Travis County Commssioners Court
March 4, 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 31
On number 31 a and b there are a couple of matters that we need to be sure to cover today. 31 a is to discuss legislative issues, including proposed bill and take appropriate action. There is a list of bills, other bills that may be considered in response to action taken by the Texas legislature and take appropriate action. If I could just hurriedly go to 31 b. Various budget subcommittees are meeting at the legislature, and we did receive from jim rust the director of community supervision and corrections yesterday news that the proposed -- this 14 percent cut over a two-year period would mean a cut of some seven million plus dollars for him, and the question really is what impact does that have on our community. And so I suggest that we ask cscd to prepare an appropriate response so we can share that with the Travis County legislative delegation and the other legislators. The other thing is that if it has a dramatic impact on us, it seems to me that it will probably have a similar impact on the other counties of Texas and especially the urban counties. So in addition to the delegations, it seems to me that the elected officials ought to be urged to get engaged. I know cdc has been taking some action. Tac also. I don't think that's quite the same as having the elected officials themselves contact their delegations. So I wouldn't leave any of them out. And that's the appropriations bill. Next week we'll be sure to mention this particularly I think in the a part. I don't see it going away. The other thing is that as part of the same motion, we probably ought to ask health & human services to put together the kinds of resource document that shows what impact proposed cuts -- was it director edwards, is he the commissioner?
>> he's the commissioner of --
>> he prepared a document. I have not seen it, but we saw the highlights of it. And based on the highlights we will have a dramatic impact on Travis County, so we really ought to request that the same informational document be put together. One, we need to know what the impact will likely be.
>> as well as the public health side.
>> so the health & human services, public health, cscd, and for that matter, any of the other public safety departments. Even if they can't respond to our request that more funding be provided, I think they should know what impact these actions are likely to have.
>> jumg, there's already been some pretty decent e-mails going back and forth with the district judges and mr. Rust. And quite frankly, what is most frightening about this is what they are talking about is et cutting many of the diversion programs. And if people are diverted from jail, they don't wind up in your jail. So if these folks are still committing the same kinds of offenses and you don't have diversionary programs, they will wind up in our county jails and they will wind up in the state jails, and that. We've already got a jail overcrowding problem, but so do many other urban counties in the state. And there is -- this information about what is the population in the state prison, they've already started compressing those numbers about when they run out of space. So I think we just need to make sure that they understand this is a very expensive problem for counties if people start backing up in our jails.
>> okay.
>> judge, and this would obviously -- this was obviously in the appropriations committee, it looks like.
>> house finances is what we've got.
>> I certainly don't mind finding the time if we need to go over and testify. I mean, why mind going over either myself or on paf of the court or whatever.
>> I think that document is real important because by now I'm sure they're used to people screaming and hollering about things happening. But even if you take an objective look at it, I mean, you're talking about so many millions of dollars now, the impact is substantial. We need to quantify that in as many factual terms as possible. Once we do that, I do think we all need to try to use whatever resources we have over there. The other thing is that I think ms. Shields indicated to me yesterday that one of the finance subcommittees was meeting Wednesday of this week, so the sooner we get this document put together, the better. I know these departments have probably started working on something already. We need to start putting it in final shape. The motion is intended to say do the best you can almost within a 24 hour period because we need to start circumstance bait lating? That would be under 31 b. And next week we will have it listed specifically under will a. Any more discussion of that motion? And I have listed here. Cscd, health & human services, the other justice departments or justice and public safety departments. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>> any else under 31 a and b? No?
>> I'm with Travis County tnr. Should have in your legislative book two items at the very least from us. One is a draft letter as we discussed last week regarding clean air funding issues important to Travis County citizens. I have included a draft. We discussed a resolution versus a letter to our delegation. I believe the consensus was a letter to our delegation and that's what I attempted to draft there. Basically just highlighting in numerical order the key issues that we believe are central to be funded in order to save money in the long run and clean up the air. If you have any questions about that draft, I'm happy to answer them. I don't know if you've had a chance to read it.
>> I don't have it in my packet.
>> it should be under the tnr tab. It should be the very first thing. And it's all alphabetical in terms of your subject.
>> this is the -- this is what was in the resolution next week?
>> yes. Basically taking information from the Texas clean air working group, of which we are a basketball member, the statewide group had drafted a resolution. I took the key issues from that resolution that were really essential to Travis County. There's other issues that they are also working on, but based on a discussion I heard last week, these are the ones that really we essentially need, and we're asking that -- I envision a letter going to our delegation only. It's not going statewide. And maybe cc ago it to the house appropriations committee. They're in line with what tcog is asking.
>> you got it very focus as to the things that Travis County is needing as to opposed to the things that are really more relevant to other counties.
>> thank you.
>> and I did keep the sense of we're all one happy group working together. We mentioned we want funding for the non-attainment, houston, dallas, and the non-attainment areas. I tried to maintain the balance of we're all working together and seeking full and fair funding of the key word of the statewide ogram to help make sure that we all stay in atienment.
>> any changes recommended? Then I move approval of that letter.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> there's one other issue that we'd like to get started on. That is our version, the county's version of a cleanup bill of house bill 1445, we worked with the county attorney's office and got a version drafted. Fortunate unfortunately, it's not going anywhere else. The court has not authorized us to introduce this to the legislature. This would be on a parallel tract to efg else that is going on with regard to 1445. But it basically brings the city to statutory regulations with regard to subdivisions, and the counties closer together on key issues. And it's really -- I think it's a fairly benign bill, but it is totally separate from the senate bill 5 had 4, which is going in -- 544, which is going in a different direction.
>> even with the cleanup efforts of hb 1445, if house bill -- senate bill 544 passes, then what does that do to the status of hb 1445 with the subdivision regulations with the city of Austin or any other city in the county?
>> my understanding is that if senate bill 544 passes, then Travis County and perhaps bexar county would be subject to that new law as opposed to the former 1445. But if it does not pass, we still need some cleanup to house bill 1445 from two sessions ago. That's why we suggest a parallel track.
>> and I agree and I would move approval of -- give him instructions to bob cann to draft a bill for the cleanup of 1445.
>> I second that.
>> so we address in the bill or we're getting the bill filed and getting sponsors?
>> yes. It's already drafted.
>> that's a motion to basically get an appropriate bill filed and get sponsors to run with it.
>> I would envision at some point both bills would come together.
>> we need to share that with the persons that we met with to discuss the 1445 modifications.
>> we have done that.
>> okay. Any more discussion on commissioner Gomez's motion. That was a second to that, right? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>> and do we have follow-up action?
>> real quick. I'm just coming back today. You had already given me authority to come and draft a bill in regards to adding flexibility to our current definition of what you can spend on 911 service fees with regard to emergency services equipment. And so we did draft the bill. We did send it over. Bob sent it over to representative keel's office. They then in turn sent it over to the legislative council. The legislative council has now sent this back to us with any changes that we'd like to make. The only changes we would like to make are noted and that is on line 16 that under this subchapter, if the entire county is subject to this subchapter and has a population of at least 700,000, that bayway it breaks it down to basically Travis County. So I would like for y'all to consider this. Mr. Keel's office is ready to file this. It's our understanding that mr. Keel will sponsor this. So with y'all's approval, then I will move forward to having it filed.
>> I move that the proposed change be made.
>> second.
>> let me ask a question on that. What does this do with regards to the potentiality of a bracketed bill? I mean, if this only applies to Travis County, does that present a problem for us?
>> it shouldn't. Otherwise I think they would have --
>> but that's how you get nailed on a bracketed bill is you craft something so that it really means only one community and you got bigger and brighter mind over there. My experience over there is if you craft something so that it really just sort of singles one community or whatever out, that you could have some problems with it.
>> I think what makes his a little different is we are the only other community like this. All other urban counties are either home ruled cities or districts. I think that knocks that out.
>> in fact, we're bracketed out of having to share the benefits of what a home rule city and a district can do.
>> well, we can send in bracketed, unbracketed, whatever it is. If we can get it, do it. [ laughter ]
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously. Anything else under number 31 a and b? Okay.
>> what is it?
>> I don't know how much you know about this bill, but i've been asked to draft a bill that would do a fix on a current statute where last session we adopted or had passed some legislation that john day hill and I had worked on that would allow you to use the internet for collection of fees and fines and for providing information over the internet. There is a question that has come up about whether we could provide a service. Service was neglected from that. It wasn't the intent we had last time. Now it's more of an issue and so this makes it clear in the statute that we can also -- there's an authorized service that we provide and we can as well provide that over the internet. And provide -- charge a fee for that that's connected to the cost of that service.
>> move approval of the plan.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> I think we did what we could. Once we get those resource documents, I think we ought to get about the business of sharing them. And we probably will need that on the agenda for the next few weeks I think, maybe for the rest of the session. Anything else on 31 a and b? We will have it back on next week. That ought to be all of the business for the commissioners court today.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM