Travis County Commissioners Court
May 12, 2009,
Item 21
Now a very patient mr.
eckstein.
that is item number 21, consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including a, status report on the 81st Texas legislature.
b, status report on Travis County legislative priorities including a long list of bills in the house and senate, and c would be a status report on Travis County legislative issues, including a long list of bills in the house and senate there also.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
this is item number 21 on the agenda, which is coincidental since there are 21 days left in the legislative session as of today.
i want to begin by just giving an overview of where we stand in the legislative session.
and if you can refer to the calendars that were provided in your packet this week, the legal size document that contains a legislative calendar, we have begun hitting some of the deadlines for legislative activity in this session, and the first big deadline was last night.
last night was the deadline for reporting a house bill out of a house committee.
so any house bill that did not get out of house committee by last night is dead.
also today is a big day because today is the day the final calendars committee, the final consideration of the house bills have to be printed and distributed tonight.
so the calendars committee is meeting today to set the final elements on the calendar.
>> could you repeat that statement?
hold on.
about anything that did not come out of the house committee as of last night.
>> under the house rules, if a house bill is not reported out of a house committee by last night, that bill is dead.
>> all right.
>> under the house rules it cannot proceed.
the second deadline that we're running up against today is that the final calendars for the house for consideration of house bills on second reading, which is the main house calendars, have got to be finalized today and printed tonight.
and the final day so which the house can consider a house bill on second reading is Thursday.
so today we will set the final calendars for all the house bills that are going to be heard between now and Thursday.
if those bills are not heard between now and Thursday midnight, then those bills automatically die.
with that in miepped I'll show you what we are calling our priority bill tracking list, which is a narrative version of our blue sheet.
i believe we have handouts for the members of the court.
>> for the listening public, the veteran legislators can usually figure out a way to take sort of a concept in a bill that has, quote, died, capsule late the essence of it in the form of an amendment and then try to attach that amendment to legislation that has been more successful.
>> that's correct.
that is still moving through the process.
and in that respect there's a lot of opportunities left in these 21 days.
and in fact, judge, we're now looking at some of our -- some of our legislative ideas that have run into some of these deadlines, we are now looking at ways to try to graft them on to other bills and see if we can continue moving them forward.
let me just run through very quickly the list of bills that we're really -- are priority bills right now.
you have that in front of you.
our key effort today is priority items number 1 through 3, house bill 4175, which is the buffer bill.
house bill 2693, which is the impact fee bill and house bill 3585, which is the early payment of court fees bill that judge steeg has brought to the court.
all of those have successfully passed out of committee, but have have not made it on to the house calendar yet.
since today is the deadline for getting a bill on to the house calendar, our focus today is getting on there.
i want to mention that Commissioner Davis has taken a wonderful leadership role in trying to get house bill 4175, our buffer bill, which is really our best land use bill that the county is promoting this session and our number one priority, Commissioner Davis is taking a leadership role and has written a letter to all the members of the calendars committee asking them to please put it on the calendar.
so we're hoping that we'll be successful today in getting that and the other two bills on to the calendar.
i do want to thank Commissioner Davis for that.
our next priorities have to do with senate bills that have made it over to the house, but have not yet been scheduled for committee.
the deadline for consideration of a senate bill in committee is at the end of next week.
so we have about nine or 10 days left in which to get a senate bill out of a house committee.
but all of these bills are bills where there's some controversy and where we're working the members of the committee very hard.
in some of the cases we've not even gotten a committee hearing yesterday, specifically with respect to priorities four and five, which are senate bill 1266, which is a billboards bill, which would limit the number of billboards that can be placed on highway 71 out in western Travis County, and senate bill 2474, which is the expansion of the barton springs/edward's aquifer conservation district.
both of those bills have made it out of the senate, over to the house, but need to be scheduled for committee hearing in a house committee as soon as possible.
>> the deadline is the 22nd for those?
>> that is correct.
that is the last day for house committees to report out of senate bills.
actually, it's the 23rd.
saturday the 23rd.
the other bills, you just see kind of brief note on each of those bills.
they are moving through the process.
we're -- none of them are in trouble right now, but of course the clock is running on all of them.
so we're paying very careful attention to them and trying to move them forward.
there are three of our legislative priorities that as a result of the deadlines we discussed have now gone the way of all flesh, and that is our early retiree health benefit options bill, house bill 3963, a utility relocation bill, house bill 3787, and our extraterritorial jurisdiction land use authority bill, house bill 4262.
so in terms of our laugh priorities, those efforts are now -- at least the separate legislation carrying those efforts are now dead.
as you mentioned, judge Biscoe, there's still an opportunity to graft some amendment language on to other bills, and we are exploring all those options right now.
>> unfortunately those who sponsored bad bills are also exploring those options.
>> oh my goodness, yes, of course.
right.
and I suppose that's the other part of my report today.
you have an updated copy of what we call our red sheet, which is the list of bills that the court has taken a position on.
many of those bills are bills that the court has decided to support.
some of those continue to move through the process, others have slowed down or been waylaid.
but we are certainly watching bills that we are concerned about and that the court has expressed its opposition to.
the two categories that we're most concerned about at this point are appraisal and revenue caps, both of which have vehicles which are now moving.
there are some bills which in their current form are not particularly objectionable to the county, but which could become the vehicle for amendments, bills passing over from the house to the senate, bills passing from the senate to the house.
we'll put together a list of those bills that we're tracking on behalf of the court and we're going to give that to your offices this afternoon.
but there's probably eight or 10 of those kind of bills that we're also very worried about and that we're keeping an eye on.
we continue to work very closely with the conference of urban counties and the Texas association of counties and when appropriate other governmental groups like the Texas municipal league on issues that are of common interest to all our groups.
i'm happy to answer any questions.
we don't have any specific bills that we want the court to pass judgment on.
we will have some next week, but for this week at least it's really a status report on bills that the court has already taken a position on.
>> I have one.
it is 2492.
and 2492, which was called to my attention by mr.
richard hallpin, apparently is sponsored by mark strama and senator ellis.
and it's the green jobs for youth bill.
it's called the Texas sustainable youth bill, which makes all the sense in the world to me.
that's not anywhere in our list, right?
>> no, sir.
>> I didn't know of this until a few days ago, but our own legislator is sponsoring it, and I guess it's -- it really includes training for certain youth and young veterans, training in the green jobs area.
>> yes, sir.
>> which I think is consistent with what many elected officials, especially in central Texas, have been advocating for.
and nationally by president obama and his administration.
>> certainly.
>> and it would seem to me that it would be something that we could support.
the problem with something like that is that they're asking for a training stipend and other funding.
even if you just get the bill without the funding, you're probably further along than anywhere, but at this time they still hope that that funding is provided by the state.
>> by the state, right.
and of course, it may be a concept the court could support, but if it become an unfunded mandate upon counties, then obviously that would change the court's calculation about it.
but I'd be happy to put that on the agenda for next week and give a more fuller presentation to the court about it.
>> I think we ought to.
there are some green jobs and some youth workforce development related stuff in the stimulus funding.
>> absolutely.
>> from washington, d.c.
so even without state funding, this could get funding.
>> can we bring that back?
>> of course.
>> as well as a status report?
>> we'll have it next week.
>> and if representative strama thinks that there's something specific we can do to assist him, I guess if we can ask him.
>> I'll send out -- I'll send out an e-mail to the court just letting everybody know what status of that bill is as of today and then we'll put it on the agenda for next week for a fuller discussion.
i'm happy to do that, judge.
are there any other bills that members of the court would like us to keep an eye on?
>> is there going to be a special session?
does it look like there will be a special session?
>> if I had to guess now, I would say no, ma'am.
as you know, Commissioner, every year in like March or so they talk about how we're just not going to get it all done and we need to have a special session.
by now they're so interpret to get out of -- so desperate to get out of town that they try to resolve to get everything done they can get done.
we'll see.
of course, things could happen in terms of gubernatorial vote tows, which wouldn't happen until June that may change the necessity for a special session.
>> a few legislators had gotten together and sponsored legislation involving workforce development dollars from the federal government.
and our governor's decision not to accept those because of strings.
>> this is the unemployment insurance.
>> yeah.
>> they have a sort of early date to pass that out to be able to override any veto, right?
>> yes.
if a bill passes within the last 10 days of the session, the judge -- excuse me.
the governor is given 20 days after the session ends in order to review that bill and decide whether or not to veto it.
if he vetoes it during that time, the legislature has already gone home and would not have a chance to override the veto.
so somewhere around the 22nd of may will be the deadline for passing a bill and getting it to the governor's desk and forcing the governor to either sign the bill or veto it before the legislature adjourns and thus gives the legislature an opportunity to override the veto.
>> I think it would help us to get the status of that next week.
>> I know that the legislation to -- there is a bill out there to require -- basically that would require the state to accept that unemployment insurance money.
it's $555 million.
and that would make the necessity statutory changes to make the state eligible.
for that money.
i'm not sure the status of that, but we'll be happy to report back to the court about that.
>> yeah.
the article that I read seemed to indicate that there was enough support to get it done.
>> I believe so.
>> okay.
>> any other questions or bills we need to discuss?
or pay special attention to?
>> oh, I'm sorry.
judge, if I could just take a minute to update the court on senate bill 855 and on the general issue of local option transportation funding.
as you remember, senator corona had passed his bill out of the senate.
it was very complex bill.
we briefed the court several times on that along the way.
the bill went over to the house, was heard in committee along with a bunch of other bills, and then nothing happened for about a month.
finally yesterday the house transportation committee reported out -- again, the last day that it could do so, the house transportation committee reported out a house committee substitute for senate bill 855.
we just got a copy of it it this morning.
i frankly have not had a chance to look at it.
it's actually a big bill, but I know that joe has.
and I would just be willing to share -- have joe share any insights he has into the bill.
>> well, it's very streamlined.
it now has only one local option fee, and that is a 10-cent gas tax.
it's not a variable, not zero to 10.
it's 10 cents.
so you have one option -- actually, it's probably the best option in the earlier bill.
>> 10 cents a gallon.
>> one that generates the most revenue.
>> 10 cents a gallon.
>> 10 cents a gallon.
and it's pretty much tied in with the way the tax is collected currently.
so that's good.
it does apply across the state to every area that has a metropolitan planning organization.
the regional elections are held only on a November election date.
and you don't have a choice between the may and November.
it's only November.
and it requires that all the counties within the mpo hold the election at the same time so it will be like a regional election.
like in this area we would have Williamson, hays and Travis County all holding the election, but then depending on the outcome, you could have the tax only apply to Travis County if those voters approved it, but Williamson county did not.
so it's a simultaneous regional elections, but still county-wide options.
and it's basically puts the Commissioners court in charge, flat and simple.
no more selection committees, no more -- I mean, it does require consultation, but it does -- basically puts the Commissioners court in the position of selecting projects that are consistent with the metropolitan planning organization transportation plan.
>> do I detect a note of sadness in your tone when you say that?
>> I think it just extreme lines.
what I'm saying in this bill is it really cut it down to a very simple, straightforward approach to local options.
it will require some consultation from the transit authorities, but it doesn't have as much -- it doesn't tie the court's hand as previous versions did.
you're pretty much at liberty as long as it's consistent with the plan, it's eligible.
you do have -- one thing that it rules out entirely, the money cannot be used for toll roads.
period.
and it's an all or nothing proposition.
you can't have separate pop ition is for -- propositions for one project and something else.
it's altogether.
all your projects have to be in one proposition.
and the sum total of the project's cost cannot exceed the rf revenue from the 10-cent gas tax.
they're fiscally con train extraing the proposition and the proposition has to tell the voters not only what the projects are, what are their estimated costs and when will they expect it to be completed.
>> so how does the money flow?
>> it flows to the state comptroller, so we will use an existing mechanism for gasoline tax collection.
that was a big issue with the retailers because they wanted some separate neck nism not being set up.
so it's pretty much set up to where it's collected by state, rebated to the counties.
>> 100%?
>> 98%.
>> with the 10 cents.
>> 100% of the 10 cents?
>> no.
there are set asides for administrative costs of the auditor --
>> but it small.
only two percent of the revenue.
>> that's in the law, only two percent?
>> that part I did not --
>> this is where we've been losing money.
>> it does say not to exceed two percent.
>> yeah.
that would be a major coupe if that's true.
>> and then when the money comes to the county, it has to be set up in a separate mobility fund, separate from the general fund.
of course, it can only be spent on projects that are voter authorized.
and of course, you can subcontract with anybody through interlocal agreement contract with city, state, transit authority to implement any of the projects.
>> does it address debt issuance?
to be satisfied?
>> it's got a very long chapter on debt issuance.
i can't say I read it thoroughly.
i'll probably refrain from commenting on that.
>> you need to take your compliment back.
you said joe had read it and was thoroughly familiar with it.
>> [ laughter ] that would be important because typically if you just are looking at one project, they get to be pretty expense active, but in three, four years of the 10-cent additional tax, you really could satisfy that debt with just that 10 cents.
>> you can issue debt.
i mean, I just don't know the mechanism and all the caveats and conditions put on issuance of debt.
>> yeah.
>> what chance does it have of passing?
>> that's not my field.
>> he's handing it back to you, mr.
eckstein.
>> I have no idea.
>> and I'll tell you that the concern has been that a bill that would apply statewide, and it's interesting that they've got it where it applies to counties that have a metropolitan mpo setup, the concern about having a bill that would apply statewide is that many legislators, particularly in some of the smaller rural areas, would view this simply as a tax increase, you know, disregarding voter option, disregarding the authority of the Commissioners court to set the plans, to implement it at all, would still see this as at least creating the possibility of tax increase and would oppose it if they thought it would affect their areas.
so the political dynamics of the bill had shifted when it came over to the house because of that concern on the part of many rural legislators.
whereas in the senate the senator corona's negotiations were being shaped by the urban senators like senator watson, senator wentworth, senator west up in dallas, who were going to be -- whose districts were going to be the beneficiaries of these programs and so when I got over to the house, there became that concern with a limited application bill.
this sounds like a broader application, so I don't know what the dynamics of it are.
what we will know by the end of the day today is whether or not it even made it on to the calendar.
>> so we don't think small counties will be comforted by the fact that they can vote it down if they don't want it?
>> as I understand, what joe said, there would probably be many counties where this statute would not even apply because they're not govern bid a metropolitan planning organization.
so in those counties the statute wouldn't even apply.
then I don't think you're particularly deal with heart burn one kind of another on the part of the county Commissioners, you're just dealing with the philosophies of the representatives of those counties.
when you're trying to get it through the 150 member house, the complexion changes a little bit.
>> there are 55 counties that are affected by this bill.
there are 25 mpo's crs across the state.
there's 55 counties that would have local option.
but like you said, it's up to the voters.
they can turn it down county by county, so it shouldn't necessarily be a threat.
>> what's the number of that bill?
committee substitute for senate bill 855.
>> so is senator corona supporting it?
or is he still supportive of his own bill?
>> I think that it got voted out very late last night.
i assume he was consulted throughout the process.
it sounds like from the perspective of this maybe being a a little bit more workable deal than some of the intricacies of his version.
it may be if it gets out of the house and he agrees to concur in the house amendments, then it's done.
but I don't know.
i'm not advised.
we'll try to find out and let the court know.
>> I guess see where senator watson stands from a Travis County perspective, it leaves us roughly in the same place we were or better.
it's taken some of the options, that's the down side, but I thought this should be priority number one for us anyway.
because it's easy to understand and it generates quite a bit of money.
>> this is a little bit more simpler approach than some of the features of the senate version of 855.
>> questions, comments?
how did it get number 854 this late in the session?
>> no, 855.
i'm sorry.
>> the new one is 855?
>> it is senator corona's original bill was senate bill # 55, passed out of the senate and we now are talking about the house committee substitute for senate bill 855.
so it still has that senate bill number on it.
even though it is now over in the house and is out of house committee.
representative vicky truitt from the dallas-fort worth area, who was the house sponsor of the bill, she had actually filed a companion to senator corona's exil early on in the session, house bill 9.
so it became her bill when it came over -- when it came over to the house and she is now the sponsor of senate bill 855 in the house.
>> shut up what happens to it now that it's been voted out of committee?
does it go to conference?
>> it has to go to the calendars and get to the house floor.
it's only out of committee.
so that's what I'm saying, it has to make it on to the house calendar today or it is -- no, I'm sorry.
i take that back.
it's a senate bill.
the calendar deadlines are not working that fast.
the calendar deadlines for senate bills is not until sometime next week, correct.
>> then the gaunt let after it -- if it goes to the floor and it voted positively, what remaining gauntlet will it have to run?
>> let me fully answer your question then.
may 24th is the last day for a house calendar with senate bills on it to be printed and distributed.
so the same deadline that we have today for house bill, the house deadline for senate bills to be placed on the house calendar the house calendar will be on Sunday the 24th.
tuesday the 26th, two weeks from today, is the last day for the house to consider senate bills or senate joint resolutions on second reading.
so two weeks from today will be the absolute deadline for that bill to get out.
if it gets out and if it's -- because it is different from the senate version of the bill, then it will go back to the senate for the senate to take a vote on whether or not it wishes to concur in the house amendments.
and that will principally be up to senator corona as to whether or not he wants to do that.
if the senate concurs in the house amendments, then the bill as it left the house will have passed and will go to the governor.
if the senate does not concur, then they will send it back to the house with a request that the house appoint a conference committee and then the senate will appoint a conference committee and those conference committee differences have to be resolved by I believe Saturday the 30th.
>> okay.
sounds to me like it's highly unlikely that this would get out on to the governor in time for it to go back to a vote if he vetoed it.
do we know where ghost is on this?
>> I do not know where the governor is on this.
and I -- I would not care to speculate on where the governor is on this at this point.
i think, yes, it would be unlikely that it would get out of the house, back over to the senate.
certainly if they had to go to conference committee.
i can't imagine that they would get a conference committee done by the 23rd.
>> anything else regarding legislation?
>> that's all for us.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you very much.
>> did we lose our community block development grant dollars people?
>> I think they went to lunch.
but I'll check.
they're not here.
but we do have residents here who have come on item number 3?
the community development block grant dollars item?
are you here on number 3?
are y'all here on an item on the Commissioners court agenda?
>> yes.
at 1:30.
>> at 1:30.
you were very early.
>> [ laughter ] in that case, move that we recess until 1:30.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:30 PM