Travis County Commssioners Court
March 18, 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 38
Item 38.
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning,.
>> commissioners. I think bob is going to be joining us shortly. He was over at the capitol, so I expect that he will walk in in a minute. Let me start by making a couple of general remarks. I'm sure that many of you may have seen the news articles that suggested that there were many, many fewer bills being filed this session than the previous sessions. In deference many thoughts to the budget issues. As it turns out, there was a flurry of activity at the capitol last week. More than 1200 bills were filed last week. We have not managed to actually even read all of them yet. And in fact I read a story this morning that there are actually 21 more bills filed this session than last session. So we actually surpass ared last year's -- surpassed last year's total, which I think was really quite a surprise to everybody. But as a result of that, judge, we are sorting through all of the bills that got filed last week. The working group that has now moved its regular meeting on Friday to the conference room on your floor another in this building has actually been extremely productive. I think that system, let me just say, is working much better than it did last session and it's really come together, I think, very, very well. We are spending an hour or two reviewing bills, talking about bills and really assessing their impact on the county. I think some of those matters are going to get some discussion here because I see folks here I think want to bring some of those issues up before the court today. Let me just kind of conclude these opening remarks to say our focus continues to be first and foremost on budgetary impact of legislative action to the county. Let me just kind of publicly say that mr. Derry berry in your budget group and I think others helped him, have really done an excellent job, an outstanding job, from my perspective, in enabling us to help focus in on where some of the impact of the legislature's actions would directly affect the county. The house speaker, tom craddick, has announced that he pects the house appropriations bill to be on the house floor on April 8th. And in about three weeks. The bill that they are currently considering has had a number of newspaper articles written about it. They suggested, many of you are aware, broad and far-reaching reductions in expenditures for health and human service programs as well as a number of other programs that relate directly to the county budget in some form or fashion. For our purposes, we have been thinking about those as falling into two categories. Budget cuts, which the county might feel an obligation or a strong desire to make up the funding for if the state were to stop funding but for which the county does not have a legal obligation necessarily to fund and then in the second category, those budget cuts which would result directly in the county having to make up the difference for any number of reasons but primarily because of a statutory reason. For example, in -- every county is a little bit different, every region is a little bit different. The indigent health care act will require children who might have previously been on chips or medicaid who show up at the indigent care hospital in the county to receive services. My understanding generally is that the county is paying about a fourth of those costs, Travis County is paying about a fourth of those costs today. So we have attempted, your budget office has attempted to start putting pencil to paper with respect to some of those matters. My general sense, notwithstanding the rhetoric that surrounds the budget debate this year, is that the state will find significantly more money than is currently reflected in the version of the house appropriations bill that will be on the house floor. By that I do not necessarily mean a tax bill, but I do believe that there are a number of revenue raising measures that the legislature will consider closing the partnership tax franchise tax situation, for example, securizing tobacco settlement procedures. There are a number of other that's you may have read or heard about that collectively would put 3 to $5 billion of additional money on the table. If that were to happen, one of the first places likely to receive those dollars would be health and human service areas. So we have kind of a moving target in front of us right now, judge. It's very difficult for us to -- to give you good information about what the potential impact on the county might be. But that's the situation that we face. The last point that I would simply make is that with respect to the issue that's the court has identified as its priority issues, all of the bills that the court asked us to cause to be filed were in fact filed last week. We don't have again necessarily all that sorted out for you in terms of numbers and text, but they got filed, they got a spot. And so we are in the process of working on that. And then, judge, I would be happy to -- to go wherever you would like to go from this point in terms of questions or I think there may be some individual here who would like to bring matters to the court's attention.
>> kris, which we were last week for legislative luncheon, one of the things mentioned was ms. Strayhorn may be coming up shortly, soon, whatever, that there may be a new revenue estimate and that may make the situation worse or better or whatever, but there would be a new revenue number that could impact hb 1, do you have think information as to when she is going to be coming out with a revised estimate or if that indeed is the case?
>> I spoke with her office yesterday. Among other things about that issue and the answer is that she is not -- has not indicated any date by which such a revised estimate might occur. There are two completely conflicting pieces of information that are out there on this point. One is that in fact the -- the numbers, the actual numbers that were reported for sales tax revenues, et cetera, for this just concluded period were actually lower than what she had hoped or anticipated or projected. So that was very bad news, leaving many people to speculate that the revenue estimate might be revised downward. However, there was some -- some additional activity at the legislature last week which you may have seen in the newspaper, senator ogden sent a request to greg abbott, the attorney general, asking him to define the circumstances in which the legislature can in essence override the comptroller's revenue estimate and use its own revenue estimate for purposes of certifying a budget. That requires a four-fifths vote of the legislature and requires an emergency situation. Ogden was asking the attorney general to define emergency. The general feeling is that emergency is whatever the legislature says is an emergency. In any event the reason for that is that the lieutenant governor's office and others believe that the comptroller's revenue estimate may be 600 million or so low. Based on some projections that they have prepared. And they have been negotiating with her to raise the estimate by that amount according to the gossip or rumor mill around the capitol unsuccessfully. So this action is apparently related to that concern. Yes, sir?
>> can we answer this question. I guess last week, really trying to anticipate, I guess it's like a moving target, trying to anticipate the possible unfunded mandates that will be coming from the state. They go through this legislative process. And those unfunded mandates may have to be picked up by local governments, counties, cities, whatnot. Have there been any -- any efforts I guess to -- to categorize those? I mean there's a lot of bills that have been filed, of course, but -- but the county griez them to see -- categorize them to see where there may be a possibility of things not getting funded by the state as far as helping us, the counties and local governments, fund these things, where they won't be doing it in the future? Is there any way that we can track that to maybe anticipate what we will be looking at as we get ready for the appropriated budget process?
>> yes, sir, there has been at the local level here in Travis County a specific effort to try to figure that out. It has been very difficult.
>> I'm quite sure it is.
>> but your office has prepared a graph and a chart, your budget office, we have now a listing of all of the grants, for example, available to us that we are receiving from the state. And the information is continuing to be developed and continuing to be put in our hands. We are specifically planning to work with and have already talked to representative dawnna dukes who is on the appropriations committee to let her know that we are developing this information from the county and she has indicated her willing tons work with us and to -- willingness to work with us and to use to it help her be sensitive to those specific areas of budget cuts that will have the biggest impact on the county. So we are doing that, yes, sir. Let me also tell you, commissioner, that there have been a number of bills filed, including a constitutional amendment, which would prohibit the legislature from passing along unfunded mandates to units of local government. I would not give that legislation a huge chance of passage. But it certainly does have popular support around the capitol. I think it will get a hearing and I think it will receive, you know, pretty extensive discussion. I guess one of the key points that I think all of the units of local government are beginning the process of trying to make is that with all due respect to the legislature, it will not be a situation where they have avoided raising taxes if the net effect of their actions is essentially to force cities and counties to raise taxes to pay for services that the state used to pay for but no longer pays for. And that rhetoric and that discussion is beginning to be stated and to permeate a lot of what's being said around the capitol.
>> and school districts.
>> and school districts have historically been kind of the biggest place where that happens, commissioner. The problem with that theory this year is that everybody is at or near the $1.50 cap, so there is less room for school districts to raise, to make up the difference between what the state has done. Because the last two times this happened, the state essentially lowered its contribution to school districts dramatically. School districts responded immediately by raising local property tax rates. But that is much more difficult this time and it's exacerbated by the pend deans of a -- pendency of a lawsuit followed by the wealthy and poor school districts pending before the Texas supreme court. I have no idea when that decision might come out, I don't think during the legislative session, but maybe. At any rate that case is pending, anybody's bet how they will rule. But --
>> okay. [inaudible] come up on specific legislation so we can make sure we wealthy and school districts pending before the Texas supreme court. I have no idea when that decision might come out, I don't think during the legislative session, but maybe. At any rate that case is pending, anybody's bet how they will rule. But --
>> okay. Happened, the state essentially lowered its contribution to school districts dramatically. School districts responded immediately by raising local property taxny r pending, anybody's bet how they will rule. But --
>> maybe. At any rate that case is pending, anybody's bet how they will rule. But --
>> okay. [inaudible] come up on specific legislation so we can make sure we reach you.
>> judge dietz?
>> judge?
>> in light of all of the dire news about the economic situation, I'm hesitant to ask for your support. I think during a work session we had mentioned that the district judges had asked originally it was representative keel, but because his brother was appointed the district judge, he asked that representative stick has introduced a bill relating to the compensation of district judges in Travis County. And in essence, there's a statutory self-imposed cap with the supplement that the commissioners court provides the district judges, which is approximately $9,000 and what this bill would do would be to remove the cap and allow the county to supplement at whatever level the county saw fit. We really don't believe when they called and asked well what the economic -- what the fiscal impact was to the state, we said zero and what fiscal impact in the immediate future would be to the county, I believe is zero. But if the happy times ever do return, we would like to be in a position to come back and ask in light of the legislature not passing any pay raises for the last I believe seven years, to ask the county to increase its supplement. So what this really does is just to remove the barrier. I don't think it's going to be of any economic impact and I would respectfully ask for you all's support and vote on it. I'm here to answer if I questions that you have got.
>> was this sort of like kind of a different way of asking for meet and confer so to speak? I mean sort of you are really asking us, judge, to say hey support this thing that does away with this cap that the county has and if you all have it, you know, in your budget, and you are able to do, there we don't want this to be inhibited statutorily is that --
>> I think that's a better expression commissioner of what I'm trying to say. Yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> what number is that, do you recall offhand.
>> 24202.
>> 24 -- [multiple voices]
>> in your backup there's a tab that's marked civil courts, it is the third gold tab so that you can see the verbatim on the language. It's pretty short, though.
>> permissive, basically.
>> I might just comment if I could, judge. This bill has been filed a number of times in the past. The legislature has historically set the salary of the appellate judges and the supreme court judges as an upper limit on what they would permit counties to pay district judges. And that is the threshold that is likely to be what would have to be overcome in order to pass this bill because of the unlikelihood that the legislature would raise salaries as the judge has properly pointed out for -- for the appellate judges.
>> there are a lot of counties that are already maxed out on this. What it does not recognize is that it perhaps might be a tad more expensive to live in Travis County than palo pinto county. We have a real unfortunate situation down in -- it also stalls every one of the other salaries that are below our district judges related to our county court at law judges, et cetera, our associate judges and harris county has -- has an unusual situation where they actually now are paying county court at law judges more than their district judges, which is really unfortunate in terms of how they had to take matters into their own hands. But -- but this has a lot of ripple effects related to our judiciary and it's really crippling, I think who might want to go into this as a career if you are basically told you never get a raise in your life, learn to live with it.
>> as the judge knows, the biggest impediment to increasing judicial salaries, judicial district salaries, is that those salaries are tied to the amount of legislative retirement benefits. Every time that the legislature has considered paying the judges a reasonable salary or a higher salary, they have faced the criticism of they are raising their own retirement benefits. That has been a very, very difficult fight every time it's occurred. Although this is really a different fight which is the policy decision of permitting district judges potentially to be paid more or equal to the level of appellate judges.
>> and this is local bill for Travis County only. It's not a state-wide bill. You know, when judge dietz said that they haven't gotten an increase in 7 years, in 14 years they have gotten one. So that gives you an idea of how that law has worked and supports what commissioner Sonleitner has said. Even during the boom in the economy, the judges were not able to get an increase because of this cap and one thing is what the state wants to do but the other is what you all want to do. The district judges, of course, appoint the auditor, sit on the purchasing board, adult probation board, basically run that agency as well as juvenile probation. So the activities of the district judges impact what you do and the money that you spend and it is in everyone's best interests to have a good judiciary and an experienced one and the compensation caps have really not reflected that. In some counties like commissioner Sonleitner said, that wasn't an issue. But that wasn't the case here in Travis County.
>> let me ask you this question. If the cap is not honored in the future, just -- just disappear on us, that does not lock -- if this particular bill happens, to get past the legislature, stuff like that, that does not lock Travis County commissioners to act on that unless deemed appropriate within the time frame that we can deal with it.
>> it's totally discretionary.
>> just because it paths doesn't mean that we have to really pass it, defeat it, I don't know what's going to happen to it.
>> that's correct, commissioner.
>> because it is hard economic times. But at least it -- it erases the cap as it exists and that is -- if that is the case, then we can do what we intend to do at that time, contingent on certain conditions.
>> it's totally within your discreation, this is a permissive bill. It doesn't require the commissioners court to do anything. Quite honestly, what I'm telling you is that I expect, because as we prepare our budget, I know the budget situation facing the county, I don't see -- I don't see this being of any moment this year or the foreseeable future, but in the future, if the good times return and the money is better, then we don't have to barrier in -- it would allow you in your discretion to supplement the district judge's salary however you saw fit.
>> right now you can't see it as this point. Right now I understand that. All of us do. 16 district judges, all of us understand.
>> understand that, right. But as far as we recently owe getting rid of the cap is something that we can maybe support. I don't know--
>> part of it is our own problem. I mean, 20 years ago, or 25 years ago, when the legislature hooked its retirement to judicial retirement, everyone thought hooray. Now we are all in the same boat. But then it got to be a situation where they didn't want to face the political heat. So it results in I think an artificial cap on the amount that the district judges are paid. And as commissioner Sonleitner pointed out, we have got six associate judges, county judges, in part the county attorney that's all keyed off of our salary. It sort of ripples out of the rest of the county judiciary with respect to what they are paid. Again, I emphasize this isn't anything that we are expecting any immediate relief. We would just like you all's support if you see fit. Any other questions or comments?
>> judge, I understand in the last four or five years with the county, there have been some fairly substantial raises given to a number of employees. Where were the district judges when that was going on. Since you all have only gotten one raise if what, 14 years? Is that what you said, susan?
>> they couldn't get that because the cap was set. The state paid a certain amount, counties could pay a certain amount. Travis County always paid at the top of that limit. It -- is it 9,000?
>> yes. I recall it had formerly been at 7,000. Then I think it was -- because of the service on the juvenile board and others, I think the supplement was increased to 9,000. And some odd dollars. But as far as I know, at least in my experience in the last 12 years, I believe there has been one raise with respect to the county's supplement.
>> I gets I'm confused with -- because commissioner Davis was talking about that -- it sounds like the arbitrarily the court, if the -- if the court has the money, then it can exceed --
>> right now it cannot.
>> it cannot exceed -- this is not really -- my sense [multiple voices]
>> it's permissive inasmuch as right now it says what the -- that the maximum cap is $9,000 for district judges. It doesn't matter if everyone else in the county is getting a 15% raise, you can't increase that 9,000 by 15% because it's the cap. What this bill does is pull that cap off. So what it says is you could keep it at 9 if you want or if you wanted to give the -- if everyone got a 5% raise or 10 and you wanted to give them that on that 9,000, you could do it. So it allows you to increase that cap if you want, you don't have to.
>> that's what I'm saying. We can give you more than 9,000 if we have it and we want to.
>> not --
>> if we pass this bill.
>> [multiple voices]
>> right now, not --
>> then what you really need is -- this is not a permissible bill. You are not saying hey why don't you just throw us this bone give us this deal. I mean, you really want this cap removed.
>> yes.
>> so you really do --
>> economically commissioner, yes.
>> then I -- that's what I thought [multiple voices]
>> it's permissive in the sense that the discretion as to whether to give any raise to the district judges is solely within your discretion. The bill does not require you all to give a lock step raise if you gave the other employees a raise. That's how we are using the -- the per missiveness --
>> this is much like what susan was talking about arbitrarily, you know, capping salary, auditor's, whatever. Because I couldn't agree with more with commissioner Sonleitner that, you know, what it takes to live here versus what it takes to live somewhere else. That's something we certainly need to be supportive of. I can't imagine that -- I mean, I certainly would be supportive of it.
>> this way when they don't get raises, they would blame us as opposed to balagia the state legislature. But -- to blaming the state legislature.
>> judge, let's say that the commissioners court says that we can't afford to and therefore no one in Travis County gets a raise. Would the district judges feel the same way about the employees that you all supervise? That the employees will work -- who work for the district judges would also not get a raise.
>> yes, ma'am. Our employees are y'all's employees. I mean, I thought we developed a good working relationship we have never -- I think we have pretty much adopted all of the personnel policies and all of the raises and we are in -- I would say lock step with the rest of the county in terms of our employees. I mean we understand both because of the work with the district judge's office, also with the juvenile probation department, we understand very well. I think we have a good relationship with leroy, christian, susan. So we understand the budget situation.
>> and the purchasing department.
>> and the purchasing department, yes, ma'am. Any other questions or comments.
>> I move endorsement of hb 2402.
>> second.
>> my nor discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. Anybody else here?
>> the other --
>> the other bill that the judges had was magistrate bill. Again, huh discussed that. It's just been filed -- you had discussed that. It's just been filed now. It gives our people more latitude in appointing a magistrate in dealing with booking and that type of thing and representatives did file that house bill 2401.
>> uh-huh.
>> so is an endorsement needed or --
>> I don't know. Did you vote [multiple voices]
>> indicating that we didn't take action on it yet, right, ann? If it's in bold --
>> it just got filed.
>> yeah. You guys didn't [inaudible - no mic] specific language of the bill in your number.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> any more discussion? We really have discussed that every time before. [multiple voices]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
>> we ought to take about 10 minutes maybe to look at the bed tax, the first item on this -- on the list year. I know everybody want to get out for lunch, stuff like that. I would like to try to make sure that we squeeze that in.
>> this is to provide revenue for --
>> for the county. It may take about five to 10 minutes. I don't really know how long that the discussion will go on the rest of the items that we have here. Before us that need attention, also. So I am just alerting you --
>> we would have to divvy this up with the city of Austin, wouldn't we?
>> no. It doesn't have anything to do with --
>> probably need legal advice on it. Now, this has not been filed, right?
>> no.
>> what's the situation -- I know there was a deadline but what's the situation on filing after the deadline? How does that --
>> it requires a vote of the legislature, in the senate it is generally very permissive. For example, there were bills filed after the deadline already in the senate. A couple of bills, the senate generally gives that permission. In the house a little more complicated. It does require a two third or even a higher vote. I can't remember the exact amount but it's a high threshold record vote in order to have permission to file after the deadline. It doesn't happen that much in the house, but it does happen. It happens quite a bit in the senate.
>> I think it's 80%.
>> four fifths.
>> yes, sir, I think you're right.
>> but the other thing is if -- if like florida had like a million people who stopped going vacationing, that would have been hotel tax, wouldn't it? So it seems like the effect of it can also be like the sales tax. People don't spend more -- when there are hard times. So we have entities have less money to work with. As a result.
>> this would basically count as far as an amendment to a bill. Judge, can you explain that -- some clarity, expressly the point of this not being a -- a sales tax separate and distinct from a sales tax, the hotel occupancy tax, so the counties do have this, as far as generating revenue, for those counties. An example, harris county, extensive research done by the department such as p.b.o., Done with the county attorney, looking at the criterion that established under the tax code where counties are allowed to -- to collect hotel occupancy taxes. And from that standpoint, I think we are in a position here where we -- I think challenged for every county in the state of Texas in my mind, to try to offset the -- the possible -- I'm saying unfunded mandates that's going to come down from the state. That's a real big deal. I think that we are being callied to see how we can deal with it. And there's a possible to generate revenue without having to raise property taxes here in Travis County, I think that's big, I think that's a big plus. Austin, of course, Austin Travis County is a big tourist attraction, folks do come here and use our hotels. Property taxes of course is the way we generate revenue here, other than filing fees. The way that we are going now, the way the economy is going, the way things are happening, as far as the mandates, the taxpayers out there are going to have to maybe look at a substantial tax increase the way things are going right now. It appears that way. So what I'm trying to do is soften the impact on the property taxpayers of Travis County to ensure that they don't have to look at and realize a tax increase. I think generating revenue here for Travis County by allowing us to -- to utilize the hotel bed tax is a plus. With this money sitting on the table I think we can use. Now, of course, separate from the sales tax, it's not even a part of the sales tax, and of course it's something independent and there are other counties in the state of Texas that are doing this. So that would be my point of view. They are generating, an example, leroy can you tell me what they are generating in other counties as far as the revenue is concerned. I think the folks need to know this. What's the Travis County generating --
>> commissioner Davis asked me to do a little research on some of the other counties. Bexar county, as you may be aware, they had the voters in bexar county in 1999 vote a 1.75% county hotel/motel occupancy tax. And a 5% motor vehicle rental tax for the construction of their $175 million sbc center. Those taxes I had the fy 2001-2002 budget for that fund, the motel tax creates a $9.57 million revenue stream and the vehicle rental tax in bexar county produces a $6.3 million revenue stream. Harris county does not have a vehicle rental tax, but they do have a hotel rental that produces a $16.2 million. I do not know what the use of those funds are used for. But those are the two counties that I was able to find that actually have a -- have a hotel or a hotel and a vehicle rental tax.
>> my point is under the particular tax code, there are certain criterions whereby those counties are locked in to do just what they are doing to collect that kind of revenue. Which is really big time, big league. Of course Travis County, I gave all of you a handout of all of this stuff as far as the tax code is concerned is excluded out of this process because we do not meet the criteria. We do not -- less than 600,000 population which -- which actually refers to -- to tax code 352.071, which is less than 600,000 population, but of course they have criterion in there for a population of county that's are greater than 3 million. Which is harris county. So my point is if we can look at ways of bringing in revenue to -- to impose a hotel/motel -- a hotel tax or bed tax, I think it would be something that the citizens of Travis County would be all excited about, especially if they are going to have to face the brunt of possible property tax increases. The way things are going, what I'm hearing right now, if the applicant [inaudible] if we can reduce those property tax possible property tax increases by bringing in revenue here to Travis County to offset that, to continue some of the services in the programs that we are dealing with in Travis County, in my mind, that's a big plus. But this is something that I wanted to put before the commissioners court at this time. At least maybe we can get the tax code changed where the criterion that's specified right now would allow Travis County to be included if this is the will of the court. I do know that if we lose the opportunity to bring money to Travis County, and then help to generate that same kind of money by increases folks taxes, then of course that is something that I don't think the property tax bill may not be very comfortable as far as what it's doing. I guess leroy for every penny of increase as far as property taxes, for Travis County, how much do they generate for every penny.
>> it generates approximately $6 million.
>> $6 million, is that correct? So I'm looking at -- I mean for harris, a little more than $16 million on the table there that they are getting from -- from the hotel occupancy bed tax, then that's about two cents, a little more than two cents, as far as an increase in taxes, as far as generating that kind of income. So it's a way that I think we can do this. Of course I don't know how -- how -- how we are going to vote as far as the disposition of the court on this. But I believe -- at least I'm laying it out publicly so folks are aware that there is an opportunity to generate revenue for Travis County besides increasing property taxes.
>> just a clarification question because it was raise understand your memo, I don't see what the answer was, was the intent that this would apply to every hotel motel in Travis County regardless of jurisdiction? Or only in unincorporated? Because quite frankly, it's overlaying on to the city of Austin, Austin already has one of the highest hotel motel taxes in the united states. Theirs is specifically tied into very specific voter approved projects so that people said, yeah, raise it, but there's a reason because we need that money to go pay off the convention center, to pay off the town lake stuff. I know in harris county, theirs is primarily tied into a whole lot of sporting facilities that they have decided with their voters to do that. Bexar county's is also going to pay off the new sbc center. They didn't do it to raise money, they did it to raise for a specific economic development purpose. My first question is was the intent that this would be on everything, in which case have you had any conversations with the Austin convention and visitors bureau as to whether they would fight it or not? Because it might as commissioner Gomez stated have a negative effect on them.
>> I'm quite sure --
>> on Austin.
>> the point is, commissioner, before getting an answer to that, I have tried to look at what the breakdown was. I tried to go by the per day type of -- in the backup as far as what harris county, other counties are charging per day. Now, as far as these -- according to my backup, what I have gotten from john hildy who worked with me on this, not to exceed 7%. Added on to the hotel/motel bed tax. Of course, I think that it's -- it can be tied -- again, we are looking for ways to generate income. Of course, according to this particular section of -- of tax code 352.107, I think it's something that we can still look at as far as having [inaudible] do that. Like I said, again, the less than 600,000 population is something that -- was something that these folks didn't actually generate revenue from. Now, Austin of course is -- Travis County is greater than 600,000 population. So again that's something that I just thought we need to look at as far as looking for ways to generate revenue. Again, I don't know exactly where this is going to go or anything like that. But I do know that taxes, that you look at your tax bill when you leave your hotel from harris county, other places, their tax bill is substantial as far as what the county, the state and city is getting. But the county is getting a big chunk of theirs. Coming from tourists, everybody else coming into the city, visitors in the area, stuff like that. Of course Austin is -- has a -- has a good -- a good population as far as coming to use their facilities, therefore I think if we allow by law, that's the whole points, if we are allowed by law, I will ask john this question. Are we allowed by law, john, to do this, if this can be amended, where as far as Travis County is concerned, is it said that we can't do it?
>> right now you don't have a vehicle to -- to -- to allow you to -- to allow you to establish a bed tax. Your initial question that I can now jump on, there isn't a bill right now out there. You need to ask your legislative lobbyist, there is a vehicle that you can amend to, a bill that you could grab that concept on to amend the tax code, is there some bill out there that may be some senator or representatives would allow you to amend his bill to sneak that in. Since you are kind of coming in late in the ball game, you are past the filing deadline.
>> my point is the bill --
>> would it take 4/5ths.
>> I'm not sure of the answer to that question. But I would make the following distinctions. We are mixing a little bit apples and oranges in this discussion because of the point commissioner Sonleitner that you were making, the san antonio project is a chapter 334 community venue project. Which requires an election of the people and the money can be used only for certain community venue projects, which include sporting facilities. That has been the primary use of that. Travis County could do that today if it chose to do so. This court could put a ballot item on the ballot and seek to impose, among other things, a hotel/motel tax or there's a list of about five other things that you could do, rental -- I can't remember rental car ended up there or not.
>> that's one of them.
>> other items on there. And you could use that money for any community venue project. As an example, if you were wanting to make improvements to the Travis County exposition center or something like that, that would certainly qualify and you could pay for it today by putting that on the ballot and impose being that tax. Imposing that tax. Chapter 352 is a tax code provision that governs the general hotel motel tax imposed by the state. I am not conversant completely on this subject, but I believe in that chapter there are some exceptions that are created that allow counties to impose a bed tax only in an unincorporated parts of the county. Not across the county as a whole. I don't think there's any statute other than chapter 334 that allows a county to impose a county-wide hotel/motel tax. I'm not 100% sure about that commissioner, but I think that's generally how it looks.
>> I asked legal to look at it. This is the opinion that I got from legal. In the backup here. Of course I -- I had it investigated to that point. I haven't investigated to that point so -- [multiple voices] I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> I'm not sure how -- depending on which of those options this we would like to pursue, we can see if there are any amendments, but truthfully under that chapter I don't think you need any new authority. I think that you could do that today if the county had a project that it may be paying for, for example, out of other ad valorem revenue or other funds available to the county and wanted to consider funding those through this type of approach. We have to look under chapter 352. One would be adding Travis County into the eligibility for that, or possibly, depending on what your intentions are changing the statutes such that you could impose that tax state-wide. Can I say commissioner, that I do believe from the interaction that I have had have from the hotel disturb hotel/motel and others that they would have opposition to additional hotel motel bed tax here in Travis County. I think it's a concern that is mentioned, it's a valid concern. They would certainly express strong opinion about that because of the relatively high rate already paid.
>> this decision that we need to consider depending on what the further investigation that it would take looking into this matter. There's an opportunity, I thought, I still believe, that there is an opportunity for us to generate revenue for Travis County, not to increase folks property taxes things like that, I think it's something that we can really look at. If the law allows us to do that, make us eligible, as far as getting that eligibility, the criterion or not, I think it's something that we can tip to investigate. I guess that -- continue to investigate. I will continue to have the county attorney continue to look at those particular legal parameters, things of that nature, that we may have to embark upon as we pursue, I continue to pursue looking at ways to generate revenue for Travis County without having to raise people's property taxes. That's my whole intent to do just that.
>> yes, sir. Commissioner, I might suggest if I could, that the -- we determine whether it's possible to figure out how much revenue might be raised in the unincorporated part of the county, so we can have that number as a working number -- [multiple voices] that will be fine.
>> in some counties that are virtually no hotels in the you think incorporated areas of the county. In some there are quite a great number. And I just don't know that situation here. But it might be helpful in your consideration of this issue to figure out if that number might generate a million or might generate $6 million. I just have no idea.
>> available head in that direction. Thank you, thank you, judge.
>> community college, a.c.c. Election, the county clerk called on -- she will not be available until this afternoon. We can call that item up about 1:40. So --
>> [inaudible]
>> now other legislation?
>> yes, sir. Chelene walker with Travis County t.n.r. We have three quick bills hopefully to bring to your attention. The first one is senate bill 1 159, the last one on your list. It was introduced by senator barrientos. I wanted to bring it to your attention in that t.n.r. Staff helped sort of craft this legislation just with technical input. This is a bill that would allow Travis County to have some flexibility in designing an inspection and maintenance program under the clean air plan that we are currently trying to devise. Because we are an early action compact county, we would like to we volunteered to enter into this planning effort, we would like to have some flexibility to design a program that might not be exactly what tceq says that you have to ismment per federal regulations. Chairman houston from tceq signed off on this legislation. Chairman krusee from the transportation committee on the house side is going to introduce the companion bill. Nobody seems to have a problem with it that we know of. I just wanted to bring it to your attention in that if we could get the support of the Travis County commissioners court just so our folks can go over there and say that, yes, we are working with the five county region to -- [multiple voices] to have this flexibility. It doesn't mean that we have to -- [multiple voices]
>> you all recommend it?
>> I'm sorry.
>> you all recommend it.
>> yes.
>> I will move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the senate bill 1 100 has to do with odors, nuisance odors from -- -- I'm sorry, commissioner. This bill just reminded me to make sure that we do not forget it --
>> then -- then the second one is representative baxter, house bill 1837 in the middle of the second page, generally on your list. This is a bill that representative baxter introduced a couple of weeks ago related to the balcones canyon land preserve, john kuhl, the county's environmental officer is here to answer any questions. I will let john take it away.
>> actually, if I might, before we get to the question and answer, I just wanted to point out generally what this bill does is requires the permit holders in concert with the u.s. Fish and wildlife service who grant these permits to consider including any other lands that have been acquired for environmental purposes through the use of public money be they conservation easements or in fee simple to be considered as potentially credited towards our preserve requirements that need to -- to be accomplished before this is -- is satisfied. What they are really getting at here is the city of Austin's prop 2 lands. I can say it's acquired with public money, that has me in question, we can add that to a list in a permanent amendment. We are not opposed to this at the county. I have not heard specifically whether the city is or not. We have actually forwarded them copies, we have been I think big partners -- good partners in sharing what we have gotten as soon as we have gotten it. My points today are real brief. Two points. They are in the sort of arena of wordsmithing. If you have the bill in front of you, line 16 require that's the permit holder shall amend a plan, that would be us or the city of Austin, permit holders amending a plan and physical therapy this is what of a -- and again this is what of a fine point. We don't have the authority to amend a plan. The fish and wildlife does. The bill speak to the fish and wildlife doing that later. I think that was the intent. I think it would be more correct to substitute language that would say prepare a plan amendment rather than us amending a plan. So that's one language change that I think would improve this bill. The second is on the second page, line 11. States that the permit holder shall file an amended permanent with the federal government. Again, I would suggest we don't have the jurisdiction to -- to actually amend the permit, the fish and wildlife does. My suggested change would be that the -- that the permit holder applies to file an amended plan versus permit. There's also a pretty tight time frame on this action, December 1st, 2003. Which makes it that much more important that we formally request these changes so it doesn't become misconstrued that we need to have the whole revision made, including perhaps federal register review, so forth, before December first. Those are the only two suggested improvements that I would make to the bill. In general we are not opposed to it.
>> is there any way to get back with commissioner baxter and ask him -- they seem fairly innocuous.
>> I certainly can. We have been in document he was the first to let me know that he was going to be drafting such legislation and we have been in contact. I did tell his office about these minor concerns and they were noted. But I didn't speak with him personally.
>> okay. I guess the third bill then, I don't know if we need to take action in order to move forward in order to allow you to work on the bill, if the court is ready to vote.
>> we have been asked to get with representative baxter on it.
>> okay.
>> get back with us if you get some response.
>> the last bill is sb 887 by senator corona. A bill related to solid waste tipping fees much an issue that came up last year that melinda maliay worked a lot on to kill a very similar bill. We wanted to bring it to your attention right now. I will let her discuss it further. This has been simplified a bit. This time they are taking the $1.25 tax. Taking landfills and cutting it in half. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> notably the creation of a taskforce to deter illegal did you evering and to handle illegal dumping enforcement, which now provides free training that's grant funded from the source to law enforcement officers, code enforcement officers, prosecutors and jp's in the 10-county region. These funds have also been used to conduct a closed landfill inventory to identify facilities that date back over decades. And throughout the state. We don't have a proposal right now other than to object to it. The request would be to have your permission for the lobbyist to find out what the purpose was here and to keep their eye on any amendments to it. At this time it wouldn't affect the state budget at all. The way the bill is worded it would be a windfall for some of the major landfill operators. Except in certain cases where they would have a specific contract with, say, a government entity that requires them to pass on savings, they'd be able to just pocket the revenue that they saved.
>> does somebody have a memory as to whether this was a priority 1 or a priority 2 bill the last time this thing came onboard? And my memory is it was a priority 2 to track it, but there's going to be a lot of time and attention that bob and chris need to spend, and this is really one that ranks real low because -- capco can kill this thing on their own because of the people that the cogz have in all these counties, but this one did not rise to a level last session related to all the other compensation things and all the other issues related to hb 1 and getting the the time and attention of our lib byists. It seems like our staff could track this thing and work with capco on this thing as opposed to sending out to find the information, which I think is readily out there.
>> I guess the reason we brought it to your attention now is because me lane da did work closely with bob last year and was one of the very critical pieces of technical assistance to him. It kind of came up very quickly and nobody knew it was coming. Now, whether or not this effort is rising to the same seriousness, we don't know yet. We wanted to bring it to your attention knowing all the activity on solid waste issues and know that it was out thrvment.
>> remind me how much money the impact on the county would be approximately?
>> it's more the region than Travis County.
>> it's a capco bill.
>> it's a big deal to capco in terms of waste management and enforcement. I move that we authorize staff to work with capco to support the capco position and do what's necessary to get this thing killed.
>> second.
>> and anything we need to do further just let us know, but I can't think that every cog would go over and try to show the legislature -- [ inaudible ]. Without this money I think that these activities go away, in addition to counties, this region has done a good job of reaching out to other cities and the small cities, and in some cases this is the only money they have, plus school districts. If you just look at recycling papers, school districts are in the best position to do more good than the county. And school districts like in Travis County have tens of thousands of students that use paper everyday. If you could get them on board just for recycling, you could put a big dent in this. So it would be basically for staff to work with capco.
>> that's all ear asking, that we are able to add Travis County's voice to the chorus of opposition or however you would like to vote.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with commissioner Gomez temporarily away. Thank you.
>> and i'll try to be very brief. I know there's probably an impending lunch motion. Just a follow-up comment to the discussion that started about state appropriations and some of the dedicated revenue. Some of the flurry of last minute bills dealt with redefining some of the state infrastructure, etcetera. And one of the bills does talk about the ability of the state to tweak designated revenue. So even though we may be constrained here at the local level to collect funds that we believe are going to go up to the state and come back to us as, for example, senate bill 7 funding, and we may have been looking at the appropriations bill and saying to ourselves as we determine the impact, hey, that is designated revenue, so they will not be able to touch that. At least one of the bills would allow them to come in and sweep those funds if they need those funds and move them to the general fund of the state. And so I don't know -- this is still a work in progress as far as determining the appropriations impact, but in light of that new last minute bill, we may need to be looking even more broadly because I know we get funding I think for court salaries from designated revenue, we've received funding for indigent attorneys from designated revenue. Those are two that just come off the top of my head, but there's probably two or three other places where we have set asides that come back to us and might not even come back to us, although we may be counting on them as being set aside. So that's just kind of a head's up.
>> so the bottom line is a dedicated fund will no longer be a dedicated fund and that bill I believe was filed four different times by people who are capable of passing it. So that is unfortunately going to be, again, kind of wreak havoc with our planning because that's a permissive thing that the state could do. We won't necessarily know even in this appropriation process whether they will choose to do that or not.
>> I can just see carolyn and expecting all this revenue and saying that that's no longer certifiable revenue because you can't count on it. And if it comes in the form of a grant we could have it certified midyear because it shows up in the bank account, but it will basically lower our revenue estimates because you can't count on it.
>> it would make planning even more difficult for y'all as you head into the budget season. So on that good news, I will let you go.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. Senate bill 1265. It's towards the end of the list. What that bill does is essentially strip local project leaders of the ability to anywhere 80 enforcement against environmental crimes. It basically says tceq has to request the attorney general to recommend to the local prosecutor that he initiate criminal -- the county attorney's office is working with district and county attorney's association on that bill, but we wanted to call it to your attention because it obviously affects some of the discussion that we've been having with y'all over the last couple of weeks. Environmental enforcement issues.
>> could you also find out who the companion bill on the house side would be filed? Because we've learned this in terms of knowing who files things because that's often relevant information.
>> okay.
>> [everyone talking at once].
>> I don't know what the intent of that bill is, but I will comment that it's difficult for me to imagine with the reductions that are going on in the attorney general's office right now that they would have the staffing available to prosecute environmental crimes. That has historically been done at the local level, sometimes in cooperation with the attorney general's office, but my understanding, at any rate, has been that the work load has been more by local government. So I'm --
>> is it a reverse unfunded mandate? [ laughter ]
>> maybe that's it.
>> we were sending one up.
>> do you have anything else?
>> no. We just wanted to call it to your attention. We're working with tcdaa on -- I don't know that we've got to formally take a position on it yet, but I think if we do we want to come back to you and let you know what it is and see if y'all want to support it.
>> do we have -- [ inaudible ].
>> okay. We'll take a look at it.
>> can I throw one more out there, judge? Last one, I promise. Just to bring it to your attention, hb 1898 and its companion bill sb 17. We already mentioned it to bob cam. It is a bill that would allow -- make it easier to sue a county. You were recalling in that whole fluor daniel lawsuit that they kept bringing up the local government code saying we can sue you, but the case law that's out there and certainly our argument was that that statute is not clearly allowing an entity to sue a county. Someone has come in, representative nixon's bill says the county may sue or be sued, plead and be I am pled or defendant in any court. He was trying to make it more explicit to object able to leap that sovereign I am must not to suits.
>> every county in the state would want to know about this money because it would be eroding sovereign immunity.
>> take that to the association of counties last -- to their lobbyist and get some action and get them to try to kill that one.
>> both of them.
>> okay. We'll have a recess until 130. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM