Travis County Commissioners Court
April 14, 2009,
Item 20
Now, we need to take up the legislative item.
ms.
perez, I know I told you -- maybe we'll move through the legislative items expeditiously and still have time this morning.
i think that in the past it has facilitated our discussion to kind of go down through the alphabet under 20 individually, discuss one, move to the next one.
okay?
consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including -- this is 20-a, status report on the 81st Texas legislature.
anything under that one?
>> intergovernmental relations, good morning, judge, members of the court.
just a quick summary.
last week was a very busy week as we alluded to in court.
we had a number of bills that were part of Travis County's legislative priorities up for committee hearings and weapon a report in your packet of the bills that we either observed an economy hearing on, testified on.
we had members of the court testify on some of the bills, county staff people testify on some other bills.
and we have also in your packet a list of the bills this week.
i think we're at this point we have six of our Travis County legislative priorities that are up for hearing in committees including this morning, the house natural resources committee took up representative bolton's bill to expand the boundaries of the barton springs, edwards aquifer area.
not quite as much as next week.
i anticipate that continue will continue to die off as we move past the committee hearing phase to the floor phase.
things overall are moving slowly so we'll see what happens with all of that.
there are as of today 49 days remaining in the session.
that's my general report.
>> 20-b, status report on Travis County legislative priorities including house bills 612, 1119, 1335, 1440, 1531, 1981, 2100, 2161, 2162, 2167, 414, 2693, 3468, 3585, 3616, 3787, 3963, 4175 and 4262, and senate bills 497, 578, 1299, 1783, 2202, 2280, 2451, 2452 and 2472.
and yes, the county attorney did tell me I had to read all of these bills out each week that we discuss them.
>> every time.
and I recognize that is inconvenient for the court to have that many bills on the agenda, but this is really the product of the court's work earlier this year saying these are some of the priorities we have and these are some of the things we want to accomplish as a Commissioners court.
as I mentioned earlier, many of the bills that you read out, judge Biscoe, we've had hearings on in the last week including several of our land use bills, our early retirees bill, our expansion of the duties of the providing district judge -- presiding judge of the criminal court.
so there have been a number of of those bills we've had hearings on.
many of them the committee took testimony and left the bills pending.
what we anticipate will happen we will either have committee meetings this week which the committees will begin reporting out a lot of those bills or we will have meetings at members' desk which is what begins to happen when particularly the pace in the house picks up.
suddenly report out a bunch of bills.
the blue sheets have you tries to keep up with the latest information on all the county's legislative priorities.
and so that is a resource to you and I'm happy to answer any questions you specifically have about any of these bills.
there is one of them that I want to address with the court because it came up last week and I want to follow up on the court's discussion last week.
as you remember, we talked about the storm water management bill, which we have been negotiating with the Austin -- greater Austin home builders association about.
they were concerned and wanted to have some language they felt would protect them in terms of making sure that Travis County did not assert a new set of regulations upon them in excess of what is already in statute under the Texas commission on environmental quality or the federal environmental protection act or any other state or federal statutes that govern water quality.
the court asked at that time if there was some draft language to that effect and that has been provided.
if you look in your packet under -- there's a document called senate bill 1299, and in red on that document are the additions that were suggested in conversations between the home builders and our office.
and depending on which version you are looking at either on page 2 of that document or on the back side of that document, you'll see the language that the home builders have suggested.
the county authorized to regulate storm water under subsection a-4 shall not mandate starts or requirements in excess of those established by Texas commission on environmental quality, the u.s.
environmental protection agency or otherwise established under state law.
>> this is the language that the home builders have asked us to consider and have suggested that -- what they would like to do is go back to senator watson and representative rodriguez and say we've got an agreement about this language.
>> I have a question in that regard and perhaps it should go to the county attorney's office.
in this instance, does the state and the federal law set the floor or the ceiling?
tom, do you know the answer to that one?
>> for the record, tom as webber with t.n.r.
the standards or requirements are not very specific and there's a lot of, I guess, reliance upon local authorities to establish things more specific.
the best example is a requirement for a ms-4 permitee is to reduce plant mont ants to the maximum extent possible.
that's not further defined either at the e.p.a.
or the state level, but a local jurisdiction like us implementing that program has the latitude under that standard to set more specific requirements.
as we have in, for instance, the interim water quality regulations of the county and other things.
so -- so there's not -- there's not a particular standard, and I think in general it's more of a floor and a reliance on the county to do more.
they say another example here is erosion and sediment control.
this is right out of the ms-4 permits that the state issues.
erosion and sediment controls must be to the maximum extent practicable and consideration of local topography and rainfall.
so that's -- that's kind of the directive to us to then further implement that.
so consistent with tceq or e.p.a.
requirements.
>> which makes it rather difficult for us to remain consistent or below tceq or e.p.a.
requirements if they have a level of vagueness associated with them.
>> it could -- it could give rise to argument or discussions between stakeholders.
one of the things that --
>> that's not a very bright line rule.
>> no, it's -- no, it's not bright line.
we do feel that, you know, through sort of stakeholder driven code and regulation changes here at the county level that we'll be able to work out those issues before we bring, for instance, a change to county code to the commission.
but I think -- we do in fact though -- our ms-4 program is guided by what's stated in that amended language.
i mean that's why we're doing a storm water program and we think we could work under -- under that amended language.
>> I'm going to put on my petty hat for a moment and then I may take off the petty hat.
so at the risk of sounding petty --
>> will you let us know when you take it off?
>> yeah.
>> [laughter]
>> a little Commissioners court humor there.
>> was this amendment in consideration for collaboration on the e.t.j.
bill?
>> our hope was was this amendment be part of the dialogue about the e.t.j.
bill.
that turned out not to be the case because the home builders association, the greater Austin home builders association came out very strongly against our e.t.j.
bill.
>> yes, I heard.
all right, now I'll take off the petty hat.
>> I think, Commissioner, if I can respond to your question, I think that the question -- I think that the e.p.a.
and the tceq standards set a floor.
i think that the intent of this -- and I guess, you know, nobody is here from the home build issues to speak for themselves.
my concern --
>> they spoke loud and clear at the hearing on the e.t.j.
bill.
>> my concern about this amendment would be that it sets to seek that floor as a ceiling also.
it may be that it provides some level of certainty to the association that they don't have now but I'm not clear how all that would work.
>> but from a practical standpoint, do we feel that this amendment improves the bill either in policy terms or in likelihood of passage?
>> probably the latter.
>> but not the former?
>> I think -- without the amendment, I think it would be cleaner and more direct that we simply have this authority to operate our program.
so this does specify, you know, a condition and so it does take -- but as you stated, I think it does help on passage or movement.
>> we have had -- in the conversations we have had particularly with senator watson, I think it is his desire that if an agreement can be made that he can represent to the members of the committee and the members of the senate that that would be -- you know, I don't want to say would prefer that, but he would be comfortable with that.
i think he made very clear to us when he spoke with us that he wanted to make sure this was okay with the county.
i think his -- he and his staff were very cognizant of the fact what we were essentially suggests was a standard for Travis County that would not apply to any of the other counties currently covered by this bill and I don't want to speak for them but I don't know if they got a satisfactory answer why Travis County would have one standard and harris county and others have another standard.
>> so the bill is bracketed.
>> right.
>> so this additional -- this ceiling/floor would only apply in Travis County.
>> yes, and as a matter of fact that was part -- that became -- bracketing it to the Travis County part was originally suggested as an amendment to the whole subchapter, the whole chapter of the code, and that drew a quick response from those other counties that they would oppose the bill.
>> I think that's a big red flag.
>> if that were to be the case.
so they certainly did not want that requirement placed on them.
>> does this subsection b open us up for future litigation should we have a difference of opinion on what the floor/ceiling is set by tceq or the e.p.a.?
>> I would imagine so.
>> so there is a cost associated, potential cost associated with the change.
>> do we want to consider other language that ought to be added to the proposed language in subsection b?
you can add some -- you can add a broad exception there if the -- if the tceq or federal standard is so broad that we don't understand it, we typically would want a local regulation that clarifies it.
you want to leave it open, don't you?
>> the original language that was submitted was confined itself just to tceq.
we broadened the language to include e.p.a.
because that is the umbrella ultimately that we work under under this program.
it is a federally mandated program stepped down to the state and the county.
so we believe, really quite frankly the only reason we're in this business is because of the federal regulation.
we believe if we're consistent with that we're probably doing exactly what we're mandated to do.
and if broad enough that we feel like we have enough running room.
as we have expanded the language.
so it was -- if we're going to accept the amendment, we're probably better off with the way we have altered it already than the way it was originally submitted to us.
>> I move approval of the -- of the amended language because of its capacity to improve the likelihood of passage, not because it's particularly good policy.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
>> that's all of b.
>> yes.
>> c, legislation relating to affordable housing including house bills 1209, 1271 and 3983.
>> thank you, judge.
this has to do with a package of bills that have been filed this session by representative eddie rodriguez of Travis County having to do with affordable housing.
i want to take two of the bills and discuss them together because I think that they basically have about the same level of impact on the city, and those two are house bills 1029 and house bill 1271.
house bill 1029 adds affordable housing to the list of allowable public improvement prompts the money could be used.
a chapter of the government code creates an entity called a public improvement district if a city or a county chooses to create a public improvement district, it can use the money that is raised inside that district for a variety of purposes.
all this bill does is add affordable housing to those purposes.
it does not create any particular public improvement district or mandate that any public improvement district used any of its money on affordable housing.
and I believe there may be one or two public improvement districts in Travis County.
i'll defer to harvey on that.
this is a general change to the law allowing affordable house to be an appropriate goal of funds raised in a public improvement district.
we think in general it has the intent of trying to give counties and cities more tools and trying to help address affordable housing issues.
>> mr.
davis?
any additional comments?
>> we would recommend that you approve this -- supporting this bill.
>> second.
>> discussion?
this is on 1271?
>> on 1029.
>> 1029.
all in favor of the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> house bill 1271 is the second part of what I mentioned in terms of his package.
it permits a tax inethnicity crepting financing district to be established within a city's transit oriented districts.
so this allows for another financing mechanism to be created within an already existing transit oriented district.
Travis County has two transit oriented districts that have been created in -- or I guess maybe I should take that back.
i think the city of Austin has two transit oriented districts that have been created within the red line of the metro rail, and there is one at the -- one circling around the mlk station and one around the plaza saltillo station.
this would allow those two transit oriented districts to create a tax increment financing project.
25% of that money which would be devoted to affordable housing.
>> and that is a floor of at least 25%, correct is this.
>> I believe that's correct.
yes.
at least 25%.
>> on this -- now, I don't know what happened at the saltillo rail location as far as the charge is concerned, but at the mlk I've heard a lot of folks that needed to participate in that and were not availed to any of the things that are going on in an area.
a lot of neighborhood groups, neighborhood folks, they have some problems with it.
so I won't be able to support this.
because of the fact that it hasn't been as inclusive as it should have been when this thing went before the residents of that area.
neighborhood groups and whatnot.
so I heard about this and some of the folks weren't even able to provide proper commentary and it just -- it's just a failure, in my opinion, as far as the sources that I have had contact with.
so again, we need to have proper input.
when these things come forward, they need to have proper scrutiny.
and the due diligence done by those folks it's going to impact the most.
in this particular case it wasn't done.
there's no way in the world I can support it.
>> and Commissioners --
>> that is in precinct 1.
>> the mlk, yes, it is.
i think I misspoke earlier, I think what I said earlier was the city had only created two.
i think they created seven around each of the stops on the metro line.
>> that were within the city of Austin.
>> that were within city of Austin.
two of them happened to be inside the same area as the homestead preservation zone.
this bill does not target those two or separate them out.
it simply says with any of the transit oriented districts that affordable housing -- they could create a t.i.f.
around that and do affordable housing.
>> I understand but that's part of the process they were not availed and available to participate in.
so without community input, and as I tell these folks that bring these bills up before us, they need to get in touch with the folks who it's good to go impact the most.
and, of course, a lot of instances that's not done.
and without that and especially if it's in my precinct, I'm going to have to say something about it.
so that's what I'm doing this morning is saying something about it and I can't support that without proper input from the community.
>> so does each district have like a governing board?
>> no.
>> the two that have been created, does each of them have a board?
>> not that I know of, huh-uh.
>> I think --
>> city of Austin functions --
>> the city council?
>> uh-huh.
>> there was also some discussion that this t.o.d., if the rail crossed and went out of county, I don't know how true this is, but if somebody taxes money from the t.o.d.
would have to be -- would have to be transferred to -- across county lines.
now, I've heard that also.
now, I don't know if that's the basis to that, but that was something else that I think probably may need to be looked at.
i really don't know.
but that was something else that was being laid out and that was to investigate whether or not in other counties would be able to receive some of the t.i.f.
money because of the line connectivity across county lines.
that's something that would have to be investigated.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I think what happened was the folks who are going to be living or hopefully not any displacement takes place, but you never can guarantee that kind of thing.
and so -- but the folks who lived in the adjoining neighborhoods were concerned about affordable housing and that those t.o.d.'s not just be, you know, revenue that doesn't go to them, so I think he's responding to their concern, they are all constituents of Travis County, of the city of Austin, of -- of capital metro and of the state.
so that at least 25% of the tax increment of the zone, doesn't say which zone, of the zone be used to require necessary real property and construct the affordable housing.
there's rental and multi-family and single family dwellings so it's to address the affordable housing within those -- that are close, adjacent to those t.o.d.'s and so that it's not just revenue -- I guess while it would be revenue from people who are passing by on their way to -- to Leander or back to the city of Austin and they will stop at each one of those little t.o.d.'s and buy, you know, drinks, sandwiches, whatever, this would simply address that the adjacent areas do not be left without anything, you know, so how about doing something for affordable housing, that's close by.
and that's what this is supposed to address.
>> this amounts to target -- you are targeting a very specific location for the benefit of the surrounding location knowing that you are going to see, you know, much higher growth within a block of the train station and steep dropoff after that.
so that you can apply the increments to a broader area.
>> you can kind of see the neighborhoods don't want to be totally left deserted, you know, there went the train, you know, we don't have anything left and so we know they are going to stop.
they are going to -- make purchases, so at least 25% of whatever is raised will go to the neighborhood that's adjacent to the t.o.d.'s.
>> I was over near plaza saltillo last week on another piece of business and I happened to notice that some of these nice little, you know, condo unit developments are -- houses are being knocked down, old warehouses, old stores, whatever, they are putting that in around the plaza saltillo station.
so I think what the city anticipates is that housing values are going to go up in that neighborhood.
i think the intent of the t.i.f.'s is to try to siphon off a little bit of that increase in value and plow it back into the community, which is what the t.i.f.
would do anyway.
but to make it explicitly for affordable housing in those neighborhoods.
>> absolutely.
and Commissioner Davis, I agree with you.
i think the notification has to go out to everybody to include everybody on the education of the impact of t.o.d.'s.
i know for a fact that capital metro staff has spent a lot of time with people in the neighborhoods explaining to them, I don't know -- I can't speak for the city of Austin, I don't know what they have done.
but I know that capital metro staff has spent a lot of time talking to them about the effects of -- of -- trying to find out what it is that they want to be included with these t.o.d.'s.
and because capital metro and the city of Austin are the partners on those t.o.d.'s.
not that capital metro is going to get any money out of it, I don't think.
but probably just sales tax.
but, you know, that's not to say that more time isn't needed to educate the folks in each of the neighborhoods that will be affected.
so -- so that process should be ongoing and should be kept ongoing to make sure that it's very inclusive.
>> mr.
pena?
>> yes, sir.
good morning, judge, Commissioners, gus pena again.
native east Austin night, 2327 east fifth street, which is about maybe two blocks away from plaza saltillo.
i'm going to say this for the record and I -- I echo what the concerns that Commissioner Davis has because I've heard the same thing about people within their area, the -- the gonzalezs, the penas, vasquezs, limons, hearn families that live around the impacted area are concerned about not being notified whether capital metro did their job or not remains to be seen, because they sure were not notified.
these were the impacted areas.
number one.
number two, I heard about -- about higher property rates going up.
a lot of folks are concerned about their property.
they have their little homes.
my home still stands there.
and imagine how much -- how much taxes are going to be for this little old house that I grew up in.
i wish that I could buy it back, I can't afford it.
number three, define again affordability.
i spoke to Margaret shaw the city of Austin neighborhood housing development corporation, tell us what kind of affordable units are going to be built there.
who is going to be displaced.
a lot of people will be.
whether people think it's good or not, I don't know.
i'm not too in tune with what the parameters are.
we are sick and tired of seeing our people, our poor, our natives displaced from the community.
not able to afford the property rates, they lose them to the auction.
i spoke to the mayor and city council members, city manager marc ott and expressively, implicitly and expressedly expressed our concerns about people losing their homes and our precinct also around the t.o.d.
and traditional mexican american community guess what it's not no longer.
everybody has a right to move in if they can afford it.
let it not be a displacement issue.
the notification situation has been compromised.
something could have been better Commissioner, judge, notify the people properly.
>> I know that meetings were held and mayor pro tem john trevino went with them to meet with the families that were close by.
and certainly with the limons, they are part of the trevino family.
they had communications.
so I know a lot of time was spent and he went with them to make sure that there was a -- that there was a -- an exchange of information about the t.o.d.'s, how they were supposed to operate.
like I said, there's no guarantee once these are let out, how anybody is going to run them or not.
but it's all an educational process as well.
>> the pena family, vasquez, hernandez and the gonzalez families are very big.
they were not notified.
i can tell you for a fact -- let me finish, please.
>> I'm --
>> for the record, I can tell you they could come over here and expressly tell you and the Commissioners court that they were not notified.
now I'm getting sick and tired of people not being notified.
i know the notification process is not perfect.
i know that.
but let's try to do a better job of having a better process to educate the people and educating the people on the process is very important.
not just notification.
that's a concern that I have.
>> right --
>> I try to remain respectful with you and everybody else.
the issue is this when you hurt my people, you are hurting me.
i'm going to get very upset.
>> that goes from me, too.
>> but I'm from that area, I'm a native.
>> they are my people there, too.
>> I know that but my people, my family.
i grew up as a kid in the 50s and 30s and 40s.
i said that, judge, I thank you very much for your time.
i want to let people know, especially you Commissioner from my precinct, native precinct 4, we need to do better job.
>> we're working on it.
>> well, don't just work on it, do it.
>> we're working on it.
>> make it an improved process.
improve it.
it's not a good process.
thank you, judge, appreciate it.
>> do we think 1271 has a legs over at the legislature?
>> I don't -- I do not believe it's been heard yet.
i don't know the answer to that question, judge.
i would be happy to have us leave this pending for a week so I can get the court more information about that.
>> yes, let us know how important our support is.
>> this bill was passed the house and the senate two sessions ago or two years ago.
two sessions ago.
but was vetoed by the government.
>> which is a wild card, about which I have no expertise or information.
>> that's not part of this one now, is it?
>> we're talking about 1271.
>> yes.
the same text, correct?
>> that's my understanding, yes.
>> it passed with our support or without it?
>> without it.
>> [laughter]
>> the county didn't weigh in.
>> we didn't weigh in at all.
>> let's take another week, to see what happens.
>> okay.
>> 3983.
>> the third bill is house bill 3983, this bill does explicitly apply to Travis County and the city of Austin.
what the bill tries to do is address two problems in the structure of the original legislation passed by representative rodriguez to create the homestead preservation district.
those two problems were this.
identical contributions by the city of Austin and Travis County into the fund that would be used to make improvements in this community.
it called for a match on a dollar for dollar basis.
it therefore ignored the fact that Travis County already provides a higher level of exemptions for property owners county wide, but certainly in that community.
we have a 20% homestead exemption, the city of Austin has none.
we have a $65,000 exemption for over 65.
>> on top of the 20%.
>> that's correct, on top of the 20%.
>> but it's 20% plus 65,000.
>> right.
>> yes.
>> for elderly.
>> for elderly.
then the city of Austin does offer a 51,000 homestead credit or over 65 credit, but does not offer homestead exemption.
the accepts has been a Travis County in the sense already had skin in the game in terms of trying to address affordable housing concerns in that area.
and that the bill as drafted did not reflect that understanding.
the second concern was that the original draft of this bill would have allocated seats on the governing board on the ratio of percentage.
to the extents that we were negotiating with the city about changing the level of dollar participation, the city was saying well in that case we want to have a -- a difference on the -- on the composition of the -- of the governing board in order to reflect that difference in contribution.
what we now have in this committee substitute introduced last week by representative rodriguez is at least for the time being a solution to those two problems.
instead of a dollar to dollar match of the city's contribution by the county, we now have a formula based on the taxable value for the house, which on the county is going to be in most circumstances less than the city times the tax rates of the two entities an that formula now produces the amount of contribution that is going to go into the -- into the t.i.f.
fund.
so -- so we're happy to try to explain that in more detail, but the policy difference now is instead of being based on a dollar to dollar match, it's really based on a formula that takes into account homestead exemptions already offered by the city and the county.
>> because what I want to know is are we going to be given credit, would we be given credit for the 20% for the elderly plus the 65,000?
>> yes.
>> because it's not just 20%.
>> yes, because the calculation is based on actual tax revenue not the taxable value.
>> okay.
>> it's the tax revenue produced off of the property, correct?
>> it's the taxable value of the property as opposed to the appraised value of the property.
what happens is our formulas reduce that appraised value by the homestead exemption.
>> I want to make sure we get credit for the 65,000.
>> not to speak for representative rodriguez, but he has very diligently tried to make sure that -- is the case, that we match the city in regards to the percentage, but based on our tax revenue that we pull in, not on -- not on the value before that exemption and rebate is taken.
>> okay.
>> all right.
you know we -- this has been a hot button item for quite some time, still a hot button item, hasn't gone away.
i do know that surveys and everything else was done, which we have shared with the public, shared with the clerk about 87% of the people that live in the area after being surveyed said they do not wish to have a homestead preservation district within these boundaries.
let me say this, those boundaries that we're talking about right now, the majority of the boundary is in precinct 1, which is represent.
of course we've had a lot of folks that have said that number one they haven't been involved enough, number two, the city appears to be a land grab situation.
meaning that the property, the -- the structure that you may have, you may own the structure, but you don't own the land up under the structure.
now, legacies are at stake here.
when no one had nowhere else to go in the city of Austin, 1928 forced segregation, forced segregation, you could not get your utility bills turned on or anything.
you couldn't get utilities if you didn't live in certain areas of the city.
so this is where the bulk of half of the american black folks livedo the african-american black folks lived.
the thing about this is those folks are struggling right now.
the city will not give a 20% homestead exemption.
they will not give a $65,000 senior citizen exemption.
they will not do that.
so that's part of the problem.
this is how you address affordable housing.
reduce the taxes.
the city won't do it.
but what they are trying to do, just appears that -- is the case, appearances are what they are.
it appears that these persons are going to be forced into a taxable situation whereby they will not only -- be glad to get rid of the home because the tax base, these persons that do not get the tax break, the senior citizens, homestead, all of the others, do not get the tax breaks, they will be forced almost to deal with situations that probably would not be comfortable.
whereby they even may be even forced to -- to look at the situation to reduce my taxes and things of that nature because the high increase in taxes then of course it may be a good deal to go ahead and allow my home to go before the land bank or land trust and of course then my land is -- is -- well, not -- don't belong to me anymore.
so it's the city, we have wrestled with this thing over and over again.
believe me, I think that I know this precinct better than anybody in this room.
i was born here, I was born there in this area.
so I know it better than anybody else.
and the point is this, the folks with spoken overwhelming, kxan television station even done surveys.
the folks don't want it.
churches involved here.
you have heard them say the same thing.
another thing, another instance whereby the folks were not educated, they didn't know anything bit, next thing you know here comes this steam rolling machine dictating and telling people what's going on happen and what's going to be in -- they are not aware of it.
but it appears to be a land grab.
of course those folks are holding on the best they can.
i'm going to fight for the poor and the senior citizens, disabled of this city along with everybody else.
but especially those that are vulnerable to decisions that we make here from this dais and at the state legislature.
that's what I'm here for what I'm going to do.
i cannot support this particular bill.
there's a lot of opposition to it.
believe me there is from this area, thank you.
>> and judge, I mean Commissioner Davis all of the statements that you have made are true and people do lose their property because of the fact that the values go up and it has to do with commercial, with the homes and the thing that I really didn't like at all was the infill that the city of Austin was allowing in all of these neighborhoods that are older.
that brought the -- the value of homes, of the rest of the homes up to the point that especially the elderly are not able to afford their homes anymore.
they lose them.
they lose those homes to foreclosure.
they can't leave language or home to their relatives, to their children and grandchildren.
and I thought -- yeah, I'll fight for those people as well.
but I also know that part of the fighting means that you look for another way of trying to help them keep their homes.
and the gentrification that is going on in that area is -- is just growing by leaps and bounds.
not only that neighborhood, but the ones in -- in south Austin where -- where families in south Austin have lived there forever.
but their children are not -- are not -- can't stay there anymore.
and it's maddening.
i guess in that respect I -- I share your feelings about this whole thing, but, you know, you try to find another way to help people keep their homes.
there's an advertisement on t.v.
about folks saying that the elderly can do the reverse mortgages.
and when I heard about this bill, it kind of reminded me of reverse mortgages.
i don't know that I would want to go through one of those, either.
but I think that people get to the point of getting backed up against the wall.
they can't afford to stay there anymore and they have to do something.
so to -- to still live under shelter and not be out in the streets.
and so I thought that maybe this was a way to have some training sessions, we did begin those training sessions in the community with some of the folks from the city of Austin to explain that land trusts are something new to Texas.
that we needed to understand how those land banks work.
and it's -- it's very -- it also reminded me of the other program that we have at the county when we buy out properties that people own but they can't live on them because they flood.
and they are in the flood way, which is much more dangerous than living in the floodplain.
and so we -- but both of the programs, that one, the buyout and this one is voluntary.
people do not have to hand their land over to the land bank.
they can continue trying to -- to figure out ways in which to -- to be able to stay in their home and not have to leave.
but if they want to, I guess if you want to participate in a reverse mortgage, you could also want to participate in a land trust.
i'm not sure that both function in the same manner.
but as part of the education process and a lot of the folks who were here in the audience, in opposition, to the issue when it first came up, have been attending some of those training sessions.
and trying -- we're all trying to find out what this -- these terms all mean.
they are new to Texas, like I said.
and so we're trying to -- to still get another training session in place.
so even if this legislation passed, people would not have to participate.
if they find out it's not something they want to do.
if they want to try to find another way to hold on to their property.
when you are elderly, on fixed incomes your children are not close by or maybe your children are unemployed, how can you possibly come up with some way to save your property?
that's what I'm trying to avoid as well.
i don't want to see anyone homeless, especially elderly.
i don't want to go there.
so I'm -- it forces me then to look for another way to help them out of that situation.
and I think this is probably the closest that it comes to helping people save their homes.
and if they want to.
totally voluntary.
and so -- but it does take the county and the city and the state to perhaps look at all of these -- the ways in which we might help people save their homes.
and -- and so -- but, you know, we can't force people to do what they don't want to.
and we won't.
we'll never do that.
so that's the only reason that I thought if there was some -- some way that I could support this kind of thing.
i know that the -- the numbers that you have there by people who want it, if you don't know and are not familiar with the program you are going to vote no.
but I think that's why we decided that the -- that the training sessions were going to be good for -- for everyone before they make a decision they can find out everything that they need to know and then they can make a better decision for themselves.
>> they are very intelligent persons Commissioner and they -- you know, when they say that they do not support something, they are speaking from knowledge.
>> I know.
>> not just from impulse.
again, when this 87% of the precinct that I represent say they do not want this.
number one, you don't own the land but you own the house on top of it.
now that's unheard of.
>> it's --
>> [multiple voices]
>> hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on please.
you have got those that support this, those that are in opposition to it.
sometimes you want to put it'sing on the cake and stuff like that to -- icing on the cake and make it look good.
when you actually bite into the cake it's not worth a dime.
this is a situation.
you have good bills and bad bills.
this concept, I applaud as I stated before, representative rodriguez for trying to come up with a situation.
there will be another census out here coming in 2010, of course they looked a the this as the last census track, said this is the area that blah blah blah within the boundaries, we will focus on the boundaries, I assume this is why those boundaries were chosen.
you have those that are not going to be accountable to everybody, a lot of things have not been determined.
the folks are very nervous, they said they do not want their land taken from them, it's just a power grab by the city of Austin as I suggested it appears that that's exactly what it is.
so I'm going to stick to my position as I stated before.
i'm going to stick by my community as I have done before.
i'm not going to be railroaded into a situation whereby the -- within the complete bounds almost of precinct 1, the other little portion is precinct 4.
but the majority of what we are talking about here is in the precinct that I represent.
>> thank you.
>> may we go to -- which is the -- I think a good segue off of your concerns regarding the oversight of the use of the t.i.f.
fund.
that was number 2 on composition of the homestead board.
>> yes.
the committee
>> [indiscernible] drafted would provide for equal representation by the city of Austin and by Travis County on the board that would make final decisions about allocating this revenue.
there's a little bit of a problem in the sense that the section that creates this board is not very well tied in with the section that describes the powers and duties of the district, so I think we need to continue working with representative rodriguez's office to clarify that but as you mentioned I think one of the initial concerns, among many, that has been expressed by the members of the court is the sense that this was not actually an equal partnership between the city of Austin and Travis County.
i think that this bill does not address many of the concerns of representative -- excuse me, Commissioner Davis or Commissioner Gomez have brought up about whether this really makes sense for everybody in the community or some of the people or whatever.
but I think it represents a good faith effort on the part of representative rodriguez to try to structure the relationship between the city of Austin and the county at the top of this thing so that little more frankly more fair.
i understand your concerns, this bill does not address most of them, what this bill does address is that the sense that the city of Austin and the county were not equal partners in this venture.
>> we still aren't.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> just for a moment, I hope that I can anticipate where you may go -- maybe going.
laying aside for a moment implementation and policy issues about whether or not to implement it, there is a law currently on the books that provides this authority to counties to travis and the city of Austin to do in partnership under the current law the county has absolutely no representation on the board that manages the t.i.f.
under the proposed committee substitute offered by representative rodriguez he has faithfully responded to that by giving us a 50/50 reputation on the t.i.f.
board.
i would recommend if we could add a bullet asking for clarification of the authority of the active board in relation to the city council as the manager of the t.i.f.
fund.
that is one lingering issue that -- that can probably be addressed fairly succinctly.
>> hold on Commissioner, we will get back to you in just a moment.
mr.
davis?
>> well, we would --
>> you didn't see fit to leave the courtroom when this item was called up.
>> what I do -- what have you got for us.
>> wouldn't want to miss this.
we view this as a slight improvement of the current law.
i think on the first issue of the -- of the -- of the property tax exemption that -- that when you look at -- at the fairness part of it,
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] it.
>> it does allow employees of property owners in the district to be on the board also.
that would mean that the city of Austin employees could be on the board because the city owns a lot of property over there.
but I don't think from my asking around, I don't think that the county owns any property in the district.
so would -- would -- in the present term it looks like it would allow city employees to be on the board but not county employees to be on the boardment and it would seem fair that -- would be corrected, too.
in our satellite office in the district, martin luther king, jr.?
>> no.
no, I don't think so.
>> thank you, judge, I just wanted to ask as a part of that motion that --
>> the motion is not before us yet.
but it will be in just a minute.
>> amendment
>> [multiple voices]
>> just a minute, though.
let me ask two questions, we will go back to Commissioner Davis, then to Commissioner Eckhardt.
so I have heard that participation is voluntary.
is that true?
or not?
>> the land trust that is voluntary.
that is true.
of course the land trust is -- is a -- is a homestead preservation district.
if you -- if you're considering whether to pars it in or not, but it doesn't have anything to do with this bill.
>> trust aside, is it voluntary or not?
>> yes, sir, it is.
>> okay.
and what's the status of this bill today?
>> it is pending in the house ways and means committee where representative rodriguez laid out his committee substitute last Wednesday, I believe.
>> mr.
davis does this help preserve homesteads or not?
>> well --
>> or do you know.
>> I don't know because it is as we have talked months ago when -- when -- at the ebb of the year, one of the point that we brought out was that this is an experiment that they are -- that there was not a -- a home instead preservation of this size having been done in other parts of the country.
so this would be a first of a kind on this scale.
there are, however, there are many land trusts that are -- that are in other parts of the country and other parts of the world, they are just not -- they are not popular in this -- in Texas.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes.
let me say this to you again, mr.
rodney rhoades, harvey Davis, staff person.
i don't care who you are.
you come here before the Commissioners court and again we had to dig out facts this morning an example with gold smith, golfsmith, whatever, that weren't given to us.
information that I think is very important.
sometimes I don't really know exactly what's going on, but it really does -- really does make me mindful that again if I'm going to make decisions I'm going to have to have the right information to make good decisions.
and I don't want it to appear that, it shouldn't appear that if things are being brought to this court to -- to sway our decisions in the direction of which you intend for it to go, that's a whole different matter.
now, I don't want that to happen.
at all.
of course I asked harvey Davis to give us the flip side.
in other words there's another side to this thing that has not been illustrated.
i asked him to break it down.
i may have gone to a lot of it.
but if I left out something, mr.
davis, please state it.
did I leave out anything in my presentation as far as when we looked at the good and bad of this bill?
>> I don't believe so.
>> okay.
so the bottom line is ownership or property.
the point is that this area, the taxes are increasing so rapidly, so fast in this area so that folks are going to be forced to become probably a part of this land trust because of the lack of the city willingness to -- to bring homestead exemption and also grant senior citizens 65 years and over, $65,000 and also disabled citizens of this community within this area.
that is fact and of course the ministers of this area, the churches that I visit in this area, the ministers and I have talked with the congressional member, they were black but I went to a catholic diocese too.
i took the information to them, trying to educate them because they have no knowledge of what's going on here.
of course they were appalled.
and shocked.
some of them came down here.
and the congregations didn't have no idea and again legacy, tradition and folks that have been here since -- they didn't have no place else to live because of segregationnal practices done by the city of Austin at this time done in this general area.
so they have legitimate concerns.
of course as recent as the latest polls this year, 87% of the folks don't want this type of opportunity.
what they do want is the city of Austin to bring more exemptions to them so they can afford to deal with the tax increases in that area.
now, I've said that and I'm not going to support this bill at all.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> I believe that mr.
rhoades may have requested --
>> he said he wanted to comment on your motion.
i said it was not before us.
if you would like to repeat that.
>> I would -- as being to approve the staff recommendations with the addition of a third bullet of clarifying the authority of the t.i.f.
board in relation to the stop you as manager of the t.i.f.
fund.
>> the only thing that I would add is that there is a section in the local government code 157 a .157 that addresses how the fund are administered.
i think it might be beneficial as part of any recommendation along those lines to deal with that section of the local government code as well.
as a part of this bill.
>> I think that would be a good recommendation.
in addition to --
>> is that why you second it.
>> yeah, I'll second that.
>> I also wanted to go ahead and mention something else.
if -- under the purposes of the district, we can also add that if we start out as a pilot project with this district, we would learn what other steps would be needed to be taken.
for instance, maybe the city of Austin needs to see for itself that it needs to implement homestead exemptions for the elderly, if that's all that they want to do, for all elderly, that would include elderly in that area.
the other is the actual outcomes of the land trust.
before we make it into a big blown thing, but I think if -- let's do it slowly.
as a pilot project.
learn everything that we can about the effects of the preservation district.
>> one option that has been discussed with representative rodriguez and he has stated I think that this is probably appropriate that this is probably an area of exploration more appropriate to the interlocal agreement around the t.i.f.
but it has been discussed with him arriving through negotiation between the city and the county at performance measures that establish both a floor and a ceiling of performance for this admittedly rather complicated gizmo.
>> I don't see anything wrong with that because like I said the concepts are new to Texas.
we can find out for ourselves if it would work, who it affects, does it really make -- make sure that we have affordable housing in an area?
does it save homes?
there's a lot that we can learn from this process.
however we need to do it, whether it's through interlocal or go ahead and go with this or not, but then see what the interlog would show.
interlocal would show.
i think we need to find out.
>> I'm going to attempt to tell me if this is a restatement of what sounds like a friendly amendment.
to add a fourth bullet of pursuing performance measures -- pursuing investigating performance measures and in negotiation with the city.
>> uh-huh.
>> are you suggesting that somehow be part of the statute?
>> no.
>> I the -- I this the intent is for the statute to create a skeleton and the flesh and bones of the proposal to be fleshed out this that interlocal agreement with the city which is entirely optional for obviously the city and the county.
>> the super majority rule is in effect, I believe.
there is a two part motion that Commissioner Eckhardt made which was seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion?
>> yeah, I have one more thing to say.
of course as I stated before I represent this precinct.
>> any new discussion?
>> it's not new.
>> then you are out of order.
>> well, let me say --
>> any more discussion?
>> hold on, hold on.
>> you are out of order.
all in favor of the motion?
>> I wasn't through yet.
>> show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, yours truly voting if favor.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> voting against.
>> I wasn't through yet.
>> you were there.
>> I wasn't --
>> my office says you were there because you said most of the stuff that you did --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I was going to --
>> it's 12:15 p.m.
we have other things to do
>> [multiple voices] the question really is whether the court wants to support this or not.
simple majority rule is still in effect.
we just voted to change.
do we want to tell representative rodriguez that we are supportive of changing this so we can support it further or do we want to back off of it today.
>> want to make the changes so we can support it as the skeleton.
>> right.
>> my recommendation would be a letter to the representative setting forth the concerns that we still have the bill, asking him to address those.
we can have such a letter ready for review by this afternoon.
>> he's going to want to know if we make those changes whether we support it.
>> is there a motion.
>> I move take we write the letter to representative rodriguez indicating the changes that we feel are necessary so that we can support the bill as a working platform on which to build on with the city of Austin.
>> seconded.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
any discussion of this motion?
any discussion of this motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Davis.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> now, it's 12:15.
we will recess until 1:45 for lunch.
can you come back this afternoon?
>> we would be delighted.
>> we will finish the legislative item then.
we have several other matters, we'll try to take those after the legislative discussion and I will know when we come back whether we will take the tecolote item.
move that we recess until 1:45, all in favor?
four of us voting for.
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
mr.
eckstein is supposed to be sitting next to mr.
davis there, this a good time to promote you, mr.
davis?
>> why not.
i can talk about the next item.
>> please do so.
>> that is the private activity bonds senate bill 2294.
>> let's withdraw that motion to promote you.
mr.
eckstein is here.
>> Commissioner, you called up senate bill 2294, I would like to turn it over to harvey Davis to explain it to the court
>> [laughter] this bill is as -- as the bill that's been strongly backed by talfa, Texas association of local housing finance agencies, which is -- our housing finance corporation is a member of this organization and it's housing finance corporations across the state.
it has many excellent provisions that will help potentially help the housing finance corporation, the main ones being -- being that it increases the allowable multi-family bonds that a developer can apply for, from 15 million to $25 million.
there -- the -- the bonds that the corporation has issued in -- when it was issuing bonds, which has been several years, but almost in every case it was $15 million because -- because the development costs more than that.
so that is a needed increase in the amount that -- that can be applied for.
it has -- it provides for some rules where -- where when you issue single family bonds, they have some rules now that -- that utilization rules where if you -- if you issue some bonds and you don't use very much or you don't originate a lot of mortgages, then they penalize you the next time you -- you -- you apply with the Texas bond review board for an allocation.
and usually the reason that you don't -- that you don't -- utilize much of the bonds is because you issued the bonds and the mortgage interest rate was a -- was say at -- at 6% and then the market -- the mortgage rates after you issue them, they go down, so your bonds don't become competitive.
so it did seem unfair to -- to penalize the issuers for -- for just market conditions.
so it -- it addresses that and makes it -- the utilization not so onerous to issuers.
then finally it -- it allows -- right now, when -- if a -- if we issue bonds for Travis County, and we have to go to any city whose population has more than 20,000 -- a population of more than 20,000, we have to go and get their permission to use the bond program within their city limits and it increases that from 50 -- from 20 to 50.
so -- so anyways, I think that it's a good bill and we would recommend that you -- that you approve it.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
20 e, consider and take action on legislation relating to eminent domain and condemnation, including house bills 4, 369, 402, 417, 1125, 1385, 1432, 1483, 1534, 1536, 2110, 2387, 2685 and 3709, and house joint resolutions 14, 31 and 65
>> Commissioner, thank you.
judge Biscoe, members of the court, this is a revisiting of an issue that we brought up last week and then the week before, having to do with the court had taken a position on a series of bills related to eminent domain and condemnation, but had asked for some -- some explanation of the court's rationale and the court's kind of philosophical position on these issues.
we provided this last week and there was a -- there was a -- the court -- what the court basically said was give us some more time to look at this.
this was a discussion about the infamous bullet point three, but we decided to leave the rest of the document pending and just decide whether or not the court wanted to move forward this week.
it is back on the agenda and my recommendation would be that the court adopt this document as the court's statement of principle with respect to the issues involved in the eminent domain and condemnation legislation this session.
>> what says the court?
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> what happened to that infamous bullet number 3?
>> it's still in there.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and finally, 20 f, house bill 4756, relating to the lower colorado river authority.
>> that's correct.
this bill was sought by representative donna howard from Travis County.
basically makes several changes to the enabling legislation for the lower colorado river authority.
what is relevant to the court is that under current law, the members of the board of the lower colorado river authority are selected by the governor, I believe with the advice and consent of the senate, from -- there's an allocation in the statute so that a certain number of the members of the board are from Travis County and from other counties throughout the lower colorado watershed.
this bill would replace that with selections of those judges by the -- excuse me, with selections of those board members by the Commissioners courts of those respective counties.
from a local control perspective, what this does is give the lower colorado river authority more immediate access to the elected officials who are concerned with and knowledgeably about the issues, we think in general recommend -- increases accountability.
the bill also calls for -- for a -- if a sunset of the lower colorado river authority to be done in the next legislative session.
and has a provision in it which is on page 3 of the -- of the draft legislation which you have in front of you.
on page 3 of the legislation, has a requirement that water pressure safety standards basically requires the lcra to -- to make sure that all its water lines provide adequate water pressure to serve fire hydrants in whatever area those water lines serve.
and there's a -- there's a -- a body of regulation having to do with the -- with the adequacy of water flow and pressure ford to in orr to serve the needs of the fire department and emergency personnel, this would require lcra to comply with that.
>> do we think this one has legs?
>> may I say something?
>> I kind of don't think it has legs because the governor can veto it if it gets up there to him, it certainly is in his best interests to be able to make these appointments.
i think the bill in itself makes a statement that we need to start articulating and that is that those who are appointed locally best represent the local interests.
at this point the governor is appointing someone from regions, but if there is a specific special interest that he's got, then that board is going to be stacked in that favor.
we have seen that in the past, I have seen that as a citizen before I was elected.
we know for example that water drives development and as long as the counties have limited authority to deal with land use, the ability to put water out there, complicates our -- our efforts as it relates to development.
so I think it's very important that we look, that we support something like this.
consider it.
and keep that thought alive because I think it spreads the -- the membership on that board in a more balanced way.
the governor, the current board, is -- serves at the will of the governor along with the chair.
it didn't used to be that way.
the chair used to be elected from the group.
this would allow the board to elect the chair again.
so I just think that it's something that it's important that we -- that we consider.
i don't know if we want to actually vote to support it.
but I think -- I --
>> I hear a motion.
>> I move that we vote to support it because I think that it's good that we articulate how we feel about it.
>> two seconds.
>> okay.
>> judge, if I can respond to your question a minute.
i do think that the bill was filed late in the session, it has not got a hearing yet.
not a senate companion.
pretty tough row to hoe.
this is a bill that directly affects the governor's power, authority, would certainly tempt him to issue a veto on this bill, if not make that a forgone conclusion.
but I'm not empowered to speak for the governor in that regard.
>> the optimists on the court aren't supposed to have any fun today, are they?
>> it's that time of the session for hard headed pragmatism.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> did we deliver our letter?
we have not delivered our letter yet.
there is a -- it is almost finished in the draft stage and my intent is to see if I can bring it down to the members of the court and just circulate it among y'all while you continue your business today.
>> okay.
>> if that's okay.
>> okay.
>> anything else.
>> we have communicated to representative rodriguez and he is eager to hear from us.
>> anything else regarding item no.
20 and its many subparts?
we will have it back on next week.
>> thank you, judge, thank you, Commissioners.
>> thank you.
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 14, 2009 2:20 PM