Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, March 8, 2011,
Item 23
>> item number 23 with revised language, consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including, a update on legislative activities b, legislation proposed by the Travis County healthcare district, dba central, health related to property facilities and equipment, c, communication with legislative leaders regarding cuts to 9-1-1 funding and implications for the county.
d, amendments to the priorities of policy positions and positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
and e, discussion of house bill 628 relating to contracts by governmental entities and related professional services and to public works performance and payment bonds.
mr. Eckstein.
>> good morning, judge and members of the court.
thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.
because we have a number of issues that involve groups that we're working with outside of the county staff, I would like to suggest that we take b, c and d in order first.
then I can come back with some final remarks.
b has to do with the central health proposal to change its statutory authorization.
as you know, the court discussed that last week and there were some concerns raised about that.
central health has been working I think with a couple members of the court and with members of our legislative delegation to try to resolve those concerns and have a new proposal in front of you this morning with a cover memo and a new draft resolution for the court to adopt in support.
there was a draft of the legislation given to you in your packet over the weekend.
but there is another draft that was just handed out to you this morning that we received last night.
trish young, the ceo of central health, is here the answer any questions the court has.
and what we would encourage the court do is to adopt the resolution in support of their proposal if that is the will of the court.
>> I have some questions from last time discussing this.
of course my concern was what the role of the health district was actually doing as far as we inter2009 ourselves with the relationship with the--interquine ourselves with the relationship with the healthcare district.
my concern was actually the real estate acquisition portion.
of course we deal with the taxes budget, also the appointment of board members to the district.
now the question posed at the time was allowing the health district to acquire real estate without coming to the Commissioners court for authorization to do just that.
of course, I stated then, and I'm going to continue to state, that I feel that we as a Travis County Commissioners court should not allow that authority to be taken away from us.
actually, in my opinion, it will minimize and mitigate the authority that we have in this particular aspect.
of course, I would like the make sure that any purchase of real estate by the hospital district should come to the Commissioners court for us to at least authorize it to happen.
my position is bangs --basically going stay the same.
>> as you can see, the new draft language from the healthcare district would take the power to an I acquire or sell real estate out of that.
this much more narrow bill deals only with ability to make leases which is part of the ordinary course of business for the healthcare district.
>> well, does it address my concern though?
that is the point.
>> yes, sir.
>> can you speak to that?
in other words, I just received this and haven't had a chance to review it yet.
>> the draft language that the court reviewed last week would have permitted the healthcare district to make purchases of real estate.
>> without court approval.
>> without the court approval.
>> all right, now--
>> this language is much narrower.
it only allows.
>> hold on, hold on.
you're get go ahead of me.
I can't operate like that.
I got to follow it just as I'm doing it now.
does this particular resolution, does this particular resolution prohibit the health district to purchase real estate without court approval?
>> it leaves the current law in place which requires court approval before they can do tha.
>> that is what I wanted to get to.
that is the bottom line.
I'm trying to get to the bottom line.
>> that is it, sir.
>> well, okay.
I don't have no quarrel with that if that is the case.
>> yes, sir.
>> the only thing this particular legislation says is that they may lease any property or hospital facility without the approval of the Commissioners court, but only after posting and public notice.
>> why is this important to us?
>> centrally it's an administrative efficiency matter.
there are a number of properties that we lease for purposes of service delivery or administrative requirements.
we do through a number of transactions all of which typically come to you on a consent agenda basis.
sometimes there are very tight time frames involved.
I'll give an example simple example where we are renovating the current building and needed a short-term lease to relocate during the renovation.
sometimes those things have to be acted upon very quickly given the timely and can't be delayed.
they are very per function tory things and not long-term things.
they are very short term.
we have leases from you as well as from the city.
it's really a matter of minimum --administrative efficiency for both the court and the district.
>> let me ask, on this initiative, something you are already doing is what I'm hearing.
>> we current will I lease properties.
>> you are doing this already.
>> correct.
>> all right.
I guess my question is the notification of what you are doing, how is that done to let the court know what you are doing?
>> it's part of, in terms of our leasing of properties, everything that we spend, of course, is part of the budget that you approve, adopted by our board and approved by you each year.
so the expenditures for the properties are contained within that.
we go through a public, we a public entity just as the court is and we go through a public process of posting agenda items the board has to approve.
the entering into the leases and any changes to the lees.
so it's very public process as required under chapter 551 of the government code.
>> my concern was based, the premise as far as what my position is on this, because of the fact that the turmoil this court experienced when you purchased a property, actually renault vated and have a new facility in an area where there was a lot of upheavel and a lot of protest from the neighborhoods and residents.
I guess the only way I heard about it was when the folks came down here and actually gave testimony.
they say the testimony they had given, according to what I heard it fell upon deaf ears when it came before the board.
so when it came to the Commissioners court, that same following came to the Commissioners court.
I wanted to make sure that we didn't lose that authority to deal as far as with real estate and stuff is concerned and all those other things.
I just wanted to make sure that happened, especially when the residents have a voice in this say.
and they do come before the court, I want to be sure that authority is not diminished in no way shape form or fashion.
>> I move we express our suppor.
>> second.
>> this bill has not been filed yet.
>> it has not.
>> it does two things.
one is to authorize leasting property or facilities but leaves in place the public notice requirement.
and that just says basically it has to be on the public agenda.
>> correct.
>> okay.
any discussion on the motion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
this bill has not been filed ye.
>> knows.
>> .
>> knows.
>> .
>> that is why it doesn't have a number.
>> yes.
>> the second item, the 9-1-1 issue, there was cuts as a result of state budget cuts.
it was the sense of the court that they wanted to, sorry, I have to be sure.
a sense of the court that they wanted to express their concern about the budget cuts and about keeping services as healthy as possibility to the legislature.
so we were asked to come back with a letter to members of the appropriation, senate finance and Travis County legislative delegation to prepare sort of brief talking points.
betty and danny and I have been working and in front of you is the work product.
we would ask if it is the will of the court to express the opinion about the cap could go --capcog to approve the letter and the hand out.
we have somebody here from cap cogfor questions.
just to communicate how important this is, and I don't think anybody doubts that, we have the letter from the police department expressioning its concerns on the effect of public safety and law enforcement response times as a result of these cuts.
>> has that particular correspondence been issued to the legislature?
especially those outside of what the court is going do?
in other words whatever we do in this goes over there, but those independents operating outside of the jurisdiction of the court itself and acting as independents to support this particular, to opposed such things as what is happening a the legislature dealing with this 9-1-1 issue, are they moving independently?
are they all collectively moving together?
>> we have a letter from the Lakeway police department.
ve e if they have expressed directly to the legislature, I haven't seen that correspondence Commissioner.
certainly that would be a good communication for them to make, but I'm not their intergovernmental relations adviser.
I am yours.
I'll still with the court.
>> I understand.
I was thinking collective will I in the region itself in which we are all here together on, is it collectively being done documentation-wise.
are we stockpiling the document and moving them forward to the legislature on this issue?
I'm trying to get the flavor.
>> I do not know about that.
maybe capcog is.
I certainly think communicating can legislators is a great idea and we need more of that.
>> this is donny hobby, yesterday I was at the legislature and testified around five o'clock.
as you all know, I have each month a meeting with the small cities and administrators and city managers as well as the villages.
so I have been keeping them abreast about what we are doing and how.
they pretty well left it to me to speak to you and the court.
>> okay.
>> but however, as deesejust mentioned, it may be appropriate to bring in a police chief or fire chief.
I know yesterday I felt good about the fact that those two gave testimony were a variety of y'all know me it's totally different with everybody else's testimony but it all fit.
ist delighted to see even the feedback from the senators was in total support and that they could not believe that we were even bringing this issue up when it's a fee that is collected and the rev is there--revenue is there.
I'm hopeful it will continue in that mode.
however, I have learned and you all have educated me over the years, you never give up on anything.
you continue to pursue and bring people in as you need to.
but I will be following up with the city managers as well as police chiefs as well as public entry points so they know they have an opportunity to speak if they need to.
I will continue to play my role in capcog.
you all had a great representation yesterday of folks who spoke and I felt it went well.
again, you always stay on it.
that is where we are.
>> we asked the director last week.
she was not able to join us but the drep ty director is here.
>> yes, sheila jennings, deputy director of cap cog.
good morning.
>> good morning.
>> we are likewise informing the cities and counties as to what is occurring.
executive committee has been inform about the reductions necessary and being required by the state.
we are not coordinating responses through cap cogbut the information we are trying to get out.
>> thank you.
>> are talking about a 25 percent cut in ing from this region from I believe almost $21 million down to $15 million.
so this is obviously going to have significant impact on the region.
but it's a decision that was made at a level above anybody in the region, which is why it's so important to communicate that as you have suggested, Commissioner to our members of the legislature.
they are the ones making these decisions.
capcog is simply trying to implement and Travis County trying to implement.
>> I would like the clarify this is not really a cut in funds.
these are the funds that the state collects on behalf of 9-1-1.
and it is a smoke and mirrors thing.
they are not dispensing these funds.
these are dedicated funds, 9-1-1.
and they are choosing not to dispense these funds, at least that is the plan at the moment, in order to work on the balancing of the budget.
they are not going to be diverted anywhere else, is my understanding, but just not going to be dispensed in the 9-1-1 area.
when it causes us delays in response times and things like that, and it's happened to quickly where we really don't have much opportunity to cover, it's a problem and the public should know this.
also, I was going ask capcog, and I don't know what our resources are, but a lot of the people who are interested in this don't have quite the sophistication that capcog and the county do in knowing where hearings are.
is it possible to post on the capcog website when there is a hearing coming up so that the interested parties, or what would be the best way for people to find out about that?
>> well, we can look into putting it on our website.
sometimes, exister--Commissioner whatever notice we get, we do have the advantage being here versus the rest of the state.
we can look into getting the information out there.
there is a legislative committee that with help spread the word.
>> I know west lake is one of the ones where there's some strong feelings like want to go figure out a way to maintain this.
any one who is interested in knowing when those hearings are can call my office and we will stay on top of this.
>> I would suggest, Commissioner that because of where we are in the budget process, the public hearings on some of these issues are either ending soon or have already concluded.
the house appropriations committee and the senate finance committee are working their way through the whole budget.
they are going to begin mark-up pretty soon, which is not an opportunity for public input.
however, there is always opportunity to call your legislator, call your state representative, call your state senator and say, I'm very concerned about this, and give them that information.
because now this is really, you know, we're get to go a point in the budget process where it's really about the 181 members of the allege --legislature, that are going to listen to public agencies and capcog and the county but they are really doing the horse trading or negotiating and will be moving that toe that quickly.
for instance, it is the goal of the thousand have a bill out of the house on its way to the smat by ends of the month.
so the public comment period is winding down.
the mark-up period is beginning.
every legislator is going to need every vote for if bill.
our local delegation, whether they are on the appropriations or senate finance committee are going to have an opportunity to give input, that really, Commissioner Huber, without disagreeing with you, I would suggest that is probably where the action is ploofing to.
>> a better route to send letters and communicate.
>> directly with your legislato.
>> we had a discussion last week about having a one-pager sort of talking points at capcog.
is that available for people who would like to write letters so they can get their information straight?
>> we can probably provide that information on the impact locally.
we can provide that.
>> has the Commissioners court seen that?
>> I haven't seen it.
>> I don't think the one-pager is out there yet.
we did pry to modify the presentation that ms. Boyd made last week to the court and they she has made to the capcog executive committee so we could sort of distill down to its high points.
but we have not done any further distillation.
>> there was a document that betty said had been generated by another group.
she did give us that one.
I thought y'all had that.
it's a very concise break down of the entire picture of the state.
and that is a one had ever pager but I think that you could also do a one-pager for the local, than would be good too.
she did provide that to us, judge, and I'll get that to you.
>> danny, when the members of the Travis County legislative delegation want to know where the court stands?
>> yes, they would.
>> you know, woo e believe there would be some value to the members of the appropriations and finance committees knowing that as well, which is the purpose of the letter that is the action item on this topic, judge.
>> that is what I had in mind.
we don't have that letter before us.
>> yes, it's right here.
>> you do.
and you have the slide presentation behind it.
this breaks out the local stuff.
>> similar situation being experienced in the other counties?
the ten county region, of course in the capcog situation.
I'm beginning to wonder this, the other Commissioners courts or other elected persons via state representatives, senators of that particular area, are they being contacted and brought on board?
since it seems to be, which it is a very critical thing.
my concern is the collaborative effort through the ten county region.
>> yes, sir.
again, the executive committee of capcog will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the reductions because we are required by the state to submit a reduced budget before April 1.
this will be discussed by the entire region tomorrow.
there was a work session last week in which this information was presented.
also brought the community in for questions and to prepare for tomorrow's discussion.
so yes, sir, the information is out there.
>> thank you.
>> I would like to say one little thing and then I'll be quiet.
yesterday when I spoke to the senate finance committee, the approach that I used was that I did not want one dime taken away.
I wanted it all to be fully funded.
so I was speaking on behalf of Travis County and I told them all about Travis County and why it was so important for us and how we started back with radio communications and all that.
the main point was give us our full founding--funding.
do not reduce our funding whether enwe know reare generating that revenue.
and the taxpayer and person paying the fee is paying or tha.
>> did they give you a standing ovation.
>> it was a very moving moment, judge.
>> I move the approval of the letter.
>> any discussion on the motion?
have you all seen the letter from the chief of police of Lakeway?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you, ms. Jennings.
you're always walk to the Travis County Commissioners court.
>> always a pleasure.
>> with our without ms. Boyd, who has joined us.
>> thank you.
>> next item, judge, is house bill 628 which is bill related to purchasing and contracting by the state.
our purchasing agent, cyd grimes is here to speak to the court about some concerns with the bill.
it is our recommendation that we neither support or oppose the bill but send a letter to the chairman of the committee and author of the bill, letting them know that we oppose as filed and would like to work with him on improving the legislation if we can.
I'll let cyd visit with you about that.
>> good morning, cyd grimes, purchasing agent.
>> good morning.
>> also serve as legislative cochar for text public purchasing association and before that I was the legislative chair for the Texas county perfecting association.
this--perfecting association.
this--purchasing association.
this bill goes backs six sessions, each session introduced legislation that effects the way we deal with trects and engineers--trects and engineers.
it was a bad bill then and it is now.
some of the things it does to us are very concerning.
one of the big problems, with me a bunch of problems. One of the things, if you have a contract that was a million dollars or less and you increase it, you cannot increase a million dollar contract by more than 25 percent.
when we are in a construction project, if we have unforeseen damages or we want to modify that, what that potentially does it would end our project, we couldn't complete our project, and it doesn't say how would we go about getting the construction completed.
it also starts to pass risk on to the county tax payers.
it wants us to provide threck --intellectual property rights on their designs.
they are asking in some instances if they submit a proposal, that we pay a stipend for that.
argued against that last time.
that is the cost of doing business.
if we let the a and es get paid, every contractor is going to want to get paid for submitting proposals.
that is bad business across the board.
it limits our ability to participate cooperative process when selecting construction management risk.
it says that we have no say in who the subcontractors are in some of our alternative procurement methods.
that is an issue.
we should have the right to know who is working on our projects.
and we should have a say in the ownership of those projects.
we can support, let's see, also messing with our job order contracting which has saved us so much time in getting projects done.
and also allows us to have some negotiations in what those services will be.
they are trying to limit that.
to sum it up, we could help support this bill, and I have worked with that committee over the years, and I'm surprised they didn't get our input before they submitted, but we could work with them.
but they need to delete the sections that limit our ability to participate in cooperative purchasing in selecting subcontractors.
they need to delete the section dealing with interlocal cooperatives agreements that restrict us from entering into those for construction services.
they need to delete the risk they are trying to shift though us and ultimately the tax payers and delete the creation of intellect shall property rights.
several things in a nutshell we have been opposing this bill I think the last six sessions.
so we are willing to work with them but we oppose it.
facilities management and the county attorney and someone els.
>> tnr.
>> might have some further comments.
as it is written now--
>> where is the bill now?
>> pardon?
>> where is the bill now?
>> it is pending in the house government efficiency and reform committee.
>> ironically.
it is in the government efficiency and reforms committe.
>> I move approval of the letter of concern to representative caligary.
>> anymore discussion on the motion?
do you know where the other urban counties are on this?
>> I have had calls from the conference of urban counties and Texas association of counties, city of el paso, harris county, my association, cities, our group now includes cities, school districts, special entities.
all of us have the same concern.
>> pac and the cuc are opposing the bill as drafted.
but as cyd pointed out there's a much broader coalition with the municipals, school district, anybody who does public purchasing is concerned about the implications of this legislation.
>> this letter we believe is in opposition, I see where, it says to provide opposition of this bill as it is written.
to provide opposition of this bill?
>> we therefore cannot support the bill as drafted.
>> it offers, you know, me up--
>> we are offering up cyd as sacrificial.
>> anymore discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
anything further?
>> judge and Commissioners, I just spoke with betty in the hall.
in regards to the letter, there's just a few changes that we'd like to make in it before you actually sign it.
one of them has to do with the fact that we mentioned here we request you allocate.
it really should say we request ccec allocate the $20 million.
we would also like to change the 28 percent to 26 percent because that was quoted yesterday at the hearing.
then also take out where it says diverse 9-1-1 revenue to a dedicate fund for other uses, we need to take out for other uses and just put a period after fund.
because it's not really diverting.
they are just actually moving the money into the dedicated fund.
with those corrections--
>> what they are doing is taking the money, putting it into the fund, they are not appropriating all of it, and they are using the balance that they maintain in the fund in order to help certify that the budget is balanced.
that is the problem we're having.
there's plenty of money to provide these services in the fund.
but the state is also trying to use this to help balance the budget.
>> and the fee will still be collected os steps bring doste--ostensibly for the services but in unail dated reserve.
>> any objection before signing the letter sph.
>> thank you.
>> we'll bring the revised draft back as soon as possible.
that is really my business for today, judge.
we have no proposals to change the legislative agenda.
we will probably have some next week to reflect the positions that the court took today, but we have no proposed change to the legislative agenda.
so that is it for item number 2.
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, March, 2011 2:19 PM
