Travis County Commissioners Court
March 31, 2009,
Item 35
>> now number 35.
by the way, on 35-d, the medical examiners office, I had a chat with representatives of the medical examiners office yesterday and we decided that probably not a good time to discuss d.
it needs furdz work and they will let you know when to do that.
35 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters, including a, legislation relating to environmental regulation, including house bills 650, 721, 1909, 1920, 2495.
and senate bill 16.
35-b, house bill 692, relating to the jurisdiction of statutory county courts.
and 35-c, legislation relating to local options for transportation funding, including house bills 9, 1674, 3448, and senate bills 885 and 942.
and as I said previously, we have been asked basically to delay consideration of 35-d.
dealing with the medical examiners office.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, members of the court.
thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.
just first of all a couple of items by way of background about what's going on over at the capitol, the pace of committee hearings has picked up considerably in the last week or so.
just for an example, last night the house affairs committee met until past nine p.m., considered 32 bills and reported out 11 of them, left 21 of them pending.
but took testimony on 32 bills.
several of which are -- were issues that are of some concern to the county.
so we are following that committee and its report.
we'll be seeing a lot of late nights and committee hearings particularly in the house and long days in the senate on their committee hearings.
we're really in that crunch time of the session now.
floor action has also begun to pick up in both the house and the senate.
yesterday the senate passed a bill allowing for d.w.i.
checkpoints.
that's a bill that has failed several times in the senate over the last several sessions, and so they passed that yesterday.
they will be doing -- the senate will be doing its version of the budget later this week or next week or both.
>> who is sponsoring the house version of that bill?
>> the response ers of the d.w.i.
checkpoint bill --
>> the house?
>> I'm not sure who the house sponsor is.
senator john corona carried it in the senate.
senator zaffirini has carried a similar bill for several years.
i forget who the sponsor is.
i don't think it's moved in the house yet.
>> somebody has already I think filed.
>> excuse me, Commissioner.
just as a programming note, -- I'll let you go first.
>> no, go ahead.
>> just as a programming note, last week we talked about eminent domain bills and the court's recommendation to us was that we should drop some cards on some of the bills that we were recommending that the court oppose, and then the court also asked us to come back to you with a more full explanation of the concerns we had about some of the bills and some sort of written way of communicating that either to the legislators or to other interested parties.
we're still in the process of doing that, so we intend to have the eminent domain bills back on the court's agenda next week, but in the meantime we have dropped cards on several bills in both the house and the senate that were scheduled for hearings between last week and this week and will go forward with participation in those committee hearings as any other bills are scheduled.
but we hope to bring back to the court next week either resolutions or letters to address some of the issues that we had.
we also last week decided -- two weeks ago decided to support house bill 2524 by representative rafael and chia which has to do with the security and integrity of election systems, the dre, the electronic election systems, had to do with how they're tested, how they're kept safe and secure from unwanted visitors and so forth.
if you remember the county clerk helped make a preparation on that bill.
the court decided to go ahead and support that bill.
and then recommended that we draft a letter of support to representative onchena.
i have given to judge Biscoe a draft of letter of support to the representative and also representative todd smith, the chairman of the house elections committee, where that bill has been referred, asking representative smith to give the bill a hearing.
so I've given that to judge Biscoe and I'll take your counsel, judge Biscoe, on whether you want to just sign that on behalf of the court or whether we want to circulate it and actually get court action on it.
in which case we would probably have to post it for another week.
so that's just catching up on some of the bills we've already discussed here in front of the court.
with respect to today's agenda, our first item has to do with a series of bills related to air quality issues, and the recommendation that we have for the court is that the court adopt a set of principles that are listed on your backup materials and also connected to those set of principles are specific bills that we're asking the court to take a position of in support or opposition.
so I have with me tom webber from the transportation, natural resources department in order to answer any questions you may have about those bills or about what they do.
there's really three classes of bills that we're talking about.
one is bills relating to what we call cumulative effects.
and this is the idea of considering the -- under current law, and tom you can grade my homework on this.
under current law when tceq is being asked to decide whether or not to permit an air pollution source, they consider that air pollution source as an individual contributor.
they don't take into effect whether it is part of a series of other sources or how it adds to the effect that's already existing, so there are bills this session that would require tceq to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of several air pollution sources in deciding whether or not to grant permits for additional sources.
>> is that a fairly accurate statement?
so that's one class of bill that we're talking about.
the second class has to do with idling restrictions.
this has to do with requiring that motors not be allowed to ielgd beyond a certain period of time that contributes to carbon emigs in the air and the third class has to do with funding for air quality programs.
we're hope to go increase funding for air quality programs statewide, but that will directly benefit the county as well.
and tom, as I said, has more information about any of those if the court has questions.
>> move that we support the bills authorizing taking cumulative effects into account.
>> second.
>> discussion?
we have -- that's been something I think that we've needed for a long time.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and what is the other one?
>> legislation relating to idling restrictions.
which are house bill 1909 and house bill 1920.
>> move approval of those.
>> second.
>> discussion?
what those would do is what?
>> they would place restrictions on the ability of vehicles that have a gross weight of 6,000-pounds or more to just be left in a position where they're idling.
>> instead of -- currently the restriction is 14,000-pounds or over.
so they're including more vehicles into that.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> what happens if people don't follow that directive?
would they get a fine?
>> they would be subject to penalties by local law enforcement or others.
>> I think they can actually be ticketed.
>> okay.
>> and then the third class of bills really relates to house bill 650, which makes alternative fuel vehicles eligible as replacement vehicles under the lirac program.
that's one of the bills.
then the other is a rider that is going to be put into the natural resources part of the senate versions of the appropriations bill that has to do with increasing funding for air quality planning and management in the state budget.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
the next item has to do with house bill 692 relating to the jurisdiction of statutory county courts.
judge elizabeth earl was hoping to get over here.
i don't know if she's been able to get out of her -- she was actually in the middle of a hearing when we paged her.
we're hoping she can get over here.
if the court would like, we can go on to the next item, which has to do with receiving an update on where we are with the local option transportation funding issue.
then we can see if we can come back to house bill 692.
>> the 692, we really wouldn't have any reason to oppose that, would we?
i mean, that's an incredible burden on our budget if that passed the way it is.
>> it would require considerable reconfiguration of how we run our courts, both from an administrative point of view and from an actual physically laiout kind of view.
it would give county courts at law statutory jurisdiction over state jail felonies.
>> I think the letter basically says, reiterates the burden and the tight budget that we're going to have in 2010 and 2011.
so wouldn't we want to go ahead and send a letter?
>> I would think.
>> yeah.
i move approval of the letter and that we send it forward.
showing our opposition.
>> it would only oppose the bill for the reasons stated in the letter.
>> yes.
>> and chairman solomons is the chairman of the state affairs committee.
i would recommend to the court that we oppose it as filed and that we commit ourselves to working with him to improve the bill.
it may be that he wants to do something for denton county or a couple of the counties in north Texas.
>> do we know of any other counties such as the council of urban counties and others that -- have they taken a position on this also?
>> probably not yet.
but I would think that this is like an unfunded mandate and -- we have a principle against unfunded mandates.
it could be that they're trying to address the needs of smaller counties, in which case they can do that without involving us.
>> without involving -- right.
as drafted the bill would apply statewide.
the conference of urban counties has it on its agenda for its policy committee meeting tomorrow morning.
>> tomorrow morning.
>> so -- but I don't think they've taken a formal position yet that I know of.
>> I think we ought to go ahead and oppose it, judge.
>> the results are not expressed in the letter, only implied in the letter, but there's an issue from a philosophic standpoint of district jums handling gel fies those -- felonies because they're going to state jails, but the other individuals are staying within the community and going to county-run jails.
this is an unfunded mandate also in regard to making county court at law judges also responsible for state jail felonies and above.
and I don't see any reason not to support the judges in their efforts to oppose this as filed.
>> all in favor?
that carries unanimously.
>> thank you, judge.
>> he I didn't hear --
>> I seconded.
>> on item c that's an update from joe gieselman and I about what's happening with our local option transportation funding.
as the court remembers, a couple of weeks ago, I guess it was just last week, they were getting ready to report on senate bill 855 by senator korean in a.
there were -- corona, there were changes being made about which the court was concerned.
we went into executive session in order to receive a legal bref briefing on the legal and institutional issues raised by those changes.
that bill now has been reported out of committee and is on its way to the senate floor and some of the changes that we had discussed or some of the issues we had discussed have been resolved in the new version of the bill.
i'll let joe brief you on that.
>> it seems like the signal issue was the city of Austin being able to independently call an election, and our fear was that that would be a county-wide election.
they have amended the draft legislation to make it clear that that's only within the municipal boundaries that they call that election so that it up -- that they won't be trying to tax the entire county for things only inside the city.
with regard to the capability or the capacity in the bill for both the county and the city to call simultaneous election and what happens if a conflict arises as a result of that, the bill has also been amended to address that.
first of all, neither entity can call an election before 120 days before the election.
we can't call the election.
for more than 120 days prior to the election date.
it's got a start date.
you can't jump the gun.
>> okay.
>> on 120 days, either entity can call an election.
after a public hearing.
so presumably if we both have the intent to call an election, we're already broadcasting that by holding public hearings.
but 120 days out conceivably we can both call an election.
if one calls the election, the other doesn't, then that trumps.
the one who calls the election gets to hold the election.
the other cannot hold the election until a year following or the next election date.
remember it's may and November, the standard dates for elections.
so if the city calls an election in may, they basically were the first to call the election, the county could not hold an election then until November.
and so there's basically one or the other, but not both.
if we both call the election simultaneously, then there is no election.
basically it's kind after mutual destruction clause that says if we haven't gotten together, we have a consultant, we've held public hearings and we both 120 days out call an election, then it basically destroys the election.
>> as I recall, the counties call an election in may --
>> pardon?
>> I'm trying to recall the number of times that Travis County has called an election in may.
when we look at a lot of things, sometimes we have -- the majority are in November.
so can you recall any instances, judge, when we've had elections in may from the county?
>> usually in November.
>> no.
>> I can't either.
i was just thinking he said may.
not like the city.
the city council elections and all these other things, but then again, they also have things on the agenda -- on the ballot in November also, if I can recall correctly.
so the competition look like it would be maybe in the November election more so than the may and November.
that's always maybe have been a city --
>> I think the way I read this is that the poison pill would incent you to get together so that you don't end up in that situation.
>> that's good news.
>> yeah.
>> there's actually a 10-day window between the 120th day before the election and the 110th day before the election.
and if both entities call the election, call an election at that time, then neither election occurs.
if one entity calls the election, but another doesn't, then after that 110th day the other entity would not be able to call an election.
it would just be free and clear.
>> (indiscernible).
>> you're right.
i'm sorry, go ahead.
>> no, we feel that there is an incentive there for working together and we think it ought to be one of the characteristics of this legislation.
>> for sure.
>> somewhere along the process also generally, there's been a change to delete the indexing of the fuel tax.
so that has been deleted from the parent bill.
you have the authority to levee a fuel tax at various levels, two cent, four cent, up to 10-cent, but the prior versions of the bill had it being indexed to the production cost index so that it would escalate based on that and that provision is no longer in the bill.
so you do have an inflation factor that will erode the capability of that funding mechanism over time.
>> so they don't want to utilize that good policy for themselves and they don't want us to use it either.
>> [ laughter ]
>> so I think that's the major point that I see in the bill, which is after a quick read.
>> this bill will probably get out of the senate.
i think senator corona has indicated that once the budget is done he would like to bring this bill to the floor of the senate and see if it can get reported out of the senate.
that would probably be the first part of next week.
which mean it would get over to the house.
in the house representative vicky truett has filed a companion to senator corona's bill.
she probably would be in line to pick up his bill, but representative mike villareal from san antonio has also been very active to this issue and I know -- greg, do you want to speak to what happens next in terms of the transportation issue?
>> yeah.
i think in the house what I've heard most recently is both truett and villareal may pick it up and help move it through the house just because you've got the north Texas part of the bill that is so much different than the other versions of the bill that they've had discussions that strategically it may be beneficial to have at least someone central or south Texas on the bill as well as ushering it along with the north Texas member.
>> does that mean they'll pick it up as amended.
>> right.
>> that's right.
>> just don't want to assume anything.
>> if there's questions about the transportation legislation, I would like to finish with a general comment that where we're at right now is we are pushing for committee hearings.
we visited with representative rodriguez's office this morning.
he has requested committee hearings on all our bills that he is carrying.
representative bol din's office is right behind.
i think they've also done that.
one of our bills, actually our storm water management bill, is going to be heard tomorrow in the senate natural resources committee.
senator watson's version of that bill.
so we're begin to go get the committee hearings and moving forward with the package of a dozen or so bills that are the county's legislative priorities.
in addition to monitoring all the other bills that the court has taken a position on.
>> remind me of what the storm water management bill does now.
>> well, basically enables -- the key provision enables us to levee a fee to offset the cost of administering the program.
this currently has bexar county, harris county had the authority, and we're basically bracketing ourselves into that provision.
>> okay.
questions or comments about anything else posted?
that's it.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
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 1:42 PM