DRDER NO. 27300
COLLECTIONS FOR JP TECHNOLOGY FUND
On this the 22nd day of October 2001, upon motion by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0, to abate the
collection for• J. p. technology fund fee pending the Attor^ney
Genet•al°s opinion on the constitutionality of the legislation
creating such a fee.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE
REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Fred He ~~ OFFICE: County Judge
MEETING DATE: O er 22. 2001 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT; (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
Consider and discuss abatement of collections for JP Technology Fund pending Attorney
General's opinion on constitutionality of legislation authorizing Technology Fund
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT:
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter
551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been
prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be
appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportuniTy. See Agenda Request Rules
Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
Counri Judge
5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.
County issues
Regional Workshops Will Address Air Pollution Requirements
A new law to address federal air pollution rules imposes
new requirements on local governments in and around
certain major urban areas in the state.
To assist county officials and staff in understanding these
and other aspects of SB 5 and the Texas Emissicn
Reduction Plan, the Texas Association of Counties is co-
sponsoring aseries of regional workshops, together with
the Texas Conference of Urban Counties, the Texas
Municipal League, and the State Energy Conservation Office
and in conjunction with the Texas Clean Air Working Group.
The workshops will be held in Austin on Oc[. 12,
Houston on Oct. 19, Dallas on Nov. 9, and Corpus Christi on
Jan. 11, 2002. The cost for each workshop is $55 per person
and includes a continental breakfast and lunch.
Registration can be done on-line at www.tml.org or by
contacting Cheryl at TML at 51Z-719-6300. TAC will alsc be
mailing out registration forms and additional information to
the office of county judge in each of the affected counties.
In addition to general information about SB 5 and the Texas
Emissions Reduction Plan, the workshops will include
information on code enforcement and adopdon, energy
etciency goals and requirements, as well as possible grants or
other funding availability. Other specific provisions of the bill will
be discussed: diesel emission reduction incentive programs,
energy efficiency grants and building performance standards.
In order to reduce electrical consumption, affected
political subdivisions are required to implement certain energy
efficiency measures that must meet the standards established
for energy conservation contracts in Section 302.0041h) of the
Local Government Code. These energy efficiency standards
apply to existing buildings and facilities belonging to affected
local governments. The bill also addresses the adoption of
building energy efficiency performance standards and
procedures to adopt local amendments, as necessary, to
applicable energy efficiency standards.
The bill affects those counties listed in the bill as
affected counties and those counties contained in non-
attainmentareas, as defined by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency. These counties are the following:
Bastrop, Bexar, Brazoria Caldwell, Chambers, Collin, Comal,
Dallas, Denton, Ellis, EI Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Gregg,
Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Harrison, Hays, Jefferson,
Johnson, Kaufman, Liberty, Montgomery, Nueces, Orange,
Parker, Rockwall, Rusk, San Patricio, Smith, Tarrant, Travis,
Upshur, Victoria, Waller, Williamson, and Wilson.
Each of these counties is directed to establish a goal to
reduce its electrical consumption by five percent each year,
for five years, beginning Jan. 1, 2002 and to make an annual
report of these efforts to the State Energy Conservation
Office. If a political suhdivision fails to attain those
conservation goals, it must include in the report to the State
Energy Conservation Office justification that it has already
implemented all available conservation measures. Senate
Bill 5 also directs the Energy Conservation Office to provide
assistance and information to affected political subdivisions
to help them meet the requirements set forth in the law.
For more information, contact Paul Sugg at 600-456-5974
or pauls~county.org. t
Technology Fund Questioned
Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry recently
requested an attorney general's opinion IRO-0424) pertaining
to the constitutionality of a new lawthat authorizes counties
to charge an optional fee on misdemeanors to pay for justice
court technology.
House Bill 1771Code of Criminal Procedure, Art.
102.01731 took effect Sept. 7. It allows a commissioners court
to create a justice courttechnologyfund and may require a
defendant convicted of a misdemeanor offense in a justice
court to pay an additional court cost fee not to exceed $4.
This fund may only be used for technology items like
computer software, networks and systems.
In his request, Curry compares HB 177 to a similar
section of the Texas Government Code Section 51.702. A
1992 opinion IDM-123) cites a 1966 opinion IJM-680)
addressing this particular section stating ," A law allowing
different cost to be assessed in different counties for the
same penal offense would have the effect of allowing the
penalty for state-defined crimes to vary from county to
county and would violate both due process and equal
protection constitutional rights."
The opinion continues'a lawthat fixes a greater punishment
in one county than in other counties forthe violation of a state
law cannot be upheld and is in contravention of constitutional
inhibitions, both State and Federal"
In Curry's request, he states "the practical effect of
House Bill 177 is to allow the counties the choice to impose
the technology fee, thereby allowing the penalty for state-
defined crimes to vary from county to county" and thus is
unconstitutional.
Although some counties have implemented the fee,
other counties are waiting until an opinion is issued before
taking action on the matter. -r
Pege 4 1 October 5, 2001