Travis County Commissioners Court
April 7, 2009,
Item 29
Let's call up number 29, the legislative matters item.>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we started to vote, but -- no, we started to vote and -- anyway, if we voted twice, just officially count it as one.
29 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including -- do we need a?
do whoa need to call a up, condemnation?
>> yes, we do.
>> a, legislation relating to eminent domain and condemnation, including house bills 4, 369, 402, 417, 1125, 1385, 1432, 1483, 1534, 1536, 2110, 2387, 2685, 3709 and house joint resolutions 14, 31 and 65.
>> yes, sir.
just a couple of preliminary comments before we get into a.
this has been the week that we've been preparing for for quite awhile this session.
a lot of the Travis County legislative priorities have had committee hearings this week.
you may have in front of you what we're calling the red sheet, and if not I want to ask katy gregmore than if she will pass those out to the members of the court.
this is the list of the 25 bills that are either Travis County legislative priorities or bills that the county has already taken a position on or has some interest on that are being heard just in the next -- yesterday and the next three days.
so we've been quite busy this week with hearings.
yesterday we had county personnel testify on three different bills, house bill 1531.
house bill 3585, judge steeg stefd on.
and house bill 1507, the hero of the week award goes to tom webber from tnr who waited until 11:00 last night to testify for one minute on --
>> woo, one minute.
>> on representative bouldin's noise abatement ordinance bill.
we also have Commissioners -- members of the court scheduled to testify on four bills this week.
Commissioner Huber made an attempt to testify, be available to testify on senate bill 4272, which is the bill involving expanding the boundaries of the barton springs, edward's aquifer conservation district.
that bill was not called up before we had to go over to court, so we're submitting written testimony on the county's behalf from Commissioner Huber.
tomorrow morning house bill 4175, which is our industrial buffers and comprehensive land use bill is going to be heard in the house land and resource management committee.
and I believe that both Commissioners Huber and Commissioner Eckhardt are hoping to testify on that bill.
house bill 4262, which is our extra territorial jurisdiction land use bill, which would allow a greater level of cooperation between the city and the county inside the extraterritorial jurisdiction, that's sponsored by representative rodriguez.
that's up in that same committee.
and I'm hoping the Commissioners Huber and Eckhardt will be able to testify on that.
finally on house bill 3983, which has to do with the homestead preservation district, Commissioner Gomez is planning to testify on that in front of the house ways and means committee and that's also tomorrow morning.
and while I'm on the subject of house bill 8923, judge, we cannot post that bill, but I want to update the court on that and we can bring it up again next week for court action if we want to.
this is the bill to clean up some of the outstanding issues between Travis County and the city of Austin in terms of the administration of the homestead preservation district legislation that representative eddie rodriguez passed last session.
there were two issues outstanding.
one was the notion that although the original bill called for the county and the city to make identical contributions to the tif that was going to be created by this act, what we negotiated with the city was to try to help them understand that because Travis County already gives all the residents of that area a 20% homestead exemption, we in a sense are already contributing to the issue of creating more affordable housing in that community.
so we have now drafted language, we're waiting to get back the final version from the lege council that would recognize the fact of that 20% homestead extension and thus would have the effect of lowering Travis County's contribution to the tif in future years.
>> but part of the problem also was the city's homestead enactment with this same bill.
and I don't think the city has changed their mind or are going to change positions on taking their homestead allocation to residents -- that automatically reduces the -- what were you going to say?
>> Commissioner, you're exactly right.
i can't speak for the city --
>> they haven't changed.
so the community that I represent, and we've had them down here to testify, they don't support the bill.
and if they haven't changed it, of course I'm not going to support it.
and of course, the representatives of all the churches and leadership of the churches in the community of precinct 1 where they also have part of the district in this area is an area that we're not even involved in the process until I called them and involved them.
so again, I don't want anybody to try to rush anything through without the support of the community that it's going to impact.
>> yes, sir.
>> so I'm just letting you know that so when you're making all these statements and stuff like that, there is some strong opposition, very strong opposition.
they was here and they testified opposing that and they haven't changed it.
>> I understand.
>> they need to change it and I think in order for those folks maybe to change their mind.
>> and --
>> may I comment on that for a moment?
>> john, this is not posted.
are we all right?
>> he brought it up.
>> right.
exactly.
just initial discussion, not going to be taking any action.
it is under the covering of legislative matters.
>> in regard as an update on the statute that relates to homestead preservation district, irrespective of the legwork the city of Austin would need to do, just looking at the statutes, I did make a request to representative rodriguez to amend the statute to take into consideration that the city does not offer a homestead exemption or a senior or disabled rebate.
>> they don't.
>> so the current amendment that's before the house changes the formula to take that into consideration.
so that has been addressed.
>> but we need to see the language that does that.
a general description doesn't help us a whole lot.
we need to see the specific words.
>> it's a formula --
>> we still need to see the specific words.
>> and also the taxpayers, all the taxpayers of Travis County, I don't care where you live, the taxpayers of Travis County will have to (indiscernible) the situation.
that's something else that's not highlighted as it should be.
i don't care where you live in Travis County, taxpayers, you will have to pay for whatever goes on within the boundaries of this district.
so that need to be fleshed out.
i don't think the folks in westlake or the folks over in manor, the folks over in del valle, Pflugerville, anywhere else in Travis County, will have to understand this, that this is something being proposed that you will have to pay for.
and my whole point is have they been notified?
have the taxpayers of Travis County been notified that this is something that they will have to pay for?
>> it does lock down the tax increment derived from that district to that district.
that is the primary subject.
>> and the other thing is --
>> folks don't know about t.
>> the other thing is that it's totally voluntary.
it's kind of the way we carry out our fema program to buy out property that is flooding.
it's totally voluntary.
if you choose to not participate, that's great.
>> Commissioners --
>> eminent domain and condemnation.
>> yes, sir.
we'll move on to a then.
on eminent domain and condemnation, when the court met last week and we talked about a series of bills, the court's direction to us was that in addition to taking position in favor or in opposition to various bills, that the court wanted some rationale that we could use as talking points or as the basis for communications with our constituents or as the basis for communications with members of the legislature.
so what I have to present to the court today is a draft of a document that we're calling, there is truth and good faith in condemnation procedures in Texas, which is in your packet.
and the request we would have for the court is for the court to evaluate that and if so approve that as an expression of the county's rationale behind its opposition to these eminent domain and condemnation bills.
>> and you work with joe gieselman and other --
>> I've worked with them and I've worked more specifically with the c-14-'s office -- coarpg's office who are really the experts in condemnation and eminent domain issues.
>> but they're expert on the law and not policy, john will tell you.
>> yes, sir.
>> do you need us to act today on this?
>> at the court's convenience.
this is something the court asked for.
we have already had the opportunity to drop cards over at the legislature on several of the bills that the court did take a position on a couple of weeks ago.
this is by way of icing on the cake in terms of being able to elaborate on and explain the court's position.
>> do we expect anything to happen on any of these eminent domain and condemnation bills between now and next Tuesday.
>> most of them have -- testimony has been taken on them and they are pending.
unless they move very quickly, they will probably -- nothing big will happen on any of them between now and next Tuesday.
i just hope I'm not proven wrong next Tuesday.
>> do we need another week?
>> I'm a little concerned about taking another week only because -- tell me what you think.
it would be very good to get this material to the representatives as soon as possible in the hopes they actually read it.
the third bullet of the category of three, even if it's just that third bullet in big bold letters to each one of the representatives would be good because I think that there's a misperception among many of the legislators that the process is tilted towards the government's favor.
i think it's important to get the message to the legislators --
>> move approval of the third bullet that we share with the legislative delegation.
>> second.
>> third bullet starts thus the vast majority, right?
>> yes.
>> the rest of these we'll look at them.
there's a whole lot of words.
>> and if I can make a suggestion to the court.
the reason I don't think anything urgent needs to happen --
>> we have a motion and a second on the third bullet.
>> that's right.
we're breaking ground here.
my suggestion to the court would be we are -- these bills have been heard in committee, testimony has been closed.
the committees will begin voting bills out and then they will move to the floor.
i don't believe anything will happen between now and next Tuesday where we will miss an opportunity to have the kind of communications Commissioner Eckhardt is talking about with members before a floor vote.
so because I think a lot of the -- we had the opportunity at the time the bills were being heard in committee to at least put in a card saying Travis County opposes this bill.
i think this opportunity is a good one for us.
i would prefer that we be able to give a complete document to the -- to our members of our legislative delegation and other legislators prior to something going to a floor vote.
for that reason I would suggest we keep the whole thing as a bundle and if necessary come back and revisit it next week.
i appreciate the judge's effort to get something out there, but I think we can wait for a week.
>> we have a motion and a second to approve the third bullet and share it with your legislative delegation, but there may not be three votes for it.
>> how about a substitute motion to wait for a week and do the whole document?
>> I withdraw the motion.
i thought I was doing you a favor.
>> I thought you were too.
>> I withdraw my motion.
>> but based on what he said --
>> anything else?
>> nothing else on a.
>> let's go to b then.
b is legislation relating to criminal justice reform and re-entry issues, including house bills 612, 1335, 2100 and 2161, and senate bill 1783.
i withdrew my motion, you withdrew your second too.
see, we work harmoniously on the Commissioners court.
>> thank you, we appreciate your leadership.
this is a series of bills that have to do with a number of criminal justice policy reforms and tweakings.
as a reminder, the court when it adopted its legislative priorities back in December, included a series of priorities involving reforms to the criminal justice system.
i have copies of the court's documents adopted last December.
i'll ask katy if she will pass those out to the court just as a reminder.
there are I think seven or eight -- six specific bills we're going to talk about and I want to just turn it over to roger jeffreys from justice and public safety, executive manager to talk about things.
>> am I to understand that the court has not taken a formal position on any of the bills listed in b?
>> not on any of these bills.
we've taken a position on the policy at the heart of the bills.
and roger will brief you on the status of those bills now.
>> so the first one is house bill 612.
if you turn to page three of that document that you received under justice and public safety, the sixth bullet there is legislative priority to support legislation that would provide people with felony drug convictions.
access to food stamps.
and the federal law folks with drug convictions are not allowed to access food stamps.
however there's an opt out that states can opt out of precluding that population from getting food stamps.
so what this bill does is pretty straightforward.
it allows Texas to opt out of that exclusion.
>> that's what bullet number 6 says?
>> five.
>> six.
yes.
support legislation that would provide people with -- under justice and public safety, by the way.
>> it's number five.
>> that's five.
>> let me do the counting for you.
>> [ laughter ]
>> he's drawing on his copy.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and again, we think this is critical from a re-entry perspective.
there's a number of things that research has shown that are if in place help offenders returning from prison to better adjust.
and reduce recidivism.
this is one thing that's supported by a number of re-entry advocacy groups and re-entry round table of the criminal justice coalition and a number of nonprofits.
>> so this bullet is in a bill.
>> yes, sir.
>> house bill 612.
>> so you need us to approve this bullet today.
would that mean we also approve the whole bill?
>> what we're asking actually is for you to go on record in support of the bill.
>> what else is in the bill that we ought to know about?
>> it's really just about this.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> whose bill is it?
>> representative naishtat.
>> good for elliott naishtat.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay.
then we have item 29-b-2, which is house bill 1335 and it's senate companion, senate bill 840.
and then the next bill after that, which we have delineated in your information as 29-b-3, is house bill 2100.
and roger will address those as a group.
>> again, if you look -- I'll try to get any count right.
under jail population reduction at the bottom of page 3, the second bullet, you voted to support legislation that would allow for release of technical parole violators on a bond.
that was primarily again a jail population idea.
there's about approximately average daily population there's about 150 to 170 parole violators in county jail.
and I think it's 1900 that are admitted every year.
this would allow some subset of that group to be released on bond.
we're actually not asking you to do anything on this today.
we would actually like to run some numbers to bring back to you to see what sort of impact that would have.
we also would like to get more input from our criminal justice partners, pretrial services for example is following this very closely and would like to wait on this as well.
we just wanted --
>> so at this point we have no motion for the court.
>> okay.
>> who has these three bills?
>> let's see.
>> gonzalez, hin o'o'is a, and martinez fisher on 2100.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> the next item is -- would be 29-b-4, house bill 2161.
actually, these are sort of similar bills too.
if you go down to the third bullet under re-entry programs, support legislation that would direct the department of criminal justice and public safety to ensure that every inmate have an id upon leaving.
again, a critical component of a good re-entry strategy.
there's two bills.
first 2161 would require the tdcj or the Texas department of criminal justice to work with d.p.s.
to get I think what they call personal identification certificates that an offender could then take to d.p.s.
and trade for an id or a driver's license.
there's another bill, 1783, and it's been a switch.
1783 actually repealed some language in the transportation code that required d.p.s.
to accept tdcj identification cards from offenders returning to their community.
there's been a bill revision since then and the bill now reads that the department of public safety, the department of state health services and the Texas department of criminal justice will do a pilot program to help offenders -- one to help verify their identity while their behind bars and then two, to help them get an id card once they're released.
>> so the original recommendation to the court was going to be for the court to support house bill 2161 and for the court to oppose senate bill 1783.
but with respect to the committee's substitute for senate bill 1783, we would now recommend support.
>> there is a hearing on Thursday that I've been invited to attend.
>> so someone has concluded that in fact the state entities can get this done if there's a commitment --
>> we need them to get it done, but they have to be mandated by the legislature to do so.
>> again, one of the issues is verifying identity.
often times offenders have aliases.
so one of the concerns of the department of public safety was how do they know that that person is really who they say they are when they show up at the d.p.s.
office looking for an id?
so under this pilot they would work with state health services, d.p.s., and the department of criminal justice to verify identity and then to put a process in place to where they could go pick up or trade their tdcjid with the verified identity for a state id card or driver's license.
>> would this also have the ancillary effect, unintended but positive effect of chensing the databases outside the tdcj system.
i would imagine being done a little bit of this previously that outside tdcj, they know who this they have, but the d.p.s.
records, the local law enforcement records, they're all, you know, have six different aliases with a thumb print that matches.
>> I imagine it would.
i don't know what the facts are, how that would work.
i imagine it would help.
it would go a long way towards cleaning up some of that stuff.
>> move that we support house bill 2161 and amended senate bill 1783.
>> second.
>> discussion?
this is a real big problem for offenders.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
item 29-c is house bill 3158.
this bill would require -- would require a county to pay up to 720 hours of accrued sick leave to any departing employee of a sheriff's department for any reason.
and I believe that we have somebody from pbo -- there he is.
he is here to talk about the bill.
this bill in our judgment is very problematic.
it is introduced by representative belinda bolton.
there is a hearing on it later this week.
as it says in my analysis, there are several problems with it.
the first is it contradicts the principle of local control by having the state mandate what the benefits are for certain county employees.
it creates an unfunded mandate on the county.
there is a memo that accompanies the documentation from bill derryberry in the pbo office that estimates that the cost to Travis County could be as high as $8.8 million.
i talked to somebody in harris county the other day who said that the cost for them could be as high as $30 million.
so it is an unfunded mandate in counties.
it also confers that benefit upon any employee who leaves the county employment of these departments who leaves the service for any reason.
which I think wrob problematic in the sense that even if they were terminated for cause they would still be entitled for this benefit.
it treats sheriff's department employees differently from other county employees, which I think is -- will raise problems for the Commissioners court.
and finally it does not clarify whether this new benefit applies only to sick leave hours earned after the effective date of this legislation.
in other words, it could be a matter of the county paying for -- paying a benefit that was earned before the legislation was passed, having to pay for that benefit after the legislation was passed.
sort of an ex-post fact tow problem.
>> I think it violates the principles that cuc stands for regarding unfunded mandates.
and I would say that we would oppose this bill.
>> we have expressed our reservations or I've expressed my reservations to representative bolton's office.
they are eager to try to work with us.
i'm not sure how much we can do to fix this bill and still meet representative bolton's goals for the bill.
which is why we've recommended to the court that the court state its opposition to the bill as filed and see if they can direct igr and the legislative consultants to see if there's some kind of compromise we can get to.
>> work out some compromise.
>> we're working against a little bit of a deadline because the bill will be heard on Thursday.
>> could you articulate our current policy in regard to payout of sick time as it regards pops and disdes and rank and file employees.
>> the current one is 50% to be paid out up to 480 hours.
>> and that applies to both pops and rank and file?
>> it applies to all employees, yes, ma'am.
>> now, one issue we could ask that the legislation reflect our policy, but still we have the cuc issue of the state dictating to all the counties in the state what their policies should be in regard to sick time payout.
>> and if it comes to bawjt issue, according to each local community.
>> correct.
>> and if you will look in your packet, there's a chart that was prepared by our office that shows what the sick leave and separation policies are for the six major counties in Texas.
and as you can see, I think with the exception of el paso county, which has a very generous sick leave separation policy, this would be -- this would involve some liability for all of those large counties.
and by the way, this bill as drafted applies only to counties that have a sheriff's department with a civil service.
there's actually only seven counties in the state that have such a program.
the other counties, hidalgo county and we couldn't get that information in time.
i'm told that they have the same policy as harris county, which is that you can accumulate your sick leave hours, but you cannot take them with you when you separate.
>> was any court member consulted before this was filed?
>> I didn't hear back.
>> whether we oppose this bill for the reasons stated that we submit the reasons in this document to our representative, and that we have members of the court, all five of us -- the ones who vote in favor of opposing this, if there are at least four of us, to sign it.
>> second.
>> discussion?
it really is a big deal financially and it couldn't have come at a worst time for us.
all in favor?
show Commissioners -- show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber, yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis --
>> no, I'm supporting it.
>> Commissioner Davis a late opposer.
>> late but important.
>> late, but nevertheless on time.
>> thank you.
agenda item 29-d has to do with house bill 3607 relating to the amendment of chapter 2256 Texas dpomplet code.
this actually has to do with public funds investment acts.
and in order to explain the bill and provides to any questions that the court has, we have mary mays, the investment manager for the county.
>> good morning.
these amendments are -- there's not anything really major or a problem here.
i think that most of the amendments are good.
i want to thank first off west company because they are behind many of these amendments.
they have cooperated with several government entities to write the bill.
and so I just want to thank them for that because it doesn't always quite work out that way.
i want to point out a couple of the important amendments here.
the first one is procedures to monitor rating changes.
obviously in the financial world as we've come to know it, these rating changes happen much more often than they used to.
and Travis County, of course, does monitor rating changes, but I think it's good to be in the law.
and also, the procedures in the policy to liquidate those investments, and this is I think very important because it means that governments will think about what they will do if there is a rating change beforehand instead of waiting until they're in the throes of this problem.
>> also there's a second one that will allow broker dealers to sell large certificates of deposit by making sure that they are apors portioned out to various banks so that all of the cd's are covered by the fdic.
this possibility is already in lawsuit, but it's restricted to banks.
and this would allow brokers to do this for their customers as well.
and finally, there are a number of changes that provide more transparencies for our state investment pool.
for instance, an investment pool must furnish to the investment officer a statement regarding how yield is calculated.
this way we can make sure that we're comparing apples to apples.
i have had an investment pool which bought commercial paper, compared their rates to another pool which did not.
and that is not apples to apples because the commercial paper is riskier and provides higher yields, and you should know that when you're comparing.
so you have in your packet an explanation about each one of the changes that are detailed.
and so I won't go any further into them unless you have questions.
and I am asking that Travis County go on record in support of house bill 3607.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion?
all in favor?
Commissioner Davis?
>> abstain.
>> show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber, yours truly Gomez voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
the next item is house joint resolution 84.
>> proposing the constitutional amendment allowing a state mandate impose odd a county to have effect only if the state provides for payment to the county of the cost of the mandate.
move approval.
>> second.
>> show our support of this legislation.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
f is senate bill 555, relating to indemnification provisions in construction contracts.
>> this was an issue that was -- has been on the court's agenda a couple of times.
there were concerns about this bill and I wanted to advise the court that the conference of urban counties, the Texas association of counties and the Texas municipal league are against this bill because what it basically does is require that a governmental entity that owns property, it prohibits that entity from asking a general contractor who is doing construction works on any of that property to indemnify the county against -- if the county or the governmental entity against its own negligence.
as a matter of policy Travis County has not done that for several years, so as drafted this bill would not apply to us.
so I wanted to advise the court of the fact that there are -- that some of the organizations that we've participated in and worked with are opposed to this legislation.
as drafted it does not apply to Travis County and therefore we have no recommendation to give to the court at this time.
i just thought it was an important bill for you all to know about.
>> now that we know, should we move on?
>> yeah.
>> g --
>> g is house bill 1507 --
>> I think I'm supposed to read these, aren't i, john.
>> house bill 1507 relating to authorizing certain populous counties to adopt noise regulations, providing criminal and sinl penalties.
>> this bill is by representative belinda bolt ton.
it has to do with allowing limited authority to regulate noise in the county.
it provides for the creation of different districts within which different noise standards can be patrol you will gated -- promulgated by a county that allows for customization given that there are different parts of the county might have different needs in this regard.
this bill actually was had heard in committee last night and tom webber from the tnr office was there as a resource witness on the bill.
but we did not at that time indicate that the county -- at that time we indicated that the county did not have a position and that the court was going to consider this.
this bill is sponsored by representative belinda bolton from Travis County and she has asked specifically that the court take a position in favor of this legislation.
>> in precinct 4 we usually have had some slaints complaints, and I think we forward those to nnr, so you're very familiar with what residents in precinct 4 4have requested.
what is the limited -- what kind of limited regulation is -- does this bill address?
>> for the record, tom webber with tnr.
it isn't specific in terms of what the scope of noises are or the evaluation methods or what exactly the abatement methods would have to be if you found the noise exceeded.
those are left to the discretion of a county that permissively determines it wants to engage in this planning, the subdivision into districts.
then to set about putting together regulations.
so it lays out basically the framework and the authority to engage in these activities, but it doesn't specify those types of things.
>> like after 10:00 p.m.
not only noise, but the -- if it's real loud music, then it kind of travels through the ground and disturbs people.
so I guess it would be location as well.
is it close to homes, how close?
>> yes.
>> and then the hours of operation, I guess, of businesses.
>> it doesn't specifically identify the nature of those things.
it mentions land compatibility with -- and so therefore I think you could -- as the court adopts ordinances that look at the land use and how far separated they should be to be compatible.
so it doesn't restrict us going in.
it would be a matter of the policies and the public support.
we would have those policies on what you could adopt.
>> we currently have no ability to regulate sound as such, is that correct?
>> no.
>> we also have had issues in precinct two often times getting phone calls and the unhappy response is we don't have the authority to regulate the sound, per se, but do you have some other issues around the sound?
is there excessive parking blocking the street?
or is there a sanitation issue?
so we search sometimes in vain for some ancillary result of the sound to get to the issue.
and sometimes those ancillary results are there and sometimes they're not.
if it's just a loud party, it's totally contained within the property boundaries, we have absolutely no authority even if it's just loud as all get out.
>> I know we run into several problems in precinct 1 with that noise issue.
>> and if I understand what this bill would permit is to allow the county, Commissioner Gomez, to shape its own noise ordinance policies, to address the issues that most concern it and to even do that on sort of a zone by zone basis by allowing the county to create districts that have differing rules in them.
so with respect to your questions, I think that the bill would permit the county to fashion those kind of protections in its -- each county to its own unique formula for doing so.
>> mr.
smith, are you here on this one?
>> are you here to address the court on this one?
>> I can very briefly.
my name is hank smith, vice-president of the home builders association of greater Austin.
i was up at the capitol last night until 11:30 so I'm awtle slow.
home builders association is in support of this bill as well and we look forward to being able to protect our homeowners who buy the homes that we build against the unwanted noises that are out there.
we are in support of the bill as well and would encourage Travis County to do the same.
>> thank you very much.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we'll communicate that to the representative.
she wanted us to take a position on it.
>> we will communicate that to the representative.
thank you.
>> and h, status report on Travis County legislative priorities, including house houe bills -- have we talked about these already in general?
>> we have talked about them in general and many in specific.
>> I imagine mr.
smith -- I'm assuming, but there might be something to be said on buffer and on drainage?
>> there's two that I wanted to talk about real quickly.
the buffer zone is coming up for a hearing tomorrow morning.
and I believe we are going to be in support of that bill as well to give counties additional buffer zone authorities.
the one that I need to talk about a little bit is the storm water issue.
we testified before the senate subcommittee earlier this week -- was it last Friday?
on senator watson's bill.
there's three very similar bills, house bill 1981, house bill 2414 and senate bill 1299 are all basically the same by bolton, rodriguez and watson.
we supported the bill when with a caveat that we would like to work with the county on some language and I've met with tom webber and joe -- john white and joe gieselman and we talked to senator watson about it as well.
it looks at trying to get some compatibility -- one of our concerns is we don't want to have the county going out there in a whole different direction with the way the storm water regulations are interpreted and enforced.
e.p.a., tceq and the Texas already have some guidelines and some rules and regulations.
we think the county taking and adopting those regulations or not exceeding those regulations would be great with us.
the only language we added was that the Travis County not exceed the authority delegated by the tceq, the e.p.a.
and other state agencies.
>> so you want some predictability and consistency, mr.
smith?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and that's the only change we had in the bill.
otherwise we did support it and will continue to support it on the house level on the floor.
>> and we have -- in our conversations with mr.
smith and with other representatives of the home builders, I represented to them that I would bring their suggestion to the court for discussion and feedback feedback at this meeting, so I'm glad you're here, hank.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> > these conditions, the noise, the buffer zones were fine, the e.t.j.
bill we haven't looked at has one yet.
coming up very rapidly in the session.
we will try to get that done before the hearing on Thursday.
but I can't answer to that one.
>> the e.t.j.
is 4262.
>> yeah.
>> is there a motion regard the others.
1981, 1244, 1299.
>> the court has approved all of those as -- as proposed in terms of the policies objectives that we adopted in December and in terms of support, I believe in terms of support of those specific bills.
i would have to check the record on that.
but I know that we have briefed the court on the fact that those bills were filed.
they were all part of our legislative package.
i think at this point we're just trying to brief the court, if we got some direction from the court with respect to the the storm water issue and any other issue that's the court wants to give us further direction on.
>> move that we formally support 1981, 24, 44, 1299.
>> second.
>> we may have done it already, but we may not.
>> yes, sir.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> with the language being suggested?
>> we don't know, we haven't seen the language that you suggested.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> it came from the county actually.
>> but in response to that -- no, no, in response, perhaps another motion would be germane to that to correct r direct the itr to continue working with the home builders association on storm water and on e.t.j.
in order to continue pursuing a -- a happy relationship with hba on these.
>> we will work with the home builders plus the bill's sponsors.
>> yes, of course.
and representative rodriguez actually is the -- as hank mentioned there are three versions of the storm water bill that have been filed.
but representative bouldin and representative rodriguez have decided between them that rodriguez will take the lead on storm water, he also is the leader on the e.t.j.
bill.
we will be able to work with him on both of those bills if the court so directs us.
>> that's your motion.
>> that's my motion.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much for your work on this.
>> thank you.
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor.
>> that passes --
>> judge, before we recess, there were folks here this morning on items 13 and 14, they were sitting there all morning and that was on the disaster resolution and also the study that will be conducted by -- by the -- so -- so, you know, we thought that we would be able to get to it this morning, I don't know if you -- if pete baldwin -- I don't know what to tell them now.
>> well, you can let them know we will call it up early this afternoon.
i didn't know they were here, really.
you saw how the morning went.
all in favor of that motion?
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, April 7, 2009 2:03 PM