Travis County Commissioners Court
May 5, 2009,
Item 29
Now, mr. Eckstein, we do have the legislative item.
>> 29 is consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including the status report on the 81st legislature.
and b is status report on Travis County legislative priorities, a long list of them.
c is a legislative activities allowing house bills and a long list of them.
d, house bill 2170 relating to the minimum number of county jailers necessary to staff a county jail.
e, house bill 1195 relating to the issuance of a permit for a municipal solid waste landfill located near certain municipalities.
f, house bill 1184 relating to determining population for the creation of civil service systems in certain counties.
and g, house bill 2673, relating to conditions of employment for an employee of certain sheriff's departments.
>> judge Biscoe, members of the court.
deeks ek tien from inter-- eks stein from intergovernmental relations.
what I’d like to do, judge, under the items b and c for the last several weeks we have been pass outing what we call our blue sheets and red sheets, which are summaries in spreadsheet format of what is going on with our major pills.
what we decided to do this week as an alternative was to actually pass out to you a little bit more narrative report, copies of which have been distributed to members of the court now, and what I’d like to do is just walk through that with you very carefully or very quickly, excuse me, very quickly, and just hit the highlights and certainly if there are any questions that members of the court have, I’m happy to answer those.
when we think about the legislative priorities of the county, the really key areas for us have been in the areas of county authority in terms of criminal justice reform and in terms of courts management.
let me walk through county authority very quickly.
we have a number of bills that were filed on behalf of the county relating to land use.
the one that we're really focusing our energy on right now is house bill 4175 by representative belinda bolton.
that was heard at the beginning of last month and has been pending in committee.
we have been working with representative bolton, a lot of the credit must go to greg map, our legislative consultant who has been working with the members of the committee very hard.
we believe we have the votes to get that out and we happy that representative bolton will be able to get that out of committee of committee within the next day or so.
one of the things we like about that bill is it's a very incremental approach giving the county more land use authority.
on this bill we have the support of the home builders associations here in greater Austin area.
and also the statewide home builders association.
house bill 2693 has to do with impact fees.
that's the notion that the county can charge a limited fee for roadway improvements that are directly related to new growth, new subdivision growth particularly.
that is pending in house/county affairs.
this was heard in committee and there was at that time some opposition expressed by the home builders, but we have been working with the members of that committee.
representative rodriguez has been working very hard on this bill and we anticipate that that bill also will be voted out of committee.
we think we have the votes in the committee and it will be voted out in the next couple of days.
on hill country land use, this is the bill, house bill 3265 by representative rose.
that bill was actually voted out of committee at the beginning of April, on April 6, but the committee report was not filed until April 27th.
that bill is now on its way to the calendars committee.
we don't know what that bill will be scheduled for hearing.
Travis County is currently not in that bill, but we're monitoring it because several of the provisions in the bill are -- would be good for Travis County if we had them and we're still working for communicating with representative rose about the possibility of being bracketed into that bill at some point in the future, although that's not been decided yet.
>> so not this legislative session, but a session in the future?
>> well, we'll just see what happens.
what we're really focusing right now in term of our own land use authority is house bill 4175.
we're just aware that the hill country coalition has put a lot of effort into rose's bill, which has many good provisions in it.
>> and there was a nice commentary in the newspaper on Saturday supporting it written by david arm brift.
>> thoor that's correct.
on extra territorial jurisdiction, this is another of the concepts that we had filed.
that was heard in the land and recess management committee about a month ago now and has been left penning in that committee.
we have very good news on storm water management.
this is very important.
Travis County, the storm water management bill would allow Travis County to participate in a program that harris county and bexar county already participate in and among other things recover a fee for the work it does in order to mitigate storm water and protect natural resources.
that bill has already passed out of the senate and is over in the house and this morning representative rod by ri gez got the senate version of that bill passed out of the committee.
so that bill is now -- not only passed out of the committee, but passed out of the committee on unanimous vote, so it is on its way to the local and consent clean der.
we're very happy about that bill.
it's a very important thing for our transportation and natural resources people in terms of protection of our environment.
>> I second Commissioner Huber's good work, eddie.
>> absolutely.
our billboards bill is still pending in the house transaction committee.
I think that the senate version of that bill -- the house version of that bill is pending in the transportation committee.
the senate version of that bill was on the intent calendar for yesterday.
under the senate's rules, a bill has to be placed on the intent calendar one day and then it's not eligible for actual consideration by the senate until at least the second time it's on the intent calendar.
once we get into may the senate suspends that rule, but the importance of having been on the intent calendar once is that now senator watson can work to put that on the calendar when he has the votes lined up and get that bill out.
so it's very important from a procedural point of view in the senate that it make up its first appearance on the intent calendar and that bill has done that.
>> which bill were you talking about?
>> this is senator watson's version of the billboards bill, senate bill 1266.
then on the barton springs, edwards aquifer conversationvation district, senator watson's version of that bill has already passed the senate and is over in the house committee now.
the house version of that bill by representative bolton has been heard in committee and left pending.
what we'd like to do with that bill is similar to what we've just done with the storm water management bill, which is to have representative bolton substituting the senate version of that bill and pass it out of committee.
we think there's a good chance that will happen hopefully in the next few days.
if we can get it to local and consent calendar, then we'll be three-quarters of the way home on that bill.
with respect to utility relocation, house bill 3787 by rodriguez, that was referred to the house transportation committee, has not had a hearing yet.
there's been considerable opposition to that bill on the part of the utilities who this would change our working relationship with.
so that bill has had trouble moving.
we're hoping that representative rodriguez can move that, but it's probably not his top priority right now.
the last two items on the county authority issue have to do with local option transportation funding.
senate bill 855 by senator corona is now pending in the house transportation committee.
there was a news story that I forwarded to members of the court about how they are now trying to figure out what they really want to do with local option transportation funding.
representative picket, who is the care of the transportation committee and who really holds the fate of the bill in his hands, apparently he's expressing interest in the idea of making the bill apply statewide.
so instead of having -- if you remember, there is a bill that senator corona has that has a north Texas system and a san antonio area system and a central Texas system, and has had several others added on as it was getting out of the senate.
I think representative picket may be interested in a broader statewide set of rules and we'll see where that bill is.
that's right now sort of jammed up in that committee.
and then the final issue is what we call fund 6 diversions.
much of the money that is collected in the gas tax actually gets spent by, for instance, department of public safety on necessary stuff, but it limits the amount of money available to txdot for road construction.
so one of the efforts this session has been to eliminate those kinds of diversions from fund 6, the gas tax.
and a bill to do that, house bill 1047 and a corresponding joint resolution constitutional amendment has passed out of the house transportation committee and is pending in calendars.
on criminal justice reform, you see in front of you really the four key concepts that we've been working on all have to do with re-entry programs. First with mandatory re-entry manning on the part of the Texas department of criminal justice.
senator -- excuse me.
representative sylvester turner's has passed the house and is in the criminal justice committee and is scheduled for hearing today.
the sponsor of the bill is senator whitmire who has the companion bill and is also the chair of the criminal justice committee.
we're hoping for a favorable hearing today.
those bills are all pending right now.
senator ellison's version of the bill in the senate has passed out of committee and he had it first on the intent calendar yesterday as well.
so as I mentioned earlier, having it on the intent calendar one time is a prerequisite for the senate being able to tick it up.
it is not on the intent calendar for today.
>> is it the intention for that money to end up at the local level or state level?
>> it is for the money to end up at the local level.
there are a series of regional re-entry taskforce groups -- we do have one here in Travis County.
the idea is there's a federal program called the second chance act and that program provides money to local agencies who are working on re-entry issues.
but there's -- there's some debate over this, but there seems to be a federal requirement that there be a statewide council that accepts that money and disburse tz out to the local regions.
if the legislation is not passed to do this, there's also a conversation going on with the governor's office about doing it by executive order.
and then there's just a quick mention of id cards.
it's very hard for people reentering out of the criminal justice system.
sometimes they don't have any identification.
their driver's license may have expired.
they may have lost those documents.
this would require the department of criminal justice to provide them with an identification card which they can then use as part of their re-entry into society.
and also food assistance, representative naishtat's bill to just make it easier for people who are now really just coming out of the system and are look for a place to stay, looking for a job, those sorts of things to get food assistance if they need it.
also have courts management bills.
the longevity pay adjustment that the court approved earlier this session.
this would adjust the longevity pay for one of our district judges who served several years as a county court judge before she went to the district bench.
that has already gotten out of the senate a long time ago, but was heard in the house jurisprudence -- jurisdiction and several jurisprudence committee last week.
that is moving forward.
presiding criminal court judge is out of the house on its way to the senate.
special court fees, this is judge steeg's bill to allow collection of fees on some of the early collection of some of the fees on deferred -- I don't want to say deferred disposition cases, that's the term.
excuse me.
that has passed out of the house criminal jurisprudence and is waiting in the calendar's committee.
the warrant eincrease, that has passed out of the house and is on its way to the senate.
the other bill on Travis County legislative priorities that I just wanted to mention was the early retiree health benefit plan.
this bill has been extensively negotiated with a lot of public employee unions and other interested groups.
as the court will remember, when we approved it, we wanted to make sure that it was optional for counties to try to develop these programs and that it was optional for early retirees to participate in those programs. Early retirees are now permit bid state law to participate in the active employee health insurance programs of the counties from which they retired.
we wanted to make sure that we didn't bar them from those active employee programs, but instead gave them another option if they wanted it.
so the bill as drafted does that and we're hope to go get that out of the pensions, investments and financial services committee very quickly.
just some quick update.
I don't want to really walk through this with the court, but on eminent domain and eminent domain bill passed the senate yesterday.
we are still looking at some floor eamentds that were added to it and have some cautions about that.
but overall the bill was a very reasonable bill, looked on as a compromise and the conference of urban counties and Texas association of counties were both in the room while those negotiations were going on.
and as I said, we have to examine a couple of floor amendments, but hope that that bill will continue to move.
that's the only eminent domain bill that's really moving right now so we hope that will be the vehicle for whatever final decision the legislature makes about that.
with revenue caps, we briefed the court two weeks ago and then the court approved a letter last week regarding two bills, senate bill 700 and senate bill 40e 2, both of which would impose revenue caps on counties in ways that the court felt was unacceptable.
both of those bills were placed on intent calendar one day, which as I mentioned is a very important flesh hold for the senate, but have not appeared on the intent calendar again.
because we oppose those bills, we're hoping that they don't make it up to the intent calendar again.
and so that's our report on that.
with respect to appraisal caps, those bills are all pending.
nothing seems to be moving on that.
we're keeping a very careful eye on that along with the conference of urban counties and Texas association of counties and Texas municipal league.
on appraisal reform, representative john otto from dayton has passed actually a number of bills, none of which are problematic for counties, but in different ways improve the appraisal process.
one the court had approved earlier on in a different bill and that is the notion that in appraising a residential piece of property, the standard right now is that it is appraised at highest and best use.
if -- in the appraisal district's opinion, the highest and best use of a residential piece of property would be to demolish it and turn it into an office building of some sort or a retail establishment.
then the appraisal is calculated on that basis.
this would be a constitutional amendment requiring that an appraisal of a residential piece of property be appraising it as residential property.
this will be good for homeowners.
it may have some impact on overall appraisal roles and there has been some objection to the bill on those grounds.
but the conference of urban counties and the Texas association of counties have supported the bill as a good reform of the appraisal process.
the other thing I want to mention is environmental legislation.
the court took a position in favor of bills that would limit cumulative emissions early on in the session.
cumulative emetions mean that in calculating whether to grant a new permit, the Texas commission on environmental quality would have to calculate other emissions so that they would have to calculate the cumulative effects of the new permit as opposed to considering each permit in isolation.
that provision is in senate bill 16 by a senator from waco.
he has steered the bill through the senate and it is over in the house now.
there are -- it's actual an omnibus bill.
a big bill and it has a number of provisions in it.
we're hoping that the cumulative emissions provision will stay in the bill and it will survive the vetting process in the house.
so in lieu of looking through the blue sheets and red sheets, that's my brief narrative report on the status of many of our legislative issues and priorities.
and with your permission, judge, I’m ready to go on to the specific bills that have been placed on the agenda for this week.
>> permission granted.
>> house bill 2170 relates to the money muslim number of county jailers necessary to staff a county jail.
this would place a one to 48 statutory ratio in law as a requirement for every jail.
we brought this to the court last week.
the conference of urban counties is opposed to this bill.
the Texas association of counties is opposed to this bill as really placing in statute something that is better handled in rules and regulations.
the one to 48 standard is the current standard mandated by the Texas commission on jail standards, but that commission has discretion to grant waivers when necessary or to adjust the standard when necessary.
and it is the feeling of cuc and tac that putting that in statute takes that discretion away from where it belongs.
for that reason they oppose it.
at the time I presented this to the court last week the court asked what the position of the sheriff's office was on this, and I am told by the sheriff's office that they oppose this bill as well.
>> move we oppose this bill.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
the next item, judge, is house bill 1195 relating to the issuance of a permit for a municipal solid waste landfill located near certain municipalities.
this really has to do with the situation with the city of Austin tract of land known as the webberville tract, which is now near the village of webberville in eastern Travis County.
the city of Austin over the years has proposed very just uses for it.
I believe it's about 2800 acres of land.
it has proposed various uses.
I think most recently we saw in the newspaper maybe a month or so ago that they are talking about building a big solar array out there on part of the property.
but there has been much concern in the eastern portion of Travis County with the use of the land as a landfill and what this bill would do essentially is forbid the Texas commission on environmental quality for granting a landfill permit for that land unless that permit was signed on off by the village of webberville.
that's in essence what the bill does.
>> move approval of that.
and I tendered that and testified --
>> yes, sir, Commissioner Davis testified in favor of the bill when it was heard in the house.
I believe it was heard in natural resources.
>> right.
>> excuse me, environmental regulation committee on March 18th and was left penning in that committee.
ha nothing has happened on the bill since then.
our recommendation is that the court approve or -- adopt a motion in favor of house bill 1195.
I’ve talked with representative dukes' office.
they're not really sure what the status of the bill now is.
obviously they would like to have moved it before now.
and with certainly appreciate the court's support if the court grants it.
>> is there a precedent for that?
>> in what sense, judge?
>> I guess with -- would we like it if the city told us what to do?
>> basically we would open the door for it they could then tell us what to do with our land.
>> it does -- I mean, I don't know that there is another provision like this in which a town of a population of roughly 300 has veto power over tceq and the city of Austin.
as it stands now, the village of webberville would have a right of appeal to the state office of administrative hearings much like we appealed to the state office of administrative hearings on bfi and waste management.
but this legislation gives them a veto.
>> not necessarily.
in fact, there are similar situations I think in Texas and other areas whereby the onslaught of looking at smaller cities, especially when it comes to landfills, them locating there and having those particular small cities having a say in what is located next door to them just as in any other situation.
again, this has been a hot button issue and of course we tried to resolve this particular matter dealing with our solid waste ordinance.
and of course, we didn't support the Travis County solid waste ordinance.
and of course, I think this will allow the city of webberville to have that authority and I just think it's something that's very necessary.
and this is supported by a lot of folks out in the area not only webberville, but many, many neighborhood groups that they continue to fight.
and of course the city has already recommended another use in which I even spoke with the city manager on this and told him that the particular use that's out there now, that they're recommending, is something that I think the community would support.
and of course they did support it.
and so -- but they're supporting those kinds of activities, but not a landfill.
of course, this is one way that that representative dukes, who came before this Commissioners court and testified on behalf of the residents in that community.
and again, we didn't support the other version on what we had the authority that we could have done, and I think that representative dukes and I and other governmental elected officials and this whole area in this part of Travis County has continued to right and fight for the quality of life that's experienced anywhere else.
now, I really would feel very offended again if this court did not support a bill such as this as far as giving us a way to determine what is some of the situations as far as landfill locations in this community.
either we are supporting landfill located out there next to neighborhoods, next to communities, or we're not.
it's very simple and straightforward to me.
and it is located within precinct 1.
so again, double standards may be evident if this court I think do not support a bill such as this.
and -- I could say the entire community is behind it, even naacp was even there.
the representative didn't get a chance to testify, but they were also there to testify hopefully in support of this and of this particular bill.
so it is an issue and we're going to have to really stop this song and dance situation when it comes to east Austin or come to eastern Travis County and precinct 1.
I mean, there's no doubt about it.
we're going to have to stop this.
you can't make standards applicable for all the or parts of this community that's appropriate and we sit here and vote on it.
but when it comes to precinct 1 we have a difference.
throor landfills and a lot of other things.
so representative dukes has done a real good job on this and I think that this court should go on record supporting that.
>> judge Biscoe if I can circle back around to your question.
I’m not sure -- I’d be happy to do some research on whether there's a precedent of this particular type of legislation.
I think we all know that the legislature occasionally gets asked to referee battles between various governmental entities of city and accounting to cities, that sort of thing.
but I do not know if there's a precedent like this and would be happy to provide more information to the court about it if you desire.
>> Commissioner Davis moves that we support this legislation.
is there a second?
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Huber and Davis voting in support of it.
that dies because it lacks the requisite four votes to take a formal position on t next?
>> thank you, judge.
I’d like to pass on house bill 1184.
we have no interest in bringing this before the court at this time.
and we'll move directly to house bill 2673 relating to conditions of employment for an employee of certain sheriff's departments.
this is a meet and confer bill that would apply to the sixth lamarest counties in section -- the sixth largest counties in section, eventually to Travis County and hidalgo county.
the conference of urban counties opposes this bill simply because I think it -- because although it is permissive, I think the conference of urban counties is worried that the bill would impose upon counties a duty that is -- violates the county's discretion.
at this point I do not have a recommendation to make about this bill at this time.
I think it would be -- it's kind of stuck in committee right now and I don't know if it's going to really move.
there's a similar meet and confer bill for hidalgo county that senator hin o'is a is working on, but that is specific to hidalgo county and seems to have some traction.
that could become a vehicle for a broader caption -- for a broader amendment if it gets over to the house.
but at this point, we do not have a recommendation for the court.
it's a complex issue.
I believe I’m told that in the past the court has supported similar situation provided that it was permissive.
I believe that this bill is permissive as well.
>> is there a motion?
the court takes no action.
anything else on the legislation?
>> no, sir.
there are 28 days to go in the legislative session.
>> thank you, judge and 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, May 5, 2009 5:40 PM