Travis County Commissioners Court
June 10, 2008
Item 16
16 is to discuss and take appropriate action on proposed testimony to the Texas senate committee on international relations and trade on policies relating to development and growth in rural and unincorporated regions of the state.
>> we presented a draft to the court last week, and you asked us to go back and first contact the council of urban counties. And also to be a little more explicit about what authorities the county may seek from the senate. I did contact don lee with the council, and he had indicated that they are undecided about whether they will present testimony to the senate and did not have any formal statement prepared at the time.
>> why?
>> I think it's just a matter of they hadn't discussed whether or not to make the presentation.
>> well, I guess the question, though --
>> I think there was some inclinations they would, but they haven't yet.
>> they are going to, though?
>> he didn't go that far.
>> well, it would begun to know because I think -- that would be good to know because I think they're an integral part of a lot of this. And it would begun to know one way or the other. -- it would be good to know one way or the other especially with this determination of land use. There's a lot of this stuff mixed up into one. I think all of it need to be laid out. I really would like to know if they are or if they aren't. If they're not, they're not. They will just be that clear. It shouldn't be any ambiguity as far as being unclear as far as that's concerned. I really don't understand.
>> joe, let me help you out. I talked to him. And there is concern, Commissioner, because -- well, here's the deal. You've got, what, 38 counties, 38 to 40 participating counties in cuc. And there are ideas all over the board about what they are comfortable with, with regards to additional county control because there are some that don't want the things that we want. And so you've got somebody like don lee that says, do you know what? I知 trying to read my constituency or the participants, members of cuc, and there's a lot of push and pull in the thing. That's the reason that I think that don lee cannot tell you definitively what he is willing to do from a cuc standpoint. Obviously there are some things that are more pushed back than others in these things. And that's -- that only stands to reason that you're going to have someone that represents 38 to 40 counties. And that's my read after having talked to him. I mean, there are clearly some things that don thinks, okay, let's -- let's vet them and let me probably go and do a lot of work -- whenever you're talking about having to go to 38 to 40 counties and see where we come up. That's the reason -- I got the impression from don lee that he was not willing to give you a thumb's up or a thumb's down.
>> I respect that, your read, but I guess what I知 trying to get my arms around is this. Is that when you bring up legislation or new legislation, there's always a provision of shall and may. And as I -- an example is I talked with the continuing education aspect with Texas association of counties, which there are a lot of smaller counties, but there were some large counties there too. And I posed the question just randomly just talking to folks, would you object to legislation being changed in the next legislative session of the state of Texas to allow counties to have more authority? And the answer that came back is this. Commissioner, we don't mind you guys having this; however, we don't want it imposed on us if we don't want it. In orders, a may versus a shall. And I think that was the attitude, hey, you guys are pretty aggressive. We don't mind you having it, but let it be the may local option or whatever situation instead of the shall. So the may and the shall were the key trigger words as far as this is concerned. And my question I guess now is research the 38 counties that the cuc represent -- my question is if future testimony is afforded by cuc, it would appear to me that they will take the same position as some of the other persons or some of the other Commissioners that I spoke to the last continuing education thing, the may and the shall. In orders, if the counties would like to have it, let them deal with it. If they don't, don't force it on them. So that's something that I think have been entertained, but I just wanted to bring that little comparison up and put it before you, joe.
>> in the last cuc conference that Commissioner Gomez and I last attended, there was very good discussion. There was a panel discussion -- actually, it wasn't even a panel discussion, it was more like a work session where all of the -- many of the Commissioners and representatives from Commissioners court sat around in a free form and discussed this. And mr. Lee had a very good comment that I think goes to the heart of why cuc isn't in a position of leadership on this issue. I don't believe that it's because of a lack of support for those of us who do want this power. Don made a very telling statement that there was a perception at the legislative level that we as a body, counties generally, had not utilized all of the authority that was currently available. But that's not true for every county and I think in terms of our county, we've pretty much hit the ceiling, with the exception of maybe a little bit of space in water code and a little bit of space in like deed restrictions, which we discussed today. But we've pretty much occupied the field that's available to us. And not all counties are in that position in the cuc. So I don't see it as an impediment that cuc isn't leading in this right now. I understand their position. I don't think that it's a reason for us not to lead in this field.
>> well, if you read the memo, summary and staff recommendations, it talk about chairman lucio. And I think what it really is addressing are more the the 873 legislation. And the 873 legislation, some people want us to use 873 one way, some people want to use 873 another way. But it clearly states in here, chairman lucio has asked local officials to testify on specific problems. And the two that are in here, which really hit to the heart of 873, is incompatible development, which is one thing Commissioner Davis, that you are very keen on. And I think that you may get unanaminity. With all counties saying we need some ability to deal with those, which is what 873 let you do.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> you know, if it's pretty crowded, and trafficked at certain times, when it is, and do you use that as a tool to say you know what? You're not going to do development, you are not going to do some of the things until you adequately, the county, you take care of the issue of highway 71. Well, we can't take care of highway 71 with campo. And campo is -- and we're the -- we're the -- the entity that really is the one that's grappling with, you know, with things because it's in our long-range plan. And what's the problem with grappling with 71 and the long-range plan, it's a funding issue for us. I mean, all of us know that we would go out and --
>> impact fees.
>> well, and impact fees are another thing that you know what happens unless you can really cajole people to the table to say you really need to participate with me. Immediately when you say impact fees generally you get major push back. So you have got to really find a way to get people to the table that they are willing to participate and as we well know, that we're not always getting played by the legislature, because we know it's a lot easier to kill things than it is to pass things.
>> well, perhaps we should call it developer pass-through tolling.
>> I mean, you know, god sarah you really know the toll -- just throw the word tolling in there drives everybody in a catatonic state.
>> we are in a position about talking about user fees, an impact fee is nothing but a fishery fee. Just as surely as the toll -- the toll discussion.
>> that may be true.
>> should be.
>> that may be true, but I think that it's -- that it's got a lot of -- you know, getting, you know, asking people to get around the table, tell us, you know --
>> I don't disagree.
>> we know, all of us, have talked to enough people to know where we have -- where we have push back. I mean --
>> I don't disagree, you are absolutely right.
>> that's where I think that we ought to try to go with -- with folks to see if we can get them to the table to say, hey, participate with us, play with us in the areas where we really feel like that we need some help.
>> in so doing I think we need to be at the table in the senate hearing. I think that's one of the tables.
>> well, I guess what I知 trying to do in my mind is to look at -- I知 looking at this, what we're doing here today, thank goodness it is something that we can discuss premature to the legislative session commencing. However, we have already started a process of looking at a public opinion land use survey that we will hopefully take those results, whatever they may be, and utilize them later, I guess with the legislature there's been a lot of legislative persons that -- that seem to be looking at what's going to happen with these particular results when they come in. I do know that -- that in the past and it appears to be something that we have to be faced with is that is the way you consume an apple. You start with the first bite into the apple, later the whole apple is consumed, but it's just the point that -- that I知 getting kind of worried, maybe if we are loading up a lot of things up front, where it actually like you said, even said it Commissioner, that some things you -- it's easier to kill a bill than it is to pass one. I don't want to load things up whereby the efforts that may be made coming in from the -- from the public land use opinion survey -- by saying how much should we go forward with into the first bite of the apple, maybe the first step of where we go. I don't really want to make sure that -- what I知 trying to make sure that happen is that we do get into the door because once we are on the inside we can work from the inside. Right now we -- we are not on the -- as on the ineyed as I think we need to be. I think we have some other interests into that -- that area that we need to pursue. So I知 really beginning to -- to look at this holistically to the point where we need to get there. That's a big concern of mine. I知 wrestling with that right now. I don't want to kill land use authority, period. I know there's things -- the county rather. I know there are things on the book however the survey ought to help us determine a lot of this. Before the legislature start. I really want to make sure that doesn't get overwhelmed by what we're doing.
>> are we looking at submitting the short version or long version of testimony.
>> no, probably a combination of the proper. The second is just supplemental, whatever we give should be kind of brought together, both memos together.
>> I understand.
>> do we want to address enforcement, easier enforcement of deed restrictions?
>>
>> [laughter]
>> > we have that already.
>> I知 not sure that takes any additional authority.
>> I had a qualifier
>> [laughter]
>> oh, okay.
>> [laughter]
>> incredibly difficult now. It's kind of like those -- the fee schedule.
>> yeah.
>> I mean, just a sentence that says basically counties are hereby authorized to adopt appropriate fee schedules for reimbursement seems to me would be adequate. But on the rest of that, don't we need broader language that clearly gives counties the opportunity to go out and insist on compliance with -- with applicable deed restrictions? I mean, it seems to me that if the project -- if you wait until a project is -- is underway, it's a lot more difficult than if it comes to our attention that a project is about to -- about to get started. And we go out and say, hey, you know, deed restrictions said that you -- that you may be -- you may not be aware of, that you need to be guided by. I mean so I知 suggesting not that we really get in there and file a whole lot of lawsuits, but that we have clear authority to rely on deed restrictions that residents enjoy.
>> how would you do that? I mean, as far as the deed restriction itself as far as how do you want to --
>> I hear what you're saying.
>> it appears that all that we have to do is employ a fee schedule and then the sky's the limit as to how many deed restrictions we want to involve ourselves in.
>> but I didn't --
>> it's rather broad.
>> but I didn't necessarily want to -- to engage in a whole lot of lawsuits and bring on a whole lot of additional staff. I want basically the clear authority to call compliance with deed restrictions to the attention of -- for that matter commercial or residential developers that are about to violate one. So I just thought of this by the way. It's not that I have legislation in mind. Except the explanation that I heard earlier today seems to me to require a whole lot of up front work when you may not even use it.
>> yeah.
>> and what I have in mind, though, is us having clear authority means when we go out and put somebody on notice and they wonder why is the county doing this, there's a statute that clearly sets forth our authority for doing it.
>> uh-huh.
>> so through -- to remove the requirements of a fee schedule -- remove the prerequisites?
>> yeah. Just give us the authority to -- like most of the other -- of the other fee authorization, joe remind me if I知 incorrect here, there's just language somewhere that authorizes us to charge an appropriate fee. They don't do a whole lot beyond that.
>> uh-huh.
>> because, you know, we have learned that if we don't have the authority to set a fee, we probably don't have the authority to charge one.
>> yeah.
>> but I知 saying -- what I知 suggesting is that we look at restrictive covenants to try to figure out a way if there's a simple way for the county to get a lot more involved than we have been historically, but not necessarily involved in the sense that we have to file a whole lot of lawsuits.
>> yeah.
>> uh-huh.
>> that gets to be real costly up front just to be prepared. You have got to have lawyers on staff, they got to possess expertise in this area. You probably need support personnel and I知 thinking that you don't want to file a whole lot of lawsuits. But you want to stop the -- the developments up front if they should be stopped and are in violation of restrictive covenant.
>> I see your. I was trying to see where you were coming from. I see what you are talking about now.
>> really, I think where we get at that look at what exists today, then try to figure out a way to simplify that.
>> okay, all right.
>> I would suggest, though, that -- well, I agree with you, I see your line of thinking that because it's an existing authority, I would say that it -- I would say that it's less appropriate for inclusion in this because these are -- these are -- are -- additional authorities that currently don't exist at all for us. That's an tomato an existing authority -- that's an amendment to an existing authority.
>> with you it's an existing -- but it's an existing authority that very few counties use. To my knowledge the court didn't even know about it until recently. Is harris county the only county in Texas that we think uses that.
>> that we know of.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> harris county the only one? Okay. That is --
>> [laughter]
>> [multiple voices]
>> there's a reason for that.
>> yeah.
>> I think what you are proposing, frankly has more legs. I would hate to put something that's probably an easier sell in with this stuff which is I知 being frank a -- a difficult sell but a worthy one.
>> sound like something maybe Travis County is interested in, other counties wouldn't want to go there because of the staff required. Maybe it's something that we need to work on for ourselves.
>> the residents that came today made out a good case for using something real, real simple. Whether you like 'em or not, restrictive covenants are in a whole lot of deed. But not everybody complies with them.
>> right, yeah.
>> and I guarantee you, residents in other counties when they have a problem similar to what these residents faced are going to their city councils and Commissioners courts and asking the same thing.
>> uh-huh.
>> and I think that -- plus I think the residents that were here today want to understand, will appreciate our trying to put ourselves in a position where we can at least use their restrictive covenants to get more bang than we have been getting. I wouldn't wait. I would lay it out there right now. The sooner we lay it out there, the sooner they start thinking about it, the better opportunity we have to refine it or drop it by the time the legislature gets here. I hadn't thought about this myself until today.
>> yeah.
>> so ...
>> I agree with you, judge. I see where you are coming from.
>> in regard to these two documents, I wonder about the shorter document, though, being -- as far as what we're going to produce to the -- to the senate committee, I -- I would be -- I would not be in favor of producing the addendum as well because -- for two reasons. Run, it's redundant. Second, I think that the new information regarding the cuc is really just internal and more strategic than it is informative to the senate subcommittee. So I would just give them a long version.
>> they have in mind taking key points from both to one document, right if.
>> I understood last week that you wanted to be more explicit about the nature of the request to the senate with regard to additional authorities. So the lower part of the supplemental I would integrate into the parent memo.
>> I think --
>> nothing about the cucc. I think that was just information.
>> you are looking at a third document that combines --
>> right. There are some typos in the original that need to be cleaned up, also.
>> those would be coming back --
>> the testimony is on the 18th. So we're -- we're there.
>> here, yeah. I was looking on the content, what is the nature of the testimony as opposed to the wordsmithing. We can get the wordsmithing down. Also the appointment of someone to deliver the testimony.
>> we will have one more opportunity to look at it.
>> next Tuesday.
>> I think we ought to try to come up with simple language for the court to look at regarding restrictive covenants. Other deed restrictions, I don't have any problem in working with you trying to come up with that. May be that we can't come up with it anyway. We look at it next week if we like it. If we don't just drop it.
>> certainly an important issue to address.
>> very important.
>> as far as who is going to go, what kind of casting we are going to engage in as far as who goes to the hearing, I would suggest we go ahead and choose that today so we can prepare since we would be deciding on the 17th, testimony on the 18th.
>> do we know what time of day it is?
>> I think previously said 10:00 a.m.
>> 10:00 a.m. On the 18th. Starts at 10:00.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> yeah, okay. I don't know if this is the item on their agenda.
>> public hearing at 42:30, Juneteenth celebration I think at -- on the 18th, also.
>> everyone wants an opportunity to spend some time at the capitol.
>> I certainly don't mind doing it if the court would have it.
>> fine with me, anybody else? Okay.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> thanks.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> can we get it to the court by Friday.
>> yes, we can.
>> [multiple voices]
>> provide whatever input we can so we have close to a final document --
>> all right.
>> thank you.
>> anything else, joe?
>> nice seeing you --
>> [laughter] there's nothing else.
>> that must be it.
>> joe --
>> [laughter]
>> sorry, Commissioner.
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, June 10, 2008 2:31 PM