Travis County Commissioners Court
April 28, 2009,
Item
25
Now let's go to the legislative item.and that is number 25, which is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters, a, status report on the 81st Texas legislature.
>> judge, this is dietz eckstein from intergovernmental relations.
there is a handout in your packets that just shows the status of the number of bills we're tracking, the number of bills that the county has taken a position on.
as I mentioned earlier, the trend that we continue to see is that the number of bills being heard in committee, which always involve more work on the part of the county staff people and on the part of our legislative consultants is going down.
and the shift in attention both in the senate and the house is towards the floor action.
so, for instance, two weeks ago I think we had 25 bills that were heard in committee.
last week we had something like 14 or 16.
this week we have five.
there could be some bills added to the committee schedules at this point, but the general trend we're seeing is that the committee work, which is where a lot of the effort goes in on the part of county staff, members of the court who have been making presentations to the legislature and so forth, that goes -- that's going down now as the action shifts to the floor.
there are 35 days left in the session as of today, so we're beginning to see towards June 1st and the end of the session.
that's all I have on the general item, judge.
>> okay.
judge earl, which one are you here on?
>> yes, judge.
good morning, my name is elizabeth earl, judge of county court number 7.
good morning to all of you.
i was asked to come over by dietz to talk a little bit about certain bills that were presented.
i think some of you have that information.
i think that you were presented with an action memo --
>> this is item d on the agenda, judge.
>> all right.
let's call it up then.
>> all right.
i'll do d then first, senate bill 1323 and house bill 1906.
and that was the bill, the whitmire bill that talks about surcharges for d.w.i.
court participants or drug court participants.
there was a bill that was proposed, and I think you were advised of this bill about doing away with all surcharges.
this bill would be doing away with the judge's discretion if the person is actively involved in d.w.i.
court program.
i'm about to go over and testify on that bill.
as a judge, I cannot testify for or against a bill, I can just testify to the resource.
i did so, making them aware of the court's -- how much cases that we have here in court for d.w.i.
license, suspended license, as well as what participant in a d.w.i.
court program would have to complete.
and therefore the benefits of having this bill passed.
the committee was very interested in the differences between a regular court program for treatment versus d.w.i.
court program and a regular court program.
dr.
nagy had provided me with some numbers as far as the iop treatment for a regular court it was 78 hours of treatment versus 333 hours for d.w.i.
court.
so I think -- their idea is if someone is in treatment actively completing their programs, doing drug court as well as you all know how well our drug court is doing their job, that they should have this bill passed that allows them to have their surcharges reduced somewhat so they wouldn't be spending so much money on having to get their licenses back.
so that's the idea on those two bills.
>> I move we support, actively support 1323 and house bill 1906.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
maybe what we could do is go back -- I'd like to go back to something on item c, which is our status report on Travis County legislative activities.
i just want to mention two bills that have begun moving in the senate.
we mentioned them in court last week.
these are senate bill 700 and senate bill 402.
these are both appraisal cap bills that -- to at least some people's surprise passed out of the senate bill finance committee last week and are now in the senate intent calendar.
these bills would -- senate bill 700 would eliminate the requirement of voter -- of voter participation in order to call a rollback election and would mandate a rollback election any time the rollback rate was exceeded.
secondly they were lower the rollback rate from # percent to five percent.
so they would lower it by three percentage points.
the conference of urban counties and Texas association of counties and Texas municipal league are all opposed to this bill.
it has been placed on the senate intent calendar.
what the court recommended we do last week was draft a letter to senators watson and to senator wentworth and drafts of those letters are included in your packet.
>> who is the sponsor of those bills?
700 and --
>> I'm sorry.
the sponsor of the first bill, senate bill 700, is sponsored by senator dan patrick from the houston area.
>> what about the other one?
>> senate bill 402 is sponsored by senator kevin eltype from east Texas.
senate bill 402 would permit a county to swap out a one-quarter cent increase in the sales tax for lowering its property -- its rollback rate from eight percent to five percent.
>> but it would also still require -- I'm not sure if this is the case, but is it the case in that bill that it would also do away with the petition in referendum and require that there be a ratifying -- a ratifying election for an increase in the property tax above the rollback?
>> I think there would still be the requirement that -- I don't think it would change the requirement at all, it would just lower the rollback rate from eight percent to five percent.
i may misunderstand your question.
i know that senator patrick's bill would mandate an election any time you -- a county or government or a city proposed to exceed the rollback rate.
i think in senator eltype's bill, that provision would not change, so there would still be roll back elections, but it would be called by a group of voters.
i think there was a concern that there might be a floor amendment if the bill got to the senate floor to do what senator patrick's bill does, which is mandate the rollback election any time the five percent camp would be exceeded.
>> are already formally of record in opposition?
>> yes, sir torks both bills.
>> we thought these bills did not have legs.
>> that's correct.
at the time we thought that they would maybe get a hearing.
and that would be -- in fact, they were heard in committee early in late -- in late March, early April, and didn't move for two or three weeks, but suddenly move last week.
>> yeah.
and consent -- they're on the consent?
>> no, sir, they are on the senate intent calendar, which means that they -- which means that they have could come up with 21 votes.
and we think that now would be a very good time for us to communicate with our senators.
obviously senator watson is a former mayor and senator wentworth as a former county Commissioner understand how these bills would handcuff government -- local governments, so we hope that they would be supportive of our position on it.
>> one of the concerns of the conference of urban counties was that in the committee, many who they felt were sympathetic with counties and municipalities voted in favor of the bills and later said that they didn't -- that it just went so fast that they didn't quite understand.
so we want to make sure that even those who we think are friends are well apprised.
>> are well apprised, exactly.
>> we have slow friends, apparently.
>> [ laughter ]
>> neither of our senators are on that committee, but I was wondering if it wouldn't be possible to send the same letter to senator ogden in a in a conversation I had with a member of his staff yesterday, it was communicated that they have received a lot of opposition to these bills and that they are listening.
so perhaps it would be useful to send a letter to ogden as well.
>> might as well.
>> I move we accept and send these letters to senator watson, senator went worth and any other senator appropriate.
>> do we update the opposition letter we've already done?
>> we have a draft letter dated April 21st, which is in your packets.
already written for senator watson and one written for senator wentworth that basically lays out our case against the two bills and appeals to them to oppose letting them up on the senator floor.
>> maybe include that in the motion.
>> I think it's included and Commissioner Huber's motion.
>> senator ogden and any other senator that it would be appropriate to send.
>> yes.
add them to t.
>> this letter must be sent by the entire court.
i have the original?
>> I think we'll have the original to you by lunch.
>> okay.
>> cuc has sent opposition?
>> yes.
they're in opposition.
i'm not sure how they've communicated that, but they are in opposition to it.
and I think they've asked many of the county Commissioners and judges from around the state to communicate their opposition to this bill, as has the Texas association of counties and the Texas municipal league.
this applies both to counties and to local -- and to cities, which was part of the confusion that happened in the senate finance committee to which Commissioner Eckhardt referred earlier.
>> do we vote on that?
there was a motion and a second, right?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> does the court have any other direction it wants to give me about who would be appropriate?
we could do one to all 31 senators.
we could focus on central Texas senators.
>> I would send it to all of them.
let's not discriminate.
we may want to touch base with cuc too and see if what we're doing is consistent with them.
>> judge earl, what other item are you here on?
>> I'm just here to support dietz.
he asked me to come in the previous hearing and I was out of town, so I wanted to make sure he didn't need me.
>> I don't think there's anything.
>> thank you very much.
>> you're welcome to wait to enjoy the rest of our meeting, I just --
>> no.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I have court going on right now, but I wanted to make sure dietz was taken care of.
and I wanted to let the court know as well is there are some letters here that senator whitmire's office had received.
i wanted to give you copies of them.
i'll make sure my staff makes copies and gets them to y'all's office.
thank you very much.
>> thank you so much, judge.
>>
>> the next item, junk, would be house bill 1976.
>> what number is that one?
>> that's e.
>> let's call it up.
>> relating to the operation of property owners associations.
actually, our -- this is a bill that is a rewrite of the law of property owners associations, about 22-page rewrite.
it has a provision in it that was unique and that we hadn't seen before which said that when a property owners or homeowners association held an election that the votes in that election would be tabulated by either a county clerk, a county elections administrator or a county judge.
>> that is not a good bill.
>> [ laughter ]
>> that's not the order it was in either.
but we were at first concerned that it was a mandate upon counties, but the language of the provision says that they must contract with the elected official in order to conduct the thing.
so we don't really want to oppose it on the grounds of it being a mandate.
obviously it would cause some inconvenience, but we checked with nelda wells spears and she said that it probably -- it would cause some cost to her office, but they could be recouped through contracting with these property owners associations.
at this point we don't have a recommendation about either supporting or opposing the bill.
there's nothing else in the bill that is relevant to -- relevant to county government specifically.
one of my concerns would be that what this bill does by conflating counties tabulating election results as you know often times there's confusion on people's parts about whether the property owners associations or homeowners associations are part of the government.
and can't you all do something about them in that sense?
and so it may be wise to just stay away from legislation that implies somehow that the county is --
>> that the associations have private contractual right are somehow governmental.
>> yes.
or either enforced by the government or can be remedied by the government.
so my recommendation at this point would be that we not take any action on this bill, we just wanted to bring it to the court's attention.
>> would they come under voting rights if they contracted with governments to do their elections?
>> they're not contracting with us to do the elections, they're contracting with us -- they would be contracting -- I wonder if they contracted with us.
>> I don't know the answer, Commissioner.
>> I don't know either.
i don't know whether is the county change covered by the civil rights act or voting rights act.
f?
>> f is house bill 755.
this is relating to the creation of the county and district court technology fund.
we have talked about fee bills to create technology funds earlier.
the county is on record in support of house bill 1284, which would create a specific court records retention fee assessed against criminal defendants.
i believe the fee would be four dollars.
this bill would create -- maybe it's $10 because I'm realizing that this bill is a four dollar fee on all defendants convicted in a county or district court, so it's targeted towards criminal defendants.
and it also raises the juvenile delinquency prevention and grafitti eradication fee from five dollars to $50.
it is our recommendation that the court take no action on this bill.
when the court discussed fee bills earlier in the session, Commissioner Eckhardt proposed what I'm now calling the Eckhardt test, which is that the fees should be somehow related to the -- it should go to the governmental entity that is actually performing whatever services the fee is paying for, that it should be related to whatever the person is on trial for and that it should not be so large as to constitute a separate punishment.
it is our feeling that although the court technology fee part of the bill does pass the Eckhardt test, the part of it that requires payment of $50 to the grafitti eradication fund does not pass that test.
we're not prepared to recommend that you oppose the bill at this time, but we would not recommend that the court support it.
>> if we don't like it, why don't we oppose it?
>> well, that's the court's prerogative.
>> if you cause the grafitti, I think you ought to help clean it up.
if you didn't cause it, --
>> one of the issues with this bill --
>> we're collecting these fees.
the collection rate looks like it's 25 percent.
we're probably putting a lot more effort than to try to collect it than we're getting.
plus the state's not leaving that money at the county level, right?
they either get on all or part of it at the state.
>> a lot of it goes to the state for that fee.
>> I'm trying to remember --
>> at some point these fees ought to make sense, shouldn't they?
we ought to insist that they make sense.
the other thing is it's kind of easy to impose these fees and basically mandate that we collect them.
and that we send part or all of it to the comptroller, state comptroller.
so it seems to me that either it makes sense or it doesn't.
and we're saying it doesn't make sense, but let's be quiet about it.
and I'm saying that doesn't make sense.
i think some of these legislators don't appreciate the full impact of some of these apparently innocuous bills.
on the surface it looks all right, but when you really dig below it, the likelihood that we'll collect that 50 cents is very remote.
if we collect a fourth of it, how much effort do we put into it?
and then where does the money go?
and as far as I know, grafitti is not -- if it's a big issue here, it's the quietest kept secret, not that it's non-exist ent, but it's a small matter.
if we could use that money for different juvenile issues, it would be a different thing.
>> I believe --
>> I'm to the conclusion that my motion is to oppose it.
>> second.
>> and especially the 50-dollar fee.
which one was that?
>> f.
>> this is on f, house bill 755.
>> yeah, for the reason that I just stated.
discussion?
>> a bit of discussion only is that one part of this is probably a reasonable increase in fee, which is an addition of the county and district court technology fee of four dollars, which we have in another bill advocated for.
it's just this other one that is -- that it is unrelated to an adult -- an adult convicted of a crime is assessed an additional 50 bucks, which is rather high.
>> it would raise the -- that fee that's already collected, it would raise it from five dollars to $50.
>> to 50.
and it's unrelated to adult crime.
it's actually public works in removing grafitti.
>> it's the increase to 50 that I think we should oppose and notify them.
so I would leave the five in place.
any more discussion?
let's see if we've got four.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
judge for the 50-dollar part.
>> yes, sir.
item g is added item senate bill 2301 relating to the calculation of the ad valorem roll back tax rates of certain taxing units.
i was going to ask -- auditor is here to visit with you about that bill.
>> this bill kind of came up at the last minute.
it was by senator williams in senate finance on Thursday.
it was scheduled for hearing.
and the Texas association of counties contacted me and asked if I would testify on that bill, which I was glad to do on my own behalf.
and then we met -- we provided handouts to senator william's staff early in the day and then later senator williams pulled the bill.
so there was no hearing on it.
i had prepared testimony as well as written testimony, but there was no written testimony because he pulled the bill.
but this information is out and I just thought you might want to look at it as we're looking at revenue caps.
and I'm not going to go through all of these, but I'll be happy to -- if anyone wants to call me up and I would be happy to come to your office and do that.
but the first thing was very interesting because I've spoken about it before.
that is, I did two actual tax bills here.
the first sheet is for people 65 and over where we have an exemption.
and the second page is not.
and I had mentioned earlier that in aisd for instance, that 29.09% of the school property taxes wnt back to the state of Texas.
and this shows really the dramatic impact that has on our taxpayers because the first part on the page would be how the tax bill would look.
you can see 2300 goes to the school, 768 to the city.
531 to the county on down.
when you look at the bottom in full disclosure, and I did suggest to senator williams who is a big proponent of transparency that it does seem that the property bills ought to disclose the fact that in fact in the school property tax in this particular case we calculated it out, $1,700 would stay here, but $610 would go back down to the state.
that's important because if you look at the Travis County tax, the amount of school tax, $610 that is recaptured to go back to the state is more than the $531 of county taxes.
so if our taxpayers did not have to recapture that back, it is of such a magnitude that it's bigger than people pay for county taxes.
on the second page I did a person that is under the age of 65.
and again, that tax is a little less than the county's tax, but that person would send $721 of their property taxes to the state of Texas and in fact would have paid $799 for county property taxes.
so that recapture is extremely important and the part that is hurting us the most is there is no effective tax rate protection on that school rate, which means that because our area is growing, the properties are increasing in value.
you put a flat tax rate against that and the taxes just keep going up.
there's no protection of the effective tax rate.
the other thing here is we had done some analysis earlier because there was a lot of talk about taxes increasing faster than the homestead value, and what my office did is looked for five years and we looked at the school, the city, Travis County, all the taxing jurisdictions that we bill for, and looked at what the taxes were, what the exemptions were, what m and o is in total and per year, so that's kind of interesting to look at as well.
if you look at the Travis County taxes, which is on page 3 of 5.
and again I'll be glad to go over this with again.
the m and o taxes went up 17.72% in that five-year period or an average of 3.5% a year compared to a growth in the value of the capped homestead at 6.71.
ins taxes actually went down.
that's kind of an interesting -- it's a lot of detail, and again I'll be glad if you would like to meet on that, go over that with you.
the next one is the tax equivalent and that's always important because those are basically what are considered taxes.
and it is important for us to note that in Travis County, of the taxes or tax equivalents that we collect, 97.99% of that is the property tax.
i compare that to the city of Austin because that's the other jurisdiction here that's large, and 48%, actually 49% rounded, of their budget for '09 is from property taxes.
what difference does that make?
when in fact there is pressure on our ability to get property taxes, we are very dramatically impacted compared to other governments because we are so dependent on the property tax, and that is what was given us, of course, by the legislature.
this last document here is rather interesting and I put in red what's important, but I kind of did that for senator williams because he always complains about the complexity of the effective tax rate and this is the school rebate calculation and it almost makes effective tax rate look simple.
but what it shows there on the red, proportionate tax rate reduction, that shows you the percentage of our taxes that go back to the state.
because we have that roll back election, basically 39% of that rollback money went back to the state.
when you add those to up a weighted average it's 29.09, but more staggering than that, eanes independent school district, of their tax dollars, 65% goes back to the state.
lake travis 56.
round rock would be 6.5.
so -- and Leander just came in to having to rebate.
and the amount of that that goes back is also important and that's red in page 2 of 3.
and you can see that for aisd you add 1.66 to four and we bisquely -- this community sent $178 million back to the state of Texas.
eanes independent school district 59,000 and Lake Travis -- 59 million and Lake Travis 32 million.
this is kind of a quick and dirty on this stuff.
but as I said, I'll be glad to meet with you.
i think it's important with these committees to have the facts so that they understand what our issues are.
when they continuously look at revenue caps, it makes it look as if the big taxes are there and they're not.
the other thing in williams' bill is that he wanted to reduce the rollback from eight percent to five with the exception that if you wanted to do more than that, if it was for the safety, welfare and -- not the welfare, safety -- there were three things you could raise it for, but the reality is there are a huge number of county expenses that do not fall this those categories.
it's not what the state mandates.
so it is not a good bill.
we all kind of don't know what it means if we pull it down, but judge, you are right, people thought these things didn't have legs and it seems like they're getting them.
so I on my own will free feel to testify if this bill comes up again.
i will also be happy to testify on your behalf if you want to take a vote against this bill.
>> the court already has a group of 27 bills related to either appraisal caps or revenue caps that it has formally taken a position against.
i want to thank susan for calling this one for our attention.
we just missed it in the confusion.
but it is our recommendation and I think susan's that the court add this to the list of bills that it is formally opposed because of the revenue caps and appraisal cap provisions.
>> move to oppose by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Huber.
any more discussion?
>> I have a question in regards to this.
this is great information that susan has put together.
and susan, is there any motion over there to include this kind of breakout as you broke out for a property owner on their tax bills showing the tax rebates?
>> I had heard that someone in the house had introduced a bill and it was as a result of -- we were talking about this at an auditor's meeting and chairman hill was there.
and he went back and there were two members of the house that were going to introduce a bill where at least it needed to be disclosed when you get your bill.
or your tax rates are set.
because it really lacks transparency.
i think people are -- I was stunned at the size.
>> it is really quite stunning.
>> it is quite stunning and not positive.
>> I would suggest that we add such an item for our legislative wish list for next year.
>> yeah.
>> to push the inclusion -- to put a portion on the tax bills that are sent out by our --
>> why wouldn't we incorporate this point into our opposition letter, though?
and I guess should we assume that the school rebate impacts other jurisdictions the same way tim packets us?
>> it impacts the jurisdictions that have to send money.
and what really happened to ours is because they didn't put an effective tax rate on there, as our values have continued to go up, the school taxes have basically gone up and the people here in eanes, Lake Travis, aisd, they have not seen property tax relief because the values have gone up and we've sent that money to the state.
and furthermore, those taxes and fees that the legislature enacted to buy-down the property tax rate, our people pay those too.
so we really have not gotten any tax relief here in this community.
and people are feeling that pressure and it is disconcerting to me that here we are focusing on the county's little tax, and it is a little tax compared to the others.
it's about the size of monthly for the average homeowner of high speed cable.
when in fact we're sending this huge amount back to the state every month.
but I agree, judge, it would be good to just put that in there.
the transparency part.
>> is that friendly to the motion to oppose this?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> the next item, judge, would be item h, house bill 2007.
relating to the payment of costs incurred by initiation of emergency detention hearings for persons with mental illness.
this bill arises out of a situation up in north Texas, and I'll try to explain it as briefly as I can, but judge guy herman is the one who brought this to us, and I was hoping he could be here today.
i think he's otherwise occupied.
the bottom line is this.
under state law if a private mental facility goes to court to request either that somebody be committed or that somebody be detained in commitment, it must pay the court costs up front.
that's just state law.
in the case of like a state mental facility, like the state hospital, those costs are borne by the state and they're waived by the courts, but in the case of private facilities.
the situation that we have is that in north Texas, the mental health managed care program for the state, for the medicaid population, for the medicare population, is all run through a private contractor who has a private arrangement with a private mental health hospital in order to provide in-patient services for those contracts.
that hospital has taken the position up in dallas that it is acting as a public entity for purposes of the hearings that it does with its clients and therefore should not have to pay the fee.
this bill was originally filed by a representative from dallas to clarify that even if it is -- even if it is a private hospital under contract with a private entity, but performing services under the medicaid or medicare or mental health programs of the state, that it is still a private contractor and it is still responsible for these fees.
that's really what the bill is about.
the reason judge herman became interested in the bill is not because we have that problem down here, but because if that hospital up in dallas continues to get away with it, the other hospitals already in the dallas area are beginning to say, well, why would we have to pay that fee if everybody else isn't and he is concerned that will spread down to Travis County.
he would like to the court to take a position in support of representative heartnet's bill.
>> I move we support t.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
the next item is item h, house bill 2170 relating to the minimum number of county jailers necessary to staff a county jail.
>> i.
>> excuse me, item i.
and what this bill does is under current law the ratio of inmates to trailers is 48 to 1.
that law -- that is set by the Texas commission on jail standards to whom the legislature has delegated the setting of those standards.
the legislature has also delegated to the Texas commission on jail standards any kind of waivers or exceptions, for instance, in a multi-floor jail facility, as I understand it, is currently commission on jail standards policy that if the overall ratio of corrections officers to inmates is one to 48, then the ratio on a per floor basis does not have to be on that.
so that you might have more people on one floor, less people on another floor.
this bill is an effort to put that into statute, the conference of urban counties and the Texas association of counties is opposing this bill not because of the policy.
it's currently state policy and in fact Travis County complies with it.
but because we believe that mandating it in legislation removes the flexibility from the Texas commission on jail standards to adjust those standards as necessary in light of developments in the corrections system and so forth.
>> what says the county sheriff?
>> I got two messages from the county sheriff.
one was that he was opposing this bill and the other was that he wasn't sure about the bill.
and I've never actually cleared that up with him.
>> bring it back to us after you clear it up.
>> we'll do that.
>> don't you think that's what we ought to do.
>> yep.
>> on house bill 1124, which is item j, and house bill 2673, which is item k, judge, I would like to suggest we pull those down.
>> just pull them?
next week or just pull them?
>> I think -- I'll put them on the agenda for next week.
there's nothing happening on those bills right now and nothing that the court needs to pass on.
that leaves us with item l, which is senate bill 1310 relating to a program allowing for county-wide voting locations in certain elections.
this is an idea that the legislature passed a bill to do a pilot project in lubbock county back in 2005.
lubbock county has now gone through two election cycles with this project.
the idea basically is to have in a sense a mix of how they do early voting and how they do voting in precincts.
so for instance in Travis County I think we have approximately 20 or -- 20 or 30 early voting locations and then on election day we have 200 precincts where the election occurs.
the idea of this proposal is to reduce the number of -- is to begin consolidating precincts and create county-wide voting locations that would apply during both early voting and during -- on election day.
the theory is that people will have more places to vote because there would be more centers during early voting.
you would not have as many precincts open on election day.
this would be a more efficient use of resources.
it has worked out very well in lubbock county and actually increased turnout in lubbock county or turnout increase understand lubbock county, maybe put it that way.
so this -- the county clerk is in support of this bill and we recommend to court that the court support it.
it's sponsored by senator bob lubbock -- bob duncan out of lubbock, who is the chairman of the senate state affairs committee, and if I remember correctly, has already passed out of -- has already passed out of the senate.
>> so does the bill mandate this or does it just authorize it?
>> if I remember correctly, it mandates it.
or it would --
>> that's pretty important, isn't it?
>> yes, it is.
>> I don't know that --
>> the Commissioners from lubbock county --
>> it says shall.
>> the Commissioners have lubbock county really like that, the way it's worked.
and that it's saved money and that it increased turnout.
and so --
>> why don't we just notify them this we think they ought to authorize it, but not mandate it?
>> just in response to your question about the shall and the may, the bill requires the county to file an application with the secretary of state asserting that the county has conducted a public hearing and has the necessary technological capabilities to pull this off.
i've got here provide the option for counties.
judge, why don't I come back to you next week about this?
>> because it makes sense if it's an option.
if it's a mandate --
>> right.
that's different.
>> I don't know that we ought to assume because it's good in lubbock county that it ought to be good here.
if the county clerk supports it that's one step in the right direction, but I hate the idea of opposing some mandates and supporting others.
>> as I read it, I think it is permissive.
the secretary of state will establish a statewide program for it.
if a county wishes to do this, then it has to hold a public hearing to explain how the system would work inside the county, but I will confirm the fact that it may be --
>> what if we just approve it if it's permission sieve.
if not bring it back.
>> so move.
>> so the motion to support it is based on our understanding that it's permissive and it authorizes this, but it does not mandate.
>> okay.
>> is that seconded?
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> that's all I have for today, judge.
>> b was simply a progress report on what we call our blue sheet.
i don't know if we've had an opportunity to hand out our blue sheets and red sheets.
our blue sheet is the list of Travis County legislative priorities, as members of the court know by now.
the only significant thing to report on the blue sheet is that some of our bills are moving pretty quickly now.
our storm water management bill passed out of the senate last week.
it's now over in the house.
the house version of the storm water management bill is going to be heard in committee today, this afternoon, as a matter of fact.
and we anticipate that representative rodriguez will move to substitute the senate verse in for the -- the senate version in for the house version and so that is moving quickly.
the presiding criminal court judge bill passed out of committee last week and has been recommended for the local and consent calendar in the house, so we're hoping that will be out of the house very quickly and over to the senate.
in the meantime, the longevity pay fix bill, senate bill 497 that the court approved at the beginning of the session, was heard, passed out of senate very quickly and then got over to the house and was heard in committee last night and left pending in committee.
so in terms of an update, those are really the three or four changes that we've seen just in the last week.
we continue to have most of our land use bills pending in the house committees.
we're working with representative rodriguez and with representative bolt ton to try to move those out of committee as soon as possible.
senator wentworth has not gotten a hearing on the senate versions of those bills.
so our land use agenda we're not too worried about where we're at right now, but want to keep them moving forward.
>> what about the compensation for sick leave bill?
>> it's at the -- is that the house bill 3158?
>> yes.
>> this is on the sheriff's officers?
that was left pending in committee.
>> did the cuc and tac oppose that as well?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
mr.
derryberry?
>> I was just going to be here to deal with the question you just asked.
that's all.
>> that bill has not moved.
and our sense from representative bolton is that she wanted to get a hearing on that bill, and was -- had her hearing and I don't know how hard she's pushing it.
>> okay.
what's the difference between the blue and the red now in.
>> the red sheet is the bills on which the court has taken a position, but which were not part of their legislative agenda.
so for instance, the bills that we discussed today, if the court took a position on them, we will add them to the red sheet.
>> okay.
blue sheet is --
>> the blue sheet is the legislative priorities that the court adopted in December.
>> okay.
anything further on the legislation item?
>> no.
>> the court didn't take a position on 1271?
item c?
>> the court has not taken a position on 1271, that's correct.
>> but it's included here --
>> I'm sorry about that, judge.
Commissioner, that was a misstatement on my part.
we have that on the list just so we're tracking it, but you're correct.
the court has not taken a position on --
>> you're the one taking the position on such as 3983, I know we've taken a position on that, but a 1271 --
>> you're correct.
>> even though you have it listed there.
>> we'll take it off the red sheet.
we're coming up with a new sheet that will be bills that the court has not taken a position on, but that we're monitoring and talking to the court about.
that's correct, Commissioner Davis.
the court has not taken a position on house bill 1271.
>> anything further today on this item?
thank you very much.
move that we recess until 1:30.
all in favor?
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 28, 2009 6:10 PM