Travis County Commssioners Court
December 31, 2002
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.
Item 19
19 was consider county actions negotiation to complete draft legislation on hospital district, request for funding and related matters and take appropriate action. Last week we did discuss a couple of changes that we were advised were made in response to [inaudible] that we gave at a meeting prior to last week involving the oversight committee that would have the authority to basically veto some board actions. In my view, that's what we should do today. I did find the e-mail I got on the funding. I don't know -- I mean, that will be postponed until later on. But I do think they want us to move one way or the other on this draft bill. The way this moves through the legislature, I assume there will be other opportunities for us to refine this in response to comments, objections, et cetera. [multiple voices]
>> will this come back to us? Because there are other things in there -- I guess I need to figure out what's -- some of this stuff that's in there, what is going to happen to our rural clinics. You know, that's something that, you know, because it does speak of things as far as --
>> it generally speaks of --
>> you know, talk about the -- facilities. I know we have rural clinics. And [inaudible] the commitment from the v.a. Hopefully, there's still a question in my mind --
>> I don't know one way or the other. We have five. The city has what, seven?
>> can you --.
>> let me first clarify what I think is being asked. You are not being asked to approve the bill. What I was asked to present to you so far have been three things. One, that we voted on in the past was the makeup of the district -- the appointees from the county and the city and the board. And then two items, if you didn't pick them up last week when I was out sick, two items. The advisory board, and this is partially in response to your comments, commissioner, where one of the -- the elected relationship to the board and the two items are to add an advisory committee that would be composed of two "pointies from the commissioners court from your body, two appointees from the city council, and if any other counties get in, one appointee from each of those county's commissioners court. And that advisory body by the statute, by the bill, would have two primary duties. One, veto any tax rate. In other words, their approval would be required of any tax rate set by the district board. And two, to call unilaterally have the power to call a dissolution election. Those are the only two things that are being asked. They are not asking you to approve the bill itself. There will be a process or still input to come in as it goes through -- as the final draft comes out. I just received a draft yesterday that's got these last changes tonight. For the city clinics, the last I heard is they were in, but there's not a requirement I think that they mandate it be in. But I can't speak to the county ones.
>> I need to hear about --
>> again, we're not asking for that approval today, but we can go ahead and get a response to it.
>> okay.
>> good morning. There are flex bilts that are written within this bill so that the design itself can be determined later on. And what this bill does is just give the local entities, in this case the city and the county, the flexibility to design it as they want.
>> it doesn't make you do it, but if all parties agree, it's an option to do.
>> if either government entity would like to do that.
>> yes.
>> how many claims does the city have?
>> seven, I think.
>> seven? At the appropriate time, I guess we would look at what they do with our seven and look at our five. I think you are looking at legislation, you are looking at deciding whether or not to, in fact, go to voters. And as a court, we make that decision for ourselves.
>> right.
>> then you decide even if you pish it to voters, the voters have to decide whether to vote it up or down. So there are a lot of steps that have to be made before we reach the decision of what health facilities do we transfer to the district. You know, those clinics really embodied a substantial financial commitment for the county. Someone has to meet that one way or the other. If the district is created and has an independent tax base, taxing authority, then the question is what financialability do they have to deliver health care in our community. You know, that's got to be factored in. At some point health care in the corrections system is kind of a big deal as well as mental health. So --
>> i've got a -- I'm sorry, judge.
>> so the legislation really is intend to do contain general authorization.
>> yes.
>> for us to put in place the health care/hospital district if we choose to proceed.
>> that's correct, judge. There are things in the bill that require turning over, like the budgets from the city and the physical facilities, the hospital, if it's all approved in election. The clinics, as I understand, are not required to be turned over, but they may be if the parties agree.
>> that's the way I understand it.
>> there are various options on how to design it, and the bill was written very flexible so we can have those discussions and make those decisions later on.
>> our clinics have a health part and a human services part. The health care district, hospital district will not provide human services, right?
>> no.
>> so we have the clinics one way or the other anyway.
>> we have the facilities one way or the other.
>> right.
>> and actually, the question I was going to ask david, especially with us building the two new facilities, and that is out of the box.
>> well, I want to maintain an open mind about what the best approach would be because if it's going to be developing as we go along, then that tells me that a lot of doors need to be left open for discussion.
>> I think we're all reserving final judgment until we get to that point where we're trying to build it.
>> I don't want to shut any doors.
>> declared this thing [inaudible] yet. David -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> david, I just wanted to make sure that I understand as far as the direction. Because one of my main -- not main, there are a lot of concerns I have about this, but one of the things I was trying to land on, of course, was the taxing implication and who would have the authority to levy [inaudible] taxes. That was the approach. The answer to this is, as far as what you complained to me, and go through that again because I want to make sure that I understand exactly, because there have been -- still some fine-tuning that needs to be done.
>> the most recent version that i've looked at has the district, if approved, if the legislature approves it, if the voters approve at the referendum, the district board, and that's the board that's got the appointees, the non-elected appointees, that district board has the power to set a tax rate. The tax rate cannot exceed whatever was set at the election. There's a cap rate set on the tax rates. They set that tax rate. But there is an addition, an advisory board that's created by the legislation, and that is the commissioners court and the city council appointee members that are appointees, and one of their powers, other than just general advice with the district board, is to have the pow?ixe&? power to veto any tax rate. In one section, that's their authority to veto a tax rate. In the legislation specifically that talks about the power the district board to set a tax rate, it says that any tax rate they set has to be approved by the advisory body. While in one case it says veto, what it really means is no -- the way I read it, no stacks rate set by the -- tax rate set by the district board is valid unless also approved by the advisory board. And actions of the advisory board are required a two-thirds vote.
>> and the advisory board is made up of elected officials of --
>> two of you, two of the city council, and if there's another -- any other county involved, one of that commissioners court.
>> okay. And also the power to dissolve.
>> that's correct.
>> is that correct?
>> that is the second power they've got.
>> that is the second power. Okay. I want to make sure I understand.
>> you've got that.
>> and my last question on this, this particular document, and as I stated before, there's still some ambiguity in here, is there a draft that's more current than what we have here now?
>> I'm not sure which one you've got. The one I received yesterday was the first one I received in a few weeks, I believe. At least two weeks. And the only change that I'm aware right now that it's got in it is is my last review, I had found that when you look -- call for the election, the whole procedure for calling for an election, the petition, that they've got built-in times. An election can't be held less than 30 days after the petition has been received, that type of language that when I sat down and started doing the math, I had to sit down and advice judge herman, the way I saw it, assuming the bill has an effective date of September 1st like most of them generally do, that there wasn't enough time if it had an effective date then for a petition to come in and election to be called to make the November election date. So I told judge herman and he said that wasn't really the intent. The version I received yesterday has some comments out from the committee that tell me this is response to that and it's to address that to allow the election to come in next November, assuming it passes the legislature.
>> the number as far as the petition, the person that has to actually sign the petition is [inaudible].
>> I don't think that's changed. I don't believe -- that wasn't the intent to change any of that. It was just to make it clear that it is possible mathematically to still have a November election.
>> okay. And my final question is -- that's why I asked is there a more recent draft, because even the judge come in on the oversight committee versus the advisory committee. You know, it's almost like two separate and distinct things, and then some other modifications as far as --
>> and that's one of the reasons --
>> I don't know -- I don't understand.
>> that's why, in my discussions at the last executive committee meeting I went to, the last committee meeting I went to, I sat down with the city and said are we being asked to approve the bill or these specific concepts? And the city informed me that they were going to take it as they were being asked to approve these specific concepts. Those were the board makeup, the veto authority, and the dissolution. And it's my understanding that's what they approved. That's the way I understand here, no one is asking to you lock yourselves in and approve a certain version of the bill. There's still work to be done. And hopefully we're refining that, but there's still the opportunity in the legislature, hopefully we'll all come to agreement where it won't be great surprise that we're all consistent and agree on the basic core parts of this legislation.
>> thank you.
>> judge aleshire taught me well. In terms of being overly picky, on -- I'm on page 8, talking about the [inaudible] and the council shall appoint two themselves of the oversight committee. It seems like we need to word each because that could be international to mean -- interpreted to mean the two bodies would elect and that's certainly not the intent.
>> i'll pass that on. [audio difficulties].
>> you need your microphone, darling.
>> thank you. The things I noticed is that this is a draft done by the committee, and with the rules of the house and senate, all bills have to go to legislative council. It's going to change in wordsmithing, but i'll make sure it -- it doesn't hurt to make it absolute clear.
>> and under c., It talks about the committee shall meet at least one time annually and members shall call a meeting. That was vague to me. Normally when you are talking about meetings involving elected officials, there are posting requirements, notification, where would people post agendas, those kinds of things, and I'm just saying I understand this is a broad concept, but that's something that needs to be noted for later. That needs to be a whole lot more specific when you are talking about meetings involving --
>> actually on that, commissioner, what you are referring to, and you are absolutely correct, is open meetings act. But that oversides all laws, and that will say, for example, for the posting, that -- in that separate law, depending on what type of governmental body you are. So it's already applies here. It will be good for people to understand that when it comes through that those laws apply and here's how it specifically applies to this body. But they don't need to -- for that purpose you don't need to re-create that in every legislation that creates a body. It's already there and applies.
>> it's still not clear to me reading that that we mean elected officials, appointing elected officials. Shall each appoint two of its members to the oversight committee. That clarifies it that it's elected officials.
>> i'll take care of that. There's another thing that comes from from time to time that I haven't told them about, just to tell you, there's another issue that comes up at common law when new bodies are created that are going to have elected officials on it, so you are not dual office holding.
>> doctrine of incompatibility.
>> the way you get through that is we say your service on this board is part of your duties as a commissioner. It's an additional duty. That way you are not serving at another officer, you are still a commissioner on the board. That's something I intend to do sit with them and say let's build that in.
>> that was my last point.
>> that came up with capital metro before.
>> and certainly with campo, it's in the legislation as well that we can serve on campo. Okay.
>> any additional questions? Can we vote on the -- did we vote on the one before?
>> yes, you did.
>> so before us now is the advisory committee?
>> that's correct. .
>> its powers and duties.
>> generally two.
>> that we discussed today. And what else?
>> that's all I have.
>> okay. So we're working from I guess the draft [inaudible].
>> I think that's correct.
>> within the last couple weeks.
>> and that has the -- the language you are referring to hasn't changed with regard to the advisory body that you are approving.
>> but I think real real soon we'll get an updated draft. Any more discussion of what we're asked to do today?
>> judge, I do have a question. How do we address 19 and separate out some of the language in 19, like requests for funding and related matters? Why --
>> we can have separate -- a, b, c, d.
>> so basically what we would be doing today is consider county actions necessary to create draft legislation on hospital districts. That's really all we're doing today.
>> looks like what we're doing today is just indicating our position on the oversight committee language with the comments that were made taken into account.
>> yeah, I just don't want to see us get in a situation where somebody says, well, you basically okayed that and in the request for funding and related matters were part of that language.
>> commissioner, what I see is you are not adopting the item that's posted there. You are adopting to judge Biscoe's specific motion. That's what you are acting on.
>> just for the future, judge, if we can include, instead of this hospital district, put health/hospital district.
>> I think we can get the committee to address that. It makes sense to me to refer to it as health care. That recommendation came in an e-mail that I saw. It made sense to me. It looked like a whole lot of people had been --
>> talking about that, yes. I think-ee.
>> I think we should ask the committee to address that.
>> I didn't catch the first part.
>> health/hospital district. Because to me the health district is broader.
>> we'll certainly pass that back, commissioner, but here's what I have heard the biggest argument against that was. It's nothing in terms of ideology or the concept behind it, it's the idea that hospital districts, they are a specific animal that's been created in the legislature. There's a lot of law that goes with them. They've been created, and what other wooer doing is tie to go specific language chapters we're taking language from and trying not to create some new special animal that someone might be arguing is different from any other. It's a hospital district. We may name it whatever we want to, but legally the term would be -- it is a hospital district. We may call it Travis County hospital/health care district, but in the term of our -- legal term of what it is, they are trying to keep it as much as they can to a hospital district, much like chapter 281, 286. And they don't want to change. The least they change, the easier they believe it will be to pass the legislation and the less problems they will get later on dealing with this entity and what is it.
>> what about the discussion that this is going to be a unique district?
>> and I think -- there was that discussion, and I think that the people that are in charge of this, you all included, is to try to draw that balance in between. But i'll pass that back to them. That's the argument i've heard back.
>> I think a uniqueness is in the way this particular bill is designed, giving the local entity a lot more flexibility than is -- what is it 281?
>> so thereby it's the general consents, and then -- concepts, and then we'll make it unique.
>> by tayloring it to what exists locally. And also relative to thelt district versus the hospital district -- [inaudible].
>> I know there was a -- [multiple voices]
>> it's a merger kind of way. It's a unique one. We're creating our own chapter, but everything we take, we're trying to take either from 281 or 286.
>> there was something in the newspaper talking about concepts they are trying to talk about going through the state legislature about getting more money. I think that's one of the concerns. If we're not called something that everybody else recognizes, let's say for example they pass a sales tax increase for hospital districts. We would have to fight every single time to say include us too because we're really kind of like a hospital district. So I think they are trying to be not so much the exception. The -- be exceptional, but not the exception is what I'm trying to --
>> so this shouldn't have an effect on the conversation about uniqueness.
>> exactly.
>> as far as this is concerned, I guess you need to let folks [inaudible] that we're looking at here before we can go forward with the concept. And that's the merger between the 281 and also the 286 is sort of a hybrid.
>> that's exactly --
>> both of those. Not exclusively a 286, but again, not exclusively a 281.
>> we cherry-pick the best parts of the committee and everyone involved from 281 and 286 hybrid chapter.
>> the motion is to indicate our [inaudible] to include in the draft legislation the language contained in section 1.011 titled advisory committee, com which basically authorizes the creation of an oversight committee made up of two members from the commissioners court and two members from the Austin city council to serve as additional duties that basically sets forth the duties of the oversight committee. And the general language in a, b, c and d, incorporating the comments that the commissioners court made today. And the second part of the motion is the language under article 4, section 4.001, entitled dissolution, which basically authorizes the oversight committee or advisory committee.
>> that's correct.
>> to entertain dissolution.
>> that's correct.
>> including any appropriate language, and we understand we'll have the opportunity to review another draft soon.
>> that's correct.
>> second.
>> questions, clarification?
>> david, related to the dissolution, I'm on page 22, it talks about it has to be signed by 5% of the registered voters in the district. Is that a standard kind of a test as opposed to tying it to 5% of the people that voted in the last whatever? I mean, sometimes there are different standards related to petition drives.
>> tied to a governor's election.
>> a great deal of sensitivity in this community because we've had to go through petition drives related to what was the true intent of how many signatures needed to be collected. I'm just asking is this what they meant? Because that could be a whole lot [inaudible].
>> I don't know the answer to your question. Here's what I believe. I'll find out, but here's what I believe it is. I believe this dissolution chapter that the judge has just cited comes from this standard 281 or 286. And that petition requirement. The advisory committee separately is in an earlier section but refers to that dissolution only in the way that it says the advisory committee can call -- one of their powers is they can call an election for dissolution. So instead of the petition, the advisory -- if you want to dissolve the district, there are two ways to do it. You get that petition or the advisory committee by two-thirds majority calls an election to dissolve. One of those two will call the election. I will find out for you whether the language -- that percentage there, that standard is straight from current existing hospital district or if not where it was taken from and the rationale for that.
>> secondly, it doesn't say anything about these being valid signatures. Who would have the responsibility of validating this? Because this is not an entity of the city council, this is not an entity of Travis County, so who would be in charge of that? How long would they have to respond? I mean, it's like having gone through now incorporation things, we've learned to ask about these questions about petitions and whether somebody can supplement or not or how long they are valid for or not and who is going to do all of this, because as the city council discovered, that was a very expensive proposition to validate petitions [inaudible].
>> i'll find out what I believe it is the district's responsibility and the clerk. It would be an expensive proposition. I would imagine they would look at us and. [multiple voices] and not clear that's our responsibility, but i'll look into that as well.
>> and before we move forward Tuesday, [inaudible] legislature and things of that nature, when will we be exposed to the modifications that have been suggested here today? I know it's a general approach, but apparently there's going to have to be some more tweaking before we go forward. I guess I would like to see what that final version looks like. With all the comments we've had here, the modifications suggested by all of us, it appears that before we go forward --
>> I don't know, commissioner. Here's what I can -- can add. Of course, there's not any -- any legislative -- member of the house or senate has the right to file any bill, there's not a requirement they get approval from either board. But you will commission this task force to come up with legislation. And so I will pass to its chair that you all would like to see before they take some final action -- I know they've already started talking to the legislature. I don't know what status it is and what a bill that's being worked on now, what the status might be. I would guess the council is backed up. They usually are when we get this late into the process. Butly find out for you what their intent was and I'm sure they intend to come get a final signoff from the commissioners and the city council this is the legislation. Their time frame, I don't know if they want to get the bill out of legislative council and before it's filed here it is, wow bless this. Or if they want to do something up front before they give to it legislative council somewhere in the middle. I'll have to find that out.
>> judge, I know -- I know you made a motion. I really wish you would accept it as a friendly --
>> accept what as a friendly?
>> as far that is this coming back to us with all the modifications. I think there's a lot of things you brought up, that I brought up, several things that was brought up with this version, I wouldn't feel very comfortable with this being the last version I see. Penning the modifications we have suggested this morning -- [inaudible].
>> requested we see it before we sign it.
>> the motion does that.
>> I didn't hear that. But [inaudible].
>> yeah, okay.
>> that's the way I understood the motion to be.
>> okay. Okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, david.
>> let's call back up item number 19. Regarding the hospital district.
>> david, my very quick question is on page 13 of the draft that I have it says that the clinics shall be conveyed to the district to be a part of the system. However, on the next page, it is on line 18, it says that the clinics shall be transferred -- they cannot be transferred without the consent of the governing body.
>> and the question is --
>> the question is --
>> was that clinic owned by a municipality or county that owned or transferred to the district a hospital or hospital system.
>> right.
>> and regardless whaf the answer to that is it's no need for that to be unclear. What I want to find out from them is is it your intention from that the number of clinics Travis County currently operates, is the intention in this legislation to be transferred or not automatically or after approval by all parties that want it.
>> and the second clarification is for us to have some better information related to some of these clinics that happen to be co-located in a county-owned facility related to the provision of human services about what was the intent there of severing a part of the building or all of the building. It creates some issues for us.
>> and the debt that goes along with it.
>> on page 9, david, you don't have the same version --
>> read me the section.
>> on page #- where it -- page 9 where it says Williamson county, it says [inaudible] and according to the population. I think they have three there. It should be two.
>> i'll confirm that that is right. I thought that was correct, three.
>> I thought that was correct.
>> three was the way I understood it to be, but --
>> a little more than 200,000 people.
>> right, but anything over gets you the next one. So it was zero to one -- one to two, anything over -- [multiple voices]
>> so the pencilled in version is --
>> the way I understand it right, is way my version says right now, it says if Williamson county, three additional directors. That was their intent.
>> so that was correct.
>> that is correct.
>> I wanted to make sure. Thank you.
>> thanks, judge. Sorry for that mixup.
>> further discussion about 19? There being no further business for the court today, move adjourn. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM