Travis County Commissioners Court
May 15, 2007
Item 5
Now, is danny hobby nearby? Because we will about to call up five, which I think is fairly straight forward. It is to consider and take appropriate action on request to submit comments in respond to proposed rule 251.6 by Texas commission on state emergency communications regarding use of revenue. We may ought to wait until this afternoon to take this item up. It's kind of a big deal for Travis County. Last year was $1 million that the city and Travis County received because these were fund from the 9-1 9-11 surcharge. The agency proposed rule is that the executive director would be given say-so over how the surpluses will be spent in the future. We like him, but not that much. So we have prepared a letter for to us look at that legal was supposed to take a look at. Let's call this one up this afternoon and discuss it. I do think that's good.
(one moment for change in captioner)
>> as a result of that we have benefitted greatly from that and we're able to maintain what we've built. And that's the purpose is that once you build it you need to maintain it. We've experienced great sport from our other counties. We're now working with them regionally wrarz to radio operateability. We now work with capcog, katy and becky and clay. So we feel like we're on the right path to continue to improve and to provide our citizens the very best in emergency services. This particular rule, which is 251.6, which is now being posted in the Texas register, and allows for a 30 day comment period, is very important for us being the biggest city. The rest of the people around the state, they have actually died dwooided and on -- divided and gone away from the cog concept and they're their own emergency services district where they receive the funds themselves. We made a decision when we looked at the flexibility rule that we would either stay with the cog and stay region ali or we would go on our own. We thought it was in our best interest and still do to work with our fellow partners and fellow region and so we feel comfortable doing that. However, here's another challenge because our needs will continue to be great as well as we think our partners in the cog. Thirks enable -- this enables money to leave our region and be used in other ways in other reengz. If you're looking at the other regions and they're preparing their strategic plans, some of them can't raise enough money at times to generate the type of funding that they need and therefore I think that's the reason why the rules come up. And it's not a bad rule in trying to help others as we try to do in our own region. However, we fall into that special category that we're not like the other cogs. We're unique because of our size and because of what we've already accomplished and what we're going to continue to need to accomplish. So therefore we think there are other options to utilize in order to receive funding. That we would also pursue in the next legislative session and that's going after the dedicated fund which has some $92 million in it, as well as looking at generating full response from the fee, getting our full fee back to the region. So we with still need to achieve that because we're at 82% at the last count. So we feel like we need to maintain what we've fought so hard to establish for our region. Again, I'm just talking about Travis County, I'm talking about our cog. So I believe, judge, you and the Commissioner that serve on the executive board received from betty with capcog the director of that, they're also supporting the fact that we do comment and this is not a good thing for our particular cog. So I'm just appealing to you and I think barbara has some comments northwards to -- in regards to the legality of it if this particular rule can even be done from a legal standpoint. We feel like it's our time to respond and to respond to the commission in a way that lets them know that this is not good for Travis County or for our cog.
>> my office gave members of the court a proposed letter from capcog to paul collette, who is the director of the commission. My religious is that we strengthen the language, beef up the language that deals with the legality of the executive director proposing to do by rule what the legislature had refused to do by legislation or rider. And it's kind after big deal. It affects not only us, but the other cogz. It's the same language that affects all the cogz.
>> when we pass our flexibility rule there was a piggyback to our rule which allowed every cog, the largest county in every cog to receive the same thing. So it's over a million dollars.
>> it was over four million dollars for Austin and Travis County. Barbara, have you looked at the legality and the letter comment?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> with certainly can. That's better than not in open court?
>> we like to believe it is.
>> we are about to get to executive session anyway. So we will call up item 5 first in executive session. That's the one we have discussed during the last five or 10 minutes. And we will also the bfi tim that we announced just a few minutes ago that ms. English spoke on, be and that is number 37. We are advised ta we do not need item 36, y'all. Tnr says we don't need it because they have accepted our counteroffer that we approved last week. So that's good news and I guess that project is moving right along. We do need 35 and that is to -- we won't discuss 36. 35 is to receive briefing and take appropriate action on selection of executive manager of justice and public safety. This is on consultation with attorney and the personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act. 36 we don't need. 38, receive update regarding security issues on the community center in Jonestown. That's the consultation with attorney to the open meetings act. 39, consider and take appropriate action regarding potential purchase of property along airport boulevard in central Austin. That's the real estate exception. Let's also announce consultation with attorney just in case we need to discuss 39 with our lawyers. And our final item today will be a-1, which is to consider and take appropriate action on the sale of real property at 6701 burnet road. That's the farmer's market. And that will be under the consultation with attorney and the real property exceptions to the open meetings act. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court --
>> I received an e-mail this morning from one of the residents who said the order was so bad they had to call tceq, but the inspector came an hour after. And he said yeah, I can smell it, but it's not strong enough to issue a violation. He said if he would have come an hour earlier he would have issued several violations. This is a continuing dilemma we have where we can't capture the smell at the moment that it happens to prove that it is unreasonable for someone to have that kind of odor in their home. Thank you.
>> there should be backup for number 35 and number 37.
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, May 16, 2007, 8:00 AM