Travis County Commissioners Court
May 15, 2007
Item 34
Number 34. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80 80th Texas legislature. A, house bill 2006 relating to the eminent domain authority.
>> good morning. 2006 is the eminent domain bill over in the senate. Senator janik has picked it up. It's set for hearing tomorrow morning. There is a substitute not yet available. We may have some staff that want to comment on it. I've been told that there are going to be some changes in the bill. The view of jan ec's office is no one will be happy with the final product and maybe it will be a good one.
>> we are on record in support of the cuc position.
>> yes, sir.
>> that is set forth in the post to h b 2006 in the red document.
>> yes.
>> this is from cuc.
>> I don't think there is anything in the substitute, judge that would cause you to want to reconsider that position.
>> okay. We think this is move fast enough to make it out ?
>> yes, sir.
>> by the end of legislature legislature?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. That is where we are.
>> is there anything more we can be doing to trumpet it from the hillside ?
>> you know, I think we are fairly maxed out. This bill has been, there's been countless meetings. We have to some extent, though, jumped on with the c cuc and mike christian son, the generally counsel. They are kind of carrying the torch for the county . .
>> do we need to let our legislative delegation to know our position and ask them to post it ?
>> on the senate side we are doing that, yes. Once this final bill come out, it will be set for the senate floor. Then any floor amendment or any specific changes that we want, we would recommend that we take it to senator watson and senator went worth and see what they can do.
>> will we have enough notice of the anticipated floor.
>> yes, several days after it comes out.
>> okay anything further? B, senate con surt resolution 42, granting mari maria isabel guerrero-mcdonald and guerrero-mcdonald associates inc permission to sue Travis County. This is still on the house calendar ?
>> still in the senate. It's moved slowly I don't think any action is required by the court.
>> okay. So this is on the calendar.
>> nos, it's actually just been withdrawn from the local calendar. In order for it to appear on the calendar, senator went wentworth would have to notice it for the intent calendar and he has not chosen to do that.
>> okay. For the time being that is good news for us.
>> he could do this tomorrow or the next day.
>> okay.
>> as of right now he has not put it on his list of bills for the intent calendar.
>> okay. But do I think we ought to receive a phone call the minute that happens so we can decide what, if anything to do. Okay. C is house bill 937 relating to the definition of certain authorized emergency vehicle vehicles and to an exemption from the payment of a toll for those vehicles. We talked about an order last week. I got an e-mail that said our people have gotten together and determined that the order is not perfection for us, but it is better than nothing and the statute is if we can get it. If not, we can live with the order. Did you all get the same e-mail ?
>> I with a move--i would proof that we still support the legislation but that it's no longer a priority for us without the order.
>> without a motion we can do that. We are already on record.
>> yes.
>> let's keep doing it. All right. D is house bill 1892 relating to the authority of certain counties and other entities with respect to certain transportation projects, providing penalties, and I've got a note here, does not need full court discussion.
>> that is correct.
>> this is pending above the governor's, on the governor governor's desk, I understand. It's passed both houses?
>> yes, sir.
>> I guess the situation really is a little more complex than that. There's another bill, senate bill 792, I believe, that became the vehicle that the legislature decided to use to resolve the issues that were unresolvable in 1892.
>> okay.
>> that bill passed out of senate committee yesterday and then passed out of the senate yesterday and then passed out of house committee yesterday all in one day. And it will be set on the house calendar, presumably, certainly. 792 contains some changes that were requested primarily by the governor's office. And those who support the private entity financing or assistance or role that that private entities the have played in financing road projects. For example, those that reduced the term a project could occur were linked back to current law. Other provisions related to buying projects out after a certain period of time, things like that put into 1892 were removed. Also some additional project projects exempted from the moratorium that was in 1892 that is now reflected in 792 792. So it's not 100 percent clear to me what is going to happen to 792 on the house floor. Presumably the house will generally concur with that agreement in the hopes that the governor will not series serieso this legislation and cause a possible special session, so on and so forth.
>> 792 is house bill or senate bill ?
>> senate bill.
>> we will just keep both of these on for next week just in case we need to discuss them. E is discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary.
>> judge, if you would like, we can highlight priority one and two bills at this time.
>> I would like that but there was one bill that came to my attention that I thought we should discuss.
>> maybe f, senate bill 1638 1638. Is that the one ?
>> effective tax rate ?
>> come back to e last then.
>> sure.
>> f is added item, senate bill 1638 relating to the calculation of certain tax rates and certain notice requirements for local taxing jurisdictions.
>> I believe carolyn is here from the auditor's staff to comment.
>> okay.
>> do you have another copy of the priority one bill ?
>> I am going to hand them out.
>> I don't have a copy.
>> we haven't handed them out yet, Commissioner.
>> thanks. I was going to say, I don't have a copy of that. Okay of the thank you.
>> there was so much confusion last week, we thought we would hand them to you one at a time.
>> that sounds good.
>> all right.
>> okay.
>> caroline cameron with the auditor's office. S b 1638 changes the effect effecttive rate for counties and cities and takes out the factor of new property. So effective, well, when you come up with the effective tax rate, for instance, which we'll be working with for 2008, we would have 8.2 million less to start with. It is making cities and counties vote to raise the tax rate just to cover new services. So obviously, we feel like this is not a good bill, and this section particularly is too onerous. I believe you have opposed all the revenue cap bills before. This one particularly is still moving in the senate. We want to bring it to your attention.
>> on you are goal was to come up with three or four sentences that really describe why this is not a good idea, could we do those those? Do we need to do those and distribute to our people and say, hey, because I'm not sure I understand what it does to the new--
>> it just takes the new property totally out of the equation. So that you aren't allowed additional taxes on new property. You can only collect what you collected the year before.
>> kind of a cage y way of potentially limiting your revenue.
>> right. Any additional taxes under existing legislation would get, with the calculation of the effective rate, would you have to vote to increase taxes just to cover the cost of new.
>> for example, what would this due to tax increment financing arrangement? Would it strip out the increment? Or a significant part of that ?
>> you would probably have to, well, it would be part, you would have to vote to increase the tax rate in order to cover that.
>> cover the loss.
>> we would no longer be in a circumstance where we could take an area and finance an improvement that we knew would provide significant new construction new property fen ration rationration--generation, and pay for that improvement based on that significant new generation of taxable property.
>> I haven't really looked at it from that viewpoint. It makes sense. I just pretty much compared it with what we are working with for 2008 right nowright versus if this bill were in effect. Right off the bat you are 8. 8.2 million less.
>> what happens to the property that would be added to the tax roll? Any new created property, you mentioned new construction, but how would that--
>> that is all new property added to the tax roll. Not just new construction.
>> when does the new construction get added to the tax roll ?
>> it just sits out there ?
>> essentially you are not getting to tax for that until a year following when it comes on the roll because of the way the tax roll is delayed, you know, the timing and everything. But this under existing legislation, you would take the effective rate, the amount of taxes you received last year, and then you are able to add in the taxes at that rate on the amount of new construction. So therefore, you have new tax money to cover new services for your new property. This is taking that out and leaving you with only the amount you collected last year and ignoring all of the new property, but obviously would be very bad for economic development purposes.
>> are we officially on record in opposition to this this?
>> we have not taken on vote on this one yet.
>> okay. I'm looking at a letter here from don lee of cuc where he is basically asking counties not only to oppose but to notify their senators. He does a pretty good job of setting for the reasons why, but it is like a page. In addition to how you treat new properties, he also says that if it results in a tax increase, there's a requirement that you notify every residential property owner by mail of the new tax increase, and if you send out a letter, 41 cents a pop that could be fairly substantial. I move that we oppose it for the reasons stated today.
>> second.
>> that we communicate our opposition to the two senators who represent Travis County.
>> yes.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. This says too that apparently this kale before the senate and senator watson raised some objection objections, it was withdrawn withdrawn. We think this may come again soon.
>> that is correct, your honor. It's on the senate intent calendar for today of it was brought up, I believe it was Friday. Senator williams tried to bring it up and senator watson opposed for many of the reasons that carolyn stated. He withdraw it at that time. We do expect it to come back up on the senate floor today or this week.
>> senator williams believes that concerns from opponents have been addressed.
>> yes, sir, he does.
>> don lee thinks just the opposite.
>> he would probably disagree with our reading of the bill, and perhaps the wording will be changed when he brings it back to the floor. But as I understand his words, it is his intention not to exclude new construction in the legislation that he brings to the senate floor, but instead to require dis disclosure to taxpayers of the increased dollars that are collected that are the result of that new construction. That is the way I understood him to explain what his intentions were. But I think carolyn and the others' point is that the words that we have before us don't say that now.
>> procedurally, if you're in the senate and let's say you cang your bill whark your -- bill, what sort of advance notice requirement to the others comes into play ?
>> that would be zero.
>> hmm.
>> I'm not really kidding, judge. He can offer a floor amend amendment or amendment to his bill. He would be providing a copy of that at the time that it is brought up for discussion discussion. Many senators or many circumstances, that information might be circulated ahead of time, even a day ahead of time or whatever, but there is no requirement to do so.
>> we typically rely on the new properties for increased revenue. Don't we? In good times, that's a rather substantial amount. During times not so good, it's not that significant.
>> judge, it looks like kind of a theory when you go back to the principle of the way the law is set out, you know you have to take care of the properties you have. They come on the roll for one year we provide them services before we tax them anyway. That's understand current law. Then with the effective tax rate, what you do is you set the level tax rate and that rate also applies to new properties with the idea that they need to pay for the services that you need to render for them. I know that senator williams because I have talk to him about this in the past, feels that that amount of money generated by new property is a windfall. I mean, that is just some theoretically it's hard to understand. You have new property and its needs serviced. Either the currents property taxpayers, you either increase their taxes pay for new property, or they pay for what they have and the new people pay for theirs. It's kind of a philosophy debate. But carolyn did the cap cap cap--the calculations. We would have to raise taxes $8 million to basically cover that new property. I mean, it's just a philosophy, I mean, he has always thought that is a windfall, that governments are getting that free tax increase, free money, and they don't need to tell anyone about it. He kind of thinks that. I can't agree with that. He and I have had that discussion. But I think what he is trying to, I think, address. He thinks there is a wind windfall out there. I don't think there is.
>> that would be a shock to any type, to look at this situation where you end up having to offset new construction increases as far as revenue and make it up with the individual taxpayer on it.
>> yes.
>> and the effective tax rate. That would be shocking, very disturbing news to the taxpayers here in Travis County.
>> the other thing too, I mean, you're right, it's absolutely a disincentive for economic development. The other thing, senator williams is very concerned about disclosure. We have agreed with that. Senate bill 18 last time provides a whole lot more disclosure, which has cost us money in the paper. But now sending a notice out I mean, those are property tax dollars being spent on disclosures that he feels are necessary. But they are expensive.
>> okay. We did vote on that, didn't we? Okay. Now back to e. Now we get to get our priority one list.
>> avoid the confusion. I'm still trying to figure out what kind of confusion are you talking about.
>> county judge ends up with three copies of priority one and none of the others last time.
>> okay. All right.
>> if you all look at the bottom of page 1, house bill 2365 by truitt, that is the gas by bill. That has passed the house, it is in the senate and has not been conferred. Its counter part that senator duncan has is on the senate intent calendar. Looks like that bill should make it. There's enough time to make it this session.
>> we don't know of any known opposition at this point.
>> no. I think it's on its way.
>> okay.
>> the next bill, house bill 2391 is the misdemeanor citation bill. It's passed the senate, it's in house committee. It will be heard today in senate criminal justice, and we'll have a witness there. The next bill, 3293, stroma, is the constable liability bill. That is referred to the senate committee on jurisprudence. We are hoping it will be heard tomorrow. The senate bill, on the other hand, is over in the house, passed the senate. It's been recommended for the local uncontested calendar. The senate bill is a little further along than the house bill but both of them are running and we do expect one of those to pass.
>> are they roughly the same.
>> identical.
>> okayokay is there a quick answer to the question, why would you have two bills starting in different places? Why wouldn't it be more efficient to have one bill on work on it ?
>> as many chances.
>> never know what is going to go wrong, what might happen or what might get--
>> how it will be amended.
>> somebody might hijack your bill or get mad at the author.
>> that is just the way it is.
>> better to have--
>> if we could file more, judge, we would.
>> should we still feel pretty good about how this bill is moving? Yes, sir.
>> .
>> yes, sir.
>> we have asked senator wentworth to suspend the rules, which is what will be necessary for the house bill to move. We need him to suspend the rules so that it can be heard tomorrow. We put that request in.
>> is anybody scheduled to go before the hearing? You said it's going to be tomorrow in the senate ?
>> yes. They already heard the senate bill. It would be a very quick hearing. Would not be one where they would listen to witnesses and all that sort of thing.
>> okay.
>> they have heard the identical issue previously.
>> yeah. All right.
>> the next bill, senate bill 355 was one of the local bills for the 147th district court and scheduling there. That became effective yesterday signed by the governor.
>> good news.
>> round of applause, judge.
>> it is difficult for one of those little bills to go all the way through that process. So it's made it.
>> my governor signed it. That is good.
>> senate bill 660 is your county court at law number 8 bill, and that has passed the senate and is recommended for local and consent in the house. There's a couple more calendars there. We are pretty confident that bill will make it onto the calendar and pass and go to the governor. Senate bill 867 is the bill related to defendants with mental illness. And that is set on the house calendar tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow. It's already passed the senate. So just needs to get through that house calendar. 1102 we have already mentioned, just the other senate gas by bill. Senate bill 1269 is the other constable liability bill that we have already mentioned. Finally, the last bill, senate bill 1622 by watson. We have been calling it the warrant fee bill. Some clarification there of the language that was requested. And that passed the senate and a meeting is set for today, I believe. Yes, today. We will have a witness there there. We will keep pushing that one. Hopefully that one will make it onto the last local and consent calendar and pass. That is priority one. Unless you have any questions, we will have several bills on priority two, if you would like that we can highlight.
>> okay.
>> you already have priority two. First one, house bill 345 by flynn, that was collateraliz collateralization of certain public funds. Representativefully went ahead and accepted from Travis County an amendment to make county funds inil eligible for this. The counties have effectively been removed from the bill. If the bill passes there will be a rule making process that will take place in the interim at the controler's office and the the--county would still be able to participate in that.
>> so that is good news really.
>> well, I think yes. From the position from the staff, may mays and the treasurer if it passes, it passant ant ant--passes, it hasn't passed yet. You would still opt in and we can bring the counties in next session.
>> okay.
>> if you go to the third page at the middle, house bill 604 by donna howard and wentworth. This is the bill with respect to conservation easements. We have talked about this several times. That bill is moving along. It's now by record from the senate natural resources committee. Senator wentworth will need to pass that on the house floor. That is still alive and moving. We can go over several pages I was doing to refer to you 2006. We have already talked about that eminent domain bill. If we can go to the bottom of page 7, house bill 2714 by bonnen. This is recycling program for computer equipment. That bill has passed the house and gone to the senate senate natural resources, and that is still on track.
>> thank you for doing these double-sided copies.
>> saves paper. Saves my copier. If you go to the bottom of page 9. House bill 3447 by rose, to point this one out, this is one that you were interested in in terms of land use authority.
>> yes.
>> that bill has died. It did not get out of committee.
>> is that the one also that senator wentworth was in support of that also ?
>> I don't know that he stated a position on that bill, Commissioner.
>> okay.
>> he has in the past proposed bills with similar words.
>> the hill country. So it died. It's dead.
>> it's dead, yes, sir.
>> okey doke.
>> on page 10, house bill 35 3534 by isett, this was the main revenue cap bill for the session. It has died by senator has another bill in the senate now over in the house that could become a vehicle for revenue caps. So that issue is still alive and we'll continue to follow that. Hopefully that revenue cap will not happen in the house.
>> last the legislature started meeting on weekends ?
>> they probably will meet this weekend, but nos, --but no, sir, they did not meet last weekend because it was mothers day.
>> they are human after all.
>> yes, sir. They have normally met some week weekends by this point in the session. They have avoided that. I think now in the end of may they will probably be working on Saturday.
>> if we can jump over to page 16 the first bill there senate bill 1107 by watson and naishtat. That is the hospital bill. It's been sent to the governor. That is just fy i. The last one we will point out to you is senate bill 1502 by sarar sararin organization and bolton. This is one you voted to support several weeks ago when we had several of the fire marshals, I guess, were here here.
>> yes.
>> that senate bill has passed the house. It does have that row vision vision--provision in there so that a part of a district that was not up against the ceiling for sales tax could have a vote for those other areas to raise the sales tax.
>> the fact that an area already has some ceiling in it still allows the district to go out for the area that does not have the ceiling.
>> that is it. That's correct.
>> that's good.
>> yeah. Unless you have other questions on any of these, that is all we have to report on.
>> billboard stuff? What happened there ?
>> well, the watson billboard bill, which one is that? 669.
>> what page ?
>> that would be--
>> page 16.
>> page 15 a mine. 669, watson and rose. It's passed the senate and it's been reported favorably from house transportation. I don't know if that was recommended for local, but that, it will either go to the local calendar or the house general calendar. Prohibits billboards on segments of state highway 71 between western city limits of city of Austin and state highway 16. Provides that billboards are prohibitd on highway u.s. 28 281 in the area surrounding the city of three rivers. That one may be the only billboard bill in session.
>> is that in troublerg like rg--trouble, like the one from nelson ?
>> yeah. Nothing has happened on that one.
>> nothing happened on that one, which would have given a little more strutenya little--scrutiny on certain roads that we were suggesting.
>> yes.
>> but this basically is in what status ?
>> sorry, I didn't hear you. On senator nelson's bill ?
>> yes.
>> she has not been able to pass it in the senate. It came out of committee, and I think if you remember, it was bumped from local. You had it on the house calendars I think once or twice, but she hasn't put it back on there, which would tell us that she doesn't have the votes to bring it back up.
>> to bring it back. Okey doke.
>> any other questions. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> keep having fun. We will see you next week.
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