Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 24
Now, deese, number 24.
revised item, consider and take appropriate action on legislative action including, a, update on legislative activities.
b, house bill 2979 relating to county authority to provide certain exemptions to restrictions on outdoor burning.
c, house bill 3254 relating to the creation of renewable energy reinvestment zones and the abatement of ad valorem taxes on property of an are e newable energy located in such a zone.
z, senate bill 627 and house bill 1746 relating to the participation by certain taxing units in tax increment financing and the payment of tax increments into the tax increment fund for a reinvestment zone.
e, house bill 1649 relating to the enforcement of building code standards of new residential construction in the unincorporated area of a county, providing a fee, and f, amendments to the priorities, policy positions and the positions on other proposals sections of the trathe legislative agenda, and g, senate bill 878 relating to a defendant's release on a personal bail .
speaking of working hard, mr. Eckstein.
>> judge Biscoe.
>> working so hard for a change, I should say.
>> judge, I am working hard for a change.
good change for Travis County.
thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.
we do have a heavy set of specific bills to talk about.
solemn make a few very quick generally comments.
first is that the senate bill on finance, I'm beginning to feel I like devu, we have said we think next week or tomorrow, the finance committee passed out two weeks ago but has not been able to round up 21 votes to have the senate floor discussion about the bill.
we're not sure when end is in sight on that.
meantime senate did pass a very important bill last week which is what is called the so-called fiscal matters bill to find nontax revenue, the senate bill 1811 by senator duncan.
and that bill would try to actually found I think four billion dollars in nontax revenues that was going to be made available for certifying the budget.
and that was a very important step in terms of that process.
so that is all moving now.
over in the house we have what we have been calling to the court restructuring bills, now otherwise known as fiscal matters bills, that have to do with things like sweeping account balances at the end of a session and putting that money into generally revenue instead of leaving it for the purposes to which a particular fee or account was dedicated.
those are all being considered.
sort of mother of all those bills, house bill 3790, is on the house floor today.
so we will be following that debate very closely.
but that could have impacts on things like juror pay, longevity pay for assistant prosecutors and district attorneys and a number of other items that have to do with streams of money coming to or from the county.
so we will keep monitoring that and keep the court apprised as best we can about that.
I am pleased to report that this is the last full week in which house committees can meet to consider bills, beginning next Monday, the house rules begin to kick in and next Monday is actually the last day on which a house committee can report out a house bill.
the good news for Travis County is that all the bills we care about have already been heard in committee and many of the bills we don't like have not yet been heard in committee.
so we are in a good situation vis-a-vis that process and the beginning of the house rules kicking in.
it will get pretty hectic the next couple weeks as the house deadlines begin to kick in first on reporting house bills out then on getting house bills to the floor, then on getting smat bills out of house committees and then on getting smat bills to the floor.
all of that funneling action will begin to take its toll.
we are looking on strategies to look for vehicles for some of our legislative and policy ideas in case the bills that are carrying those ideas fall prey to the various sand traps along the way.
I don't know about golf analogies.
>> I'm still evaluating that on.
>> I understand.
you're a much better golfer than I am.
you know about the sand traps in the fareway of life .
with that in mind.
>> come on, man.
>> let me bring up the first bill that we want to specifically talk about and that is hb 3254, brought by representative mark strama of our Travis County delegation regarding an economic development project actually in Pflugerville in precinct two and has to do with the Pflugerville trying to create the tax abatement policy that will allow it to recruit green energy companies to Pflugerville.
what I have here today, I have david smettler, the director for representative strama.
just in case you have questions and he has a couple people he can introduce.
the recommendation I'm going to make to the court is that we adopt a policy position that would support legislation that encourage is economic development while preserving the authority and discretion of the Commissioners court in negotiating economic development incentives.
>> can that be afforded to any municipality willing to participate?
example, manor?
>> this specific bill will not.
this specific bill applies only to Pflugerville because of its bracketing to apply to Pflugerville.
so I'm asking the court to take a broader position.
let me turn it over to the representatives's legislative director and let him introduce the people here with him.
if the court has specific questions about the specifics of the bill or economic policy, let the court ask those questions.
I have told them to be merse fully brief.
>> I have a question.
in March of this year, this Commissioners court held a very intense work session looking at how we could collaborate and intertwine between several persons and entities, such as city of Austin, such as the economic development aspects in all of our particular supporters in the area of the state and a whole lot of the people involved.
my question is with that intertwine to see how we can collaborate better to bring about the best practice to hire a low income resident of Travis County along with underemployed and unemployed in Travis County.
it appears that some of these things that we discussed in that particular setting is a spin off going some of the direction we are looking at as far as hiring folks.
looking for incentive programs, we have done that, the whole nine yards, the commission, all these folks were all in favor or were on that particular day.
my question to you, how will this intertwine to what the Commissioners court had looked at in a work session and looking for the collaborative efforts and best practices that I just mentioned to make sure that those employment opportunities are made available.
and it appears that you have manufacturing, a whole lot of other things in the zone area.
is that going to be the case to actually hire local people that is what I'm trying to get to, the pot line.
>> first of all, thanks for seeing us today.
in response to the two questions I heard so far, the first one being is this going to be effective in other citis such as manor, I think it is bracketed to Pflugerville.
since it is one of the few clean energy bills moving, we have other proposals from other members that would be interested in expanding.
we considered a few different possibilities.
for instance expanding eligibles ty.
first is to make sure we have local opportunity so we are not going to consider the alternatives that we think would belabor the bill's passage.
with regard to the second question about how is this going to enter twine with the community goals that you guys came with before out of that, I'm not necessarily familiar with the specific outcome of that process, but what I do know is that if we look at the way other clean energies have been developed, Texas has lost out on these sort of low income jobs.
a lot of the south of jobs that you refer to.
because we have not, we have been buying the product but not making it.
we haven't been designing it or integrating it here together.
I think the way that you avoid making that mistake again is by not just focusing on demand side solutions such as rebates and things, you have to focus on the creation of industry clusters.
so I brought along the city attorney of Pflugerville and he might be anible to better speak to which sorts of businesses are going to be in this particular zone.
we know if you get the clusters and have different businesses working together, setting up their hubs and operations here, that would lead to installation and manufacturing jobs and all the variety of jobs you're talking about.
really you need all the of the economy in the same place with some resiliency.
our goal is to accomplish what you described.
>> right.
I understand what you are saying.
the renewable energy, clean energy type concept, we are already looking at that.
this court has already approved a couple of very significant clean energy concepts as far as so lar panel.
one is the re solar in northeast Travis County.
and another one just recently approved by this court was the one frv, ae, located in the old city of Austin energy track of land which is also producing, will produce solar energy.
the point I'm trying to get to in all this conversation we have had with this particular policy and the things we are looking at on the economic threshold of things, even for the city of Pflugerville, my concern is the employment opportunities for the particular manufacturer, I want to make sure some of the diversity as far as employment opportunities is afarded to those persons I just described, low income, you know, underemployed and unemployed.
that is what I'm trying to get to as far as clean energy, to make sure that is available to some of fees folks.
that is my concern.
>> sure.
perhaps I could have had a better answer the first time around.
with regards to the projects you have done in the past, this is a great segue from the r e.
one of the reasons the zone is going to be developed where it is is because re would like to be able to entertain different companies to come in and use their facilities as a starting point for their own r and d.
with regard to this bill, we know counties like yours already have discretion to give property tax abatements if you choose.
this is supposed to be way to streamline in this particular context, the school district, city and county.
but the way the bill structured, it's permissive.
at no point does the school district or county or city have to accept any particular business moving into the zone.
in fact, at the initial implementation there's a provision that says the school district, the county and the city can designate criteria for the sorts of businesses that they would like to be getting abatements on this thing.
so if the priorities of the counties are to garner certain sorts of employment opportunities, then that can be reflected in the criteria that you guys set forth for who you want to be developing here.
so we want it to be economically viable in the sense that they wouldn't be locating here if this e had a value it business reason.
but you guys retain control over which businesses are going to experience the revenue benefit.
>> reversing employment is the bottom line.
right now apparently we are all over the place as far as selective employment.
again I'm looking for diverse employment opportunities for some low income persons here in this community, not only that, underemployed and unemployed.
that is my goal and what I with like to try to achieve .
this appears to be a step in that direction.
if it is, of course I can maybe support something like that.
but I want to make sure that is the case.
>> I think he is saying yes.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I just wanted to make sure, david and jacob, I had conversations also with floyd regarding this bill and we had worked through it really nicely.
I am 100 percent agreeing with your sentiment Commissioner.
this bill, correct me if I'm wrong.
>> you said?
>> I totally agree with you with regard to diversity and employment and looking for job opportunities for folks who are really struggling with finding those.
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> this bill streamlines the process for one type of business in one specific area, so still, manor, elgin, webberville any place else can do these kinds of preferential circumstances for businesses they are trying to attackedit's just that Pflugerville's legislation stream lines it for green technology businesses.
correct?
>> that is correct.
>> although I agree that too the extent that we can pile on on this bill to streamline for that particular industry for municipalities, I move approval of deese's suggestioned motion.
>> second.
>> the motion, though, is to support these sorts of economic development statutes as long as the Commissioners courts authorities and discretion is maintained.
that is well maintained in this bill and I appreciate you all working with us.
>> does the motion include a resolution from this court in support of this bill?
>> representative strama is asking for a specific resolution?
>> deese?
>> no, we just don't like to do things that affect us guys without asking.
and just a pat on the back.
that is fine.
>> I include a pat on the back.
>> we support whatever deese is asking for.
>> first of all I do want to emphasize the point that Commissioner Eckhardt just made, which is that the representative's staff has been very responsive to us in making sure the bill did not limit the Commissioners court to being a passive partner in something worked out with the city of Pflugerville or being able to have a take it or leave it approach to the bill.
but preserves our right either to partner with Pflugerville in a specific abatement or fashion our own for the same industries within the park.
so we still retain all of our things and that is very important.
I'm happy to bring back to the court, I would suggest the process would be to bring back to the court a resolution that the court can look at.
that would be my preference.
any time there's a specific bill that we are talking about, I'm happy to do that if that is the will of the court.
>> why can't we do it under c?
>> here is my concern.
if we just support the general policy and somebody asked where does Travis County Commissioners court stand on this bill, the answer really is they haven't tan --taken a position.
but there's a general policy that seems to be supportive.
on other bills we have done a resolution and support.
>> that is true.
>> because we require a super majority.
see what I'm saying?
>> sure.
>> so I think that c is specific enough for us to support it.
>> will it do it for you if I amend the motion to--
>> to support this specific bil.
>> to support this specific bill.
although it doesn't sound like they require an actual written resolution.
>> I again.
>> if we vote to support it and for or five of us support it, if somebody asks you where the Commissioners court stands, you can truthfully say they support the bill.
and the general language you can't say that.
>> I guess woo e would appreciate that.
we have managed to pass out of house committee unanimously and gotten local consent but we sort of, those interacting with the will lose some control, I'm sure the staff will do a good job, but I'm sure this e would appreciate the support from you guys.
>> that don't preclude in the future participation of and other municipality that wants to participate in the green clean energy.
>> but I don't want another 20 minute discussion.
>> I want to be sure those other municipalities understand that.
>> the motion is to approve the change to the policy platform as well as show our approval of the specific legislation as compatible with that change in policy platform.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes.
>> anymore discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you all.
>> also, deese, we don't need another is a minute discussion of this one.
we are done.
>> yes, sir.
I'm going try to keep moving here senate bill 627, stacy while son--
>> thank you so much to the staff for coming down on that bill.
I appreciate that.
>> thank you all.
>> senate bill 627 is a terant county bill.
it has to do with clarifying statutory authority of a Commissioners court that sets the tax rate for another governmental entity to clarify that that tax, that authority would also extend to being able to create a tif and include that other entity in the tif.
the court already has authority and responsibility to set the tax rate for the healthcare district in this case.
and this is what terant county is trying to address in this bill.
the senate bill 627 would clarify the Commissioners court's authority to also determine whether or not to include the healthcare district in a tif.
and if so, at what level of contribution.
so that is, c and c supports that bill, tax supports the bill and it is my recommendation to the court that we would support that specific legislation or more specifically, oppose any legislation that would diminish the authority or discretion of a smort --Commissioners court if it does not serve a prudent purpose.
so in a sense I have two issues here.
in response to the passage of senate bill 627, the healthcare district came to us and said we would like to be exempted from, statutory exempted from the authority to have a tif created, whether by you or by ourselves.
we want to focus on our healthcare business and would like to not have statutory permission to did a tif.
so the first issue before the court is whether or not it wants to support the general policy of saying a Commissioners court that sets the taxing rate for some other entity can also determine whether or not that entity participates in a tif.
the second question is whether or not this Commissioners court wants to allow our healthcare district to be exempted from that statutory authority.
>> let me boil that down because you have two things going on at one time here.
>> yes, I do.
>> it's me understanding that the healthcare district does not want to be anible to offer tif.
>> correct.
>> other on its own behalf or participating in one set up by the county.
>> and currently Travis County could do that under law, under our current authority.
we could just say as a matter of policy, we're not going to approve any tif's for the healthcare district.
>> yes.
>> is that the legal opinion?
legal agrees with that opinion?
>> I'm just now seeing this.
>> you keep saying that we set the tax rate.
we really don't.
we approve the budget by law.
part of that would be approval of the tax rate, not really setting the tax rate.
>> okay.
>> may not be that big a distinction, but I'm used to thinking we approve the budget.
in approving the budget, we approve revenue projections based on a certain tax rate.
so I never thought that we had the authority really to force the healthcare district to do a tif, but this legislation would give us that authoritywould clarify that.
>> the healthcare district is saying we don't want to do it and we don't want you to be able to do it.
>> we would rather decide how to use the incremental tax funds in connection with the strategic plan that the board has adopted rather than having another entity be able do that on your behalf.
>> I can understand that.
but at this point, and I would welcome legal analysis of this, but having read the bill and taken a look at the statute, it's my belief that we could as a matter of policy do that now.
and because there is a lot of other aspects to this bill, I'm concerned about doing this at the 11th hour, making this statutory that our healthcare district cannot do tif's, whether we want it or not.
I think I agree with this, but I'm not sure what unintended consequences there will be for that with regard to county authority and cla --collaborative tax burden.
>> that is legal looked at this?
you have not.
>> the healthcare district position you want to stay a hundred percent focused on healthcare issues and this would be a distraction.
>> correct.
>> as well as divert funding from direct healthcare service delivery.
which is what we have all said healthcare district should be about.
>> yes.
>> there are four other healthcare district, hospital diths that already are exempt for this and that includes bayer oasis, el paso and harris.
we would propose to add tratch is to the --add travis to the list.
>> I think I agree but I would welcome legal analysis and believe we could effect that now under the authority of Commissioners court.
under this we would be giving it to the state to direct that by statute.
and the county would no longer have the authority to decide itself.
>> if it's provided by statute, we don't need the authority.
>> that is right, we would be giving the authority to the state to make that determination.
the statute would say you can't do it.
>> correct.
>> the state is not all bad.
>> it's not all bad.
>> we just don't agree on some things.
>> I'm saying it's the 11th hour I don't have the analysis.
>> how much time do we have?
>> the other thing, judge, cec supports it, right?
>> cec supports the bill.
>> because they have always made sure that the Commissioners court authority is never set aside.
>> cec does not support the amendment by the healthcare district, right?
>> that is correct.
>> that is the issue.
the cec supports the bill but does not support the healthcare district's amendment to the bill excluding them from tif base because it does decrease Travis County's authority with regard to the combined tax burden.
I'm going to ask for a week.
>> that is fine.
I think I like the idea.
I think one of the issues of that raised when the election was being held to create the health district was that it would focus on that job only and not be distracted by other things.
I think this would be one way to deliver on that promise to the voters.
>> that is my position.
ms. Wilson, can we get with the county dorn's office between now and next Tuesday?
>> yes, sir.
>> and step our way through this bill legally and be able the advise the court.
how is that?
>> sounds good.
>> if we run out of time, and we have taken no position on this.
if it passes, it passes.
if not, it won't.
>> the specific legal question I have, can we not effect this policy without statute.
I believe we can.
>> the amendment takes the choice away.
>> exactly.
I believe that under current law we can accommodate the healthcare district's wishes to not be involved in any tif.
>> if you five lawyers can get together between now and next Tuesday, we will know what the situation is, we would appreciate it.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> deese.
>> next one I want to bring up.
>> by the way, the five lawyers includes Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> mr. Eckstein.
>> hb 1649, judge, relates to the enforcement of building code standards for new residential construction.
if the court remembers, last session the legislature passed hb 2833 which created a minimum standard.
this was in the wake of the decision to sunset the Travis County residential construction commission.
the legislature passed hb 2833 which had to do with establishing, allowing counties per miss efly to establish a minimum code of construction for residential and, single family and duplex construction in the county.
our Commissioners court responded to that by adopting the international residential code of construction on September 1, 2009, actually on the first day that the bill took effect.
so Travis County now operates under this permissive legislation.
and what it does, it sets a minimum standard for residential construction in the county.
it does not provide enforcement vehicle as such but simply requires that in any residential or duplex, single family or duplex construction, the builder must submit add various points in the building process an inspection report to the county.
so the county at this points receives those inspection reports.
it could be that the report says they failed, could be it says they exceeded, but now, as for now the county is only a repository of those shun --inspection reports.
this bill would froi two things.
number one, allow the county to collect a few of up to $25 per residential unit constructed in order to add minister the law.
number two, it would give the county permissive authority to get into the certificate of compliance business.
what the bill says is a county play' elect to decide that to me issue certificates of compliance which issued before utilities can be hooked up at a residence.
that then implies the inspection reports would have to be submitted to the county.
and those inspection reports would have to indicate that the construction complied with the international residential construction code that the county has adopted.
if those two criteria are met, then the county must issue a certificate of compliance.
so it's permissive for the county to get into that business in the first place.
but if so, it really is an administrative act on the committee's part.
excuse me, the county staff's part, the ministerial act.
if the reports have been filed and they indicate the house has been built to code, they must issue the certificate of compliance.
>> it also provides a revenue stream for us to fund that administration.
>> it does, up to $25 per construction.
>> my understand ing is that the intent is coming from south Texas?
>> correct yes, the original one came out of el paso delegation.
>> the tnr staff that would probably be involved, fire marshal, sorry, that would be doing the inspection, have they had a chance the look at this?
and also would that fee be sufficient enough for them to look at?
I know actually right now they look at these, but most of them have been like commercial buildings and things of that nature.
we have kind of, you know, on the other end of this, we kind of haven't been looking at some residential type situations as much as possible.
my question is will they have enough staffing be made available to look at these building standards also?
>> Commissioner, the bill does not, neither 2833 last session nor this bill, allow the county to be inspectors.
this is not about the county providing those inspections.
this is about the builder who is building the house, hiring an independent inspector.
and there's a number of options that the builder has laid out in statute in terms of qualifications and criteria for that inspector to do the inspection and to file a report with the county.
so this would not be--
>> this will be independent of the county all together.
>> that is all done independent of the county.
but the inspection report must be filed with the county.
so once the inspection report is in, we are building a database of those inspection reports.
and if this new law becomes law, fan the county elects to do so, the county would be required to issue certificates of compliance if all the statutorily required inspections have been filed, and b, if those inspections indicated that the construction had been to code.
>> what I'm trying to get to, deese, understand what I'm saying.
what role, I guess the question should be what role does the fire marshal play in any of this if at all?
because they still are going to continue to do their inspection of new structures as they come on line.
so in other words, let's say there's a commercial structure, a developer coming out there.
does this offset overthrow the fire marshal responsibility to inspect that building also?
because they are hiring an independent source for $25 that they add on top of the costs for that particular building to be inspected under the building standards?
do you follow what I'm saying?
>> I do follow, Commissioner.
this bill does not apply to commercial structures.
>> all right.
>> my understanding is on single family and duplex, the fire mall shall does not play a role.
this does not expand in any way of duties of the fire marshal.
this is a records management issue for the fnr staff and sub di standards people within tn r.
under the law they currently receiving the reports and maintain a file of them.
those reports presumably would be available to a future home buyer of that particular residence or duplex to see whether or not in the construction process, the inspections had been made and passed.
under this new law, if the county ee electioned to participate in the certificate of compliance section of the law then county would elect to do that, and that would mean that, a, the county could not issue a certificate of compliance, which means they would not be able to hook up their utilities until, a they verified that the required inspection reports had been received, and b, that those inspection reports indicated that the construction passed inspection.
>> who releases the inspection reports?
who exactly is going to police the inspection reports?
in other words who police that had to make sure they were done act rightly?
who policed--
>> there is no provision for that in the statute.
>> that is what my concern is.
>> it's the same thing with the hydrologist who tells us there's enough water.
>> we sign off and say this particular structure has been approved, so go in and you're able to hook up with the water and all the utilitiess that affect the structure.
>> yes, sir.
>> I guess tnr will have to rely on whoever they use to be sure those things are accurate whatever they come down with, that is it.
is that correct, deese?
>> we do have other portions of code.
if the housing developer employes somebody to do these inspections and file these inspections with Travis County and they are fake, falsified, we would then have the penel code provision of filing a false report to a a governmental entity and be able to come of a them criminally.
and the real benefit is that because they have to go through us to obtain a certificate of compliance before they get utility hookup, we can for the first time enforce a minimal residential building code.
>> I don't like it.
I want to be sure what we are doing is iron clad and there is no escape from the intent of what is going on.
I want to make sure that, you know, it's a situation where you can't escape from it.
>> right.
this is really in the applied to the subdivision type of situation where you're building a lot of structures where we really don't have any, I don't think, authority in that regard.
we are talking about sort of a single family dwelling being built on a discreet piece of land.
it's really a relatively limited part of the county's business.
>> unincorporated area.
>> yes, sir.
this would only apply in unincorporated areas.
>> it could be anything.
>> I move that we support this legislation.
>> I have no problem.
I second that.
>> the does the bill designate what county important is supposed to receive the inspections?
>> the bill not designate.
irbelieve under an order the county adopted on September 1, t the nr handles this, 2009.
>> did this bill come before us before?
>> not this bill.
previous bill did come before the court and the court supports the bill in the session, then we adopted the residential building code that was proposed by tnr on September 1 of 2009.
>> anymore dismugs.
>> this bill has not been before the court.
>> anymore discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
the final bill I want to bring up specifically is senate bill 878 relating to a defendant's release on a personal bond or bail bond.
there is a phenomenon called cash deposit bonds.
these are used by our criminal district judges in order to help maintain, zus their administration of justice when they are arragning people.
the cash deposit monitors are used pretty frequently.
I think the number was 400 times last year cash deposit bonds were used by the judges in Travis County as a tool for them in handling matters relating to bail and bonds.
there are some attorney general opinions that have questioned whether a separate options for judges are legal.
senator whit meier has filed a bill that would clarify they are not legal and just would prohibit judges from using cash deposit bonds.
this really affects Travis County and harris Travis County probably more than any others simply because cash deposit bonds as an option for judges are used more in these counties than in many others counties.
the judges now have asked us to try to oppose that bill.
frankly, we're very late getting into the race on this.
the bill has already passed out of the senate and is over in the house.
so we will be very tough at this point to see if we can influence the outcome of the bill.
but the judges have asked us to bring this to the court.
the court did adopt a general policy position that had to do with opposing legislation that would eliminate local court's discretion with the use of personal bonds, being another category of the kinds of bonds that can be done broadly within the same rubric of local discretion.
we already have standing that would give us leeway to oppose the bill but we wantd to bring it specifically to court and we have pretrial services here to answer and questions.
>> let me make sure I understand the reasons for opposition to cash bonds.
>> on the cash deposit bonds, judge, one of the things, it's initiated by a defense attorney.
they bring it to our office and we do the investigation, the write-up, and make a recommendation.
this is an option to the district judges and county court of law judges have in order to release someone from jail.
might be an individual in the individual we didn't consider for personal bond but do due to the nature of the charge or the rirving of the defendant.
one of the things, this is an option to the judges here in Travis County have utilized.
>> why there is opposition to it?
>> because it takes money away from bail bonds amen--bonds machine.
>> is that the.
>> yes.
>> the political reason was the jailbail bond industry.
>> that is unamerican, isn't it?
>> I'm not prepared, I don't have an opinion about that issue judge.
>> all right.
we certainly oppose the bill, don't we?
>> yes.
>> oh, yes.
>> pretrial services is here to support the position that the judges made, to write a letter, and we are here simply to support them in that.
>> bail bonds men do a great service to the county.
they are an extra judicial arm that keeps people coming into the courts.
but these are folks that pretrial already did an assessment on and find they are a low flight risk and there are a cash security bond is appropriate.
for low flight risk this is really not the client population for bail bonds men.
so I move that we amend our policy slightly to just drop the personal bond, the word personal.
so it covers bond policy period.
and that we move to actively --
>> do the judges want a resolution against bill?
>> that is.
>> I was about to say that we actively oppose the bill.
>> second.
>> the reasons that will be put forth in the resolution are in judge kasurak's letter.
>> yes.
there are two concerns, wurn --one is that the judge's flexibility is used as part of a broader jail management in the county.
secondly, for associate of people that would be required to put up a percentage of the bond with the bail bonds man with no expectation of getting that money returned, that would limit their ability with respect to being able to hire a criminal defense attorney, which would kick item into the indigent attorney thing, which is a financial burden to the county and state.
we can expect some moddest increase in the number of times somebody requested to have an attorney on the grounds of indi gin si.
>> any more discussion of the motion to oppose?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> the final item is just to reconcile the court's legislative agenda with some of the issues that we had discussed today.
have you a motion in writing that was included in your packet.
I think max has additional copies if anybody wants to take a look.
the one thing we are requesting that we have not discussed so far today is the court approved a policy position a couple months ago now to expand and modernize the duties of the criminal magistrate here in Travis County.
as a matter of fact, that bill has become a priority for this office, at least if it's going parks --pass, it has to become a priority.
I would request the court move that to our priorities list.
I think that become the 11th item.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, at the risk of wearing out my welcome, I want the make one comment.
I was visiting with my counterparts and colleagues at the conference of urban counties the other day about the process of getting feedback from our county departments about particular bills, this is a good or bad idea.
we vet all the bills that we're looking at at least through the policy makers in the various county departments and in the independent ee electioned officials offices where possible.
they were discussing the frustrations they have trying to get responses out of people.
I mentioned the fact that we have gotten a bill analyses from one or more policy all analyst in the county on three quarters of bills we have asked them to do.
they were astonished by that.
I wantd to give props to the policy analysts getting requests for of bills and turning them around so quickly because it helps us bring information to the court that you need.
and I want to praise them for that.
>> thank you.
what about revenue caps, appraisal caps, et cetera?
>> there is, appraisal cap bill heard last night, hb 874, was heard on the last, again, this is the beginning of the last full week bills could be heard.
there was some testimony in favor of it.
in my judgment, a little bit disorganized.
there was eloquent testimony from a number of assessing collectors and auditors about the bad effects of the bill.
it basically creates a new tax rate called the same services tax rate which we think in the long run would confuse taxpayers more when they got their bills saying effective rate, tax rates same services tax rate.
it's very confusing.
the senate companion to that, senate bill 1771, has not been heard yet.
the house ways and means committee had its last full calendar.
they will meet again next Monday.
so presumably they could hear some of these bills.
but none of the other appraisal cap or revenue cap bills were put on the house ways and means committee.
>> that one is still moving and still may make it out.
>> 874, we're keeping a very careful eye and will let the court know if it starts to move.
hopefully it will be left pending in committee.
>> anything else on item 24?
>> no, sir, thank you very much nor your time.
>> that was for the court mr. Eckstein.
court members?.
you spoke for the court real well.
thank you.
>> thank you very much.
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.
