Travis County Commissioners Court
February 1, 2005
Item 28
Now let's call up item 28. 28. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature.
>> would you just -- would you anticipate this is the last item before lunch?
>> I am absolutely sure this will be the last one before lunch today. If you have -- if you are here on an item other than 28, I know that we will not get to you this morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, sherri flemming, executive manager for Travis County health and human services and veterans services. We are here today to update the court on house bill 470. Related to the local delivery of aging disability behavioral health and mental retardation services. The court instructed us to coordinate with partners last week and provide you some additional information on this bill. And I have here today david evans with mhmr and I would like to let him talk with you about the bill, first, because he has another commitment that he needs to make.
>> Commissioners, thank you for spending some time on this, I appreciate your hard work. Mr. Donald dumas, a board member from Austin Travis County mhmr that you appoint is with me today. He has served in the past on state-wide governance study groups and also is an attorney and a parent. I supplied a packet for you. In that packet on the left-hand side is the current from today's data system report, the current number of adults and children in mental health that we are serving. Provided a two-page set of questions around this legislation. Input to the conference of urban counties. I did attend a meeting with them last week with the judges, hospital district and mhmr center directors. Member message out of the state-wide association, regarding the bill. This is house bill 470, john Davis out of houston. Companion senate bill 194 from senator nelson. I have also included a position that was passed by tarrant county regarding a resolution in support of mental health and mental retardation funding. There's a typo in it, but I have mocked up a Travis County type of position just for your consideration and review. I included a copy of the bill, an outline summary of the bill, and then in January we -- the state auditor's office issued a report on the efficiencies of local mhmr centers, your center here in Travis County was the first center to visit -- center visited by five state auditors for five days, we are one of seven centers that are included in this report. I just would summarize by saying that from September of '03 to September of '04 the state auditor's found that the mhmr center in Travis County was reduced by 7%, reduced by 83 positions, we had a nine and a half percent increase in 3rd party billing and a 7% increase in our face-to-face encounters. I think that type of data led to a very positive state auditor's report regarding the efficiencies of centers. This proposed legislation is intended to mirror or extend from the state offices the consolidation that began under 2292 in the last session. The state putting 11 health and human services agencies into a more compact four state commission. However those are parked under a health and human services commission and the state moved from a local state-wide board control of state agencies to placing those under the governor. This legislation intends to set up regional authorities, those authorities would be extensions of the state department of health services for behavioral health on a regional basis, and another authority for disability and aging. We would then have two new regional authorities intended by this bill. I have heard from tarrant county when they met with senator nelson, she said this was a shell of a bill to begin dialogue on such regional authorities. While the bill should be applauded for including a voice for consumers, appointing authorities by local governments, the intention to focus regional planning, applaud all of those ideas, I do think that some of the meat and potatoes are missing. In other words, what's the authority of such an authority? What's the relationship, the funding through county Commissioners? What's the relationship to medicaid? What would the impact be on a medicaid program with dual rollouts from the state in a star plaws program, yet -- star plus program, yet at the same time would include some undefined authority for medicaid planning. For example the center currently delivers mental health services under one program called rehabilitation services option and mental retardation services under a home and community based waiver program. What are some of the issues and questions? I will be very brief on this. We've raised in analysis, should -- an analysis should identify financings options. A method of finance is not included in the description of the bill. The number of regions. We have been told somewhere between current 41 centers that cover all of the counties in Texas, to maybe as few as 8. If the idea is consolidation, of mental health and substance abuse into a behavioral health authority and then aging and disability into an aging and disability authority, what about other types of related funding? Housing, transportation, workforce, one of the ideas that we have been told is this would be a mirror in the areas of behavioral health and disability, not unlike a regional mobility authority or a workforce commission authority. Then what have the actually expenses been with counties, how those improve the access, availability and quality of mental health and mental retardation treatment and support services. I think we need to deliverate the management and oversight of such local service authorities. Analyze the cost benefit of a multi-layered structure, if there are regional expenses in operating those regional authorities, will those be dollars grown out of local communities, are those new dollars, are those dollars as part of the intended reduction in state government. An engagement of community leadership and decision making. To point that we recently by state law have had to produce a jail diversion plan, we have worked very closely with the mayor's task force, sherri flemming and your staff, most recently the discussions with sheriff hamilton, I would like to compliment him for his collaborative approach with our center in reaching out. Also your housing authority in Travis County reports, i've tagged the number of places where we have worked very closely with making available housing and have an exciting announcement on 42 new housing units through h.u.d. Announcement. I won't pre-empt representative doggett in his upcoming announcement on that new available federal monies for housing services for the mentally ill. A mayor's task force report with 39 criteria for our community, I know that you have a scheduled upcoming hearing on that. Then also a report that you have commissioned on a sobering up station that could be the kind of local collaborative work that would be called into question if funding and decision making were to be done on a regional basis. Conclude by saying what are some of the potential impacts. Would there be an ability to maintain design and the delivery of services to meet local needs? One of the mandates, very clear mandate in this legislation, is that you have designated the Austin Travis County mhmr center as your local authority. Those authorities include things like admissions and discharges and responsibility of the trust fund for the state hospital. What would be the cost borne by a hospital district or by other local indigent care requirements that you have if we were to unbundle or fragment these agreements? Ensure capacity to provide immediate services. Many centers have bond issued construction projects that they deliver their current direct services in. If you were to designate the mhmr center of Travis County to bement regional working with other counties to be a regional authority for these services, we would clearly by mandate could not deliver direct services any longer. What would happen in the impact on services and families to be able to no longer deliver direct services. I know that you can read, I know that I have listed probably another 6, 7, 8 bullet points. Donald dumas and myself will serve as your and sherri flemming's consultants on this important issue that we are facing. And I would just conclude by saying if -- if nothing else, I would highly recommend that you consider what's happening with medicaid, what's happening at the federal level, the de-evolution of the states, what do these governance and method of financial structures do to the 74,000 Travis County residents in a are on medicaid and nearly $400 million that's spent annually in Travis County on medicaid service delivery. And with that I would conclude and give this back to sherri, answer any of your questions and would say that again I have met with mr. Lee and ms. Warndolf from the urban counties, bob cams office, given his office the materials that we have, and I -- in contact with the community action network legislative platform and again as sherri directed us, we have supplied analysis and information.
>> okay.
>> sherri?
>> let me ask this question before you get to sherri.
>> can anyone tell me this particular proposed bill, 470, I -- I just received this packet here, it may be in this information here. But if -- if this particular proposed legislation was to -- to let's say pass, this particular legislative session, what would be the amount of money -- that will end up trickling down to Travis County? I guess any of the other counties affected by this as far as having to pick up the tab. If -- if this -- you know, unfunded mandate type of stuff. Is -- has there been an assessment based on what the -- what the full ramification financially, that a county would have to I guess be a part of anybody else as far as --
>> to my knowledge, there is no companion -- pardon? Pardon? No companion revenue bill projectionsment we could draw a base -- projections. We could draw a baseline of the current funds available in Travis County, there's no evidence of finance. One idea that has been out there has been to move more to a fee for service and an outsourced privatized approach that a region could take on, but the bill is silent on the method of finance.
>> okay. That's very significant in my mind. But anyway I didn't mean to cut you off there. Sir, I just had to throw that out on the table.
>> not at all Commissioner. That is, you know, one of the major issues that we have with the bill. We have spoken to bob cam, I think he is here today. There has been no movement on the bill. Seems that the bill's author is very open to comment on this particular bill. So we wanted to make sure it was in front of the court. If the court were in support of -- some of the -- of the issues that staff has brought forward in addition to what mr. Evans laid out for you, maybe giving staff the ability to talk with the legislative delegation staff on your thoughts related to this bill and then have us come back to you, should there be any direction or any movement in this bill or any changes in -- in what's currently outlined. Clearly, the -- the bill in its current form is what we have the most problem with. If there are opportunities for addition, subtractions, rewrite his, more specificity related to the financing of the bill and the regional concept, then certainly we would come back to the court and lay out that information for you.
>> when this come to us last week, it was presented that it was representative naishtat who is on the subcommittee on this. Trying to get input from locals. What does representative naishtat think is the most helpful we can be to him in his mission of trying to talk with representative Davis who I think is a new -- a newby -- how can we be the most helpful? Is it to take a stance on this bill, sounds like a shell and going to change substantially. Or are we being asked to provide witnesses, go talk to them early? I mean -- how can we be most helpful and how can we be the most unhelpful? I think that might be to come out guns ablazing and not be part of the negotiation goes. Chris, do you have some suggestions for us.
>> bob had to run to another appointment. I have been involved in this bill already because of other clients of mine. I represent the drug and alcohol counselors and the non-profit substance abuse facilities. So I have been involved a little bit with representative Davis' office on this. First, let me say in response Commissioner to your points, it's important that --
>> [indiscernible]
>> I'm sorry. Come up to the microphone there.
>> let me say in response to your comments that it's important to note that representative Davis is almost certain to be named tomorrow as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health and human services, which means that he is pretty much the key guy on the house side on all of the spending issues related to everything that falls under the purview of the department of state health services. That is directly interrelated with this approach. Secondly, let me say as I know these gentlemen know, this is not the first time that a consequence days approach or a regional approach has been proposed. In fact, each of the last three sessions, I think there has been something laid out that's affected mhmr in some areas has proposed perhaps a consolidation of mhmr with substance abuse services, et cetera. So that's not new. This notion has had some difficulty, which is one reason why it was not a part of house bill 2292 last time. And I say this respectfully to the legislature, but I will tell you that in my judgment the biggest part of this is not about saving money, as much as it is about shifting costs from the state to local government, which is exactly the point Commissioner Davis I think you're trying to make.
>> right.
>> I know that is just slightly cynical. But unfortunately it's hard for me to read even the shell bill, which I understand and agree and not see in it the very real potential for that to be the end result. So that's why we -- why we really are wise to be engaged in this now. Marissa gonzalez, who is on bob cam's staff, was in representative Davis' office this morning, marissa told me something that I don't know, she may want to expand on this if I don't get this right. There was a comment period which cuc participated in and which they consider closed at this point. So I'm not sure that we can just kind of walk over there at this point in the process and offer further additional comments. Obviously, though, this bill is going to be set for public hearing and I think that it's -- it's important that -- that all of the counties -- participate. I do think that not all of the counties are affected equally. For a bunch of reasons. Not even all of the urban counties. So I think Travis County has to have -- has to have its own unique position. Marisa, do you want to add to that? Frses.
>> basically sound like the next step is that it will go to committee, that's the next opportunity. At this point from the comments that they have received, too many concerns have been about financial streams and region that's are being set up, so they are further developing those concepts and really focusing on that and the bill right now. And also as far as turnover time, if the bill is implemented, they seem to be going in a direction that it would be one year or more to implement any changes, not shorter than a year. And they also said that the regions right now, they have anywhere from 11 to 41, somewhere this that zone as to the amount of region that's could be developed.
>> so at this point is our best -- since it seems like the "comment period" is over. That we need to be prepared and be helpful related to either written or oral testimony when this thing comes up for public hearing and not to be surprised by the date but to be prepared for that date and to think about and strategize about the most effective people and arguments that we can bring forward and to handle it that way, chris?
>> I think from my perspective the single most important piece of information that the counties need to be prepared to provide to the state legislature is as specifically as possible the cost that we perceive to the counties of whatever proposal is out there. Unfortunately, it's very hard, I'm sure forks the staff to do -- I'm sure for the staff to do that right now because there's not sufficient information in this proposal. Maybe what we -- maybe there's some ability on our part, I have not visited with sherri about this -- to make sure assumptions -- to make some assumptions and try to use those assumptions as a basis for figuring out what the physical cost to the county might be.
>> the cost factor, as far as house bill 70 is concerned, as far as john Davis, I see Davis --
>> yes, sir forks the record it's not Commissioner Davis.
>> please. Let folks know it's not me. But anyway, with this type of cost burden I guess, if it does trickle down to the local governments, the region itself confined, I don't know exactly how they determine what the boundaries of a region will be, I'm quite sure this is all across the state. There are different factors, it appears to me, that will be -- that will actually be presented and affect counties in -- in different ways depending on -- on those particular factors. So it appears to me that there's a lot of unknowns here that have not been flushed out and exactly what that cost will -- will probably be, if this particular legislation passed. So -- so I'm really -- I have some really strong concerns because there again we may be talking about another unfunded mandate along with others as we try to track these things as we get red to go through our budget cycle. There's a lot of concern here. I'm really not able to put my hands on what we are talking about as far as is this an unfunded mandate, how much it is, how much is it going to cost us if we are going to continue to provide those kind of services. So I really -- I'm really having some really -- --
>> I guess to under core your concern -- under score your concerns, let me take 30 seconds to say your concerns are really valid for two other reasons that make it much worse. One is in the criminal justice arena, there is every real possibility that your costs of housing, state prisoners will increase over the next period of time. There's a lot of data that suggests that. I know that's an issue that judge Biscoe has been especially concerned about. For many years. And the counties as a whole have been concerned about it. Secondly, I am surprised to -- to see the appraisal limit issue rear its head as strongly as it has as a result of the governor laying it out so -- so emphatically in the state of the state speech. Excuse me. The bottom line is that the entire, the debate that we had last session about imposing a limitation on counties in the appraisal process and on cities in the appraisal process and possibly on the tax rate, which was also discussed, that debate is back. So in a worst case scenario the counties could see costs shifted to them in the criminal justice arena and in the health and human services arena and at the exact same time have their ability to -- to raise the dollars to -- to pay for those costs taken away. So obviously, Commissioner, this is an area that we've got to be very on top of and provide the court with as much information as possible.
>> why don't we plan to put together a document that summarizes key advantages and disadvantages with an eye to -- to hearing not only the bill sponsors, but also the Travis County legislative delegation. I guess cuc and nearly. And if it's strong enough, we ought to share it with the other counties, especially urban counties and -- so at least they will know. I'm convinced that the legislature will do what it wants to anyway. But I think -- I think the importance of putting this together is not only can we share it with the people who want to see it, but also Travis County taxpayers ought to see it. I mean, we have not done a good job of dealing with the mental health clients historically. And I do think that the time has come for us to do much better locally. But if the state is also shifting additional responsibilities given our ability to deal with some of the issue that's we think are local, we'll be delewded because that has to do with money the state has picked up.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> it's incumbent upon ever county, Travis County included, to do what you just said. I think you need to not only look at the financial aspects of it, but also at the effects that the bill may have on the consumers, for people receiving services, mental health services, mental retardation services, and substance abuse services in Travis County. And we have no guarantee that Travis County center would be the local authority. The local authority could be some private entity that's out here somewhere that doesn't know anything about our community and any of the other communities that would be constituted in whatever region looks like. So I think there are a number of things this we need to be concerned about, and I think all of those things need to be communicated to the legislature and not only just to the folks you mentioned, but also to all the people on the committee and the subcommittee that will be responsible for whatever language comes out in this bill before the house and the senate.
>> I think we ought to be fair, objective and truthful.
>> let me just add, judge, that the legislature has listened to a number of interested parties because these bills have come up before and they haven't passed up to this point in time. So there is some reason to believe that the legislature is sensitive to some of these concerns. But obviously we need to do our job and make sure that they're aware of all the information that we'd like to share with them.
>> well, I think that's a whole lot of things. If you don't see the light you may think what you're doing is the right thing. Last session I lost there were two owe three bills that I thought were the worst things in the world, and when I talked to the sponsors, they were working with a different set of facts. And on one of two of them, we were able to convince them on the other one we were not, but each session looks like we go through the same thing. There is no way to know everything about everything, like you're forced to do every there. Our challenge, I think, is for our local experts to help us put together the document, and then our time is of the essence, I take it, so we can do this next week and sure we get it to the right organization, all the works at the legislature, our organization, and whatever county officials we can do and we receive that in cuc.
>> it would be good to present to the other urban counties at that luncheon whatever we have clikted. Ollected.
>> in speaking with bob this morning, when I called him earlier, he was sitting down behind me, and forgive me for that, he did indicate thea felt like the policy committee of the cuc was going to be hearing -- discussing this issue tomorrow. And I think that in our discussion we agree completely with the direction the judge is suggesting, and we felt like we had kind of a two-pronged approach much the first would be to have some document that the court has blessed and let them know what's going on with the lobbyist to provide information. So by having this discussion with the court today that's what we're hoping to achieve.
>> in terms of the dollars that Travis County and the city of Austin contribute via the interlocal to mhmr, is that mandatory or discretionary?
>> no, that's discretionary.
>> and is there a presumption in this bill, that would be one of my questions, that somehow Austin-Travis County, if we're unhappy with the direction that this goes, that those dollars would still be there.
>> I think that was one of the concerns of the people who are sponsoring this bill, and the sponsors -- the author. The bill was authored in the governor's office and they just asked our representative Davis and our senator nelson to sponsor is. They are very concerned about local dollars staying in the system to help deliver services to the folks who need them. In the dallas they are they lost a considerable amount of local funding when they reorganized that in a very strange way, managed care system. So yeah, they're very interested in the local dollars taig is in the system -- staying in the system and they realize that there's no mandate for it. It's all voluntary.
>> especially if there's a concern that more dollars will be shifted back to Austin or Travis County, there would, I think, be a huge temptation and need to think about do we send it to a regional thing when you're shifting more dollars here, do we keep our dollars here to deal with what's been shifted back in our direction. I see those dollars as being leveraged and it not a small amount of Austin that and Travis County contribute on a discretion. Because it's the right thing to do to mhmr. So it's our leverage.
>> so the policy committee meeting is tomorrow at 10:30 and then next Wednesday at the luncheon where all the counties will then look at what the policy committee recommends.
>> so you'll work with ms. Robbins and bob, what's your last name?
>> dumas.
>> try to put together something for us to look at. And I guess bob and chris and mar ris sa --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> or at least by Tuesday.
>> you need something for tomorrow?
>> for the 10:30 policy committee where it will be discussed. And then a recommendation will be made to the members of the luncheon next Wednesday.
>> judge, the discussion that you he on he owe the suggestion that you made, was that a formal motion? I'll second it as far as that direction.
>> it certainly was a motion.
>> i'll second that motion.
>> maybe we'll write that out this afternoon for you, melissa. [ laughter ] we hope to have a formal document that the court can look at, bless and sign and have a distribution strategy also, but I do think the right people ought to see that between now and then.
>> okay.
>> and it will be very helpful at the policy committee meeting tomorrow.
>> any more discussion of that? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you.
>> thanks very much.
>> is there anything else we need to hear?
>> the only issue is I just wanted to mention to the court independently, I don't know if there's anyone else here that has an issue to bring before the court. I think there is. Two more. Is the appraisal cap issue. We -- bob and I had advised the court that we did not see a lot of momentum for that issue a few weeks ago. I think we would revise that opinion at this point. There clearly is momentum for that issue again. It's back pretty much in the form that it was in last session. There were several meetings that various of the Commissioners asked bob and I to participate in, and I'm sure that's going to be an important issue. I want to correct the record, to to speak, with the court, and let you know that that is something that we also need to put front and center.
>> it's one of the governor's top issues, isn't it? Public school education, tax reduction with the cap looks like being the biggest issue.
>> a very big issue.
>> fortunately the language that's being proposed by the governor on this cap ceiling on appraised value on property, is there anything that would allow counties, which have limited ability to generate revenue other than through property taxes with a little different incentives, is that also being acknowledged where they will give us counties a a little more leeway to generate revenue other than through our traditional property taxes?
>> no, sir, not to my knowledge.
>> so nothing -- so just flat out right cap them and nothing for counties?
>> yes, sir.
>> chris, is he talking revenue cap or the appraisal?
>> appraisal. The revenue cap word is being spoken around the capital, but it was not in the governor's presentation.
>> (indiscernible).
>> the appraisal cap cuts in a funny way. I think we need to sit down and analyze that. That's one of those deals that may end up being -- if you go over there and successfully defeat that, you don't want to end it with a revenue cap. And that's the -- I'm not saying step tentatively, but I think we need to be aware of potential consequences.
>> I think the issue on the appraisal cap is it has a potential to uniquely impact large high growth counties like -- high road counties like travis that have some significant land value wealth. Travis County is somewhat unique in its particular composition of high end residential homes, a downtown and an overall pretty high property values here. And how an appraisal cap takes place could have a pretty significant impact -- and maybe even some unintended consequences of -- consequences of potentially shifting property tax burden from one socioeconomic sector to another and other things like that. So we have to just see what that means for Travis County. It will mean something different here, I think, than in bexar county, for example, or in houston or dallas.
>> there's a huge fairness issue that would be out there that says a neighborhood like main that is rapidly changing in terms of people renovating and selling. I'm going out of my house feet up in terms of I'm not ever leaving, but you've got my next-door neighbor paying substantially more for the exact same city, county, school district services simply because that owe that's a property that turns over more than once every 30 or 40 years. And you have people side by side paying different amounts for the exact same services being provided by all those providers. It's unfair.
>> why don't we get our budget director, auditor --
>> (indiscernible).
>> and also we need to work with the city of Austin to try to figure out what he think the appraisal cap would affect Austin-Travis County. I think Commissioner Daugherty and I are going to a meeting on Friday morning to address this issue with --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> so we will speak -- anyway, while we're there, we may as well -- let's do that and try to have something in writing next week for the court to bless also.
>> second.
>> is that all right?
>> we did a lot of this work last time, kind of pool that. Any more discussion of that motion? If the two of us will get with the city. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything else?
>> yes, judge. Mike trim bell, criminal justice court.
>> now for the good news, mike.
>> now for the good news. We had put several legislative issues for your consideration back in the taskforce and you approved moving forward on those. What I wanted to do was revisit a couple more of those since we did more work on them. One of them is the issue with detention and county jail for parole technical violators. We brought you an issue with trying to improve the language in the legislation that would try to separate out those parole violators that have new charges versus those that have a technical violation. And try to shorten the time line that parole has to have the hearings on those folks and make a determination of revocation or non-revocation. And we've done some additional work talking with some of the parole board and parole department staff. And I think one of the concerns that they had had is that even with the designation of technical, it still captures a lot of the folks that have new charges in it right now just because of the way things work. So what we had decided to do is to look at this a little bit closer, see if we can work with some of the language and even consider trying to maybe extend the length of days from maybe -- because we had recommended 10, but maybe looking more at like a 20-day because the other issue they had is that right now they're really up against it even to make the 40 days, even for the technicals. So what we're trying to do is kind of work with them and come up with something a little more feasible. So our recommendation right now is the language as we had proposed is to have no further action on that, but to go back to the table, try to come up with some revision of that language and bring something back to you for your approval. We'll try to get that done as soon as possible.
>> okay.
>> a couple other items real quick. One also was the -- we put an item in front of you that would allow the state jail facility that we have nearby to house parole detainees, and currently they can do that, but it's only --
>> Travis County?
>> I'm sorry, Travis County state jail.
>> parolees.
>> currently they can do that if they're being transferred to an id unit or they've already been revoked, but prior to that basically the only option for housing them is jail, is our local jail, Travis County jail. And so what we looked at is modifying some of the language in the statute to law lou if it's feasible, if there's money available, to allow if we had a local state facility to allow the detainment of parolees even prior to revocation. And so what we decided that we needed to have -- there were a couple of concerns raised about that, especially the fiscal that might be attached to that. I think there were some concerns from the tcj as well. Our recommendation at this point is to delay filing on that until we have some additional discussions with the tdcj folks and get those issues worked out and we'll come back with a final recommendation. One last one is we had an item for getting reimbursed basically from the state for county detainment of technical parole violators if they get detained past that 40 days that they're required to have them here. And obviously there's a concern there with the fiscal note that would be attached to that to get some of the funding back on that. And so on advisement from our lobbying staff, we're talking about bob and others, we looked at probably not being able to move on this, especially with the challenges we're seeing at the legislature right now. But what we looked at doing is going back on that one as well and seeing if there's something that we can tweak between here and there. Our recommendation would be at least the language as it is now, no further action on that item as well. We'll try to look and see if there's something we can get and modify the language to do something a little bit more feasible. That's it.
>> okay. All right. Is there anything else?
>> no, sir.
>> we may start trying to call this item up every Tuesday at 11:00 o'clock.
>> yes, sir?
>> one more very quick, judge. We're asking the court to authorize our legislative liaison to work with the legislature to draft a language similar to what the city purchasing act has in it to allow broker of record to be used to solicit insurance. Under certain market conditions it's a beneficial aspect of soliciting insurance. It brings a more competitiveness to the marketplace, and we would ask that the court allow the legislative liaison to move forward with that. I apologize to the court for basically --
>> don't worry about that. Was question was is there more effective to try and seek a special amendment to the purchasing act or do we look for other opportunities that are out there because it seems like there's always something related that we might be able to hop on to?
>> there's specific language that we would like to see in the act, and we gave that out earlier. We'd like to go in that direction if that answers your question.
>> I think your question, if I understand it, Commissioner, is there something that we can tack on to. We'll look. This looks very straightforward to me and probably ought to be pretty doable. So --
>> move approval of the staff recommendation? Discussion?
>> I was going to say that the one disadvantage of tacking on is that we might piggyback on to some controversy that we might not want. And as far as we can tell at this point it's not likely to be controversial, so it may be if we can get it through legislative council counsel with the drafting, that surest way of getting it done is to just go along.
>> but if you start running out of time you've got to tack.
>> tacking if you can't do it the other way.
>> have you drafted the exact words that you want at this point or can you do that for us?
>> I asked bob about that this morning. He said if you give me the memo and I gave it to him with language in there from where the change would be in the city section alreadiment he said if i've got that, I think it's better just to send it over to ledge counsel in this format. But if you let me know that you have changed your mind on that or he's changed his mind on that, you will have it within 24 hours.
>> that's fine.
>> thank you very much. How much time do we need?
>> do we need to vote on that motion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> thank you.
>> 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:
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:40 AM