Travis County Commissioners Court
December 23, 2008
Item 24
24 is to consider and take appropriate action on eaz liewtion supporting scenic Texas' pursuit of legislation during the 81st legislature for county authority to regulate billboards within its jurisdiction but outside the corporate limits of a municipality?
>> this is a request if scenic Texas to support their efforts at providing some county control regarding the location of billboards.
it's very similar to what they were pursuing in the last legislation in regards to identifying specific corridors as scenic.
and the language of the legislation that they're pursuing is essentially to -- it's a version of broadening the bracket, it just adds some additional corridors as designated as scenic.
>> when we approve a resolution as I hope we do with this one, does that mean that at some point we have to approve the specific language of a specific bill?
the general idea here is it makes all the sense in the world, but at some point there will be a bill before some committee at the legislature and in my view the Commissioners court needs to look at that language and approve it at some point.
>> I think that --
>> I think that's true with everything else because I have another request here for a general support and it's something that really I think we would support in general, but the devil is in the detail on most of this legislation.
you've got to look at how it will impact or cut you.
>> perhaps they can talk to this as far as the making of the sausage and when we could know with assurance what the sausage ingreed yepts were.
>> but I'm looking for -- not to cut you off.
what I'm looking for is a statement in policy by this court that when we approve a resolution that's what we're eye proving.
at some point wet we would like a chance to act on a specific bill.
I think that it has always been our position anyway.
>> yes, sir.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> nice to be here.
my thought on this -- let me suggest a way of approaching this question of resolutions.
it seems to me that we're -- I think that the court is going to be favored with many of these types of resolutions where it is essentially being asked to approve another initiative, maybe that's been brought to it by another group.
and the court's support is of value in that legislative process.
whether the court wants to say we're going to endorse a general resolution that we think scenic Texas ought to be able to -- that we ought to have more scenic designations of highways in order to reduce billboards, and leave it at that, I think if -- in that situation the court could simply approve this resolution and in a sense be done with it.
the other alternatives for the court is to approve this resolution, say this is actually an issue that we want to monitor and maybe take a position on an actual piece of legislation down the road in terms of favoring a specific piece of legislation or opposing a specific piece of legislation.
but it seems to me that the resolution before the court today is of a broader nature.
it is not asking you to support that I know of a specific piece of legislation that's been filed, but simply to support scenic Texas' efforts to get more legislation passed.
>> let me mention another thing.
the other thing is we have had a policy in place for at least four or five legislative sessions and I assume it continues now.
that policy has been that a specific piece of legislation requires at least four affirmative votes of the court.
our requirement on resolutions such as this is simply a simple majority.
there's a big difference there.
>> yes, sir.
>> and we will be approached with a whole lot of general ideas that make all the sense in the world.
and when the bill comes back, though, a lot depends on what we are required to do, what we're authorized to do.
you really don't have a good feel for what the -- how the legislation impacts you until you can see a bill.
>> correct.
>> and it seems to me that at that point it would be the court's prerogative to decide whether it wanted to take the next step, which is to say we support or oppose a particular piece of legislation related to this issue.
so it seems to make sense for the court to me to say we can support a general resolution supporting rail line movement and improvement.
we can support a general resolution supporting relocation of billboards or designation of highways with respect to billboards without saying we're going to make it affirmative part of the legislative agenda for the county, and number two, that we're going to track and follow and fight for specific legislation.
>> judge, two years ago there was some folks that came -- well, Gerald, I guess it was in your precinct.
I guess dealing with some billboards out on 71.
>> I think you called her the next Commissioner.
that's who -- she was part of that.
>> there were several of them.
>> and we supported that.
>> there was some legislation specifically, but what caught us up in it was that there was nothing -- and Commissioner Gomez was involved at that time -- for billboards that are kind of offensive and out.
and we kind of said wait a minute.
this bill is specific for a specific area, but now we're seeing a bracket.
I really don't know is it population, the bracket tier of this thing?
I really don't know, but I do know that there was a bill that -- for whatever reason.
I don't know what happened to it, Gerald.
I can't recall.
you may recall, but there was a specific bill that was filed that dealt with billboards.
>> it was specifically about scenic Texas, and we were as a court unanimously supportive of the creation of some corridors where you had beautification or no billboards.
now, we were specific in that one because the people that were behind it mostly were along 71 west in Travis County.
and then I think Commissioner Gomez, given the fact that 71 east is in precinct 4, we said okay, let's have it.
the point here is that we thought we had this thing really moving.
and, you know, you were over there, so you may have some insight in this deal.
all of a sudden it just got nailed.
and --
>> 290 was another one.
>> that's one of the things that when you broaden something, even though you think that you open your arms up and you've got supporters, you also open your arms up and you -- you're getting more people, you know, against it.
so I think that that's the thing that we've really got to watch here.
I mean, I think most texans think that you would like to have some places where you can drive on a highway and not have 27 by 14 billboards.
>> I just couldn't recall.
I didn't recall --
>> it got killed in the legislature.
>> this resolution made sense.
in the future when resolutions come, we could just support or oppose the general idea.
most of them --
>> that would be my suggestion would be -- and if the court's feeling about that general idea -- for instance, in this instance the designation of corridors for billboards is strong enough that I think it would be appropriate for the court to say, let's put it on the legislative agenda, give direction to our legislative consultants and our staff to move forward with trying to help a bill get passed that addresses these.
and once it was in that process, judge, then specific language would be brought back to the court.
we would give you regular updates about what is happening with a particular bill that addresses that, whether a committee subsuit is better or worse from the perspective of the Commissioners court.
all that process would be involved.
I guess I'm suggesting that today we have the opportunity to say yes or no to this particular resolution.
and if you will, leave it at that.
>> move approval.
>> what I am hearing is that there is interest in the court in this -- in actually supporting -- supporting this resolution and saying this is actually a good enough idea that we want to add it to our legislative wish list.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
we'll see the specific wording later on.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> again.
it passed unanimously.
would you remind somebody that's sitting here in two weeks that again we -- 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, December 23, 2008 4:27 PM