Travis County Commssioners Court
January 7, 2003
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 1
1. Review and take appropriate action on resolution to work with legislative
representatives in support of protecting all funds generated for 9-1-1 service.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> I would like to -- if I could -- give you a brief summary
of why I think it's important that we review and approve this resolution that
directs staff to -- to work with legislative representatives in support of
protecting all funds generated for 911 service. We have decided that it's
in our best interests, meaning folks that I serve on the 911 task force with
capco that we send a message to our representatives that stress to them the
importance of maintaining the focus of spending 911 service fees on 911 service.
And that we also want to stress that we look at the allocation of how it is
disbursed back to the cogs, the councils of governments, including the one
that we serve in, which is capco. And that we let them know that in Travis
County, in our region, that -- that we have needs today and we will have greater
needs tomorrow in regards to 911 service. And so it's important to us that
we look at every revenue source that we can to maintain and provide to our
citizens the best possible 911 service. Now, in Travis County we are part
of a coalition that has been working for some 8 years that will end and go
active this October. And with that sophisticated 911 network, that's something
that you will see in this resolution is that we want the state to look again
at what you can spend 911 service fees on and that the 911 network is really
the network that provides the 70s, not just the -- provides the service, not
just the answering point. Right now the definition is that you can spend the
911 service fee up to the answering point. Of course we believe that it goes
far beyond that. And we have spent quite a bit of money to build this network
because we feel like this network will provide the best possible service to
our citizens. So what you see here in this particular resolution is just simply
directing staff to go and give a message and talk with our representatives
and as I'm speaking to you today, there have been other counties within our
region that have passed similar resolutions. And they are going to go speak
to their representatives with this same message that I have outlined here.
In fact, we are willing to talk with one another and go and talk as a group
and that's something else that you see in this resolution is that we want
to work with our partners and -- in conveying this message and not just be
alone, but convey it as a full region. So I'm hoping that you will consider
the things that are written in this resolution and that you will direct me
as well as some others to go and talk to our representatives.
>> dan, with you explain to me the difference between designated
home rule recipient of 911 surcharge moneys and what we are doing here. What
is the difference? An example I think maybe like -- maybe like a [inaudible]
or whoever might be doing it as far as the designated home rule, has been
designated home rule for receiving money. What is the difference in that?
Here we're trying to decide, looking at surcharge moneys that we will receive
based on land line cell phone use, 911 fees to deal with infrastructure problems.
However, the funding here is -- it's varying and has varied from last fiscal
'02 and then projected '03. There's a difference in the amount of money that
Travis County is receiving. Of course what they designated home rules city
that comes in, what would be the variance -- what's the difference? Can you
explain that to me?
>> i'll try. There are actually three different distinctions
in regards to 911 service. The first one is what you call an emergency communications
district. And we were actually part of an emergency communications district
back in 1981. We joined with the city of Austin.
>> okay.
>> and it was for the provision of 911 service. They created
these districts. So that's one area. And a district is usually and normally
an association with more than just one city or town. It's a group. Home rule
city is simply a city. For instance, corpus christi, you gave that example.
>> that example, right.
>> they made the decision to become a district, as it turns
out now, they have made the decision to be a home rule city. That has to do
with population and that has to do with the city that designated not just
population, but they made the decision that based upon their needs, that they
needed to become a home rule city, which would allow them to be independent
of the state plan and would allow them to generate a fee, which they cull
a service fee -- which they call a service fee and that the moneys that would
be generated off of that fee would come directly back to corpus and that it
would be providing the service that they feel are necessary for 911 services.
Then you have the councils of governments, which are cogs, which is what we
are part of. We made the decision to join a cog and join other counties and
work as a regional region to provide 911 service. So those are your three
basic areas.
>> okay. I guess my point was receiving -- assess a fee independently,
but also receiving the amount of money that you feel you should be getting,
even though I know we are part of this cog, and ied in its resolution as far
as what we are trying to do. But I guess my point is to ensure that we get
our fair share, get the mopes that I think should be -- get the moneys that
I think should be redistributed. Apparently it hasn't been happening adequately,
I think, and of course this is supposed to direct us and hopefully get us
in that direction. But of course we really don't know if it's going to have
an impact or not. But it is a step in the right direction, I think.
>> is capco aware of this resolution?
>> yes, sir, they are. In fact they've reviewed it and --
as well as the other resolutions in the other counties.
>> okay.
>> my own view is that -- that a request to get full reimbursement
and full return won't get far this session. However, a listing of critical
services that will go unfunded without a full return will give us a better
shot, I think, at being persuasive. In the end it is not simply that we want
all of our money back. There are really critical services that will not get
funded without the money.
>> exactly.
>> I think we have to make sure that that point is made.
This will not be the first session that we want to make the argument. Right
now that money goes to a commission, part of it is taken off to fund the commission,
the commission staff, really part of the money, I guess, is used for other
state purposes.
>> yeah, but --
>> but it seems to me in this region, especially with the
new project coming on board, they really need as much as we can get to implement
critical 911 components that are not only important in Travis County, but
to the region. I think our focus has to be rereally need the money to fund
urgent parts of 911 services.
>> in a way it's an unfunded mandate for us to continue adding
this need here and it's also, feels like a robinhood plan as well. And it
also feels like we are paying state income tax to provide the state with some
money for their projects. So I mean I don't -- it doesn't sound like we need
to give up our efforts to get out of that coalition? Maybe this isn't the
year for it. But --
>> this isn't the year for it, I agree, because I think there
are some needs out there. But I see this as kind of like what was going on
with the gasoline tax with Texas being a donor state to the rest of the nation,
which, you know, is wonderful, but we deserve to have the same rate of return
back in terms of the 91 cents imawrn teed back -- guaranteed back to the state
as opposed to being a donor state to other places. In this particular case,
not only has the judge made of point of are there things that might go undone,
it would be the local property tax dollars, pairs, who are already payers
who are already paying through their phone bill. We are being double taxed
for it. What we are asking for is to be treated like every other major urban
county and city, having, you know, the expenses that we need related to 911
funded by the fee that is collected by this through our phone bills, so --
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> just one more point, judge, before we go forward. Is there
any way possible after hearing what -- what has been discussed here this morning,
to ensure that we get the kind of return, I think, that we need to get in
that there may be shortfalls in services depending on this kind of return
of reimbursement from this money, is there some way that we can get close
to getting maximum return, maybe not this session, but something in the future
that we can look at, I think, to head in that direction. Are you looking at
that possibility, also?
>> oh, yes, sir.
>> okay. I wanted to make sure of that because we need to
move forward. That's my only comment. Thank you.
>> would we be in any situation -- better situation if weapon
weren't part of the cog.
>> yes.
>> do we have the complete, you know, independent autonomy
to -- to remove ourselves or to -- I don't know what the mechanism there is
that just a matter of saying --
>> lawsuit, I think.
>> corpus needed a lawsuit to get out --
>> there are steps that would need to be taken and of course
as commissioner Sonleitner just mentioned, we are not at that point to where
I can sit here and tell you exactly what steps we are going to take in the
future. But there definitely needs to be some steps taken. We are the only
urban county in the state that is not either a home rule city or a communications
district.
>> right.
>> and again, we are looking at it, I think, as Travis County.
And our region as our needs, our needs are here. So we are not just asking
for money. We are asking -- we have a need and so the revenue will assist
that need. So I think there are some -- some definitely some step that's we
need to take. I think there are some -- some folks that we need to work with.
Starting with our legislative representatives. And send a message out that
-- that first of all we have to protect 911 service fee.
>> right.
>> and so I think there's some things that we need to do.
Now, I do want to also mention, for this particular time, that the resolution
does state that we want to support the capco budget plan. We want to support
the commission's budget plan because they are indeed asking for money beyond
their normal basic budget appropriation. So we all want to send the same message
to our legislative folks and to the state and that is that we wish to use
911 service fee revenues for 911 service. There are some needs that are there
for that. And so I think the -- if we can all send the same message, the other
counties can send the message to our representatives, I think you are going
to see those things happen that you are talking about that need to --
>> [inaudible], within corpus, of course looking also here
at Austin, has there been any communication with the city of Austin maybe
looking at the possibility of home rule? What [inaudible]
>> we tried that for two sessions. We already have.
>> of course, there -- yes, I recently visited with -- with
corpus, as a matter of fact yesterday I spoke with a gentleman from corpus
in regards to how they were doing, they have now been in this for about a
year. And how they were doing and what they were having to do in order to
adjust and change from being a part of a cog to a home rule city. I spoke
with the city of Austin and of course the city of Austin is in our region,
so therefore they are putting together a resolution just like we are.
>> okay.
>> and we plan on having some talks in regards to -- to going
to our legislative folks and -- and talking with them about -- about this
particular resolution and the elements that are there, but also even beyond
that. So, yes, discussions have started.
>> okay, thank you.
>> it seems to me that we need a document that sets out three
or four things and we will need a session with our legislative folk to direct
them what to work on. And if this is part of the package, we need to let them
know specifically. But it seems to me that -- that we need to set out all
of the things that we need to do under 911. Then that would be those for which
we have funding, then there is a source of funding, that shows what's lacking.
Then the question is how critical are those pieces? You see? And then the
question is the only way for us to fund those, as far as I know, would be
real property tax revenue.
>> uh-huh.
>> then I think that when we compare the funding that we
get, how we spend this and -- it really is a lot more limited based on commission
rules, we compare that to what the other urban counties can do with their
funds, you really can see the contrast.
>> shocking.
>> yeah.
>> but the unfairness, I think, is probably argument number
three or four. You know the inability to fund critical 911 services at this
point I think is probably a lot more important than us going over and making
the argument that the other urban counties are treated one way and we are
treated another. I would make the argument, but I would not start off with
that. I would start off with here's the funding necessary, here's what we've
got, here's what we're putting in locally, here's what we're getting from
the surcharge and -- and the problem with this is that the state has been
taking this money and really controlling it for how many years? Seven?
>> '88.
>> yeah.
>> since '88, I believe.
>> '88.
>> 15 years, that's a long time. But -- so we will need this
back on at this point?
>> yea, that's fine. The other thing that I remember in our
discussion with them last time, that they were trying to address towers and
the calling from some of the desolate areas. I wonder if that is still on
their list of priorities or maybe they have found some new information that
if they put towers out there it will still be dead or maybe that's not an
area to put towers in.
>> are you talking about call boxes?
>> maybe it isn't something they are concentrating on because
of research they have done. Do we know?
>> no. That's one of the reasons why I'm anxious to start
talking to some of our representatives --
>> okay. We need an update on that whole, their priorities
to see if that's still workable. If not, then it will loosen up some money
for 911.
>> the way this this resolution is written, it's for the
protection of the cog, this is the way the cog would like it because the cog
would like to keep every cent coming into the region, which is not necessarily
in the best interest of Austin and Travis County.
>> uh-huh.
>> and we have been able to build a very good basic infrastructure
in a 13-county region, but we are at a point now where they need to move on
and we need to move on because the local property taxpayers are having to
foot the bill on these and being double taxed through their phone bill.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM