Travis County Commssioners Court
April 1, 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
Now. If you are here on an item other than number 38, we will not reach you this morning. I guarantee that.
>> that's the legislative stuff.
>> we will start back up a the 1:30. The reason for that I am sure items 38 and b will take us at least up to 12 noon. 38. A. Discuss legislative issues, including proposed bills, and take appropriate action. B is other bills that may be considered in response to action taken by the legislature, and take appropriate action. [one moment please for change in captioners] [audio problems, please stand by] that will be around -- this afternoon. On Thursday morning, and -- at 8:00, senator wentworth's bill, that deals with the exception to the open meetings law that you all requested regarding the -- the benefits appeal or medical appeals committee, that will be heard and barbara wilson will appear on behalf of the county as a witness. Then tomorrow terry keel needs up his bill that will amend the definition of 911 in terms of how you can spend your money, [inaudible], hobby will appear on behalf of the county to testify as a witness on that. That's all that we have, unless you have any questions we are going to turn it back to you all and the staff.
>> any questions of chris or bob?
>> no, I think that's good.
>> I -- I知 not -- as far as the priority bill is concerned, I did have a bill -- well, I guess proposed that -- that bed tax. I want to maybe see if I can get I guess at this time that came up before, this is another rehash of it. There is a -- bed tax language. At this time I would like to see if -- if john [inaudible] can go through the different sections, 1 through 4, of -- of the hotel motel bed tax. Chapter 352.002 and the modifications that have been made to that to see whether or not Travis County and -- can get access to -- to moneys that are -- that use the bed tax as far as the hotels here within travis -- well, within Travis County. John, could you maybe explain what modifications have been made to the existing law, such as one through four?
>> judge, can I say something? Before we go into that, it sound like if we are going to go through and dissect the -- the code, if that calls for quite a bit of research and work and it sound like it's something that would be good for the interim so that we could prepare for the next legislative session. But it's going to take up lots of valuable time. We have got about -- oh, you know, 40 minutes --
>> [inaudible]
>> I think so. The point is Commissioner --
>> I drafted the bill, judge, I don't know if it's going to be workable. I can run you through it in about a minute.
>> hold on a minute. The question then would be whether or not we think there's any chance of us getting this filed or considered --
>> [multiple voices]
>> is there support on the court to do it. [multiple voices]
>> if it's not support that would save the taxpayers money --
>> that's not the point [multiple voices]
>> go ahead, john. Five minutes --
>> there's an existing statute in the tax code, 352, which is a very bracketed type of bill which has -- which is basically targeted towards tourism. And the commission had asked me to draft a bill that would provide a Travis County exception. Right now there's a harris county exception that is a bracket of 3.3 million. What I did was lower that down to 800,000. And to also open up the door for the tax to be used for any purpose, which is what the Commissioner's desire was, so I had to change some language in there so that the funds would be dedicated for any purpose as opposed to tourism, that was another section that was changed. Then the last section required a layout as to what the fund were to be utilized for. Again I changed that so that the funds would be utilized for any dedicated purposes that the Commissioners court would be proposing. As well as not having it be affected -- these statutes that I have chosen to utilize in the tax code would not be affected by any other city tax, wouldn't be any other cap that would be placed on this, based on a -- on a municipality in the county that would affect the tax. So trying to hit those three or four areas that the Commissioner desired. To at least allow him to get in the door perhaps to -- to propose this -- bed tax.
>> any response. Trying to get this initiated, considered.
>> judge, it would be difficult at this point for two reasons. The first is that the bill filing deadline that passed. While the legislature regularly waives the bill filing deadline, they tend to do so only for non-controversial matters. Matters that would have wide acceptance. This -- this legislation would be controversial and it might have difficulty even having a courtesy extended to a member of the senate or the house in order to cause a bill like this to be filed. The first thing was to see if there might be a suitable vehicle for this, there does not exist in our judgment a vehicle for this. The second reason that it would be difficult if this is a new concept in the sense of expanding the use of the bed tax to any purpose that the county might choose to utilize it for. As I have understood Commissioner Davis' point, which I very strongly concur with, he is trying to be sensitive to the fact that this legislature is about to push a number of unfunded mandates and the cost of those mandates on to the counties and the cities and the school districts. Your budget office has been working very hard to help quantify that. The numbers are disturbing. To put it very politely. And I think Commissioner Davis has very clearly made the point that the county is going to have to find a way to respond to that. Through either raising taxes and accepting those shifted costs or take some other action and this is one of the proposals which Commissioner Davis has suggested might be a way to help allay those costs. Unfortunately, the bed tax has been a subject, greatly lobbied, by many interests. Right now, the only purposes to which the bed tax are used that I知 aware of are for sports and community venues, which are facilities and projects under one particular statute for tourism, which is its primary use, dedicated funding, and then along the coast there are some dedicated uses involving beach erosion and related costs that have to do with the hotel industry on the Texas coast. To -- to --
>> not to cut you off, but your answer is so good to that point, let's hold right there for a minute. What if we study this after this session in preparation for the next one?
>> yeah.
>> I don't have any objection to that, judge. But my whole -- I want this court to understand and the public to understand that what this young man just deliberated is going to be fact before we know it. What I知 trying to do is be creative. Being creative meaning that how can we leverage that unfunded -- those unfunded mandates. I really feel that all of the towns in the state of Texas are going to be probably confronted with the same thing that we are trying to do. How can we reason gate additional -- generate additional revenue. To give you a clear example of what we are talking about here, the city of Austin collected over $24 million in bed tax revenue in -- in this past year. In 2002. What we are suggesting is that we give $2, not taking away from what the city is going to continue to collect, but $2 on that hotel bed tax, people coming here to visit, coming here to use our hotels, here within Travis County, the county will get $2 of that. With that $2 we would generate over $5.5 million. That is a big chunk of change that we don't have access to that we are not collecting and the changes in the tax code in the form of that bill would allow to us do that. Now the property owners out there are probably hoping that someone think out of the box, do some creative -- something creative whereby their taxes may not be impacted --
>> and I totally agree with that --
>> let me -- let me finish.
>> by the time is running out.
>> I need to finish that because it's very important. The taxpayers out there are looking for ways whereby they don't have to take a big hit as far as tax increases. I guess the other counties are looking at the same thing. The state don't give is many mandates as far as how we can generate revenue. This is just one of them that we are looking at. I don't mind holding off on it. I知 just letting everybody know out there, property owners out there, everything else, it's a storm out here.
>> I move that we put this on our list of items to seriously consider during the interim.
>> > second.
>> discussion of that motion? All right. It's a good idea. I think we ought to pursue it. Right now I don't know whether I知 supportive of not, as to trying to generate more money without real property tax increases, I favor that.
>> yeah.
>> all in favor?
>> I guess that I will just go along with you.
>> thank you.
>> four and a half [laughter]
>> almost like a third, judge, but that was a good motion. I want to keep it on the back burner.
>> I will help you with it.
>> as will i.
>> you know, that's the first item on the list.
>> yes, sir.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. Now, we do have friends here from san francisco -- [laughter] [multiple voices]
>> line 'em up.
>> it's just as lovely as san francisco here. A whole lot closer.
>> they are on the way here. Let's put this -- into you were, timely, other categories because next we will have for the urgent matters meaning those before the legislature, some committee about to discuss them action needs to be taken, et cetera. After that timely, if something is coming up in the next five or 10 days, other than -- would be anything else.
>> judge, this on your is house bill 2522, and you have also in your packet, judge, you have the original, it's the big long one there. Of a resolution. Nancy yawn is here, if you could introduce your friend with you. They are making the round of governmental entities much in the way that we on the regional mobility authority. That is in terms of seeking regional support for a very important issue related to education. As it says? The resolution -- as it says in the resolution, a good number of our students here in Travis County are going up working for the Round Rock education center, currently that facility is located in northwest Travis County. They are working very hard to get a new higher education campus located in Round Rock. Which is not only good for Williamson county and Round Rock, but it is very good in terms of the potential for students within Travis County. And having ruined your presentation, nancy, I知 going to turn it over to you to really let us hear. They have been making the round of governmental entities, including governmental ents tees here in Travis County.
>> thank you Karen, judge, Commissioners. We appreciate the opportunity today to briefly give you an outline of what we are doing, thank you for your consideration of a resolution in support of this effort. We have given you a handout, we don't noticed to go through all of that, I知 going to hit a few highlight, then answer any questions that you might have. As Karen mentioned there is currently a multi institution teaching center operating out of portable buildings at westwood high school, other local high schools. It is capped out. Their portable buildings, there's not enough anymore, they can only be utilized when school is not in. When the high schools are not utilizing them. Also you cannot have any permanent facilities such as loud facilities or -- lab facilities or computer science type of set ups. The effort that we are here today to ask on for your support in is to get a permanent facility built that would allow the need, the upcoming need, the needs assessment by two different groups has shown that there will be 50,000 students in central Texas that will need a higher education chair and that's just not available. U.t. Is capped out, southwest Texas is capped out, it's also thousands of students driving down i-35. There are a lot of students who are not able to make that drive. Who are not able to go to -- to go on to higher education right now. This will offer Austin community college, temple junior college, southwest Texas will be the -- the institutions involved in this. They will be offering everything from workforce training, we've had heard a lot of our major employers, both in Travis County and Williamson county crying out for more workforce development closer to their facilities. And so there will be associates's degree, there will be all the way up to a master's program. With that, I understand you all are on the -- on a tight time line here. We really appreciate being here. We will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
>> basically this is a -- a -- this would ask us to -- to support ask asking the legislature to support the creation of a Round Rock higher education center.
>> there is currently a -- there is a multi institution teaching center operating. What this is asking for is funding from the legislature in this session for a permanent facility. Now, the community and the city and the -- a lot different ents tees have come in -- entities have come in and raised 8.5 million toward this goal. That has really fared well as we have taken it to the legislators to show that there is a tremendous support from the community wanting this to happen. What we are asking you for is support of this effort to get a permanent facility on the ground.
>> [multiple voices]
>> resolution be appropriate.
>> I would move that we support the passage of house bill 2522 and the companion senate bill 1297 related to this item.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> I would sure like to understand what it is. And I guess that I can just, you know, abstain, I mean, until I read it and know what it is, how it's going to be funded, completely, I mean what it really entails. I mean, if you do create this, I mean, there are more wes that I have. I am more than willing to visit with you, if you all will let me look at it and come by and we will talk about it.
>> it's asking to be funded by tuition revenue bonds in the -- in the legislature. And it is already a created entity. What is lacking is a permanent facility to accommodate the growing population that will want to have higher education offered in the region.
>> basically if the state would issue the bond and you hope that tuition fees, et cetera, would enable you to satisfy the indeadness, and you have 8.5 million of seed money to get it started.
>> absolutely. The request is being made by southwest Texas state university. For tuition revenue bonds.
>> a permanent -- for permanent facilities, basically.
>> bricks and mortar.
>> you don't come back, I mean, it's like we have with a.c.c. It was never going to have tax money. So there's a situation here that would never be the case.
>> this is authorization for tuition revenue bonds to southwest Texas is what the bills are asking.
>> there's actual a whole lot of kids that are right now getting on interstate 35 to head down to southwest Texas state who can stay in their local community and not be part of that rush hour on interstate 35. We are also looking for the transportation desires for this as well.
>> absolutely.
>> they can stay local.
>> as well as there arrest lot of kids who can't make that drive, so they are not being able to go and attend higher education.
>> [inaudible] education.
>> donation of land and the revenue bonds where the students pay their way.
>> I知 sure that I will be delighted with it once I read it and you all talk to me about it.
>> we appreciate that.
>> this is more graduates, paying more taxes.
>> that's right. Staying off the interstate.
>> tax base. Increasing the tax base all in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly in favor. Commissioner Daugherty abstaining, Commissioner Davis temporarily away from the dais. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you so much.
>> I was probably one of those people that created the pressure on a.c.c. To take more students. I've been really pushing. Sorry.
>> that's okay.
>> didn't say I wasn't going to vote for it.
>> nancy, you wait just a second we can get --
>> okay, thank you. Okay, our first piece of urgent legislation is number --
>> well, there are four rma related bills that are actually being heard before the house transportation committee this morning. They started this morning. They are continuing this afternoon. They were introduced by chairman of the transportation committee, mike krusee. Right at the indiana of the filing deadline. And -- at the end of the filing deadline, we wanted to bring them to your attention, let you decide if you want to take action on them or not. We can go in numerical order. The first one house joint resolution 80. Which would basically relates to allowing counties that are part of r.m.a.'s to issue bonds. Excuse me. There's an omnibus bill introduced, house bill 2459 that basically recreates r.m.a.'s, takes the existing legislation, the existing chapter that they were introduced in, del let's that, creates a whole new chapter for regional mobility authorities and endows them with a lot more authority than was originally given to them. There's house bill I don't know if you all have had a chance to look over them, we send you a little bit of information, yes, if you are ready to ask questions -- there's things on that there stick out, gives county fewer legal protections. Additional appointments to rma boards, additionally stacking it on the side of wherever the project is being built or whatever, I mean, those are -- I mean, those are certainly things that I would think that we would have some issues or at least questions about.
>> okay. This is -- is this 80?
>> 2459.
>> okay.
>> I think there are questions raised. Staff it's waiting for direction from the court as to how you want to, whether or not you would like to pursue these issues with chairman krusee. As I said, they are hearing the bills today. The -- the usual -- usually how they handle bills in the transportation committee, they bring them up one week hear them, have them laid out, usually they wait a week. I don't know if that's changing since I think the plan is to wait at least a week.
>> would it be helpful for us to -- I just saw this stuff yesterday, bifn out of town for -- I have been out of town for a week. I was wondering if it would be helpful to get a committee together to go visit with representative cues see or his staff.
>> I would like that.
>> to get some better information. Some stuff can appear daunting, threatening, just confusing because we just sigh it, i-- I -- see it, I believe you guys, but what I have been trying to accomplish, some hinges that we can offer in terms of good advice on how best to get there as opposed to I don't feel prepared to say it's a good idea or not.
>> I know.
>> but I think it would certainly be good for us to sit down --
>> I would like that very much.
>> with representative krusee or somebody with the transportation subcommittee, transportation committee over at the house to get a better understanding of this and do it in a more collaborative fashion in terms of our legitimate concerns about what this may or may not do as opposed to sitting here like this. And trying to figure it out. I think conversations might be more fruitful.
>> I would add I think that's a very good idea. But it needs to happen in the next six or seven days.
>> I don't disagree with you. This series of bills will constitute a significant employment from the transportation infrastructure plan for this part of Texas. So these are very, very important bills, I think to the county. I think if I understand your suggestion correctly, perhaps we could organize a meeting that involves staff, one or two Commissioners and capital staff or representative crews see himself, if -- krusee himself. If you could do that as early this week or next week that's what I think would be most productive.
>> we certainly need to do that. There are issues in here -- it should be only expected that representative krusee, that we want to come over and talk to him.
>> why don't you and Commissioner Sonleitner do that. I have some commitments on my calendar.
>> why don't we get -- get a sfat aid or whoever knows this legislation to come to the Commissioners court to chat with us.
>> that would be good.
>> I mean, I wou like to be there, I think 2459 is a hook. I知 sure some of it is good, not all of it is. But we would have to post it. But I would make Monday afternoon available. We could look into whether they would be willing to do that. My guess is with the business of the schedule and other considerations to actually come to the court to discuss the bill and -- in an open session. I think --
>> I didn't say it was open. Monday would be a work session with us.
>> we can -- we could extend that invitation.
>> it would have to be open, but it wouldn't have to be televised. I mean if they won't come over here and discuss it openly, what will they do when it gets to the floor or in committee. The discussions by law have to be open.
>> sure.
>> if you are deliberating on them. The legislative or house or --
>> I won wonder if we could do both.
>> two or three issue that's need to be addressed in order come correct oversights in old r.m.a. Legislation, this is a whole lot more than we anticipated I think. I don't know that it's fair for two of us to go and bring back a position for three --
>> right.
>> it's --
>> we can do both, judge. Two members can meet with the staff and then we can also have the meeting here for all of the court. And then combine everything that we have gotten from both meetings to make a decision.
>> [inaudible] we need to know so we can post it [multiple voices]
>> 72 hours in advance I don't think is asking too much. Otherwise, I think that individually we ought to -- that can keep -- less than three from meeting with them or what have you. (audio problems).
>> there is, yes, sir. There's a physical note.
>> [inaudible] I think we can probably elaborate more [inaudible]
>> yeah. I agree with you, judge.
>> I think all of us do -- need to do that [multiple voices]
>> testify before.
>> sure.
>> that's the way it is.
>> posted, get it on.
>> and in view of the 72 hour requirement, -- it would be this evening or Monday morning, I think Monday is the probably earliest day anyway. But I have in mind 1:30 Monday afternoon, it would be in open court. But there's no reason to televise it, it would be a work session, we would want an opportunity basically to discuss it and ask questions, et cetera, try to figure out what position we ought to take. It would be on the court's agenda Tuesday morning as far as the legislative item. We form formally will take the position one way or the other. I do see us maybe supporting part of it and not supporting other parts. But we ought to be informed before we take any position.
>> exactly.
>> why don't we do that for all three of the r.m.a. Related bills. Can we simply indicate to crusoe's office today at -- krusee's office that at this point the court feels without sufficient knowledge to take a position, we would like to meet with him Monday, Monday morning or Monday afternoon, we would have to change our schedules. [inaudible]
>> I don't know whats on my schedule.
>> Monday afternoon is best for me.
>> we would prioritize this, maybe that would be better than coming over Tuesday when we would be probably short of time, the landfill items will be on the agenda Tuesday afternoon, hopefully finish everything up that morning. I just think that -- that they ought to know that -- that the -- that there's a whole lot more substance than we anticipated before the session. Hearing officer it may be that we are in agreement with all of it once we understand it. We are not sure, we have had not had sufficient time to really peruse it like we should, we need an audience with him. But I do think our position now ought to be that we are going -- we don't know who our position is on the different bills, different r.m.a. Bills and we need this meeting in order to determine that position and our intention is to formally discuss it on Monday, which is the earliest time that we can post it, with the intention to take a formal position and -- in the voting session of Tuesday.
>> I would like to meet with t.n.r. Before Monday, on those four bills, I want to make sure we go through this sentence by sentence, stuff like that, get it clear. Letting you know that I want to meet with you before Monday.
>> I don't know that the representative has to come over, but somebody that knows the bill ought to come.
>> yeah.
>> I think the suggestion that we get with them ahead of time and we can possibly do that Friday, and then go from there. I知 sure they will be heap to discuss it with us. What we were -- chris and I were talking about, if you at least identify the problem areas at this point, you may want to consider sending them back this afternoon because the bill is I will being heard now, it's pending. At least get on the record to say we have got these concerns, but we are still talking through it, we need a little more time, we want to visit with you, work with you. But at least make that record publicly if that's -- if you want to authorize them to do that. And --
>> I think so.
>> but --
>> I don't know whether it would be accurate for staff to say that we have concerns.
>> I wouldn't use the word concern.
>> it may be staff suggest that's you all should just say generally the Commissioners court who questions, areas that there's a great need to discussion. And really need an audio yins with the court. -- audience with the court. This is no the a little thing. And the court wants an audience with somebody more knowledgeable than they. The earliest time legally really is Monday. We can do it any time Monday as long as we know today so we can get posted, tomorrow, too, with the 72 hour requirement.
>> okay. Short of that we are left on our own to understand it and take positions and come in Tuesday and deliberate.
>> worse than that two, by twos, different people may hear different things.
>> exactly. Middle multiple.
>> all be able to hear the same information and ask the same questions at the same time. If it's possible.
>> [inaudible]
>> okay. We will go back to the committee this afternoon and make a request.
>> I think the word is not concerns. It's questions. We want to understand these bills.
>> okay. Super.
>> Williamson, to your knowledge, is Williamson county not -- not concerned about any of these?
>> I have not heard anything like that, Commissioner. Representative krusee I know has been trying to work with all of the groups.
>> it's not clear at this point. My basic understanding it's that -- is that it's possible that those substitutes may very substantively altar the bills as filed. That's one reason, really another reason why we just have to sit down with the staff and ask them where he's going and what he would like to try to accomplish.
>> can you all do that?
>> yes, sir.
>> I don't know that we need to do that, to get that done, right.
>> we will do that this afternoon. If they know that a -- yes, sir, absolutely. I think that the point of the hearing today is to let everybody vents or express their issues, concerns, questions, and then the substitute will attempt to incorporate as much of that as possible.
>> well, characterize the county judge as being in a state of temporary bewe woulderment. [laughter] bewilderment and a search of further recommendation and understanding.
>> ditto.
>> can we do that with all of the r.m.a. Bills?
>> house bill 1198 already had a hager. It's trans Texas corridor, the legitimate of sh 130 would be a part of that system the way it is delineated today. I think that while we were talking to him about the big transportation picture, which the r.m.a. Bills fall into, that it might be appropriate to discuss the trans Texas corridor bill was him as well. There are several out there. But his is one of those that -- that he's introducing it on behalf of the governor, the -- this is an issue that is moving right along with the r.m.a.'s, I think they are moving in conjunction with each other, in concert I guess you could say. I don't know if you want to bring up that issue as well.
>> I think so.
>> ought to be broad.
>> uh-huh.
>> what we want to talk to them about.
>> yeah.
>> again, we think that does impact the county, we do have question abouts what those impacts will be. So ... Does that make accepts. Real quickly the only other issue, you all asked me to bring back house 1365, we discussed it last week when Commissioner Sonleitner was away. I laid out pretty much I guess one thing that I would like to note is that the bill again is changing, I知 told, but chairman bonnan is trying to get the bill to the house floor prior to the budget bill. So within the next few days, I think it's set for a Monday hearing on the house floor. Again --
>> what's that number again?
>> house bill 13650. This has -- 1365, the nawrp funding bill. The Texas clean air working group is asking that the Travis County Commissioners court weigh in. They would obviously like you to support the bill. We do have questions about not the terp funding of the bill, which is -- saying you sent a letter to your delegation saying you support full and fair funding of the [inaudible] program. As usual this bill collected some additional language that we do have concerns about at the staff level that might limit your ability to look at some emission control measures, when we are putting together the early action compact plan. We are not the only entities or the only geographic area that has concerns with that language that's been added. We are discussing that language with the chairman and with -- with folks in the senate who will too up this bill when it -- who will take up this bill when it moves over there. I wanted I to be aware that there are some issues in the bill that the staff would recommend you ask the -- to be removed, but I don't know if you want to get into any kind of detail. But begin rail the bill would provide funding as it is -- areas such as ours to participate in this diesel retrofit.
>> this is on the cuc platform, judge.
>> we are supportive of the bill of record.
>> on record you have supportive of a bill that fully and fairly continued the [inaudible] program which so far did this bill does. In addition they have added some language as part of the compromise that we feel is unwise, it deals specifically with fuel standards environmental speed limits.
>> but it's the lapping in the bill before.
>> the language is currently in the bill.
>> where is it?
>> where is the bill?
>> section 1 and section 19. Shouldn't we look at the lankenau. That would be wonderful. Section 1 on the first page, lines four through 18, would be most simple to simply strike that section out of the bill. I知 told that line 17 and 18, there has been a compromise has been reach and they have agreed to drop that language. I have not seen any substitute language. But the previous language says basically that the Texas council on environmental quality cannot have any -- cannot mandate any kind of fuel standard that is not consistent with the national fuel standards. So we cannot require ultra low sulfur disease sell in this area any earlier than the feds would require it, which we are planning on doing. That gets us a lot of knox reductions for very little cost. I知 not sighing that's what you are going to warrant to do nearly -- you are going to want to do necessarily, but you might want to have that when you decide what emissions you are going to require under the clean air action plan that we are going to have to do it. It might be that's a cheaper, better way than have a construction ban or an I and m program. You get about the same amount of nox reductions that you do with an I and m program. That's why we have concern abouts this language being in there. The other one is section 19, which deals with environmental speed limits. This is a huge issue in houston. They passed a lower speed limit, everybody went up in arms, had he had to -- this is how the turning turk bill came about. Dallas is getting pretty major nox reductions out of their lowering the speed limit up in dallas. That's what the people of dallas chose to do. This bill would not allow to look at that option. You may say that option is crazy and I don't want to even consider it. If you are willing to say that now, then fine we can, you know, leave that in there. But if you want to preserve your options to look at what all of the emission control strategies will be when we really have to put together a plan --
>> speed limits on what.
>> state highways.
>> I always thought that the state highways speed limit were the purview of the state because we certainly have that situation on mopac where the mayor of Austin tried tell texdot what the speed ligament on mopac ought to be or not. They basically said thank you for your opinion, but that's our area, not yours. I知 just wondering how it is that we all of a sudden have important to do something we have never had the power to do before related to --
>> pass part of an -- as part of an early action compact we would be allowed to work with texdot. It's federal standard, federal clean air act, so they allow us to work with the state agency. The state agency can lower speed limits up to 20 miles per hour for an environmental purpose under the clean air act basically. Under if I recall regs is how that works. Federal regs. We would be allowed to also do that.
>> 1965 is what you are talking about?
>> yes, sir.
>> it was filed when?
>> it was filed --
>> February 26th, 2003. You are looking at --
>> it's changed several times.
>> I don't have that. I don't have what you are looking at apparently. I have what was filed February 26th.
>> you don't have a substitute?
>> no.
>> here's a couple.
>> you all this is delving way beyond where we have ever gone in terms of the technical things within any particular bill, I知 not sure this is very fruitful in terms of our discussion.
>> Commissioner, I would just kind of summarize by saying that there have been several substitutes. They are consistent with the court's historic position in terms of providing full, clear funding for the turk, but two provisions have been added to this most recent version of the bill which would eliminate two options that have previously been available to the court. Ultra low sulfur fuel and the speed limits. And the question before the court that I believe we are asking is whether the court would give us instructions to seek to retain those two options for the Commissioners court.
>> all right. So does staff have a recommendation, and --
>> that would be the recommendation, that you move to support the bill to continue to support the bill, in order to fully and fairly fund the turp program which you have consistently said you are in favor of. But to direct the lobby team to consider to work with the bill sponsors and with the senate to work on getting some of these provisions that are extraneous to that program frankly either exempted -- either exempt us from those provisions --
>> why are these provisions disadvantageous for us?
>> they eliminate our ability to look at option that's we currently have. Right now we could look at using some of these control measures if these measures pass, those --
>> we want to preserve the right to although at other options.
>> exactly. It's not even saying that we are going to adopt them. We just want to look at them.
>> makes sense to me.
>> so move.
>> what's the second change, what's our position on it.
>> that's the only one.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner motions that we indicate our continued support of the bill. We have a problem with the new language because we need to preserve our options and flexibility.
>> direct the lobby team to pursue those goals.
>> isn't it true that last week you told news the full and fair funding aspect of this that this is -- that this is very advantageous for the non-attainment cities they really need that, is that what I recall you saying? Where is he from.
>> from brazoria. Houston and dallas have to have this bill passed in order to get their clean air action plan passed by the feds.
>> they don't necessarily need the change.
>> need the change that we are asking -- no, think do not.
>> thoos why I second the motion.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez temporarily away from the dais. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you. Judges? Come forth. [one moment please for change in captioners] all we are doing with this act is in conjunction with what the district court judges are filing is establish take away that August 1999 floor and again allow the statutory county court's at law salary to be set at a thousand less than what the district court judges make now. There you will continue to be no cap. The -- the language in the statute is mandatory, it has been in all of the statutes. It says that it shall be set at this amount. And what we are just trying to do is clarify. The statutes are, you know, I think that I have read them several, many times and they are confusing at best. And we are just trying to clarify it. But clearly what the -- who the statute is doing is -- is removing that floor of August 1999 and not setting a cap, which it didn't have before as of the 1999 statute. The 1999 statute removed that cap so that you could pay us more and that's why I think in 19 -- if I although at -- I have got it on page 2, that the lifetime of this statutory county courts at -- the last time the county courts at law received a race was in 1998.
>> is that is that -- the iran for that is that your salary is tied to the district judges?
>> yes. Basically what they did is did the -- take the Travis County judges took themselves out of the statute that would allow to you set the salary. You have always set our salary, but have tied it to the district court judges. What we are doing here is you still would -- could pay us a thousand dollars less than what they make, if you give them a raise, but or you could give us more or you could pay us important from the fact of the -- if you wanted to. Any questions?
>> hum, okay. So is this the same bill that representative stick inquired about last week?
>> yes, sir. That's really the reason we came back is to obviously ask that you revisit the discussion that was had here about a week or so ago. I think there was a miscommunication that that bill -- actually I think it started with representative keel's office, but went to representative stick's office. I think the miscommunication was that this amendment somehow capped is us and therefore would prevent you should you choose to give us a cost of living raise. Just to clean up that confusion, we came back to say that is not what happened.
>> do you have any language before us, the -- without having the language before us, the explanation was simply that you all would make $1,000 less than the district haves.
>> yes, sir. I called the representative's offices right after that discussion to clarify that. It obviously had been a miscommunication here a week or two before that when his office had spoken. I think the Commissioners court members. So we just came back to clarify that.
>> yeah, because in 1999 it removed the cap. You know, so you could -- you could pay us more. But it set a floor. And now basically we are kind of changing that floor to remove that August 1999 floor, so that it come -- it's just a thousand less or more than what the district court judges make again because theirs is tied to state.
>> I知 sorry, judge.
>> go ahead, I have two questions after you.
>> okay. I guess part of the problem I think that I知 having, the judge, the legislative -- county, we have always basically been able to dictate as far as us paying the county court at law judges, what we dictate it should be, that's all according to what we deem that have budgetary adequacy attributed to all of these salaries.
>> yes, sir. And.
>> and my concern is we set a thousand cap, well, depending on what, you know, really I see a lot of this stuff that's coming up here, but lord knows I知 not going to support it as far as -- as far as if it's compelling or confining me to -- to actually do just this, without looking at the budget or anything else. I guess what we are doing, we are looking at -- we are modifying it, but I don't want to be -- I don't want to be put in a position where what we do is a bynuming type of situation without any control or authority.
>> I certainly agree with that, sir. The reason that we came back again today is I think there's been a miscommunication between the representative's office and the Commissioners court that this bill in fact enforced the cap level and in fact that's not what this bill does. And so we just asked for some time to come back and say that -- that it does not set an upper limit so therefore if the Commissioners court felt like across the board cost of living ace an example, we would be -- as an example, we would in fact be treated like county employees. It gave you the option to do.
>> it doesn't mandate -- the statutory is mandatory in the sense that if you are going to set a salary, that you set it at -- -- again at a thousand dollars less than the district court judges make now, but there will continue to be no cap. But could -- you could pay us more. But you don't have to. It's not -- it's not mandatory in the sense that it mandates that you give us a raise. I think that's what I hear you sawing Commissioner Davis.
>> I知 look -- what I hear you saying Commissioner Davis.
>> I知 looking at dollar amounts. Which I look at that it's a boundary, it's a constant, it's something that's in writing, this almost appears that we are being dictated to as far as how we deal with our county court at law judges, especially when we don't have any control over what happens to our district judges at the state level, [inaudible] how they get their particular salaries.
>> complaifs we whole haertedly agree with what you are saying. We would love to go and support our district court judges to go to the state and get raises. And support that. But what we are saying is we totally agree with you. What's happened that is our raises to some degree have been tied to the district court judges. If they didn't get a raise, we didn't get a raise. Theirs is tied to state, yet ours is set by the Commissioners. That's within your province, whether you give us a raise or not. And that's -- that doesn't impact, that's still within your discretion.
>> can I ask the question --
>> yes.
>> if we do nothing, you all are going to be bound by an old section of the law that says you will be paid a thousand less than a certain salary in 1999. And in house bill 213, we are seeking to get out from underneath these artificial caps that the state has set. Therefore if we do the right thing related to our district judges, which really still keeps total discretionary ability of this court to set that salary, if we do not do a companion cleanup measure related to our county court at law judges, you all will be dictated by an old piece of legislation that says it doesn't matter what the district judges are being paid, you will held to a salary in 1999 that may not be relevant in terms of the $1,000 differential.
>> did I scholarship it well?
>> yes, you do. Yes, you did Commissioner.
>> I nuevo laredo we reconsider the -- I move that we reconsider the vote that we took last week on house bill 213.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez absent. And I知 -- I now move that we indicate our support to representative keel and stick of house bill 213,000 take we understand it.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote, also.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioners. Okay.
>> how much more of this do we have, you all? We are due back at 1:30.
>> kimberly pierce justice and public safety.
>> I知 sorry?
>> thank you.
>> I知 trying to --
>> I won't take up very much of your time. I知 here this morning, I知 sorry, bob, to discuss the parole violator bills that have been filed this session. There's actually seven bills that affect the parole violators, the number of days they sit in our county jails. Two of which you have already voted to support, senate bill 697, house bill 849 by senator allen, I知 sorry, 697 I知 sorry is about senator barrientos. The other five are all very similar, a little bit of differs in the number of days, 880 by senator whitmeyer reduces the number of days currently to 60 days before the parole board is required to make a decision. They would reduce it from 60 to 30 days. Senate bill 918.
>> we think that's a good thing, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> cuts it in half. Could do better, but I mean it cuts it in half. Senate bill 918 by senator whitmeyer for technical parole violators instead of issuing a parole warrant this would require the parlor board to issue a summons hearing outside of a correctional setting. 965 would reduce the number of days from 60 to 19. And house bill 3335 by capello with a companion bill by madla, 1144, would also reduce the number of days from 60 to 30 day. I would recommend that we would support all of these bills. I think this session, we are going to have at least one bill pass ghootiond reduce the number of days. Senator whitmeyer, of course, is the chairman of the criminal justice on the senate side, chairman allen on the correction side in the house. There -- both of them are sponsoring two very similar parole violator bills, those are the only two that are moving, these other ones have not even been place odd -- in committee yet. They are referred to committee, but not up yet.
>> can we list of all them in -- in one supporting resolution or should we do separate resolutions.
>> whatever you would prefer, I mean --
>> which way would it have most impact, bob? Would it matter to whitmeyer if he received a separate --
>> no. The sheriff is going to testify on that bill this afternoon. And -- and it's correct, the chairman's bill in each house are moving, those may eventually combine and I think we -- we are out there following those and supporting them, I don't think it matters what -- what format or --
>> that we ask kim bedroom and don't to draft us, a resolution supporting all of this bill move, present them for our signatures. Can we get the resolution of support this afternoon,.
>> sure.
>> I have in mind something real simple like -- [inaudible] we list reasons why we support them and the sooner the better, right if.
>> right.
>> and that the whole court will try to sign them this after noon, that's the motion?
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis, any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> one other thing, judge Biscoe, there is another bill, house bill 2728 by tarlton, he's filed a bill that a technical violator and parole violator it would be a state jail felony if they are found. I would say guilty after violation technical violation of their parole. I would recommend that the court oppose that bill. I just thought that I would bring that to your attention that there is another one filed that -- that would actually increase the number of people incarcerated rather than reduce it.
>> we -- [multiple voices]
>> the state jail. It would be a fourth degree felony if they technically violate their parole.
>> you think that has any chance of going anywhere.
>> no, sir.
>> should we tick him off or just --
>>
>> not wish him well.
>> sometimes silence is helpful.
>> say nothing at all.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, sir.
>> anything else?
>> do you want to take it now.
>> try to take it. We will add 10 minutes to the lunch motion, Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> it's just that I have lots of stuff to catch up on.
>> this -- this is -- is this mic on? You have a draft letter that -- take deal was house bill 1. You also have something that -- that builderry berry did -- bill derry berry, based on the auditor's report. I also have other number that's I need to pass out to you, community based impact numbers.
>> okay. Sonleitner as this is being passed out, rather than this being a joint letter from the city and county, we ought to make this a county letter of the things that impact us and we would encourage our friends at the city to do exactly the same. But I have a real problem with a joint letter. I don't think it's helpful. We need to do so we can focus in on the things that are specific to Travis County. Because the city of Austin has things that -- that we don't do and vice versa, there's some things that we do together, but I think there ought to be a separate letter for us.
>> I think the city is prepared to do a separate letter, Karen, I don't think that's a problem. They have an item on their Thursday agenda, looking at doing a separate letter along these lines. I think bill can probably speak to his numbers better than I can. But basically when I looked at bill's numbers, there's really two sets of numbers here. One is our direct budget numbers and then there are the mbers that have been developed by the center for public policy priorities, which -- which our former judge scott mccown adds up. Basically, one of the largest impacts of what they are doing in house bill 1 is to medicaid programs. The numbers show $108 million a year. I simply took scott mccown's numbers and divided by two because they are biennial numbers. I summarized his numbers, basically. But medicaid also affects mhmr as to probation. Which I would develop these community based impact numbers, I tried to be very careful not to double count impacts. When you look at mhmr numbers, you won't see very specific dollar amounts there. Even though they actually, I think, have -- have developed sort of some impact numbers based on their clients. But again those numbers are captured through our probation numbers and also through our medicaid numbers. Some of the items on here are just program list rather than dollar amounts, I -- I do see sort of a typo there. When you look at the visiting judges, judge wisser sent me an e-mail saying they are looking at a loss of one and a one-half time full courts as a result of cuts in visiting jails. So -- so basically the number thoos I developed are-- numbers that I developed are a combination of outside sources, which I noted, also e-mails which I received from various staff members and all of the people that responded to me, thank you very much.
>> I知 confused to what this letter is, I thought what we were developing a series of letter that would basically incorporate all of this good information that we've got. I didn't know if it was just supposed to be a cover letter to all of the staff so that our folks would have good numbers related to the mental health care stuff, probation stuff, criminal justice stuff, child pocket active services stuff. And I知 not -- is this letter in lieu of that or is this a cover letter? I知 just confused as to what this letter is.
>> we need to -- well, in general, what we talked about was providing a letter to the delegation, not saying here's what happens to the county as a result of some of the decision that's you are making in house bill 1. So it's one letter s.
>> my memory is, unless you all did something different last week, we were talking about a series of letters on this that basically would introduce the very good, hard data that they could have. I never thought that this letter would be anything more than an introductory overview thing with all of the good staff. I mean, are we just going to attach the stats to this letter or how are we doing this?
>> I if -- we had started with the process with budget an planning, where they were going to get the hard numbers. Then the discussion is when. It was -- it was noticed that the community impact was much, much different. Millions and millions and millions of dollars more. So barbara had gone down that route and she's preparing this -- has prepared that information. This information, this letter based on that. Bill and his folks are -- have the hard numbers. I think we want to present all of that to you today. So that you can decide what information we can take over there. In my opinion we need them both hard numbers and if you so decide the letter. But that's what we are presenting both tracts to you and allowing you to make the choice. Either both, one or the other or both.
>> just to give you an idea. I think if you totaled all of bills numbers, that's very difficult to do for a lot of reasons, I would guesstimate roughly the direct impact to county budget is somewhere around 700,000. And between -- between.
>> 7 or 800.
>> between 7 or $800,000. The community based impacts are millions of dollars. That's because these cuts are going to -- directly to places like nursing homes and people who are receiving prescription benefits. But all of those impacts will come home to roost in the -- in the county and -- in terms of -- you know, increases in our jail populations, increases in our --
>> that's what the letter says, though, what Karen is saying, we need this kind of as a -- as a -- as a cover sheet and then with the -- with the layout of the statistical information because you are right, if you don't get those things, this is just one of those deals where everybody comes in, wants to say the same stuff, but this is good about putting concisely putting in here's basically what we are saying. Now we are going to give you some statistical information to show us.
>> why don't we put them all in one document, though?
>> in essence you would have the letter and then you would have the community based impact.
>> I think we ought to say in one letter we think the direct fiscal impact would be, if it's $800,000 say that. But the community impact it's a whole lot greater. We think it will be -- you see what I知 saying? If I were there I think that I would want one document that laid everything out for me.
>> I will be happy to -- to redraft an added paragraph and talk about direct -- direct budget impacts if that's -- what you would like to do.
>> I知 also looking at in terms of we will be faced with raising taxes. There will be very difficult choices made in this community if we have unfunded mandates toss understand our direction, because certainly our own elected representatives feel like these are not important programs, that certainly raises a very important issue about what weather we also share their viept or not. The -- we don't have room in -- in our budget to do that without hitting the role-back rate. So I mean, it's just -- anyway, I知 looking for something that is a blended letter, nice much more specific and -- that is much more specific and again I hope takes on it some of the opinions kind of stuff here. The letter is not ready at this point for me to say yes.
>> [inaudible]
>> correct me if I知 wrong, bob, but my understanding is that April 8th is when they are looking at laying out the appropriations bill and if we are going to be effective in -- in our communications with our delegation, whoever else we decide to communicate this letter with, we need to look at that time frame.
>> I thought that we were going to be sending this information over to the delegation weeks ago. It's like we have already got a great letter related to chips, c.p.s., Although the information from jim rust. Are we saying that we have not sent the basic backup information over to the delegation this morning?
>> that's correct.
>> because wear waiting on a cover letter? That bugs me.
>> the document that the Commissioners court would approve and sign to send over. I don't know that we directed the staff. I think we said bring the letter back dowrt, let us approve it and sign it.
>> in general, I thought you wanted a general letter to the delegation in time for the appropriations process, that was the discussion. If you want something else, I would be happy to try to work on it.
>> also our spin on it.
>> which set of facts.
>> the -- like Friday says, nothing but the facts.
>> do you want community based impacts --
>> both of them, impacts, so I would lay them out. I guess I知 looking at instead of necessarily excluding a certain perspective, I would put them all into one and I guess that I would take a couple of days to try to do that. Get that to the court, let the court wordsmith it. John, are we in a position basically to take this -- to move to take this information, come up with one letter, circulate that, let us respond to it, come up with a finished product, sign that and send it or do we need to meet again to do it?
>> you are talking about changing the letter --
>> we are talking about putting it --
>> circulating it amongst yourselves.
>> talking about -- each of is on owe we will not communicate among ourselves as court members, but we would look at a revised draft presented by staff, give staff suggestions, hopefully move toward a finished product that we could sign --
>> hoping the staff would as imilate all of those into something the whole body would feel comfortable with. That's the risk that you are taking --
>> failing to do that, we would have to address it again next Tuesday. But I hear you saying Tuesday is the next action day.
>> that would get it to them Thursday or Friday.
>> we had planned to distribute it Thursday and Friday if we could. So --
>> well, who if I move that the court basically direct Commissioner -- get input from members of the court, then ask Commissioner Sonleitner and myself to work with staff to try to put something in final form to be distributed -- if we do that, can we get the court's signature?
>> that would be all right.
>> as long as the court trusts you.
>> try to get that on shield and cam Thursday?
>> that would be great.
>> so we can distribute it.
>> and yeah in terms of the this -- of this being a work product of staff, you know, in terms of barbara and ann and working with p.b.o., So this is a group effort in terms of when we say staff. In terms of putting this letter together.
>> yeah.
>> kind of one document with impact that's truthful. Not overly dramatic but truthful. Here's the impacts from a budgetary perspective, also from a community impact perspective.
>> right.
>> because I think members of the delegation would want to know our take on it.
>> I just envisioned something with bullet points. I don't see bull points. I know we can get there. We just need to spend some quality time doing it.
>> that's the motion. That we try to have ary advised draft prepared by tomorrow afternoon, that individual members of the Commissioners court would give staff feedback and that after in a Commissioner Sonleitner and I -- after that Commissioner Sonleitner and I work with staff to try to get other court members signature and late Thursday or Friday distribution to Travis County delegation.
>> could I ask if you would e-mail any comments or ideas, additions, that might help in facilitating getting a quick product.
>> okay. Fine with me.
>> as long as that e-mail is not communicating back and forth twin the court members. Between the court members. I don't have any objection to that.
>> I think it's more helpful for folks here to be able to respond to a draft in terms of suggestions to improve it as opposed to a -- what do you think ought to public in ther -- out to be in the letter. I think we are past that point. I think staff -- it would be helpful for staff to start working on we drafting this letter. It's going to be a massive cut and paste job.
>> may we have authority to distribute it beyond the delegation if we so chose to the governor's office, other places.
>> fine with me.
>> you bet.
>> and if the level of comfort is not such that -- that we can -- that we can get signatures on it, we will just discuss it next Tuesday morning, try to put it first thing. Is there a motion and a second.
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> my more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Gomez temporarily away. We will recess for lunch until 1:45.
>> second. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote, also. Commissioner Gomez absent.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:25 PM