Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 22, 2011,
Item 25
Let's call up 25, consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including a, update on legislature activities, b, discussion of Texas commission on environmental quality regulations and rates, c, briefing on legislation related to appraisal and revenue caps and d.p.s.
of a resolution stating the court's opposition to such legislation; d, adoption of a resolution in support of legislation to limit the ability of a homeowners association to prohibit the installation of solar panels on a home, and e, additions to the priorities, policy positions and the positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe and members of the court.
thank you very much for your time today.
as you said when you laid out the agenda, there's really three substantive things we want to do today.
one is to have a discussion about water utility rate making, another approve a resolution expressing the court's opposition to appraisal cap and the third is follow up on our discussion last week and the court's action in adding to the legislative agenda support for legislation that would limit the ability of homeowners associations to prohibit the installation of solar panels on houses.
before I do that, I just want to hit a couple of high points what's going on at the legislature.
we did have a long discussion about the budget this morning that I hope was very helpful to the contract.
the budget committee, is finance committee in the senate and the appropriations committee in the house, are both in almost back to back meetings going through the budgets.
today the senate finance committee is talking about the judiciary and also about the state law library, which they are pro proceeding to close, which would have impact on the Travis County library which would be the only law library in central Austin.
they will be talking about some of the regulatory agencies.
they are talking about occupational agencies but this the last half of the week will be talking about some of the environmental and regulatory agencies including the commission on environmental quality.
there's a bunch of points that we're watching on that consistent with the briefing that you received this morning from p.b.o.
about potential loss of revenue for the county.
as we mentioned in that briefing, those are the direct losses that we are aware of or at least at risk for now.
we think there could be indirect ones as well.
committee hearings for the other committees have started this morning.
igr represented the Commissioners court in support for payday lending legislation pending before the house, business and commerce committee, senate bill 251 and 253.
we presented cards on behalf of Travis County in favor of those.
this afternoon we're going to make it over to the organizational meeting of the house county affairs committee.
so we're going to see quite a speedup in pace on the bills that are being heard and we'll keep the court as best informed as we can about that.
as of last week, 2,120 bills have been filed for this session.
that compares to the 81st legislature when 2,467 bills had been filed by this point.
so the pace has been a little slower at least at the initial part of the session.
as we mentioned, last week the final day more or less for the filing of legislation is going to be Friday, March 11th, so we know it will pick up between now and then.
we have been successful in getting all the bills that we wanted to have drafted into our legislative partners to work with legislative council in getting a draft back.
we hope all the pieces of legislation the court has talk about or authorized to go forward with we will have draft language and filed by March 11th.
with your permission, I would like to call to the court's attention the memorandum we prepared about the rate making powers, rate regulation of private water and sewer corporations.
this was an agenda item that Commissioner Davis asked me to look into last week as a result of the discussion about water supply corporations and how their rates are set.
the important thing we want to court to know is that the regulation of most of these water supply corporations, both nonprofit water supply corporations and private water utilities, is done through the Texas commission on environmental quality.
the county has no authority to regulate the rates of these, which does, of course, from time to time create problems for the county.
there is a -- there have been several bills filed -- Commissioner Davis specifically asked about a bill filed back in 19 -- I'm sorry, 2005, house bill 2585, by representative harvey hildebrand.
the main feature was a prohibition on water utilities asking for rate increases any more than once every three years.
and it was hoped that that had it passed would slow down one of the patterns that we see with these water utilities where they come in with a 20% rate increase and 20% next year and another 20% the year after and people begin to reel from the sticker shock of that kind of increase in the cost of their water supply.
>> and deece, and let me say this to that particular bill that -- that hb 2585 back in 2005.
and the reason for me really going and supporting that bill was because of the fact there's a subdivision in precinct 1 who complained about the significant increase in their particular utility bills that really did harm them as far as paying their mortgage rate.
because, of course, as you know when you purchase a home, you've got your mortgage and you've got utilities and everything else stacked on top of that.
so, of course, this particular bill then in 2005 would have at least allowed for a three-year schedule before that particular utility could increase the utility bill.
so -- and it's kind of follows suit here and especially the
>> [indiscernible] getting the attention, and I'm going to let you do that, as far as the current type of setting as far as some of these things are concerned.
there is a historical significance on the increase in utility bills here in Travis County.
and that's one subdivision, and another one over in my subdivision right now, Austin colony, who have expressed many concerns about the significant increase along with the kennedy ridge and folks, significant increase in their utility bill and water.
so that was 2005.
this is now.
I just wanted to basically give the public a little history on -- on -- on this particular legislation.
and can you tell me what happened with 2585?
did it die in calendar or what was the --
>> as a matter of fact, it did, Commissioner.
2585 passed out of committee in I think early may of 2005, and then died in the calendars committee before it could get to the floor of the house.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> and this -- as you mentioned, part of the problem is that sometimes these small water supply corporations actually start out almost as a co-op where the residents and homeowners of that community themselves form this little corporation, it's a nonprofit corporation.
they either buy water or get their own water somehow, but in some of these cases they have run out of money, gone bankrupt and then been bought up by a for-profit water utility, which based on its cost structure or other needs it has has to increase the rates significantly.
this session there are three bills that have been filed so far that would try to address this problem.
two by representative harold dutton from houston and one by our own representative paul workman from southwest Travis County, that would among other things slow down the ability of water utility companies to ask for rate increases.
representative dutton's bills would slow it down to once every three years.
representative workman's bill would slow it down to once every two years, but would also institute a very unique procedure where if a utility company wanted to raise its water rates, they would have to send a letter to all the customers on the water utility's service line telling them about its proposed rates and including a self-addressed stamped envelope and a ballot which is customer could then fill out and send to the Texas commission on environmental quality saying whether or not they wanted that rate increase.
>> whether it was within the two year or not?
>> no more than every two years.
>> but -- but -- but that procedure is on the two-year cycle, not to break the two-year cycle.
>> right, it would be on the two-year cycle.
they would ask for a rate increase first from rate pay,.
the ratepayers would get to vote on it.
if the rate passed, if the majority of the people who responded to the utility's letters and sent in their ballots voted for the rate increase, the rate increase would take effect.
if not then the utility would still have the right to go to the Texas commission on environmental quality and go through a contested hearing process in order to get that increased.
that would at least have the advantage of having a raised the awareness of people in that utility that a rate increase was being sought at the regulatory agency.
so we're still doing some research on the bill and how it fits together with other things, but there are a number of bills this session that we think would afford greater protection to ratepayers in these kind of situations.
we have drafted a proposed addition to the policy platform for the court, for the court's consideration if it wishes to add that to the issues that we're working on over at the legislature.
and I think that language appears in the memorandum you have about the water utility company rate making.
>> let me ask this question as far as -- I don't really know where the court is going to go with this, but I know I'm going to continue to support this type of legislation especially if it can bring some kind of relief to the ray payers out there in the unincorporated area that have been having some significant adverse experience with this particular situation.
but let me ask you this question on the different bills I think like hb 1223 by workman, of course dutton has a couple of house bills out, 496 and I believe here 562, so those particular bills in itself, if the court decided to move forward, we have some that, you know, aren't exactly where we would like them to be, but we would like to show some kind of support if the court decides to go in this direction to let those -- the authors of those bills understand that the court would be maybe putting itself in a position to support these bills.
and I don't really know when you got this many bills out there how do you really do something like that.
>> my preference, Commissioner, would be for the court to give sort of a broad approval of the policy concept and then authorize me and our legislative team to go over to the legislature and see what's the best deal we can find on the -- you know, certainly the opportunity to work with representative workman who is a member of our legislative delegation is one that's attractive to us, but we would probably be working with both representative dutton and workman and anyone else who files legislation on this to see if we could advance the policy commitment the court has made.
>> is the first step incorporating the language you suggest in the recommendation into our policy position section and as we go further into investigation of these bills we might bring a reds back for a specific bill after having worked that bill?
>> that was my preference, my suggestion.
and frankly, john hilly and tom nuckols and I have talked about particularly representative workman's bill and have questions we've posed to representative workman's office and we're talking back and forth about that because there's obviously some merit to his concept.
and so, Commissioner, that would be exactly my preference, just to endorse the policy position we want to do and then we'll report back to you about specific legislation, what's moving, what's not and what changes, if any, we would want to ask the court to support to that legislation.
>> I had a chance to talk to representative workman, and, of course, on this particular legislation that he has basically has introduced and we kind of looked at the whole concept and the impact and a whole lot of other things that I mentioned earlier on the utility ratepayers.
and with that concern, I maybe would like to move approval of that suggestion as far as the policy directive as stated in the memorandum and we can go and take it forward later, but I definitely would like some movement in this, and I think -- and according to him, he would also, I guess, like to see something happen.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> by two seconds.
>> and Commissioner Huber.
discussion on the motion?
>> I do have another question as it represents to this because tceq is the governance of the rates right now.
I have heard there may be legislation introduced to transfer that rate governance to another agency like the p.u.c.
or the Texas water development board.
has any legislation like that been filed?
>> I know the tceq is going through the sunset process.
I have not seen the sunset bill for tceq, although I think maybe something has been filed, but I can certainly follow up on that and try to find out for you, Commissioner.
>> we should pay careful attention to that.
whatever other bills are introduced aren't specific to tceq.
>> right.
>> please interpret the motion to cover that.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> the second item for the court's consideration is the -- we provided to you a brief two-page analysis of the appraisal and revenue cap bills filed thus far this session.
as the members of the court are well aware this is a current theme of some legislative enactments.
they have -- there have been several efforts over the years to try to impose either appraisal caps or revenue caps or both so this analysis was prepared by haley armstrong, one of other interns, who put together a good analysis of the different themes of the different bills.
I'm not sure of the status of the appraisal cap bills, but I do know that there is a lot of concern right now about the revenue cap bills, which, of course, in the short run for Travis County would be almost more harmful and appraisal cap bills.
and so we are watching all those bills very carefully.
the court's last session took a possession against appraisal caps and revenue caps bills as unnecessarily tying the hands of local government.
you are already accountable to voters for how you manage for budgets, for what revenues you ask from them and how you use those revenues and so we would ask the court to adopt the draft resolution that's been provided to you expressing the court's opposition to appraisal cap and revenue cap bills.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> motion and second to approve the proposed resolution.
now, did we need a motion to authors you to use all of the compelling reasons that we've provided during previous legislative sessions to fight that nonsensical notion?
>> I think that goes without saying, judge, but I'm happy you said it anyway.
>> put that in the motion.
Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, thank you, judge.
in my last -- in fact, several continuing education efforts that we are required to take according to statute by law as to, of course, go through continuing education, and the last continuing education here recently, there had been an outcry from Texas association of counties the outcry of ensuring what we're doing here today is something that I heard over and over and over again opposing these particular caps.
so my question is will the c.u.c.
and also t.a.c., Texas association of counties, have they positioning themselves to also is same similar opposition that Travis County is doing here today?
>> absolutely, Commissioner.
and I think particularly during this tough budget times when one of our concerns, quite legitimately, I think, is that we will have new mandates placed on us as a county, to also tie our hands so that he we can't raise or find the revenue that we we need in order to meet those mandates is a double whammy.
the c.u.c.
and Texas association of counties have both expressed opposition to appraisal caps and to revenue caps.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> let them know we stand with them, mr. Eckstein.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> the third item, judge, is last week the court talked about, considered and adopted a policy platform position regarding putting -- regarding limiting the authority of a homeowners association to prohibit the use of solar panels.
consistent with the court's action last week, the court asked me to draft a resolution and bring it back to them this week.
what we have tried to emphasize in the draft language in front of you is we think homeowners associations provide a very valuable service in their communities, but there are times when there may be an overarching publicly policy good we see particularly in this particular instance with the solar panels and that we would -- it would be appropriate at that time to support restrictions on the ability of a homeowners association to prevent that public good from happening.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any necessary discussion on the motion?
we discussed this at length last week.
came up with a good idea to support it.
all in favor?
we feel the same way this week.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Eckstein, anything else?
>> no, sir, other than the announcement, of course, the eagerly awaited announcement of the gold star win they are week.
I want to salute katie peterson from budget and planning who not only worked long hours putting together the analysis you heard earlier this morning of the impact of the budget cuts, but has a very impressive 76 for 87 completion rate on the bills that we have asked her to review on our behalf.
so she's our gold star employee of the week.
>> congratulations to her.
if you were eligible, we would give you a gold star too, mr. Eckstein.
>> well, thank you very much.
>> I know we performed one deal I want to make sure that the court had a chance to look at, hb 990, that homestead preservation zone that's been floating around here a little bit.
since it wasn't able to -- as you requested you needed --
>> I think we're going to have it next week.
>> it should be up next week.
okie-doke.
thanks.
>> judge and Commissioners, I will convey your greetings to members of the county affairs committee and your into in them diagnose good for the people of the state of south carolina.
>> in the next month -- people of the state of Texas.
>> if we could take a look at the u.s.
house of representatives because it's looming grim at the federal level, so we can be proactive.
>> keep up this good work.
this is not the time to run out of energy.
>> that's correct.
that's correct.
and I would very much like to work with p.b.o.
on the continuing resolution thing because we are really getting caught between the silla and caribdus of federal and state budget cuts that the county cannot afford to sustain.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
