Travis County Commissioners Court
May 19, 2009,
Item 39
Now, I guess we ought to call up our legislative item since it's after 11:00 and we're running out of session.
39 is to 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, and there are a whole lot of house and senate bills there.
c, status report on Travis County legislative activities including a lot of house bills, senate bills and senate joint resolutions.
d, senate bill 312 relating to the regulation and certification of medical examiners and the conduct of autopsy and inquest investigations by justices of the peace and medical examiners; providing penalties.
e, senate bill 1569, house bill 3153 and house bill 2623 relating to unemployment compensation modernization.
f, senate bill 1770 and house bill 2492 relating to the creation, operation and funding of the Texas sustainable youth program.
and g, senate bill 108 and house bill 516 relating to the establishment and funding of a green job skills training program.
morning.
>> good morning, judge, members of the court.
deeks eckstein, governmental regulations for the record.
i want to dpin my begin my presentation this morning by reviewing for the court the calendar, which is the dominant fact of the legislative session right now.
we have copies of the calendar in your packets, but we also have them available for the court right now.
we are two weeks out from the end of the session.
the -- as we mentioned last week, the deadline for passing a bill -- a house bill out of the house was last Friday.
severalful bills that were legislative priorities for the county did not make it through that cruise sibl and so some of those have died and we have reports on the status of those and whether or not we're trying to find a vehicle.
this week the house continues to narrow down the range of available legislation because tomorrow is the last day on which local house bills can be set on a calendar.
we actually have a number of bills that we're still trying to get on to the house local and consent calendar.
and Friday is last day for -- I'm sorry.
saturday is the last day for house committees to report senate bills.
so we have a number of our legislative initiatives that have both a senate version and a house version.
those house versions in many cases did not get all the way through the house process.
maybe the senate version did and is over in the house now, but if it does not get reported out of committee by Saturday, then those bills are dead as well.
so the calendar continues to funnel down what is happening in the legislative process and to be a dominant factor in how we address things.
what I'd like to do is we have handed out a document to the members of the court called the status of Travis County related legislation.
this really is a distilllation of the key points of the red sheet and the blue sheet which you received in your packet in narrative form.
and I just want to hit some of those high points.
as you know, land use has been a very important priority for the county during this legislative session.
house bill 4175, our buffer zone bill, by representative bolton, died last Friday.
it was -- it did not make it on to the house calendar.
so it is not alive anymore.
house bill 2693, which is the impact fee bill by eddie rodriguez, was made an -- made it on to the calendar, but was not reached on Friday night, so died by operation of the house rules.
storm water management is a different situation.
the house version of that bill has not advanced, but the senate version is now over in the house.
let me say with respect to the buffer bill and the impact fee bill that we are looking for vehicles.
we are looking for other legislation, judge Biscoe as you suggested last week, that may be germane to those bills and we're trying to graft it on to some of that other legislation.
that applies to several bills we have.
with respect to the storm water management bill, that bill has passed out of the senate, passed out of the house natural resources committee and been recommended to the local and consent calendar.
we're working to make sure that it gets on to the calendar and is successfully voted out of the house without amendment if we can do that.
and representative rodriguez is committed to trying to get this bill passed ou amendment.
>> mr.
eckstein, could you tell the court who the primary opponents of the land use bills are?
>> I think the primary opponents of the land use bills in general are the development community and to a lesser extent some of the industrial users who are concerned about land use impacts upon their ability to do whatever they want with property they have.
the dilemma we face is a constant battle between the desire for people to have the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property free from the heavy hand of government, and the desire of them -- of those same people to have the heavy hand of government prevent the next guy from having the peaceful use and enjoyment of his property if it's going to disturb the first person.
so that's really the dilemma.
and as a result the legislature has historically been very suspicious of land use bills.
they give this authority to cities, but are very reluctant to give it to counties.
i think, however, that the legislature has reached sort of a critical point where they realize now that what they're doing now is they're creating all these municipal utility districts and other kinds of governmental entities or quasi governmental agencies to accomplish what a land use authority would accomplish.
so instead of allowing a county to regulate land development or to make certain standards and requirements with respect to what the infrastructure in terms of roads and water and wastewater would have to look like, they're creating -- they're giving power to groups of homeowners or groups of developers to create municipal utility districts.
and I would like to think that the legislature is beginning to realize that that is not a very -- yeah, it was not a very effective or efficient strategy.
and we're now working with some of our legislative allies to see if we can get an interim study of that issue where they really look at what is the legislature's land use policy with respect to anything other than home rule cities.
but the -- obviously there's opposition from landowners and particularly the development community which says no, let us do whatever we want to do with that property.
but again, there's that irony of saying, be sure and stop the guy next door from doing something bad with their property that will affect my land usability.
>> thanks.
>> we also with respect to the storm water management, we're hoping to get that through.
the billboards bill by senator watson was -- actually was set for committee hearing this morning in the house transportation committee.
they suspended the posting rule yesterday afternoon and set the bill for hearing.
the committee met this morning, but talked about a transportation-related issue with txdot before the house went into session, so they will probably pick that bill up this afternoon.
with any luck senate bill 1266 will be heard this afternoon.
senate bill 2474 by kirk watson is the barton springs/edward's aquifer conservation district expansion bill.
very important to parts of western Travis County, which are going to be placed in a groundwater district and they're simply electing to be place understand this groundwater conservation district rather than a newly created one that the Texas commission on environmental quality will do.
that bill has been heard in committee and has passed favorably out of committee, but the committee report has not been done.
with the deadlines creeping up the way they are, things like a committee report sitting around for three or four days without getting finalized, signed and turned in to the administration office is objectmatic.
we're doing everything we can to get that bill unstuck.
>> I heard that was on the local and consent.
is that true or not?
>> 2474?
>> uh-huh.
the annexation bill.
>> as I understand it, the committee report has not been filed yet.
and as of yesterday afternoon, it had been voted out of committee, but it was in limbo.
until a committee report is done and the committee report identifies whether or not it was recommended for the local consent calendar, it's not clear what the fate of that is.
but we can probably follow up and find out what the actual committee vote was.
>> I'd like to reiterate for anyone who is listening the importance of this bill to Travis County because tceq has mandated this groundwater district.
and if this is the best and most efficient and effective awith a to get this implemented, if this bill doesn't go through, it's going to cost Travis County, the taxpayers and everybody more money and take longer to get in effect.
so it's just really important for anyone who is listening.
>> and you've hit the nail on the head.
there will be a groundwater conservation district established in that part of western Travis County that is in the priority groundwater management area, otherwise known as pigma.
and it's simply a matter of letting the people of Travis County, who have elected to want to join the barton springs/edward's aquifer conservation district elect to become part of that district.
and I think there are a number of -- if I remember correctly, there still may be a vote of the people required.
>> oh, good.
sent to calendars?
>> we just got an update on senate bill 2474, which is that that report has been sent to calendars, which tells me it did not get out of committee unanimously or get referred to the local and consent calendar, which would obviously be our preference at this point.
>> so this is a little bit more problematic than local and consent?
>> yes, because the last day on which the house floor will dea bait on senate -- debate on senate bills can occur is on next Tuesday the 26th.
>> so is the legislature working weekends now, Saturday and Sunday?
>> they did not work last weekend, but they will work this weekend.
and I imagine next weekend.
>> and after that it's all she wrote.
with respect to other issues affecting Travis County, we tried to group these by content area.
criminal justice reform obviously is a big concern and was a big agenda item for the court.
the main vehicle for that is going to be house bill 1711 by representative sylvester turner.
it is a comprehensive re-entry reform piece of legislation.
it requires the Texas department of criminal justice to come up with a re-entry reform plan.
it requires the creation of a taskforce for re-entry reform to coordinate efforts among many state criminal justice departments.
and it provides for an identification card to be issued to each person who is reentering from the criminal justice system.
and all of those were individually parts of Travis County's legislative priorities.
they're all contained in house bill 1711.
that bill was reported out of the criminal justice committee and has been recommended for the local and uncontested calendar in the senate.
i noticed, though, that today it was set on the intent calendar, which means that senator white meyer, the senate sponsor of that bill, may wish to bring it up in front of the body.
that may indicates that he has heard some objections from members who say we want to have a floor debate this as opposed to just voted out of the senate.
so we're trying to get to the bottom of that, but it is on the intent calendar for today.
>> any funding?
>> I believe it does contain funding for the work that the department of criminal justice has to do.
then with respect to courts management on page 3 of your summary memo, senate bill 497 by wentworth is the longevity cleanup bill that the court has supported.
that has been left pending in the house jewish and civil jurisprudence committee.
we don't know of any problems with that bill right now, but it must get out of committee not later than Saturday and on to the calendar and out of the house.
so we're trying to keep an eye on that and keep moving it forward.
>> house bill 3468 by naishtat is to provide a court here in Travis County.
that has gone -- I guess you could argue it's gone seven-eighths of the way through the process.
so we're happy about the status of that.
the special court fees bill that was recommended to the court by judge steeg and became part of the court's legislative agenda, house bill 3585 by pete guido died in the last rush of bills, made it on to the calendar, but did not make it through the calendar.
however there is at least one vehicle that we're looking at and we're talking to authors and sponsors about amending that bill on to the bill.
the warrant fee increase bill was a number one priority for our constables.
it would increase the warrant fee from $50 to $75.
that bill is in the senate, has gotten out of the house, is in the senate, is awaiting a hearing in the senate criminal justice committee.
constable bruce elfant and other other constables are working through thur association to try to move that bill forward.
>> is this the one y'all are here on, the warrant fee bill?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I believe we did that on consent.
>> we put both of those grants on consent.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> 25?
oh, okay.
the update?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> you're not talking about the update, you're talking about the 16, right?
>> 25.
>> 25 is just an update?
yeah.
we have not discussed 25 yet.
>> the final bill in terms of our top county legislative priorities is house bill 3963, which was the early retiree health benefits options.
that bill did not make it through the process in the house; however, we have a vehicle that we're trying to get it amended on to and feel optimistic about that bill's chances at this point.
and then I have at the bottom of page 3 and on page 4 just some brief updates on some of those major issues.
eminent domain, revenue caps and so forth that are affecting all counties.
i also want to mention -- I don't know if there are any questions about that.
we are cautious -- well, right now nothing seems to be moving particularly fast, but there are a number of vehicles out there on to which either appraisal caps or revenue caps can still be added.
and we are carefully monitoring those, working very carefully -- very closely with the conference of urban counties, the Texas association of counties and the Texas municipal league.
>> so we think the eminent domain and revenue caps bills still have life?
>> yes.
there are still bills out there and there are still vehicles out there for adding on that -- those things.
nothing has been scheduled for floor debate, but there are some bills out there.
>> okay.
>> so that's my sort of overview report.
and then I'm prepared to discuss the specific items that the court wanted to -- that we wanted to bring before the court if there are -- unless there are any questions.
>> any questions about the overview?
all right.
>> senate bill 312, this is just something we want to update the court on.
this is the bill regarding the overhaul of medical examiners' offices statewide.
it's very comprehensive bill.
it is the number one priority for our medical examiner here in the county, and his -- he and his office havebeen working I think consulting with legislators about this bill.
it is very important to them and to their association.
there were provisions in it that the conference of urban counties were worried about, but those provisions have been taken out, but there are still a lot of moving part in the bill.
i attempted over the weekend to write a summary of the bill, but frankly the legislative language is sometimes I am penetratable and the only thing more impenetratable than legislative language is medical language.
>> but the name accreditation mandate has been taken out.
>> the name accreditation mandate has been taken out.
we're continue to go monitor the bill.
there are a number of other issues to be worked out.
we hope to keep reporting to the court about this bill, but do not have a recommendation for the court at this time.
>> okay.
that's all I have on senate bill 312.
>> the next item on the agenda is the legislation relating to unemployment compensation modernization.
the court asked for an update on this last week.
this is the issue where the federal government has placed $555 million out targeted for Texas into the stimulus package contingent upon Texas adopting some provisions to modernize its unemployment insurance system.
there were -- governor perry early on indicated that he did not want to make those steps in order to modernize the system and would be turning down that money.
the legislature in response has filed legislation to do those modernizations and to enable the state to accept that money.
of the three bills that were filed in that regard, one is moving now.
that is senate bill 1569.
what it basically does is make some of the changes that would be required by the federal government and those changes are -- have to do with eligibility for benefits, the way in which the level of benefits are calculated, there are provisions in the bill in the federal act, for instance, that would require a state -- if a couple moves either within Texas or to Texas, in order for one of the members of the couple to accept a job, under current Texas law the other person would not be able to receive unemployment benefits because that was not considered a legitimate reason for leaving whatever previous employment that person had.
so those kind of changes to law in effect modernization of our unemployment compensation laws, are necessary for us to accept the federal money.
it is, of course, possible that senate bill 1569 will pass and nevertheless be vetoed by the governor.
that will just be an interesting drama to watch.
>> I guess the question, though, comes back will there be enough time for them to override the veto if the governor decided to veto it?
will it be too late down the line to counter the veto?
>> the constitution and the statutes provide that within the last 10 days of the session that -- typically the governor is given 10 days to decide whether or not to veto or sign or allow a bill to become law without a signature.
during the last 10 days of the session, that period is suspended and the governor has until 20 days after the end of the session in order to make those decisions.
if the bill passes in the last 10 days of the session, then whatever action the governor takes will not be subject to review by the legislature.
>> there would not be enough time.
>> the 10th day, Commissioner Davis, will be this Saturday.
unless that bill gets sent, gets passed out of the house, if there's got to be a conference committee, unless those differences get resolved, unless all that is done by Saturday, it is not likely that the legislature will be given an opportunity to respond to a veto if the governor were to veto the bill.
>> it's pretty important.
who is sponsoring that bill?
>> I know I should know that.
i think that senator -- I want to say that senator eltife in the senate is sponsoring the bill.
i forget who the house sponsor is.
i and I know that veronica will tell me in a minute.
>> just let me know when you have a chance.
>> of course.
that's my update report on unemployment compensation, modernization.
unless there are any questions from the court.
>> would it be beneficial for us to take a position on that bill at this point?
beneficial to the legislation?
>> I'm not advised, Commissioner.
we did not come with a recommendation today.
i think this is one of those situations that when the elephant's fight, the grass gets trampled and I think we're just blades of grass in this situation.
>> did cuc take a position?
>> I do not believe that cuc has taken a position.
>> okay.
>> but I will check on that, judge, and let you know.
>> how many millions of the stimulus package?
>> $555 million.
>> 555 million that we may not get to address the unemployment compensation --
>> yes, sir, over half a billion dollars.
>> exactly.
it's a big deal.
>> and of course, under the provisions of the stimulus act, if Texas does not receive that money or turns it down, then that money will be -- go back to washington and be redistributed to other states.
>> somebody else will get it.
>> yes.
>> somebody else will pick it up.
>> yes, sir.
>> oak doak.
>> okey-doke.
>> the next issue I want to bring before the court has to do with the category 4's request last week for an update on the sustainable youth program, which was a piece of legislation filed by representative mark strama here that had to do with creating a program that was targeted towards youth who had not graduated from high school and towards returning veterans, all the between the ages of 16 and 24, and that would provide targeted job skills training and mentorships and other opportunities to those youth to try to encourage them for employment.
unfortunately both the house and the senate versions of the sustainable youth bills are dead.
there is -- there is a similar bill that has been filed by representative strama and by senator ellis who are the -- who offer the companion bills on the sustainable youth program called the green job skills training program.
senator ellis' version of the green job skills training program has made it over to the house and is -- in fact was reported off chairman strama's committee the other day.
so it is the only bill that's moving.
there are some overlaps between the two bills, but they really in a sense address different situations.
sustainable youth program is really oriented towards the group that they want to serve, the customers that they want to serve, which is this group of young people between the ages of 16 and 24.
among the things they want to provide that group is training in high skill green, what they call green job occupations.
the other program is really more focused on what those jobs are and includes a much broader group of potential recipients in it, including people who are already working in agriculture, for instance, and who may need retraining in order to participate in the green -- in the new green jobs economy that is coming.
but that bill seems to be moving.
there is no funding for it at this point in the budget bill, and so I don't know what the prognosis is for senate bill 108.
>> any questions about any legislation?
thank you, mr.
eckstein.
>> 14 days to go.
>> and counting.
>> 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 19, 2009 2:00 PM