Travis County Commssioners Court
March 25, 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 A1
Now let's call up the legislative items. Make as much progress as we can on that one. That was the added item a 1 a. A1. A. Discuss legislative issues, including proposed bills, and take appropriate action. (see attached list) b. Other bills that may be considered in response to action taken by the legislature, and take appropriate action.
>> how are you doing? If I could just do a real simple one here. I think this is simple. Let me know whether it is. This is a resolution that we did last session. For meet and confer between -- between -- which we discussed last -- approved really last week, I think by unanimous vote.
>> yeah, we did.
>> I thought what I would do is just pretty much take the same resolution, change the dates, get my office to do those, have it ready this afternoon, is that okay? We will do this over lunch, if there are problems with the changes that will be fine. I did tell them that we would try to get this done typically if there's a resolution of support it's a whole lot easier to persuade legislators of our position. This is for the -- for the Travis County sheriff's officer's association. Law enforcement and corrections will be included in this. So if there's no objection, we will get that done this afternoon. We approved it already. Will just have to circulate it for signature.
>> okay.
>> you don't have --
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning commissioners. What we would like to do, if we could, is take five minutes or so and distribute some reports to you that we are going to distribute to you on a weekly basis, just so that you know what they are. Ann is going to pass those out. These four reports, these four reports will be in your legislative book each week. And I'm -- just a second. Get those in your hand. Four minutes left. The first one that I'm talking about, its entitled draft, 2003 Travis County commissioners court legislative priorities. It's four pages and these are the bills that you have voted on and all of these are bills to be passed. There's approximately 20 bills. There's 13 different issues. But we have filed some of them in the house and the senate. And so we will be working to -- to get all of these bills passed within the next 60 days or so. We have -- we have -- we have intentionally not put the -- the staff comments in these.
>>
>> (technical difficulties)
>>
>> we expect to have most of them set for hearing by next week. So we will report back to you on that. That's the priority of the priority ones.
>> [inaudible] legislature had a difficult time last week with a major bill, house bill 4, which is a -- a bill that reforms the civil justice system. There were some -- some difficulty and extended debate, that bill is being taken up again today. It was killed on a point of order at the end of the debate last week and the result of that is that the committee hearing calendar has become extremely compressed. It is -- I think when it's all said and done, there are going to be many fewer bills that passed this session as a result of that, however, I understand that they are going to try to -- to not going past 6:00 tonight, so that the committees can begin to meet and kick out some of the bills that were set for last week. But it is going to be a tougher challenge this session than it has historically been, just to get these bills set. So we have been having to -- to work at that a little bit harder.
>> okay.
>> okay. We will -- we will come back to the bills in just a second. If you will look at the other one that said tier 2 legislative priorities, and that's -- it's a two-page report. These are bills that you have voted on but they don't necessarily involve a Travis County bill per se. But they are issues that you are interested in and that we are working on. For example, commissioner Davis, house bill 483, by wilson, the airport bill, is on that list. And even though it's distinguished between these two lists, they are all priority bills, just on this first one are ones that are attempting actively to get passed. Okay? And then -- then the -- the third one that we have is -- is entitled Travis County commissioners court selected fee bills. That's three pages long. This will -- this also will be in your legislative book. It will include, it does it on this report, but -- it doesn't on this report, but it will include the staff's remarks or their analyses of bills so that you and your staff can look at them and see if there's any fee bills that you are interested in and possibly -- in possibly bringing to the full court. Then we have a similar one, the last report, also three pages, it's entitled Travis County commissioners court selected revenue loss bills. And commissioner Davis, this is that list that you -- you were talking about, about unfunded mandates. We have named it a little differently, but we will put all bills in here that impact your budget in a negative way and we will also include the remarks of -- of the staff so that you can see how they are analyzing those bills. And you will receive those every single week. We won't actually talk about these last two reports unless you want to.
>> okay. Is there any way -- any type waive that -- type of way that -- I guess we won't know until actually we probably go through this process. But in looking at these -- some of them say unfunded mandates, from the state, that's to believe way I can keep up with -- the only way I can keep up with some of this stuff, but is there any way possible that the activity levels, the status of them can be revealed? I guess as we go through -- the purpose of this last report is to ensure that we continue to track them, not only track them but the likelihood of them being passed, defeated. As far as individual bills are concerned.
>> yes, we -- I think the way that that can be done, where it says bill history, commissioner, that will give the -- the current status or the last action that the legislature took. So that if it is moving, we will be able to see that. At some point, the staff or you all may recommend that we move this over to the priority or tier 2 list to work more actively on it. Particularly on the ones that may involve unfunded mandates. And in fact those -- these bills can be moved over at any time that -- if someone brings those up, you construct us to do so.
>> okay.
>> if I could -- if you instruct us to do so.
>> if I could go back to the priority, the first one. Chris and I just want to -- to tell you which bill that is so that you can be sure that you have in fact voted on these and want these to be passed. Because there's -- there's a couple of variations in there. And the first one, house bill 1849, in fact you haven't formally voted on it. But that is one that deals with [inaudible] warrants, being carried by the chairman in the house committee. We have put all of the bills on here. There's a couple by senator barrientos, a couple by senator whitmire, this by representative allan, chair of the subcommittee, senator whitmeyer is chair of the committee in the senate. All of those bills have a chance, that's why we put this on there.
>> what do those do, though? When I look at --
>> this one requires them, the -- the parole division to use a summons in -- in all of the situations that they can except if it involves a violent offender or if they absconded, generally that's what it does. It's attempting to use a summons so they never get in the jail. They will be given a summons to appear on a certain date for their revocation hearing.
>> wouldn't it make more sense for us to see the words encourages use of summons instead of incarceration in county jail? Shouldn't we look for language that really let's us know whether we are for or again it.
>> can he with bring that language to you. This is the language that the chairman worked out and wanted. It's likely that language is going to go forward in the house.
>> that's fine, but if the effect is that it encourages summons for paroles subject to blue warrants, the likely result of which is to reduce the -- parolees in custody --
>> in my opinion, it does. Do you have a comment on it?
>> it does. I think it actually requires the use of a summons as the first line method of getting a parole vile later in for a -- violator in for a hearing. I think it will have less impact on our jail population than the other bills that require them to have the hearings in fewer number of days than 60, which is the current refresh my memory. But this is the only parole vile later bill -- violator bill that is moving right now.
>> do we need to take a position, judge, on this?
>> have we before?
>> we haven't yet.
>> move to support it.
>> second.
>> all in favor.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> all right the second one, 218 will by rodriguez, that's the so-called i-jury bill to allow the district clerk to use telephone or computer -- or internet for jury summons. And you vote odd that one.
>> we already did.
>> you have voted and approved. Then we have this bill in the house and in the senate. Senate bill -- where it says companions, senate bill 1709 is the companion bill, I think that is by senator wentworth. Then 2203 by keel, that is the meet and confer bill.
>> uh-huh.
>> 2401 by stick, that's the criminal law magistrate bill. And that also has been filed in the senate. As companion listed there. 2402 by stick related compensation of district judges in Travis County, you all talked about this last week.
>> we did this last week.
>> we do have -- something has come up on that. This is set for hearing. If you look on the next page, yeah, not referred to committee. This report doesn't reflect that it's set for hearing, but it is set for hearing on Wednesday. And the -- the conference of urban counties and the judges and commissioners association has presented a substitute to representative stick that says that if the salary is above the cap, then it needs to be approved --
>> [inaudible]
>> I'm sorry. You're right. Yours is on the next page. I'm -- I apologize. I'm talking about different bills. Thank you. Strike all of that, your honor. [laughter] but the compensate district judge, judge dietz presented that last week.
>> okay.
>> 28, 27 by eisler, this involves a number of voters that you can have in a precinct. We weren't able to file your own bill, but there's a couple there that we think we can work with, try to get that up to 5,000 per precinct. This bill happens to go from 2,000 to 4,000. Then, I think, house bill 3088 by dukes, this is the one that was brought by the administrative department atmosphere an exception to the open meetings when these -- the benefits appeals committee meets they can do it privately. We also have filed that on the senate side with senator wentworth. Then house bill 389 by dukes related to competitive purchasing procedures for certain counties, that's the bill that -- that the purchaser brought and that's filed in both houses. That one -- that one -- it -- you want me to --
>> the prebid conferences.
>> that's right. And harris county already does it. So it's lowering the bracket to 800,000.
>> why don't we put that on there, that's what that's about, so we don't get confused.
>> yeah. Prebid letters.
>> [inaudible]
>> there's actually another provision that -- cyd, what does that other provision do, the middle provision on that bill?
>> that allow the county [inaudible - no mic]
>> I guess my point, though, that I would like to know what does it do as far as taking authority away from the commissioners court. If -- if there is any ink link of -- of inkling of taking authority away from the court, I would really like to know what that authority is. I really -- I hear those other provisions of this and that needs to be defined as such to let me know if it actually will take authority from the Travis County commissioners court.
>> no. It says that it has to be approved by commissioners court. I can't do it on my own, I have to come to you and ask for permission to do it.
>> okay. Any other questions? There another bill that you may have in mind. This bill --
>> this is one of those prebid conferences.
>> authorizes negotiations for the purchasing director and court work together on it basically.
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> okay. The next one is 549 by barrientos. Related to [inaudible] judicial district -- that's a new civil district court for Travis County. That is -- has only been file understand the senate. The next one, senate bill 697 by barrientos, this is -- this is senator barrientos' version of the blue warrant bill. Senate bill 918 is chairman -- senators whitmire's version of the blue warrant bill. Senate bill 984 by wentworth, this is the senate version of the other bill that we talked about on the exception to the open meetings. Senate bill 1099 by barrientos relating to regulating subdivision plats in the county and extra territorial jurisdiction of certain municipalities, that's the so-called 1445 cleanup, procedural cleanup. Doesn't have anything to do with any substantive provisions, but it deals with notice provisions and time frames and that type of thing.
>> but it's not the -- the --
>> it's not the baxter, senator wentworth bill, no.
>> okay.
>> and senate bill 1 161, authorizing counties and municipalities to provide services through the internet, this is -- this is -- remember the convenience fee bill we passed last session --
>> yeah.
>> this adds the services is all this does.
>> okay.
>> it's been only filed in the senate.
>> hum.
>> senate bill 1 166, that's the meet and confer bill on the senate side.
>> okay.
>> senate bill 1229 relating to the competitive purchasing procedures, that's the one that we just talked about, but it's the senate version.
>> okay.
>> and then senate bill 1536 by wentworth relating to the use of certain 911 fees and surcharges in certain counties, the companion, there's a companion on the house. That's the one that takes the definition of how you can spend your 911-dollars and expands that distinction.
>> that's the one that danny has been working on.
>> danny ivey has been working on.
>> okay. And senate bill 1709, the last one on that page relating to alternative methods of responding to a jury summons, that's the district clerk's I door jury bill, the -- i-jury bill, senate version. Senate bill [inaudible] by barrientos, the senate version of the magistrate bill. Those are the one that's we will actively track to pass. If you will look at tier 2 legislative priorities.
>> I guess I ought to ask one question about the district judges. Ompensation bill. Representative stick's office contacted me yesterday, there is apparently a bill that he's thinking about or maybe he's introduced already that would require that county judges make $1,000 less than district judges.
>> yeah.
>> so if this bill passes, then that amount would increase. In the past we've had the problem that the state has not increased the salaries of district judges and so -- so we pretty much have used discretionary authority on county judges. As we gave rank and file employees performance pay, we have included the judges with the -- with the other elected officials. So the question he asked was whether the county had position on that. Now to be consistent with where we have been historically, the answer would be no at this time. We don't think that's a good idea. And with the district judges locked in, in my view, I don't know that there's any merit to it unless you want -- unless you believe that the county judges ought to make a thousand less than the district judges, whether the district judges get pay increases ever or not.
>> well, judge, I see the point in that. Papers papers. As far as what you just stated. [papers shuffling - audio interference] I also was contacted by representative stick's office, also. And of course with that type of -- of request, it's just kind of tough to make any calls until -- I would like to see where we fall as far as the unfunded mandate. It's going to be a tough economic year. Of course it's -- it's a tough call. And -- and right now, we just -- you know, acquisition -- my position is basically that we have to look at it and go forward. But right now it's a tough call. [inaudible]
>> commissioner, I -- I would just report to you that there have been a number of other salaries tied to the district judge's salaries who have worked very hard to try to disengage themselves from being tied to district judges's salaries because of the reluctance of the legislature to change district judges' salaries. If the cat were to do that -- if the county were to do that, you would essentially be forever giving away your authority to set the county judge's compensation and you would allow the state to set it. Because the state does set the district judges' salaries. Last week when we talked about this subject, there may have been some confusion about the supplement versus the basal larry. The state -- the base salary. The state sets the base salary. That salary has actually been increased twice. Actually it was done in three specific segments over about the last five or six years. But that was the first time it had been increased in about 10 years. It is still by consideration of the district judges quite low relative to the marketplace for attorneys with their level of experience, et cetera. In addition to that, the judges receive the county supplement which a cap is currently in law that the legislature establishes. Salaries that are tied to district judges' compensation do not -- have not historically included any amount of the supplement. They have been a reference to the state paid district judge salary. I don't know exactly how this bill would be drafted, judge. But it might and probably does reference not what they are actually paid including the supplement, but only the amount of the state district judge compensation set forth in the appropriations bill.
>> I move that we notify representative stick's office that we historically have viewed county judges as county employees and would like to retain that authority.
>> I second that.
>> I did it as much yesterday, but I did think it would be important for us to formally get back on them. Any more discussion? Trying to do the right thing.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We will has that communication over the lunch hour. Okay. Getting back to tier 2, house bill 156, and 157, representative krusee's bills regarding regional -- regional mobility authority. House bill 389 by pitts is regard to mass gathering acts. We are working with his office on some language. House bill 43 the wilson airport bill. We have talked about that. House bill 1204 is representative baxter's 1445 fix.
>> on the rate bill, did we get the sheriff's office involved in the last problems to say sort of firsthand here's what we encountered, I think we ought to let them know that. How they proceed after that, that's their thing, but I think from a law enforcement official who has work odd real events, I think it would be good for them to get some input.
>> it's my understanding that there's some language being drafted at the staff level that's involve being the sheriff's office for us to take over their [inaudible] house bill 1681 by stick, the last one there, relates to the auditor's salary. What I had said earlier, cuc and the judges, commissioners association has an amendment that would say that it -- if the salary is above the cap, then it would have to be approved by the commissioners court. Because as it's turned out, the bill as drafted is not bracketed for Travis County. It's state-wide. And so -- so they have -- they have a -- they have a standard legislative position that they always want to give the commissioners court that final authority. So -- so the question to you is do you want to -- to approve his bill as substituted, using the language that the cuc and the other associations suggested?
>> uh-huh.
>> that would give you the commissioners court final approval if that auditor's salary goes over the cap.
>> and the cap means?
>> and the cap, susan, is -- is where now?
>> what it says, judge, in the law is that the auditor's salary cannot exceed the salary of the highest paid elected official paid by county funds other than a judge's statutory court. In this county, right now, that happens to be the county attorney and in some counties it's the sheriff, some it's the county judge. This is more restrictive. I don't think this is a better bill, but I do think this is better than what we've got now. Because if in fact the judges want to recruit and they can't recruit someone at the cap, they could come to you and say, "look, I can't recruit someone at the cap" you could approve it. I don't have a problem with that.
>> the bill has a better chance of passing if cuc and tac are supportive?
>> yes. I think that you will help representative stick as well, he's going to want to know where you all stand.
>> I move that we support the --
>> astuteed.
>> the substitute bill which basically requires the approval of commissioners court if the cap is exceeded.
>> second.
>> seconded by commissioner Gomez, any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> and we just have I think there's just a few more. House bill 1837, by representative baxter. This is related to federal approval of land for habitat conservation. Actually, I think -- I think staff is just working on this one. I know that it's been brought to your attention.
>> we have a hearing on that one tomorrow or later this week.
>> it's today.
>> it's today?
>> we did get a few e-mails about that yesterday, didn't we?
>> I received several, judge.
>> what does that bill do now?
>> john kuhl, environmental officer. Judge, it basically moves that the partners in the permit being us or the city work with the u.s. Fish and wildlife service to account for other lands that may have been acquired with public money that would be suitable habitat to include and credit towards preserve acquisition for the balcones canyonlands preserve. The subject lands I think targeted by this bill are primarily the -- the proposition 2 lands that -- that have been acquired by the city of Austin.
>> so --
>> and commissioner daugherty last week asked me to provide my substitution language to commissioner baxter's office -- representative baxter's office -- [laughter], which I did. And I think it was received friendly. I don't have any information to the contrary.
>> let me -- my only problem with this is that I don't approve of undoing what voters have approved. Because if we start doing that, there's all kinds of things that can start falling down on us and I think we have worked really hard to try to be really fair to -- to the voters, giving them an opportunity to speak out and when they do, I think we ought to listen.
>> of course, I'm agreement with commissioner Gomez, what commissioner Gomez just stated. We don't have too much farther to go as far as getting the remaining acreage in the bccp preserve. Just from that standpoint, I can't see going any other direction of what we have been working on for a long, long, long time as far as getting full acquisition of -- of that area. So I -- for our habitat and endangered species. So based on that, I would like to -- to move that we oppose house bill 1837 as it's currently drafted by state representative baxter.
>> second.
>> [inaudible] city water quality --
>> correct.
>> bcc and endangered species. Now the city had a sort of bccp component. Then we had ours. So his suggestion that for purposes of meeting the city's bcp requirements they would be authorized to use the water quality prop 2 land or that they be required to?
>> it's basically a mandate to submit a permit amendment to add additional lands which are suitable habitat for the endangered species that just happen to have been acquired through the proposition 2 process to be credited towards our mutual preserve acquisition goal.
>> why would we indicate our position to the bill as word and encourage basically that [inaudible]
>> I -- [multiple voices]
>> I missed what you said.
>> actually sit with the city.
>> sit down with the city and try to work out the --
>> yes.
>> the bill.
>> prop 2 was city of Austin.
>> uh-huh.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think the intent here is not to undo anything. The talk is the low hanging fruit has gotten us to 85% of where we are with bcp. We are finding it pretty difficult, I mean, given that, you know, I mean, hey, it's just dollars, I mean -- if you want to -- if you go can go out there and find -- you know, I as the precinct 3 commissioner have said openly, I'm supportive of getting to the 30,428 acres. But there -- there is some fear out there that going out and attaining the additional acreage that we need to get there, the cost is, you know, could be prohibitive. The prop 2, which is one of the other questions that I asked t.n.r. And john when I first got, the first bcp meeting, why weren't there some of the prop 2 lands put into the bcp, you know, acreage. And -- and it is true that most of that was for water quality versus habitat. But I think that what we are finding is that there perhaps is some of that. That we might be able to be used. I don't think that anybody is going around saying, hey, just because you bought land with public dollars, I mean, let's just stick it in the bcp. I don't think that's the intent. I haven't gotten back with representative baxter, either, john. But maybe we could -- maybe we could call them. But before I would want to vote in opposition to what we have at least brought up with him, I for one, i'll in a phone call and say, hey, what -- how do you feel about our -- I think we have a friendly amendment.
>> let me be real clear. I did reside that substitute language that I had described to you last week. It basically was a damage control type of -- of a suggestion. There was language in the bill that -- that kind of assumed that we had jurisdiction and authority that we did. That is why I had felt it was necessary for us to -- to make those changes and I have communicated with his office and e-mailed a substitute language --
>> adopt understand the current language, though, that the -- the bill that's sitting before us now, in other words those modified changes.
>> it doesn't change it substantively in terms of the objectives.
>> right. Let me ask this question: how much more acreage do we have to acquire in the bcp as far as Travis County is concerned.
>> we lack about 4,000 acres out of the 30,000.
>> less than 4,000 acres, I'm quite sure --
>> we are at about 87%.
>> about 4,000, a little less than 4,000 acres?
>> right.
>> and that's -- that's something that we continue to work on to -- to do that. And again, I -- it's just -- just as the language and what's in the bill now as it's presented to us today, I can't support it now. I can support if commissioner -- state representative baxter and also commissioner daugherty, if they want to get with the city of Austin and work out some differences here and maybe bring this back, but as it's presented to me today, I can't support it.
>> I can hold off until --
>> I can -- [multiple voices]
>> I can hold off voting in opposition, but I need to be assured that --
>> yeah.
>> -- that his office and commissioner daugherty will meet with the city of Austin.
>> right.
>> the other thing is, I think we need to kind of get to some point, at what point do -- do, you know, you are new, so you are not aware of this, but at what point do individual members of the court give information to legislators or anybody else about what we want in a bill and does that help undermine what the county can do as a partner with the city? So I mean I would say that if we want to give instructions to, you know, to -- to staff to go and give information to the legislators, how to better improve a piece of legislation or whatever, I think we need to let the court know about this. So we will know that -- that we are all wanting to see, you know, this worked out somehow. But -- but I don't want to undo anything that the -- that the voters have already done.
>> yeah.
>> I don't mind going to representative baxter and finding out the true intent.
>> that's fine.
>> just reading the tea leaves, i'm, you know, I would not suspect that the city is going to be very supportive of considering the prop 2 property -- oh, yeah, well, let's put that into the bcp. Unless I'm reading that group wrong, I mean, they probably are going to be hesitant to do that. But I will -- I will find out from --
>> that's what conflict is about. You sit down and try to work things out, you know.
>> let me be clear, to, on that issue. Last week I reported to you that I did not know their position. I assumed that they would not support it. I do now know that they oppose it.
>> the city of Austin.
>> yes,.
>> see, I don't want to get into that, caught in the middle.
>> oppose it as currently worded.
>> right.
>> that's not to say if --
>> if they work out --
>> trying to reach compromise language. It would be presumptuous for us to think that they will. But they may.
>> we will -- the question is whether we should encourage that they at least sit down.
>> yes.
>> the problem that I have with it proposition 2 land is city of Austin business.
>> exactly.
>> uh-huh.
>> you know, city of Austin resident, but I would like to see folks --
>> right, as a city residents, I'm sure that I participate understand that campaign. And that -- in that election, too.
>> well, I don't want to be putting in a spot -- you are right, we are all Travis County residents and city of Austin -- or a lot of us are city of Austin residents as well. And the true intent of this legislation or the whole bcp was to secure 30,428 acres.
>> uh-huh.
>> what I would rather not see is the city force the county, say, you know, what -- we don't care how you all do it. I mean, it's you all -- it's just money. For you, you know, we are talking about, the reason this is 4 -- the 4,000-acre is more difficult is because we have some people wanting some big-time dollars for these existing tracts. Now, I'm lucky to be in the city of Austin saying, hey, you all find the money any way you all can. You all go out there and do it. But I will talk to representative baxter and find out what the -- I really think that his intent is to say, let's at least allow us some flexibility to -- because it's not like we want to just stop this project. I mean, there are a couple of projects that we have got out there that basically have the -- have the stalemated right now because we can't get right with the price. But I mean -- and I'm sure that the city, like you said, john, has taken that stance. But that basically throws it back into the county's lap about, you know what? You all figure out a way to get that last 4,000 acres. We are not willing to -- to play with you in that. That doesn't set overly well with me. But I'm willing to go and sit down with -- maybe we can sit down with them and with -- with representative baxter and say, hey, here's what we are really looking for.
>> yeah.
>> we are not saying give us something that's obviously not habitat property. But we all know that there is some of that property out there, maybe a few hundred acres, not like we are trying to go to them and close the deal out with prop 2. I don't think that's the intent.
>> that can be worked out maybe.
>> okay. We will come back.
>> [multiple voices]
>> they are the multiple decision makers. The amendment would go to u.s. Fish and wildlife service. The proposed amendment if it was mandated and they would make that decision, correct.
>> okay. So we can hold that one, judge, until we see some progress.
>> do you want me to withdraw my motion? Because I did make a motion, it was seconded, because the way the language is currently drafted --
>> we can hold it until they come back.
>> withdraw the motion.
>> if you will do that commissioner, I will come back with you --
>> okay. In the meantime I still would like to see the -- the schedule as far as what Travis County is working with fish and u.s. Fish and wildlife folks, as far as the -- acquiring those last, a little more than 3,000, I don't think it's more than 4. 3,000 acres of that bcp land and what time frame would the county look -- was the county looking at as far as acquiring that last little -- little piece, too --
>> we would be happy to --
>> I think we are -- 2,000 -- somewhere around there -- I think we are in close tracking distance of that.
>> pretty close.
>> pretty close in that. That's another concern of mine. So I would like to have that information shared with that.
>> I will get you --
>> I will withdraw my motion.
>> thank you. I will do that, I will work with john, we will find out what we can do to bring that thing back.
>> [inaudible]
>> all right, thanks.
>> yes, sir?
>> next bill after that is senate bill 544py wentworth. That is -- 544 by wentworth. That is that 1445 procedural senate bill. Senate bill 887 relating the solid waste disposal fees, you all took that up last week, I believe. Instructed the staff to -- to work on that. And then senate bill 1 100 by barrientos relating the regulation of nuisance odors, emanating from solid waste landfills, the last one by barrientos owe.
>> let me ask a question. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but where are we as far as senate bill 1 100, that's the public nuisance as far as odors, stuff like that, detection at landfills. Is this going to move to another -- another list because in my mind that is a priority, priority situation for those folks out there. And if there's a bill being proposed by senator barrientos, in -- in the detection of odors and sending inspectors out there, all of this kind of good stuff to verify those things as far as public nuisance is concerned, I think it should be at another tier, another level in my mind, as far as the -- from where I'm looking at it. I'm just trying to get some type of picture are where we are on this, that's senate bill 1 100.
>> commissioner Davis, the so-called priority list in this tier 2 list, I -- I didn't explain it very well, but what we are trying to do is to say you vote on all -- these are all equally important. [multiple voices]
>> I'm not saying that they are not.
>> pardon?
>> I didn't say that they weren't. I'm just saying that's kind of -- kind of a hot topic, hot issue. In this community. Those landfills and if there's something to track that, let us know what we are focusing on, what's going on with this. I think that it is priority.
>> yeah.
>> something smells funny. [laughter]
>> so --
>> 1100 in the --
>> second tier 2.
>> it's in tier 2.
>> tier 2 list judge.
>> what --
>> right here, those sheets she handed out.
>> I mean the bill itself.
>> oh, the bill itself?
>> all's that I'm trying to say, these two lists, we could have one list. The only reason that we had the other list those are ones that are Travis County bills trying to pass. But we can shift this one over --
>> I would like for it to be shichted over.
>> and work closely with barrientos' office to get it passed I guess would be --
>> what is bill -- what does the bill say specifically.
>> walker with t.r.c. T.n.r. This bill was brought out last week, has not been laid out for you yet, john kuhl is here to do that this week, twaipts on your list last week so we couldn't really talk about it. John is here to tell you what is exactly in the bill. You have not voted technically to support or oppose this bill yet. So -- so if you would like to do that today after you hear about it.
>> okay.
>> real briefly, the bill basically lays out a criteria for -- for municipal solid waste landfills that are located 3,000 feet or less from a residence in a residential area containing at least 20 residences. So this bill would only apply to those types of facilities. I haven't done a state-wide analysis, of course, but it does pertain to I would say both of the northeast landfills and our landfill.
>> so it's a local bill?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I would like to move approval of that. [inaudible]
>> second.
>> and move it to another tier.
>> move it to the first tier.
>> I'm happy to tell you more about it.
>> I think that's all that I need to know [multiple voices]
>> I'm getting hang degree. - I'm getting hungry.
>> thanks, john.
>> this is isn't anything that makes this a local bill.
>> there aren't [multiple voices]
>> judge, I this think that the limits on population, is not necessarily to make it a local bill, but to keep it from being a state-wide bill. The that I should the senator is getting at, it's fair to stay tceq has even been open that one reason they have not been more aggressive on enforcement on the other issue at the northeast landfills is because they have an existing policy on nuisance odors that sets a very, very high threshold. For them to enforce on nuisance odor, they literally have to have evidence that somebody got physically ill on their own property. That applies state-wide. I think what the senator is trying to do is get the nuisance odor threshold lowered by tceq. Now, obviously, if you are going to lower it state-wide, it involves every landfill in the state, every operator. So I think he's trying to get something done to help out in Austin without having to take on the whole state.
>> that sounds local. To me.
>> municipal solid waste landfill facility that is located 3,000 feet or less from at least one residence in a residential area containing at least 20 residences. So if you meet that proximity standard, no matter where you are in the state of Texas, this bill will cover you, right?
>> right.
>> okay. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The motion is also to move it to tier 1.
>> exactly, thank you.
>> judge, are we going to continue or come back? I don't -- are regoing to continue or come back?
>> why don't we try to take -- [inaudible] emergency and then come back.
>> can we take a few more minutes try to complete the -- [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> (break for lunch)
>> now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County commissioners court.
>> on item a-1, judge, are we still on that?
>> we were in the middle of a discussion of a-1 a and b involving legislative issues and various bills, and we have gotten through a list. Do you, do you want to come on up with yours?
>> thank you. As you know, I'm judge barbara bembry and I'm here to represent the judges in the Travis County court. We an analyst to respond to in particular I believe it was house bill 1509, the perennial rates and jurisdiction of the j.p. Court's $10,000 bill and because I respond understand writing, I was voted the person to respond to legislation. [laughter] having said that, i'll just tell you that I want to make sure that we fully alert the court that we do have some concerns about a few of the [inaudible] and --
>> excuse me.
>> I believe that I had sent you all, after I believe it was week before last, a copy of the letter that I had isn't to p.b.o. In which we responded to that. I'll also -- also, I would like for -- ann, are you behind me -- to pass to you -- she had volunteered to pass to you a document from someone in the county auditor's office because they've done some preliminary statistical data. So I would like for to you have that in front of you as I talk. Basically what -- the way I responded to the request to review the jurisdictional increase, the $10,000, was to take that in context with other bills that I knew were lurking out there. I kind of scroald down a lot of the -- scrolled down a lot of the bills that had already been posted and saw several of them which caused concern, and so I took those into consideration when I put together this presentation. So basically what I had done was to pull four bills in particular, house bill 1509, which would increase the jurisdiction to $10,000; house bill 375, which would limit justice courts in granting attorneys fees to no more than $500; and then of significant concern, house bill 396, which would allow appeal of certain tax appraisals in small claims court; and then house bill 388, where evictions have been -- would be altered to be heard with -- between six and ten days, which is not really significant, it's the already between seven and ten. So this just gives us a little bit tighter window, but if you take all of those at once and compare them to the impact that it would have to courts, it could potentially be significant. In and of itself, the $10,000 bill -- I hate to use the term "bill," proposed legislation, would not seem that horrible. You would think, you know, you get more interesting indicates. As you can see, judgenaranho did a sampling and came up with about four out of every 30 cases filed in the county level fall between the numbers and so it would be under the $10,000 jurisdiction. So approximately then 13% of the cases filed at county level would then be filed in a j.p. Court. Now, the first impact, as you can see from the documents, they've given you -- and I apologize, I did try to get one xeroxed at a larger letters for commissioner Davis, but even for me they seem to be kind of small. So I apologize if they are hard to read. But basically what they were trying to point out is that the filing fees in small claims court and in justice court are $10 and $15. So if you take 13% of the cases filed in county court at a rate much higher than that, as in 105 or more, and you see all those special fees that are listed there, then based on that sampling of 13%, you are looking at a net loss of $56,197, according to their calculations. Okay? So that is one aspect of that. And it would depend, too, on whether any other legislation went through that allowed cases to be filed in those courts that would overwhelm the court system. So you might be looking at a loss of 56,000 revenue in court costs at the county level. At the same time, you might be looking at millions of dollars of having to open new courts at the j.p. Level. So there's two different levels of concern there to be looking at. The much more disturbing ones in terms of legislative proposals would be the appeal of tax appraisals and small claims court. Filing fees $10. Everybody assumes you can get into small claims court fairly rapidly not understanding the size of some of the precincts. They would surely have time restraints put on any kind of hearings to determine finality of something if somebody who to pay, so once again you are looking at a time -- you know, everybody has got to be heard at once kind of thing. In addition to many other kinds of cases that already have to be heard within a certain number of days of particular activity. That could potentially be a really big problem. My precinct alone is the size of Williamson county. I had breakfast with a friend of mine. She said they have about 27,000 tax appeals last year. And you are looking at a lot of cases. And so we would definitely ask you all to-pose any bill that would put appeals of tax appraisals into small claims court. So that's one aspect of it. We don't really have a problem with the bill that asks for evictions to be heard within six to ten days. We already do that within five to seven or whatever. That's not a problem.
>> is that appeal of tax appraisals --
>> is there a difference between the -- we have the [inaudible] that understands the urban issues, whereas we have also t.a.c. That deals with rural counties. In more rural counties, would they be able to handle these --
>> that was why this the original -- I'm sorry. I don't do this real often. I was trying not to repeat my letter, but that is a significant considers. One of the things that I have discovered from teaching over the last year is that what you get outside Austin, houston, dallas area, everything is completely different. A lot of the courts at that level are part-time judges. They might not even have a clerk. Their office might nb the back of their pickup truck. I'm being kind of facetious at that point, but you could have a very small court where they don't have any staff, they don't have any support services whatsoever and yet you would have potentially everybody in the county being able to file these petitions there. So yes, I think it would be even harder at those levels. You just have two -- sort of a strata. You have very small courts where they still have to learn eventually all of the things that we do. They are typically not lawyers because they are not paid a lot of money. Then you have the really big institutional-sized counties, harris county, dallas county where they have 16 j.p.s and most are lawyers, et cetera. Then you have us in the middle. And I think we're in a very precarious position at this point because there are only five of us, and yet our population has sort of zoomed over the last few years.
>> yeah, okay.
>> .
>> and any of this legislation where he could have a whole new kind of case, but everybody would be invited to the party would be pretty much overwhelming.
>> that's helpful because c.u.c. Can take the position and t.a.c. Can take their position.
>> right. Taken letter that I originally wrote was directed to respond to the conference of urban counties, and they were going to respond to the legislative budget board.
>> okay.
>> but I wanted to follow through -- the judges wanted to follow through the chirk commissioners court process. The other thing that I wanted to address is the fact that there's another of those kind of hearings that has been discussed prior to me by the county judges, and they were here just recently to talk about those alcohol-related driver's license suspensions where the d.p.s. Administrative judges have been handling that and now they want those cases sent over to the county courts where those cases are filed. I understood from listening to the hearing in front of you that there was some discussion that they might be able to pass those on to the j.p.s. Once again, you are looking at a piece of legislation that calls for a hearing before the time of suspension would begin, which is usually 11 days. So we cannot add to all of the other six day, three day, five day and continue to -- you know, keep piling them on. It's going to be like my cousin vinnie. But I wanted to respond seriously to that, I don't know what the solution is, but you face the same problem over in our court. And I did not see, even though it calls for them to file a petition to have that hearing, I did not see right away any particular language that called for substantial filing fee or anything of that night. So when you take all of these things into consideration, you are looking at the possibility of more staff to handle the paperwork, more judges. Unless we clone ourselves, we're kind of reaching the limit. Loss of revenue in some situations, and in other situations it's the kind of okay. So we have to take things as they come to us, and based on our overall review of those four or five pieces of legislation and the analysis by the folks who put together the auditor's stuff and our p.b.o. Analysts and that sort of thing, our basic assumption is, you know, not really cost effective, requires too many new staff, more space to hold, you know, follow through with everything and more and more and greater quantities of everything.
>> what would you say the average number of cases now pending before each j.p.?
>> well, sir, I can't answer in terms of current totals, but I can tell you from my office that it takes a year to get a trial on a civil case. Let me explain some of the differences here. Keep in mind we have two different civil courts. We have small claims court, which is the judge judy kind of subject matter and the rules procedure don't apply there and rules of evidence. But the case law can come from any kind of law. Then we also at the same time have the justice court where the rules of procedure do apply, the rules of evidence do apply. We have more attorneys there. You are likely to have a greater number of pretrial hearings, post-judgment discovery. Let me put it this way. Civil, although it does not pay for itself, takes up probably 70% of my time. We also have criminal court in which the classy offenses can -- class c. Offenses can come from any area of law, not just criminal law. Traffic. Tatooing without permission. Plumbing without a license. Obnoxious odors. You name it, there's a penalty out there, a class c. We only have a prosecutor once a week so we have those trials once a week. The rest of the week is taken with civil or juveniles. The juveniles are becoming more complex from the standpoint if the family code gets aamended, the kids have to come in front of us. Unlike the other courts, we are civil and crim nal, adult and juvenile. Where the county and district courts are one or the other. And so if we have to work into those scenarios where we have to meet with each juvenile and their parents so they can enter their plea in front of us, then you've got all of those things to consider. We also have assistive law hearings already. We do driver's license suspension dockets. And those are for either being a provisional driver, meaning under 18 and getting more than two convictions, or being considered somebody who is a habitual violator, you've got, you know, eight convictions in two years and that sort of thing. Not the alcohol-related ones that I mentioned before. We do property seizure hearings. Illegal filing cases, peace bond hearings, appeal of gun license denials and revocation matters. We're biostatistics rej as rs for birth and death certificates. We come down here do this, teach. That's what I'm saying, you add all of that stuff together, you've got a full plate. And in my particular court, to answer your question in a really long-winded manner --
>> what was my question?
>> how many cases are pending. I can't tell you for sure because they are all different. I mean, we have a lot of different kinds of cases. I can just tell you that it's becoming longer and the time to acquire a trial is becoming longer and longer because of the number of things we do.
>> so the appeal of the tax appraisals you think would be more like a justice court hearing than a small claims like proceeding? Or does it say?
>> I'm sorry?
>> the appeal of the tax appraisals would be a justice court hearing or more sthan --
>> the bill specifically says small claims court.
>> okay.
>> specifically says small claims court.
>> okay.
>> the other thing we're making an assumption on is that most of the time when you refer to justice courts in ternls of j.p.s, you refer to justice and small claims court. So we are assuming that the increase to $10,000 in justice court also means an increase in small claims court. So we have not accounted for that in those numbers that you are looking at in front of you. So that could have a considerable difference as well. We know you can't walk into a car dealer to have anything fixed now for less than $600. You know, efer time you walk in. So just through inflation there could be lurking out there all number of cases that would be worth the 25 and 106789 and I think the ease -- the perceived ease of filing in small claims court would cause people to want to do that. The other concern that we have is this bill that would limit the judge's ability in justice court to award attorneys fees no March than $500. -- no more than $500. Obviously not every trial is the same. Some tiles are more complicated, they have more than one defendant, they have more than one witness, more than one issue. I think that is not perhaps a very well --
>> that's against one of the parties. That's not money that the county would pay.
>> right. Yes. We don't appoint attorneys in class c.'s. This would be in civil court.
>> this is something a losing party may have to pay.
>> right. But at the same time it does not seem logical that every case be treated in the same manner so that what would happen is we are afraid that if you cannot get an attorney to take a $10,000 case in justice court because they are aware the judge can only grant up to $500 attorneys fees, then what you will have is a considerable number of people filing pro say in justice court not understanding that they are subject to the rules of civil procedure, the rules of evidence, and all of those formalities that attorneys are there to take care of. So that's a potential issue that we think is not a real good one.
>> okay.
>> so it looks like we need to oppose house bill 375 and 396. For sure. Because they lose revenue for us?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I move.
>> second.
>> and 1509, from the standpoint that it has been reviewed by the auditor's office as well as the -- apparently some of the county judges in addition to ours. You know, we started out, if it were only the $10,000 increase, you know, it might not be so bad. But when you look at it in light of all the other possibilities, you have to take those into context and it definitely does not look cost effective at this time.
>> so we need to add house bill 1509 to that.
>> uh-huh. 388 we're fine with.
>> okay.
>> and the only other one that I commend on, to be quite honest with you, was the alcohol-related. I think it was 1725.
>> okay.
>> 1725.
>> uh-huh.
>> and that one you are --
>> that's because of the time lines and the considerable numbers of folks.
>> so we need to oppose that one as well?
>> yes. We would ask that.
>> all right.
>> so you want to add that to the --
>> yes, 1795, [inaudible] and 1725.
>> I second that.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> I was probably okay with this until you told me about those unlicensed tatoo guys. That just probable threw me over the edge. I mean, everything is off.
>> our job is never boring, commissioner. Has anyone -- to your knowledge, has anyone talked to representative keel in particular with like 1509? I would think that somebody like representative keel that he could really give us some help, you know, because he would get this right off. I mean, as far as -- is he from one of the smaller communities we know?
>> I'm not personly familiar, but -- commissioner is nodding her head. I do of course know terry keel. I have not personally met with any of those folks yet. It's my intention that once the j.p.s have a better insight into the last round, you know, they filed, what, 800 or 900 on that last day, so I don't want to just piecemeal run over there and aggregate people. But we thought perhaps we would review and see if there are other issues that we need to bring up and see if we couldn't consolidate those. Because there's some other issues we want people to take care of, and sofa sill taition of that sort of meeting would be good. And I have been meeting with some of the folks you had here earlier today.
>> well, I'm happy to, you know, help with that. I mean, our office can and I think that representative keel would really understand this right off. And it never hurts to have somebody that is a chairman, I mean, even though it's the not in that particular committee, I mean chairman or, you know, sometimes a little more persuasive.
>> well, I'm sure the other judges and I would appreciate it if one of you would facilitate a meeting of that nature.
>> I can see my office is furiously taking notes behind you, so I'm sure we'll help.
>> would you put in your letter that [inaudible] get a civil trial in your court? Did you put that in your letter?
>> what, sir?
>> it takes up to one year to get a --
>> no, I didn't put that in my letter.
>> that would probably be a good fact.
>> we could poll each court, and we're all a little different in the kinds of thins we do and yet we're all alike at the same time. So depending on how many cases of which variety that you have, you could see varying numbers. But yes, we do need to let some folks know that we're at the upper reaches already.
>> the goal may well be to try to get people earlier before the judge and the likelihood of that happening without some impact on other cases is very small.
>> right.
>> I mean, if you guarantee this class -- this category of cases, there will be a ripple effect somewhere elsewhere the wait will be even longer.
>> exactly. And we still find that happening in terms of just, say, for instance, truancy. We went -- we had the pilot court going, and then we at the same time went through redistricting. I still have ten schools who are not in my district who file in my court because they do not wish to go to the other location. So you have elements of a political nature, shall we call them, that you also take into consideration while you are trying to fulfill all of your commitments to your community. And so some of those things you can just talk about and some you just quietly go about your business and try to do the best you can. But when you take all of those things into consideration, can you not compromise what you know by law you have to do in an ordererly fashion to please a different group. And that's why some of mine are -- the problems are rule I now concentrating in the civil area because what you are doing is constantly the urgent -- we've got to have this done now things, and it takes its toll on your regular filing with folks that can afford to -- well, they can't really afford to wait, but they have to. So -- and each of us has our own little separate issues depending on what community we're in. Because we're real diverse. Is there anything else I can answer for you all?
>> I feel fully informed at this point.
>> well, I -- you know. I could just go on and on. [laughter] I tell people in my court, I'm southern and I could just keep talking.
>> I believe we got the votes [inaudible].
>> motion and second already, right?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Good job.
>> thank you, sir.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you. I will talk to you all soon.
>> 1509 was a part of the motion.
>> on house bill 388, do we need to take a position on that? The j.p.s are okay on that.
>> I would just leave it like it is.
>> okay.
>> we really indicated our opposition to them, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> give them a resolution or something. That we execute. What else do we have? [inaudible] [laughter]
>> [inaudible] with t.n.r. I just wanted to bring you all up to speed on a couple weeks ago you voted to send a letter to our delegation expressing support for full and fair fulgding of the Texas emissions clean air program, this was approved last session and the funding got knocked out. There is now a bill moving very quickly. It is sponsored by chairman bonnham 13675. The bill that passed out of committee was completely different than with one filed. 1365. They are using two funding sources. They decided to increase on surcharge on construction equipment that was contained in the original bill from 1% to 2%. That gets them about $50 million of the approximately 150 million they were trying to get. The other funding source is a three cent per gallon tax -- oops, not tax, sorry, delivery fee. And you cannot say tax. It's the a delivery fee on diesel for on-road vehicles only. For on-road use only. There's clear disease he will and dye diesel, this does not affect the die diesel. We use diesel fuel so I just wanted you to be aware this would impact the county in that the fee is going to be charged at the rack, which means it's going to be charged at the distribution point when the fuel actually comes into the state. There's about six points that happens and I'm sure those charges will be passed on to the buyers which includes Travis County. We bout about 255,000 gallons of diesel last year is how much we used. Of that a good portion of that was on-road diesel. We've estimated at the most it would cost us probably about $5,000 a year for that added tax. Now, this money goes to retrofit diesel equipment, construction equipment. The grants, we could participate in that grant program which is the reason we're supporting the bill in the first place. Then all the construction companies in our area will be able to access those grant fundings. So we're expecting -- there's $30 million for near non-attainment areas. There's five areas like that in the state much of that $30 million, it just is up to us how much we apply for in this area. People in this area, we're estimating that this -- people in this area would get $5 million to $10 million of that $30 million. So this is the vehicle that is moving. You've been asked by the Texas clean air working group, which is chaired by greg beatty out of houston, and a lot of judges, county judges from c.u.c. Sit on that committee. They are asking Travis County to weigh in in support of this legislation. It does a whole bunch of other things as well, which we can get into or I can send you more information about if you would like. I guess that's the main issue is that they've asked us to weigh in and since we had supported the concept of funding this program, now that they've come up with a way they are going to fund it.
>> and I believe c.u.c. Has this on its list of priorities that it's working on.
>> yes.
>> for the urban counties.
>> I'm sorry, commissioner, I couldn't hear you.
>> c.u.c. Has this as a top issue to work on because it pertains to -- especially urban counties. And near non-attainment.
>> bexar county has weighed in they support the bill.
>> it's probably time for us to weigh in then.
>> what's the number of bill.
>> 1365. It's on the bottom of list of a.-1.
>> I have no problem with it, but I just wanted to make sure that of the $30 million that is to be divided especially I guess going to the non-attainment jurisdictions or counties, is there any money that will be generated that would go to those counties that are in attainment at this time and certain moneys of [inaudible] set aside for them to clean up their act with those particular moneys?
>> you mean --
>> because I know --
>> you mean areas like ours currently designated attainment.
>> yes, I would like to know -- because we've got money that's coming to them that we can't even get because we are non-attainment.
>> technically we are in attainment currently. No, the way the bill is written, it's the a grant program and so we have to come up with projects that we will then submit in grant form to get the funding. But $105 million that this bill raises, and let me be very clear. The bill only raises money through 2008 and all these provisions sunset and it stops. But 105 million automatically goes to dallas and houston in order for them to comply with federal regulations that if they do not they will be declared in non-compliance with the clean air act and transportation funding will be going. The bulk of the money dpoas there. The bill does reserve $30 million for the rest of us near non-attainment areas which are beaumont, port arthur, Austin area, Travis County, san antonio, bexar county, and tyler, longview.
>> six areas.
>> I guess that was my concern. And not that i-poise it or anything, but I'm trying to-oppose it or anything, I do know those counties like dallas, harris county that are in attainment status and of course money that supposed to trickle down from the state to go to those counties, because a they are not in compliance with the federal government standards, they receive that money. We can't get that money because we are not in the same situation as they are. And this is -- and this money that we are -- that that we're looking at here as far as 136 5rbgs there will be additional moneys that those particular counties will be getting as far as trying to come into compliance with non-attainment, as far as federal regulations have deemed them to not be in compliance. Am I understanding that correctly?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I just wanted to make sure because --
>> now it's going to go to the senate and we'll see what happens there. The way it stands now, that's correct.
>> it's almost like a double dip in a sense because they are already getting money, but yet they are going to get this too.
>> it's an incentive-based program, exactly.
>> well, I think we ought to take a stand. I move approval.
>> I'm not knocking it.
>> no, no, I'm just say we need to take a stand so we can move it forward. Move approval.
>> second.
>> I don't disagree with -- [one moment, please, for change in captioners] because you heard ms. Shields tell you that.
>> definitely. I think we have time and that's fine. And i'll make sure you get more information.
>> thank you. Thanks very much.
>> (inaudible).
>> the rights to the administration to the Texas department of criminal justice, or tdcj. While the bill itself looks pretty good, when you get to section 3 of the bill, in essence it abolishes the state jail division within tdcj and privatizes, or gives them the option to privatize all the state jails. Given the history with our trfs county community justice center, I felt the need to bring this to your attention and that you might be able to take position on this bill. It is scheduled for public hearing this next -- excuse me, this Thursday at 8:00 in house corrections, and in speaking with the judge last week about this bill, I began drafting a letter for the court, and that is the handouts that I gave you this afternoon. It gives you a little bit of background, also attached to that would be, if the court deemed necessary, all the counties that have a jat state jail within the community, I attached all the addresses, telephone numbers, et cetera in case that you guys wanted to send them a copy of the letter that if you did approve this letter, you could send that to the house corrections or the senate criminal justice as well.
>> now, as the chairman, I thought that the privatization of state jails was the best thing possible. After ours was privatized for the first four or five years, it was clear that that was not the situation. And the problem is that the states, you are paying corrections officers 508dz an hour, we start them out at about twice that. The other thing -- the point of that is you really get what you pay for, and that's without any kind of training. You know, those in two or three months, they think they like corrections and want a career path are crazy not to transfer to Travis County. The other thing is that what happened was that, you know, security guards were having sex with inmates out there, and by law it's an automatic crime. There was no consensual relationship inside the unit. What happened was that representative and our d.a., He contacted me and I said, we really ought to send them something that certainly tells the truth about our experience and so in our view this is one of the most frightening things in the world. Now, if you live in one of these small rural areas for $9 an hour where it's competitive and can do a lot better, and since the state took over our facility and we've been working in partnership, we really have come close to delivering a whole lot of the programs that the concept contains and that we committed to Travis County before we agreed to help locate the facility here. That decision, you know, for the state to take over was not noted by Travis County. It was noted by the board, for the reasons that I just stated, and we were reluctant to agree to that early on but had a three-way contract. And the other thing is the current law does not provide monitoring, right?
>> correct.
>> it says to contract between the private vendor of the state jail, commission, and we're out of it, although, you know, I'm not as concerned about that in other locations as I am concerned about the facility here in Travis County. So what we talked about was putting together a letter that basically said, you know, here is the truth and that's basically what kimberly tried to --
>> yes, sir.
>> and due to the fact that they are moving this Thursday, I think the d.a. And I should go over there and testify, no matter what the court's position is on it. I mean, I think our formal position ought to be that although it saves money short-term, in the long run we believe that there are a lot of disadvantages for it. At the same time, that this is coming down the pipe, there's also the parole division and probation department taking cuts this year and for the next two years and so in all probability there will be a lot more folks sentenced to do time, either in jail or prison, because you don't have the leaders in the community who can provide supervision. And to me that says that you've got to make sure that you run the jail the right way. The deal about the state jail is that this is supposed to be the lowest of the low level offender who must be imprisoned.
>> yes, sir.
>> (inaudible).
>> I clearly understand why we have the position we are taking here and addressing this. So I have no objections to pursuing what Travis County needs to do as far as addressing this particular issue, especially in this section of the bill that does relate to privatization. I think the letter in itself, I think you hit the nail right on the head, it kind of speaks for itself as far as experience that Travis County has had with that type of setting. Really I have no qualms about that at all.
>> this is one that came with one of the proposals.
>> it was sent to him Monday as well, judge.
>> I think I would second your motion, from these letters.
>> and in addition, there were some civil lawsuits that were filed against the vendor. Some of them were settled. They are kind of hard to run down if you settle the case.
>> yeah.
>> the other thing is, if you privatize it the first time, and you have the consequences that we saw, I'm not sure that if you reprivatize it in the same results -- and the same results occur that there is not some liability on the part of the owner of the facility.
>> you've spent a lot of good work on it to try to get back, to recover.
>> kimberly, are there examples in the state where privatization has resulted differently than what Travis County had, I mean, to your knowledge?
>> there's been some examples from state state jails that are privatized. They have had similar problems that Travis County experienced, not to that severity, and there are some state jails that are operating, I guess okay. Did they offer the programming that state jails do? No. Or state jails that are run by the state, I should say. No. I hate saying that. It's just not a very good quality unit.
>> certainly not with Travis County.
>> no, ma'am.
>> well, I guess it kind of gets, you know, at some point in time is going to get to a philosophical question as to exactly what are you looking for. I mean, I for one have made comments before about, this is before I was even on the campaign trail, that sometimes I think we kolgdz incarcerated people more than they need to be. I'm not saying that we didn't have a bad experience here because I do remember the experience that we had, but I do think that, you know, there probably is somewhere between having a lousy one and having, you know, a good private operator. I mean, privatization is not just something that doesn't work in any arena. We probably could find a lot of examples where that would be the case and I could see where Travis County would be frightened to think that we might go out and really consider that again, but I don't want it to be said that privatization just doesn't work. I mean, maybe we had a lousy operator. I mean, obviously we did. I mean, with all the issues that we had. I would think, I mean, one think that I feel that the private sector is probably probably -- probably pretty good at is once they get down what they really need to be doing in order to have a sustained business, I mean, those good private operators are going to find what they need to do in order to do those jobs. So you know, I don't know. I know that there are bound to be some that's doing an adequate job and we would probably feel a lot different in Travis County had we done, you know, a contract with somebody that had done a pretty decent job. I don't disagree, judge. I know that you are talking about, you know, when you start paying people $7, $8 an hour, I mean --
>> now, bartley still has a private facility. They have had the right a couple of weeks ago, I guess they do all right but, you know, $9 or $10 an hour in bartlett.
>> you are on the right side of town. [ laughter ]
>> well, I would caution us in indicating through something like this that privatization wouldn't be something that we ought to look at. Now, maybe jail operations isn't, you know, one of those arenas. I don't have any research in that particular area.
>> main opposition should be privatization in Travis County. I mean, folks in other counties, and the other thing is that, you know, tdc is democratic like most of the institutions, including us. Right now, like in the facility here, they got to buy food locally. They got to buy food from huntsville. They go to huntsville, then you got to transfer it back here. And I'm advised that if the local facility could go out to heb and buy food, they would probably cut the cost in half. Now, on the private, you've got so much money you can spend. And so what happens is when they put the budget together, they can keep inmates in the facility and feed them and clothe them but not a whole lot in addition to that. So if they are coming back to your community, I mean, it seems to me that you have to start asking, can you do something a little differently to help out. And I think I could have pretty much the same per diem as everybody else, some prisons in there and really what happened is they didn't have enough money to really pay people who could get it in and do a good job for them. It's kind of like, right now a private vendor on the per diem what they are paying would not be able to keep the state corrections officers, what the state does. And so off the bat the new vendor on day one really has to start bringing in new personnel and trying to figure out a way to pay them based on the per diem. The other thing is that right now under state law, after two or three days, the inmate, at a private facility, becomes the responsibility of the state. So they pick the inmate up, takes them down to galveston. At the state's cost. You see what I'm saying? So that's pulled out of the -- and they don't have that. The state does. You get to adding all those together and my guess is that the privately operated facilities really cost a whole lot more than we say it does. But notwithstanding that cost, my experience has been so bad that I think we are bound to go out and say you've got to understand. I mean, I was sitting there one time myself. We tried it four or five years and, you know, here's what happened. On that money in Travis County, you just can't do that.
>> yeah, I guess ultimately what frightens me is that we are pretty much put in the position from the jail standards about, you know, we have some Marching orders that we have to do, that we have found real quick that those can be very costly. And one thing I know about private industry and about just economics, if you remove the opportunity to do something because you just philosophically are not going to be there, then I will tell you somebody's going to drive you home somewhere. I mean, with the cost of what it takes to continue the escalation of what it costs to -- I mean, it's amazing to me, in the five months that i've been here and as little as I know about it, about how much money the people of this community, the taxpayer has to pay to incarcerate people. I mean, that's not even getting into their medicine, it's not even getting into all of those other sheets. So I'm proud that we're able to pay people $16, $17 an hour because, now, I think you ought to get paid what you're worth, and I'm sure that we -- that our $16, $17 an hour people are worth their $16, $17 an hour. But I sure hate to see us get in a spot where all the state jail standards say, you know what, it's not 1 in 40 anymore, you know, it's 1 in 30, or something less and then before you know it, we've got the sheriff coming over saying, you know, what, you've got to give me another $10 million.
>> right.
>> so I'm leery about just, you know, removing something. I can see where we feel the way that we feel because of the experience that we've had, but, you know, I would sure like for us to have the ability to know that we're going to be able to look at other things, you know, down the road versus just saying, hey, Travis County won't ever look at those kind of things. So everything else is off the table.
>> but this I think speaks to our experience with this particular one, and I think we need to share it with the folks down at the capital so that they will know what our experience was. Otherwise they will say we never shared that with them, and they need to know and that's why I think that crystal did good for us to send over there and let them know. And then, you know, they will make the decision they make, but at least we shared the information, our experience with them.
>> and this goes from across the state and virtually all the counties from rock-bottom and there are all the numbers there in the middle. And I don't know that it's quite fair if the state has to pick up the medical expenses after two or three days and after the state forces you to go through a process that adds to the cost. By purchasing, you are not talking about apples to apples really. If you do the apples to apples and you can provide something that came to rehabilitation, the issue probably is in the middle, between what the cost is. That will save a substantial amount of money, if that's the goal. But if you go in there and apply a per diem that really caused just unacceptable results for us, then I think we are bound to say that. That is not to say, though, that in communities where they might be privatized,.
>> places where it works, but it's not something that fits everybody.
>> I agree.
>> and I think we ought to just say, this is Travis County. We have some issues.
>> sure.
>> so (inaudible) I say that we indicate our position with Travis County and share our history with them and other regions that we can support. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And if you'll look at change and document if you do, tomorrow morning, we'll be able to run it and get it in.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> only one other that I think I was interested in us taking a position, and that's on the house bill 790 by nixon relating to the purchasing of goods and service by county purchasing agents. Syd, do you have anything to shed any light on the reason that the purchasing agents want to pass this bill?
>> 7 12340i9 --
>> 790?
>> house bill.
>> there is a letter of opposition.
>> there are a few things in here. Apparently a purchasing agent and a county auditor were having a debate over what a service is, and so they were trying to get this bill passed for clarity that we think it's going to die.
>> did the association endorse it?
>> we endorsed it, but when they started writing it and we noticed some of the issues they were getting into, we just, we said drop it.
>> okay. Just to kind of make sure, I wanted to move that we oppose the bill and that we let the proper folks at the capital know.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? It passes by unanimous vote.
>> I don't know if I did talk to y'all about senate bill 736. That is the one that would allow us to give advertising on the internet. We're hoping that one will pass and it will save us some money.
>> do you know what it is?
>> no, I do not. There are several local preferences bill also, and most of your purchasing folks do not like the preference bills because it limits your competition, and inevitably it increases your cost and it increases your administrative cost to administer it. So there's several of those bills that are coming up.
>> preference bills?
>> preference for, like, a local vendor or a state vendor as opposed to an out-of-state vendor.
>> we'll look at those next.
>> we probably need to. We probably need to look at them.
>> let's do that next week. We'll look at them all at one time.
>> okay.
>> with the jp bills.
>> yeah.
>> (inaudible) where is you would take an administrative blos this bill. We're generally in favor of the bill except for language dealing with population bracket because it effectively leaves us out. What we're asking is that the legislative liaison be allowed to work to change the language of the bracketing bill to bracketing population, reduce it from the $3.2 million that's mentioned in the proposed legislation to $800,000. That would allow Travis County to come back into this bill. What this bill does is it gives counties the flexibility to move around a market for stop loss insurance. Right now it requires that you reinsure your health insurance liability at 125%. This bill would allow you to look at higher or lower percentage of reinsurance on liability, and so we're in favor of that. It also has a couple of other features such as not requiring newspaper advertising for changes to plan benefits, and it has a provision that a fund can be set up with -- as a nonprofit trust. We're not sure where all the benefits are there, but the main feature in here that we support is the elimination of the specific 125% reinsurance requirement. And as I say, right now the way the bill's written, harris county is the only county affected if we can change the bracketing, the population bracketing to 800,000, then Travis County would be affected by this and we could definitely derive some benefits.
>> we don't think that's going to kill?
>> I don't think so.
>> you think dallas county, they will -- that's a good thing?
>> I would think so because it doesn't require you to specifically reinsure at a level. You have the option to move around a level with your reinsurance percentage. And i've spoken to hr director of harris county and they are not opposing to making this change.
>> okay.
>> I guess we will instruct bob and chris to get that amended to include us?
>> makes sense to me.
>> do you want to go into the motion?
>> I think i'll go ahead and move.
>> so move.
>> basically we indicate our support for stopping the population -- dropping the population figure. This says 500,000, doesn't it?
>> well, that was my error.
>> 800,000?
>> . [ overlapping speakers ].
>> we think it's a good thing for us.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> can you take care of that? Can you take care of that?
>> yes.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> good afternoon. I'm director of facility management will. I'm here to talk to you about house bill 3396. This bill requires arkt tekts and engineers to carry errors and omissions insurance. From the only perspective, I support this bill which makes it mandatory for all the junior architects to carry and purchase the errors and omissions insurance. However, this bill, I believe, should be modified to exclude county employees who are engineers and architects from purchasing errors and omissions insurance. We have facility management, we design projects, we are architects and engineers, we design projects, and also I believe in p and engineers the design projects. So I believe that that should be modified. To exclude us from carrying that errors and omissions insurance.
>> well, who would the insurance be payable to? Travis County?
>> that's right. It doesn't -- because it says in the bill it's personally related, the board is required to purchase errors and omissions insurance, and our product is regulated by the board. It is a professional engineer or the architect.
>> you are thinking you really don't need it here, I guess? That wouldn't be a windfall for the county if y'all would never -- . [ overlapping speakers ].
>> the question is, if you are going to exclude anyone else.
>> is there any way to exclude anybody unintentionally that we would normally go out and recruit, like hobbs? Will it exclude hobbs because it can't afford the insurance?
>> with the employees would not. It would only relate to contractors doing business with the county. Architects and engineers, regardless of their status would be required to carry the errors and omissions.
>> is it pretty easy for most engineers and architects to be able to get this insurance?
>> that's right. Right now --
>> is it fairly easy for them to get it?
>> as a matter of fact, right now they carry it, you know, under professional liability insurance.
>> okay.
>> it's errors and omissions is included in there, but it's not mandatory.
>> okay.
>> this bill makes it mandatory for them to carry those errors and omissions.
>> but it doesn't put on an undue burden on hobbs, for instance so, that they can't afford the -- to get that insurance, thereby excluding them from doing business with us?
>> it's not mike malpractice insurance where you are out of the industry?
>> well, it sort of is. It is.
>> well, that is going to be an issue for some.
>> if you -- you know, if we pay you to do a design and you leave out $10 million, or you make an error, then instead of us eating the $10 million error, their insurance pays us for that mistake.
>> we normally require error and omissions.
>> in fact, that's normally a part of the bid practice, right?
>> now. They are making it mandatory. It's been somewhat optional.
>> in the past the cost was a major. I can see the taxpayers dollars that we're dealing with here, when we go out for bids. I mean, we're spending taxpayers' money and of course we've got to ensure that the taxpayers' money is protected. So you know, I have seen, I guess as far as errors and omissions being included in the bid practice, but as a contingent situation, to protect the taxpayers' investment of what we're doing. So that's a good practice.
>> I just want to make sure we're not going to cause something that we don't intend, that we understand what we're going to be doing.
>> there is no dollar amount mentioned in the bill.
>> okay.
>> whatever minimum.
>> whatever the minimum?
>> whatever the contractor can provide, that could be posted. As I said, I can't remember a negotiation on a contract where we lost that negotiation and didn't have errors and omissions put in for a contract.
>> a few appraisers I think opposed: I think there were a few appraisal contractors. This would be a&e.
>> yours is is that we exclude employees of Travis County?
>> that's correct.
>> contractors would be covered still?
>> that's right.
>> so I think that we should exclude them, the county employees.
>> thank you.
>> so we'll try to get the sponsor to agree to an amendment that will exclude county employees.
>> engineers and architects, yes.
>> engineers and architects. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> anything else for legislation?
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM