Travis County Commissioners Court
March 24, 2009,
Item 29
Meantime, item 209 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including, a, legislation relating to expanding the boundaries of the barton springs edwards aquife are district to include portions of Travis County.b, house bill relating to the record of a court preservation fund and imposing a fee.
c, legislation relating to eminent domain including house builts 402, 417, 1125, 1385, 1432, 1483, 1534, 1536, 2110, 2387, 2685, and 3709.
and house resolution 1431 and 65.
d, added item, legislation relating to local options for transportation funding including house builts 9, 1674 and 3448, and senate bills 855en 942.
and e, added item, house bill 3468 relating to the selection, duties and compensation of a presiding criminal judge in Travis County.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe and members of the court.
happy to be here today.
just a couple comments.
as mentioned last week, the Friday before last was filing deadline for the legislature.
we are pleased to report that all the Travis County legislative priorities did get legislation filed for them.
our focus this week has been on getting bill analyses, talking points, backup materials to all our legislative partners so that they can move forward with requesting committee hearings and getting those scheduled for our bills.
we are midway through the session and it is interesting that the house has not passed a single bill yet.
in a sense we're in a late start in the session.
things are going to get very crazy very quickly and going to start moving very, think, very fast.
as you know, the senate has moved slotely so far although it is beginning to pick up the pace.
er ogden has promised that--senator ogden has propped the senate verse of the budget will be ready next week and that should tie up the senate for a day or so.
things like-wise moving slowly there.
we're home to get committee hearings on all our legislative priorities very quickly as well as tracking now almost 900 bills that are of some concern to the county.
we have five items specifically for the court today.
first one has to do with the barton springs edwards aquif rerks conservation district.
the coward previously talked about this as an issue.
there is a portion of southwestern Travis County that is in what is called a priority ground water management area.
according to the state law and the regulations of the Texas commission on environmental quality, those priority groundwater management areas must be put into some sort of conservation, must be some sort of conservation structure for those.
the typical approach for that is the formation of a groundwater conservation district.
however, one of the other options is to amalgamate an area or assimilate an area into another groundwater conservation district.
in this case the barton springs edwards aquifer conservation district which reaches into the southern part of Travis County add joins much of this groundwater management area we're discussing herethe proposal before the court today is to adopt a resolution in support of including Travis County, this portion of southwestern Travis County in the barton springs edwards aqifer conservation district.
>> is there a specific bill?
>> there is not a bill, not been filed at this point.
my understanding is that legislative counsel is working on a piece of legislation that will be filed most likely by representative bolden as a local bill sometime in the next week or so.
>> our concern is I think it will get filed and moved too quickly for to us have the opportunity to act on it.
so it seems prudent that we can act on the concept which has been fairly well veted, putting this part of western Travis County in the barton springs edwards aquifer conservation is probably the ideal way to accomplish this because it doesn't reinconvenient the wheel and they have a good long track record.
that is the essence of why we feel to move on this.
>> city of Austin has already approved, correct?
>> city of Austin has already approved it.
there's been negotiation with landowners and little villages and municipalities in the area.
so this hopefully is an approved approach to the situation.
>> seconded by yours truly.
discussion?
there was a motion.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> the second item for the court is we are bringing back a bill that the court has already discussed.
it is house bill 1284.
it has to do with the creation of a court record preservation fund and imposing a fee for that fund.
this is the bill the court discussed about a month ago that would impose a $5 fee on any defendant convicted of a, I think a $10 fee, excuse me, a court record preservation fee.
and that money would go into a fund that the county could use to digitize and preserve courthouse records.
this has been recommended by our administrative operations people.
at the time we discussed it a month ago, there was a discussion by the member of the court.
Commissioner Eckhardt particularly suggested three criteria that are listed on the second page of your memo, having to do with the fee goes to the people actually providing whatever services the fee is covering.
that it is not so large that it is in and of itself another punishment.
third, that the fee is not assessed for one thing and used to fund another thing.
this is a court record preservation fee assessed against criminal defendants who of course are traveling through our justice system and our courts and would be used to help preserve records of those activities.
>> do we know of any other county that has such a fee?
>> I'm not aware of it.
i know that there are a variety of fees collected in counties and I'm not sure.
generally, Commissioner Davis, about the record of court record preservation fees or specifically about this fee.
i think that this would give the state, this would give counties the option to do it.
so I'm assuming, Commissioner, at this time no other counties collect this fee.
>> thank you.
>> so 1284 is sponsored by whom?
>> state representative craig island from galveston.
think he filed it partly out of interest, as you know, when hurricane ike struck it destroyed their courthouse and many of their records.
so part of this bill is part of a response he is trying to make in terms of preserving these records.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so what assurance do we have this fee will in fact be dedicated to this particular purpose?
>> the way the bill is drafted.
it allows the account to collect the fee and that fee is deposited into a fund of the county that is used for records digitization and preservation.
i was trying to get through this judge without having to say digitization.
>> you came close.
keep working on it.
>> not already collecting this?
this has come up before hasn't it, that we collect a fee so that we can preserve some of our records?
so we're not doing this already.
>> judge and Commissioners, yes, we are collecting a similar fee now.
and to answer the judge's question, it is add ministered by you Commissioners court, through our department.
and we use it now to digitize similar records.
>> so this is to address galveston's problem because they hadn't done that?
>> it's drafted for statewide application.
this money would not go to galveston.
it would stay here in Travis County.
>> is the funding sufficient to digitize our records currently off the fee that we currently have?
>> no, ma'am, it doesn't even come close.
currently just for the district clerk alone we have a backlog of 5.5 million images that need to be digitized.
>> what is the current fee we're assessing and upon whom?
>> the current fee think is $5, but that is not for court feels.
that is for overall county records.
>> so the $5, whenever you go and file a document in property records?
>> that's correct.
>> this $10 fee would be specific to criminal records?
>> no.
>> it would not be limited.
the use of the fee would not be limited to criminal records but would be used to help digitize court records.
obviously, a large part of the workload of our courts has to do with the criminal court system.
>> that fee would be added--
>> to the five.
>> --to the fine or court costs after conviction in a criminal case.
>> yes, sir.
>> if court so chose that it just be used for criminal cases, that can certainly be under discussion and we could do that.
>> there's a motion and second.
anymore discussion?
>> I think it would be preferable for it to be confined to criminal, because I think the court certainly has the subscribed to my threshold, but that would be one of the threshold items for me.
>> Commissioner, just like the county and district clerk records management fees, they have to come to court with a plan for use of that fee.
we'd be more than happy to do that.
>> you're going to have to make that, don't have to make that choice now.
>> that would free other counties to not make the choice and use the $10 for whatever they want.
again, taxing the criminally convicted to pay for all of their court report digitization, which is one of my issues with these add-ons.
we seem to dog pile on criminal defendants as though they are a cash machine.
in most instances they are the least able to bear the tax.
>> collection rate is not high.
>> no, it's not, judge.
>> I assume since they helped generate the records?
there's an angle to it.
and on the other hand I think when folks are truly unable to pay at all, I think the judges kind of take care of that when they see them.
then when they are found guilty and put on probation, or other punishment is done.
so I kind of feel fairly good that the judges take care of that up front.
i know there's a need to take care of the records.
i think it still ought to be to address the criminal cases.
i think I agree with that.
>> the language of the bill requires that it can be used only for digitization of court records and preservation of court records, and then requires that the funds created by the bill would be under control of the county Commissioners court.
i assume that the Commissioners court in this county could direct that the fees collected in this county would be used only for the purposes of digitizing those records.
i assume that would be something that steve's office could implement.
>> uh-huh.
>> steve and john trust our judgment.
>> as do i.
>> what issues would there be in resolving to support island's bill predicated on the fees only be using, being used for criminal --digitization of criminal files?
>> I think we would need a bill to clarify.
there's also a bill, 1860, to collect a fee from filing civil cases for a similar purpose.
i don't think either bill specified that they would be used only on criminal or civil side.
than would probably require a committee ment somewhere along the process.
and he may very well be amenable to that.
>> I guess I shouldn't speak for representative island.
>> on the other hand if we think we will be the best thing for Travis County, why wouldn't we defer to the judgment of the other county officials for their counties?
i mean, if, I guess I'm a little reluctant because I mean there are only so many fees that person can pay.
at the same time, though, there are judges who can waive that here locally.
and there is a need to fund this somehow.
i guess if I were just a taxpayer, I'd want those that created the files to help preserve and store them to a greater extent than i.
>> there's an argument that it's a user fee.
but as the court's questions have made clear, we ought to try to make that connection more clear.
and we probably would certainly do that in Travis County's case because that would be a decision that left up to the court.
>> judge, I had a conversations with the district clerk's office about the collection of the fee.
and Commissioner Gomez, you're correct in your comments that these fees often are waved --waived by the judges in the event that they just don't think that they can collect these fees.
>> indigent.
>> uh-huh.
>> how about number four, digitize criminal records in Travis County?
>> I hear what mr.
axle is saying and what the judge is saying because we would have the discretion to in my mind do the right thing and make that check shun to the user fee--make that connection to the user fee.
>> kind of like the local option on transportationis it our praise to prevent another county from having a different position as far as using more widely?
although I would not be in favorite, I'm not a Commissioner there.
>> I would think small counties cr would not be nearly the problem it is in urban areas, right?
>> I'm guessing not.
one of the things we're hearing in the field these days is that it's a result of hurricane ike and katrina that many of these local governments in south Texas and louisiana have just been dev stated and their records are just gone.
people are at the point they can't even prove who they are or that their property records are unavailable.
it's resulting in lots of court actions.
it's a real problem.
and this is I think really designed to help all of us counties take care of that.
>> another thing, it may be that at some point we have dealt with our records on the civil side and need to do more on the criminal side or vice versa.
>> yes.
>> if you have the option, say we get on top of the criminal records but there's a backlog on the civil side we have the flexibility to apply the resources where they are needed.
>> yes.
>> but I had no idea that for criminal records there's a backlog now of more than 5 million pieces.
>> those are okay although we have a backlog on the criminal side as well.
yes, on the criminal side.
there are lots of projects we can use this for hot checks is another one we are looking at right now which would feed directly to this one.
>> move that we support the proposed legislation.
>> second.
>> anymore discussion?
i thought this would be zero --easier the more we discussed it but it done.
all in favor.
show commissionrs Davis Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I'm not sure.
>> Commissioner Gomez abstaining.
that sqeeks by.
thank you, sir.
4-1.
>> gotcha.
>> item c there's do with imminent domain and condemn neigh legislation.
we gave a presentation to the court I guess about three weeks ago about a gamut of bills that have been filed relating to eminent domain and condom nation issues.
at that time the court took the briefing but did not take action any bills.
there have been a total of 60 bills filed having to do with that.
17 of of them have been referred to the house land and resource management committee, and ten of those bills are going to be heard in committee tomorrow.
the presentation that we want to make to the court today is about those 17 bills.
we have a recommendation that the court specifically state its opposition to I believe it's eleven of those 17 bills.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> do we somewhere set forth the reasons why?
>> we certainly could could, judge.
we discussed them at some depth.
we think they fundamentally limit the ability of the county to exercise its constitutional powers under eminent domain.
i think the intent of most of these bills is to either make the process harder or to change the very legal fabric of the concept of eminent domain and condemnation.
if the court wishes, what we can do is move forward on this, give, perhaps drop cards with the legislature tomorrow, and come back with court next week with a resolution setting forth more full yes the nature of our Octobers to these bills.
but i--our Octobers to these bills.
i--our objections to these bills.
i think today we would like to at least drop a card at the land and resource committee hearing tomorrow.
>> I move we drop a card tomorrow and develop the statement for next week.
>> second.
was the other one seconded?
that too I second that motion.
i do think the reasons why would be important, may be as important as our position.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
but there are so many of them, I guess that really is kind of labor intensive.
anymore discussion of that motion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
number 6 has to do with a nup date, sorry, item d has to do with update that we wantd to give on you local option transportation acts.
we have breaking news.
a new version of senator crona's bill that has come out literally just this morning.
and joe geesel man from transportation natural resources is here to share some thoughts on that.
>> does the rest of the court have that which you just handed out?
i know you have your favorite supervisors, joe, but I wouldn't be so obvious if I were you.
>> (laughter.)
>> all right.
literally, I did get this about an hour ago.
that is why it's labeled quick analysis.
and it's about a 40-page bill.
this is corena's mother ship, he broke it into chapters by subregion, a section for north Texas, alamo region, capital region, tailored to suit the needs of every area in textation.
it is very much a concrete seating.
he is looking to put this bill out and not looking for more amendments.
starting to look like it's firming up.
he is suggesting if we want changes go to the house because he is closing up shop.
with that said, the --insert, this in part comes out of a meeting we had with our state senator last week talking over some of the concerns the county had about the governance and the compromises that were made.
the insert I think clearly reflects the senator's self admitted bias towards city government.
i think the governance options is probably the best we'll be able to do for the time being.
going quickly through this, central Texas, there's a part of the bill that is statewide and refers to everyone who uses the bill.
then it break it into subchapters by region.
mainly in terms of governance.
but in the subchapter on central Texas, we add that sidewalks, hike and bike trails and paths would be eligible as mobility improvements projects, whereas the rest of Texas doesn't really care about that.
excuse me.
at least doesn't have it in the bill.
now, in the governance options, there are four ways to get this election to the voters.
one is the county may call an election, determine what the funding options are and the projects given to the voters.
now, the county and the principal city, in this case Austin, can jointly call an election to determine what the funding options are in the projects.
third is a one or more cities with 60 percent of the population, or the principal city, Austin, and the second most populace city, which I believe is Pflugerville, may require the Commissioners court to call an election.
now, if they do so, they are petitions must pass the council by two-thirds vote.
it upped the antiy a little bit, not just the majority bi but two-thirds of the council would have to vote to make the petition to the county to require an election.
but fourth and more important now is the city, the principal city being Austin, may call its own election, determine the funding options, and the projects, and have all the powers and responsibilities of the county under subsection b, which basically what they are doing under that option is stepping into the shoes of county government and serving as proxy to county government.
so this is where it truly becomes, I'm not sure exactly what incentive the city would have to do anything but for.
so it gives me a little concern that that is as strongly written as it is.
the next bill, basically we prevail upon the uniform elects being November and March so it wouldn't cost additional money.
by the way, if we are petitioned by municipality to have the election, the cost of those elections are shared by the petitioning entity, petitioning city.
then finally, on the, how the projects are selected, the law requires both the county and/or the city to appoint a project selection advisory committee, aed by the city and/or the county, to recommend the projects and the local funding options.
that committee must consult with the city the county, other municipalities in the county, the rma and transit authority and any rail district.
absent from that list is tex dot.
b, given the committee husband give first consideration to regionally significant projects.
that was somewhat of a compromise.
before the draft said that the mpo would have to certify the projects were regionally significant.
so that has been, the projects need to be consistent with the transportation plan.
and the committee must give first consideration to regional significant projects but it's in the exclusively that, which allows for other type of of nonsignificant regionally significant projects to be included in the packet.
finally, the committee must look at the geographicic equity of the projects which is something we argued for long and early, that in order to pass an election of this variety, I think there needs to be something in it for everyone.
so I think that is something that would be important to the committee.
i'm presuming that under this any recommendation made by the advisory committee is just that advisory, that the governing body could take it or leave it and that the say --final say would be either with the Commissioners court or council.
that is the way it stands.
i have not had chance to review the entire 45-page document, and I think at this point it's probably the version that is going to pass out of the senate.
the house will have its own versions, and we're tracking those.
>> do they still think that the senate committee may pass something out tomorrow?
>> yes, that's cowarding to the--according to the e-mail that we received this morning.
>> joe, can you tell me on one of these bullets that you have, as far as the city of Austin actually stepping in the shoes of county and playing the role of the county government, just excluding us out of the process, do you know who came up with that idea?
>> I do not.
>> I mean, that is kind of deep there.
of course, we definitely don't want, in my opinion, definitely do not want to see had a happen--that happen.
i'm just wondering whether or not, some of these counties are basically consumed totally by cities, looking at dallas county for example.
the dallas almost consumes the whole area-wise, almost consumes the whole county.
i'm just wondering maybe that is something that may be part of that.
but I don't really know.
>> yeah.
>> I'm fishing around.
>> north Texas has et cetera --has its own subchapter totally different, quite convoluted.
>> this really kind of scares me a lot as far as that particular city of Austin wanting to, you know, be proxy, I guess, for Travis County.
that bothers me tremendously.
no way in the world I could support that.
but anyway, let me ask this.
there has to be some opposition to this particular local option bill.
do we know what that opposition is?
>> yes.
most of the opposition that I heard in the senate testimony was against the local option per se.
they believe remedy should object a statewide basis and that for failure to have an adequate funding source at the state level, localities are coming forward and saying at least allow the metropolitan areas to take care of themselves.
their argument is let's take care of the state as a whole and not generate these independent, you know, local options everywhere that somewhat unique by metropolitan area.
the issue of course is taxation, that they prefer perhaps an enhanced staswide gas tax as opposed to some of the options provided for this the local option bill.
some just suggested there's enough money period that we don't need anymore revenue for transportation.
soism, it runs the gamut.
other than that, there are probably some specific stakeholders.
i think the retailers in particular are worried about how the gasoline tax will be collected.
it is now being collected at the, at a centralized, well head is in my mind, but basically where they regional distribute gasoline.
that's why the tax is actually accounted for.
and they are worried about what happens when you start collecting that tax at a county wide level or even in this case a sub county level, and what the burden will be on retail torse start accounting for the sales tax, the gasoline tax at, for instance, a 7-11.
there's real concern.
i think there's a subcommittee at a statewide level still working on the the mechanics of how you would do a local gas tax if you did one.
so I think that is perhaps reasonable objection.
let's think through how this thing actually works before we step off into it.
so I think there just needs to be a lot of work done to do whatever, if this does pass, to make sure that it's actually possible to collect and distribute the revenues received.
>> may i?
>> yes.
>> I tend to agree with the opposition that would prefer a statewide solution, but I don't see one coming any time soon, so I'd very much like the see some version of this pass.
i too have concerns about number 4, however.
and in regard to your description, have the powers and responsibilities granted to the county under subsection b, have we, and I suppose this is really more a question for de, se, have we put in to the county attorney's office to explore the constitution at of allowing the city to step into the county's shoes in regard to the powers enumerated.
>> this language only appears in this draft.
we just got it this morning.
but I forwarded to the county attorney's office and asked them to review it.
i mean, it's an odd--
>> very odd.
>> the way it's constructed is very odd.
it may imply the city is call an election held countiwide to assess taxes collected from everybody in the county for purposes of the projects identified by the city.
>> yeah.
>> so when this was being discussed at the concept ual level there had been a discussion about using the money just for projects in the city.
the way this is drafted that may and question.
i asked the county attorney to review.
>> I don't think I would have a problem with the city being able to call an election for projects in the city to be taxed within the city.
far be it from me to say no to that authority.
but it just appear to me on its face, it gives me pause and raises the specter of an unconstitutional provision.
i raise it not because I oppose the bill.
i'm into favor of the bell and that is why I'd like to ferret that out as soon as possible.
>> yeah.
>> do we know what subsection b says?
>> yes, we do.
>> what does it say?
>> pretty much the power levying any of the local options.
it is the gutsthe b.
>> it is titled methods of local funding and sets information the available method, sets forth the responsibility of the, for instance, the responsibility of the county to collect the vehicle registration fee if that is one of the funding options that is chosen.
so presumably under that pre vision that joe referenced in the central Texas portion or the capital region portion, the function of collecting that vehicle registration fee could somehow be transferred to the city.
of course, vehicle registration fees are collected by the county now.
>> exactly.
>> there's a lot of questions about that.
>> it would be good to get some resolution on that in advance.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> a few phone calls between now and this afternoon?
is that what you are talking about?
>> we can try.
>> if the senate committee is meeting tomorrow, I think whatever we plan to do, we ought to do it today so we can communicate it to senator watson.
>> still amazes me who would put something like that in there without checking with us.
>> yeah.
if you call the election, determine the funding options and projects within the city, I'm assuming it would be all right.
>> that's within thing.
>> so the--that is one thing.
>> the other long that is much broader would be left out.
>> the way the bill is written for all the other regions, it was the county actually levying, doing the subcontracting.
this kind of turns it around and says the city will do all of those things, collect, contract, determine projects.
it's really, it's somewhat odd in the bill because it goes so much contrary to the way the bill was set up for the state as a whole.
i don't know if anyone has really thought through the implications of that.
>> joe, when you brought that up, it hit me like a ton of bricks item 4.
>> do we feel strongly enough about it to basically authorize joe and/or de, dde, ce to communicate with senator watson's office?
between now and two in the afternoon?
so we don't have heart ache about that?
>> I think that would be appropriate.
that would be our recommendation.
>> okay.
>> them let's just say unless there is objection, those would be the directions from the court.
incate our I think tension to call this--intention to call this item up back this afternoon.
this is 29 d.
specifically for this one pager.
>> thank you,up, the final item is e relating to house bill 3468 relating to the selection, duties and compensation of a presiding criminal judge in Travis County.
this is an idea that was brought to the court before any legislation was filed two or three weeks ago.
as a practical matter, we have had a presiding criminal judge in Travis County since 1991.
it has been a matter of informal selection among the judges.
but the judge currently judge bob perkins, servers in the role of coordinating the administrative rules of the criminal courts, coordinating the assignment of indigent, of lawyers for indigent defendants, and numerous other administrative responsibilities.
a bill has been filed now that would formalize that, those duties he performs, than would create the position of presiding criminal court judge of Travis County.
as drafted, the bill would require the county to pay stipend to the pre signeding criminal court judge in an amount equal to the amount paid by the state to what is called the presiding administrative judge or the administrative judge of the county, who is judge deetz.
>> that amount is?
>> $5,000 a year.
so the money to the men straste judge is paid by the state--administrative judge is paid by the state.
this money would require money for presiding criminal judge to be paid by the county.
as I understand, judge perkins has suggested that what we ought to dork the legislation ought to be redrafted, perhaps with either committee amend am or substitute, that with make it permissive for the county to offer a stipend to the presiding criminal judge.
and it is with that, it is that proposal actually that we would like to bring to the court today.
and I think I distributed to your offices a substitute what was presented in the backup materials given to you.
>> subsection--
>> I think there's act actually substitute language.
>> subsection c, yes.
>> judge perkins circulated.
>> on page 3.
>> .
>> the county may pay the presiding criminal judge additional compensation in any amount not to exceed the amount the local administrative district judge of Travis County receives from the state of Texas notwithstanding any other law compensation paid, the presiding criminal sudge under this section is not included as part of the judge's combined salary from state and county sources for purposes of the salary limitations provided by section 659.012.
in addition to that, they have the money in their budget right now that would cover this amount of money.
they had it in salary savings.
>> that's in the for me of a motion, I'll second that.
>> there's a substitute motion that I circulated to all the offices yesterday that would have us go on record in support of the bill with the addition of making the stipend permissive with the county.
>> yes.
that is the may portion to take care of that.
>> yes, the may.
>> so it may.
>> yes, sir.
>> I'll second that based on the may instead of shall.
that's a may option.
so we can look at this and go from there.
i second that motion, Commissioner, if that was in the for me of a motion.
>> susan.
>> a short comment.
just historically, the planning and budget office is the one that separated the criminal and civil courts feeling there really is a difference in how they are run and their interest in things.
used to be the district courts were one department, so to speak then the county courts at law were different.
then the planning and budget office and deece whatever year you said is the year it happened separated them thinking there was a distinct criminal interest as opposed to civil.
and I think that that has changed the way that they operate .
and the county spends a lot of money on criminal justice planning when in fact really the presiding judge of the criminal court, you might want to say, is the chief planner.
and as we have gotten into jail overcrowding and the independent gent defense issues, particularly with independent gent defense and--indigent defense and the amount of money involved, there is a significant increase in workload with those criminal judges.
and they always have had someone that has had to kind of step in because of that workload.
so as I said, really Travis County has made the decision to separate operationally civil from criminal.
i don't know if that helps.
just historically, that is how that has worked.
>> so many --main difference is the county may pay the additional amount.
>> in the budget with everything else.
>> within thing I would like to discuss, in regard to the criminal judges expressing they to have it within their budgets to provide this $5,000 honor arium, that is what it is.
judge perkins does a significantly increased workload from the other judges.
and I don't deny that at all.
and he does a tremendous job.
my concern, though, is that this really is in the nature of an honor rarium.
it's only $5,000 on top of a significant salary.
we are in an economic time, and I'm grateful for him finding a middle ground and making this permissive.
i do want to stress it is permissive.
in this particular climate, we simply can't afford these kinds of honor ariums.
if the other judges would like to put portions of their salary or their budget toward this, I think that is appropriate.
but I don't know that it's appropriate for us to carve that out.
but it is permissive.
>> in this county when we give people additional duties we pay for those.
>> we have always paid much more for the criminal justice planning department in order to take some of those duties off of the judges.
>> I'd like to ask to recess.
but either we are going to do this or not.
move that we approve the substitute language which leads it discretionary with the court and make it a budget issue basically.
>> yeah.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
it may be that we want to do research between now and the budget process to try to figure out exactly what this entails.
but no matter what it entails, we look at the total circumstances and decide whether to fund it or not.
so the call ultimately is ours.
at least this way rather than being mandated.
anymore discussion?
>> judge, I think Commissioner Gomez when she made the statement was in the for me of a motion.
of course, I second that.
is there another motion?
>> you got that right.
no, back to the motion.
>> I know Commissioner Davis seconded.
but I wasn't totalally sure.
>> it could be a motion.
>> we only need one motion.
>> that could be a motion, sure.
>> that's fine.
Commissioner Gomez.
second by Commissioner Davis.
anymore discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
move that we recess until 1:30.
that passes by unanimous vote..
.
.
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, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM