recommended 10 and the it is currently worked into the language for one of the appropriations bills. Right now we are leaving it to the conference committee to determine where exactly that number for the fubbed fubbeding will be it did get a very good reception in the house. So the issue will come down to what exactly that number is for funding and to what extent they will be able to did what is in the bill based on the if funding they are given.
>> judge, this is basically related to, if everybody has been following this, funding source to assist as far as incentives for the villamuse area in eastern Travis County. Of course, it's very important to understand if that particular incentive or portion of that money needs to be appropriated either targeted at this time and captured, is going to hold true to form it appears that it's still moving in a positive direction of that is correct correct?
>> that is correct.
>> that is correct.
>> we wanted to watch this as it develops. Thank you.
>> I had a club of questions questions. Had this grand money would be available only to a production company spending $10 million or more in the state, right is this.
>> that's correct.
>> pretty much only major studio companies would be the only recipients of the grants.
>> right.
>> have there been conversations around the fact that this grant money would only be available to product studios--major production studios ?
>> there have been discussions on where to set the limit. I believe that was a number that most of the legislature felt they could go forward with as a starting point for the changes that are being put into the bill.
>> okay. And I don't know how this affects us, but I was wondering how underused areas are utilized as far as distribution of the grant money, because the metropolitan area of Austin, specifically, is not includ included in the definition of underused area.
>> I would be happy to find that out for you.
>> I think fort worth and dallas, I think, are also mentioned, but I don't really know what the deal is is. I think houston. Bottom line, let me know the movement on that as much as possible and where--whether it actually comes out of conference, so at least we have knowledge on the movement of what is happening over there with that appropriation.
>> do we need g ?
>> thank youg, h, i--
>> g, h, i, j, unless you have questions, we can skip those. They were up last week.
>> okay. K.
>> k is an issue that I think you are all aware of. The may 12 election has a constitutional amendment on it. As a result of that, the to the county is going to increase for the election by approximately $600,000.
>> that is why I move that we support this bill. This is to get us reimbursed right street.
>> that's correct.
>> not to cut you off, bob.
>> I don't have the text--
>> let's get you back here.
>> it's house bill 15. Has been referred to the senate finance. It's passed the house. The money is not in there right now. There have been discussions and representations that there would be $10 million set aside in that bill for counties statewide, and that in writing should come from the Commissioners court, indicating what it costs us, and the fact that if it had been set at other times, we simply could have added it to other issues on the ballot, probably stimulated voter turnout so it would have been a win win win. And get whatever money we can, I think is what we ought to try to do.
>> for the court's information, we delivered a written explanation of this to senator watson and senator went worth because they were asked to directly approach senator ogden and senator ogden was the one that said he would try to make this thing happen. So both our senators have background in writing with requests from you to make that request of senator ogden.
>> that's part of the motion motion. Discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote. Next week we will have a copy of the actual bill or whatever it is on that. Okay?
>> we can do that.
>> that was k. L. Consider and take appropriate action regarding reimbursement of increased juvenile probation expenses due to Texas youth commission challenges. After our work session last week I thought I put this on on. This is specifically to deal with settlement and try to get as much money as we can in '08 and '09 in next biennium.
>> yes, we were here last week and talked about the impact to the county with regard to some of the things going on with the Texas youth commission and the fact that we are not sending kids to the Texas youth commission right now. There are two bills going on and look to be headed towards passage very soon now. One is senate bill 103 and the other bill house bill 28 2807. Those will retrick the of-- of--types of kids we will in the future be able to send, when it is up and running in the better treatment modality. When that happens we expect the bill itself will retrick the number--restrict the number of children we will be able to send but at least 50 percent. Those eligible will not be eligible under the bill.
>> what was the percentage ?
>> 50 percent.
>> will ?
>> will not be able to send.
>> will not be able.
>> this will will restrict those kids regardless, even if they were, they would be eligible under the law as it exists, they won't be eligible under the law as it's been written. To that extent, that means we would look, even if the doors opens and we believe that tyc was the right place to send kids and even if we were ready do that, we wouldn't be able to and they are talking about 3.1 million in 2008, I believe. We are also talking about a significant amount, anywhere from $370,000 in '07 to somewhere around $1.4 million in '07 as a result of our decision not to send children to to tyc in '07. To my knowledge there are no bills in the legislature and no movement towards any emergency appropriation to the counties for any type of assistance for that. I'm going to turn it over to ms. Ward and chief medina with regard to what has been going on with some of the chiefs across the county as well as the urban county areas and what we are asking the court to do today in support of increased fund fundings.
>> I think there are a couple of opportunities that we want to recommend the court consider to weigh in on that are existing one is that the Texas juvenile probation commission has requested $62 million of the legislature in an appropriation to be used in part for placements at a rate of $90 a day but also for community based intensive treatment services for youth no longer going to be eligible to be committed to tyc. So supporting that appropriation I think is one opportunity to influence the funds. It's my an understanding that cuc is taking a position on that and is going to be following up to seek those funds as well.
>> that bill is--
>> it's an appropriation request.
>> one of the appropriations bills.
>> okay.
>> $53 million ?
>> they are requesting 62 million total.
>> okay. Did anyone--
>> the question is whether we want to support that effort. The recommendation is that we do. Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion of that part? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner dougherty had to run to another commitment.
>> okay.
>> he is temporarily away. Shouldn't we either in this communication or something else, indicate a request for '07 funding? Even if it's not grand the, I feel a whole lot better if we at least ask for it and the reasons why and communicate that to the other counties and let them do what they think they ought to. This was midyear unbudgeted, really required. And they may not have directly mandated it, but as a result of their failure to deal with some issues, just based on their own admission we have had to incur additional costs. I think we ought to ask for either full or partial reimbursement.
>> and that would come out of an appropriations bill.
>> you're talking about '07.
>> right.
>> appropriation bill for '08-'09.
>> right.
>> it would have to be some type of emergency.
>> I second the motion, judge.
>> they have the money. It's whether they do it or not.
>> I second it.
>> anymore discussion ?
>> 62 million is being considered for the '08-'09 budget, not part of any emergency appropriations. Am we have seen no movement on an emergency appropriation.
>> correct.
>> all in favor of making a '07 request. That passes by unanimous vote of those present. Anything else regarding this issue ?
>> yes, actually, there's another bill pending, senate bill filed by west, it of it actually requests a little over $4 million to go to urban counties for community based services for youth that would otherwise be committed to tyc, and that bill was file at the beginning of session before the reform bills started moving. And at the moment that bill includes the four urban county larger than Travis County, all counties 1.3 million or larger. It has passed through the committee but senator watson has given us an indication that he is interested in amending it on the floor to include Travis County as well. So we would recommend that we s not on the good stuff.
>> right.
>> one other funding opportunity for Travis County not directly on point for the services--
>> all in favor.
>> let's vote on that.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> all right.
>> you're on a roll.
>> the funding for the juvenile justice alternative education program. And in the last, min the special session where the school finance legislation passed, in doing that some arrangements that some of the counties had with other school did it to fund these programs through wealth wealth equalization funds, receiving at the point the dollars were going to stop, 300,000. In the special session they took care of a special provision to say those $3 $300,000 would continue for this year through tean instead of the individual counties we were getting them from. But unless something proactively happens this session, we will no longer be getting $300,000 a year that we have been get to go fund our jjap. Representative mcclen done in san antonio has filed a bill, 3746, hb 3746, because bexar county also relies heavily on these funds, and she has filed this bill and it would apply to Travis County as well in terms of how it's written. It's currently pending in juvenile justicement it's been heard but has not geten out of committee yet. We would recommend that we support our that you all provide support for that bill because we are also anticipating the legislative session an increase in the offenses that are mandatory referrals so we are anticipating an increase in the population of kids that we have to serve and potentially decrease in the funding we have available to serve them.
>> did we say something like without the 300,000 or more, we would not be able the continue the jjap ?
>> the jjanep is a mandatory mandated. Basically we don't have the option to to notp temperature.
>> can we say we don't have Monday.
>> that we can do. Do.. We could say it would reduce the quality of the services we would provide to the kids xt .
>> good idea.
>> next. Is that it? Thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> thank you judge.
>> m is house bill 8 relating to the creation of criminal district courts in certain county including Travis County. Last-minute notice that a ed substitute was coming up on the bill that would require district court in Travis County. Whether or not we wanted a new did it court. Court.. This court would mostly handle case relating to sexual offenses. The author of the bill had the intend of trying to alleviate the current caseload and backlog where it exists on these particular case, but was very, very an understanding that perhaps there were otherwise too resolve this issue. We spent time with his office redrafting the language, and the new substitute that should come out one day this week, possibly later today or tomorrow, instead will merely say that the presiding judge over the case loads of these cases will give a priority to these cases. It does not specify that it will be first or second priority above or before capital murder or any other serious cases to be heard, but it does say that they will give a preference. We did send this to our judges that would be handling these cases and assigning the case loads, and they were okay with this language. So I think everybody is pretty happy with where we ar me and we contacted officials and really got together some information about the impact impact. That bill would have funded three prosecutors and the last district court we created cost us $1.7 million million. The prosecutors salaries would be about 100,000 each. So from 300,000 to 1.7 million. We are not, we don't have an increase in the number of sexual assaults against children case. My view is if we can get three prosecutors we can certainly give them more attention and try to expedite the ones that are filed. I do think we ought to keep our hand out for the prosecutors if they will give those. But the language changes are agreeable and make sense to me. If we take no action, that is good enough? Do you think they want us to support the bill?
>> I would leave that up to the court. I think that by working with the senator, we have come to an agreement that we like, and this on whole is a very good bill. It seeks to improve many current discrepancies with the way the law works for cases involving sexual offenses. I would say if the court is satisfied with the language in the substitute, it may be a bill
>> yes.
>> okay. Next is n, discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary. Concurrent resolutions, we are officially of record in opposition, right? Did we take that vote before is this.
>> yes, we did. I had one deal am I wanted to find out where we are on the billboard bills in the unincorporated area of Travis County. I have a concern about that and I just want to know where we are on that and a status report if possible.
>> there are several bills that have been filed on the billboards and those bills have generally done better in the senate. Senator nelson's bill gives the Commissioners court some authority in that area was up, they knocked off on local. She has not put it on the intent calendar, which is the general calendar in the senate. So it's still sitting there therewhat is that bill number ?
>> 137.
>> senate bill 137.
>> all these bills have had a hard time once they get over to the house nothing in terms of billboard has moved in the house in this session.
>> hmm.
>> could you give us a little update on the land use management bills, which I think is going to sound very similar to the update you just gave us on billboards.
>> I think there is a county attorney availablelve on 168 1688, senator watson's bill that passed out the senate, but it took some amend the. The version from the committee was different from the bill that actually passed the senate. I think there's someone available to comment on those changes. In term of 1690, which is the county bill, that is still in committee and senator watson is still working hard and is hopeful he can move that forward.
>> 1688 is the same situation, still sitting in committee? 1689 the house version of 1690 tr, which he chairs, as you know and I believe that is still, it's on our list, I think it's still sitting there. I think it may just be waiting the watson bill. I don't know that for sure. The watson bill should be received in the house by now now. It's on the list.
>> okey doke.
>> 1688 has been received in the house but not referred to house transportation. But I would think that their play would be to take up, to substitute the senate bill in and go from there. Commissioner, were you asking for a report on details of 1688 ?
>> and how it had changed once it hit the floor.
>> I think it was reduced to five miles on each side.
>> less than, I believe.
>> two miles.
>> wow.
>> okay.
>> membership of the board changed. The board was the city council. They have added six other members to the board, pointed by economic develop development groups, landowner groups, real estate groups. And now there's much more of a balance on the board. So the seven city council members and six folks with interest in that area. Those were the main two changes as I recall.
>> the land area was reduced to two miles.
>> I believe so, either side of the center line of the highway.
>> if the population didn't vote in favor of it, then there was 1,000 feet? Was it 1,000 feet ?
>> I don't recall. I just skimmed over it. That may well be in there, but that didn't catch my eye.
>> something in there about a thousand feet.
>> the last land use bill is pack trick rose's 3447, and that one is also still pending in committee.
>> it has undergone some changes as well. And what are its chances? Chances??
>> I spoke with representative rose directly and he is still intent on passing it.
>> he is still pushing it.
>> still pushing it.
>> the other bill we did want to point out is on page 8 of the priority two bills. That is house bill 3534, which is representative isaac's revenue cap bill k and that is set for hearing tomorrow morning we are assuming that, as on these other bills, that susan spitaro will speak on behalf of the court in opposition. You voted against this bill. Representative isaac is meeting with some of the county groups this afternoon afternoon. So we will have some further information on that. It will be up. We will have someone there from the county present.
>> are we supporting the cuc list of objections-- is that what I saw the front and back little card ?
>> from--
>> is that cuc.
>> that was Texas association of counties.
>> okay.
>> those cards. My an understanding previously, the court has authorized susan spitaro to speak, so she has been going down there on most of these caps. When this and other bills were in subcommittee last Wednesday, susan spoke on behalf of the court and did a great job, again. And unless you all want to do something different, we will ask her to testify tomorrow as well.
>> okay. This language regarding un unfunded mandates, the comptroller will compile an annual list of unfunded mandates. For what reason? Will the state then reimburse counties? If the it agrees with that list ?
>> there has been some history on that, judge. And there was actually a commission created that existed for a number of years that didn't really afford any mandate.
>> there were zero mandates after several years.
>> if it's done if a bill, when a bill moves through the legislature, the legislature can merely put language in the bill that says that that provision would not apply to this particular bill. So it would be easy to end run any of these that are provided for in a bill. And that is why we have hjr 61, yeah, I think it's hjr 6 61 by chairman smith that would put it actually in the Texas constitution, an un unfunded mandate prohibition and has specific provision of how those would operate. And that wouldwould have some teeth. And that is out of committee out of county affairs. But it has not gone to are on t continue to work those.
>> okay. Move that we recess until 1: 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously.
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:
Tuesday, April 25, 2007, 8:34 AM