Travis County Commssioners Court
April 15, 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 33
33 a is to discuss the issues o.o. -- (indiscernible).
>> I have sent to the jujses in following up the court's decision of last week regarding the government. I have a couple of copies of this. That is spacier than I知 accustomed to writing, but I felt better after I dropped it in the mail. So judge murr is here, and hello.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I知 here to give an update with regard to some of the fiscal ramifications of the legislation that's going on right now and give you a heads up on that. I met with pbo on the juvenile budget and they suggested we meet with the committee that met last week and they suggested we come up today to give you an update on some things that are happening. So that you are aware, right now between the cuts in grants or -- as well as the state cuts that we are aware of that have already occurred, we're looking at about $900,000. That is approximately 10% of our state and federal funds and is approximately five percent of our county budget as it exists today. That does not include the -- (indiscernible) those are at risk because if the legislature goes into special session, those funds we don't really know. Those funds are used to actually for our jjaap, that is a mandated function. We would have to do that. If those don't go away, we don't have any choice, we would have to find funds to do that. You have all of those funds right now. We're looking at in jeopardy about $1.5 million for funding through either grants or state cuts. So that's to tell you the bad news. The additional potentially bad news and that we're monitoring was a couple of bills out there I just learned that are running not fast, but we're worried about, house bill 2023 and also 2253 is a bill that would authorize municipal court and jp courts to detain kids in a detention facility or boot camp. Those are offenses of class c misdemeanors, these the truancy issues, some criminal trespass. That could greatly increase our population and work load, just to let you know. So we are going to be monitoring that. It looks like those bills are going to actually move and we will attempt to get some projections on the cost.ic that could be pretty phenomenal, actually.
>> do you know approximately what that is -- those two particular bills. And that of course would be another one that we have to put in under the unfunded -- further mandated category under the state because it will increase costs.
>> it will increase costs. I don't have any idea at the moment, Commissioner, as to what the funding impact would be. There are hundreds of kids that go through jp and municipal court. The daytime curfew, all of those, that leaves wide latitude with those courts to detain those children. Right now those are not detainable offenses. Right now I don't have a number. If there's relief, we will give you one. It would still be a very unreal number because we can't --
>> but if the $1.5 million in grants that would be cut, of course, that's another figure that you pretty much --
>> we know those are going.
>> but what you've got a handle on right now.
>> I知 not going to tell you a have a handle on them. I知 going to tell you I don't have control.
>> as far as the amount of money.
>> Commissioner, we knows those are monies that and we've gom com to the Commissioners court to discuss whether or not you want to continue fund u. Funding certain operations or not. Those are monies we will lose. Those will impact our operations. They will impact what type of drug treatment services. They will impact the isc that we have built. As to whether we will continue to operate it at capacity on or not. We will have to have a lot of discussions with the court as to what the court's direction is and what services we will be providing because that's a significant cut with regard to the funding of the operations at juvenile court. And those cuts are coming on the heels of what I知 already seeing an increase in the amount of assaultive behaviors of young people today. I've done just a cursory check of the first six months of fiscal year '02 and the first six months of '03, which showed a seven percent increase in assaults, and we showed a 12 percent increase in serious assaults. And so that's a concern. Those types of behaviors are a type of behavior which generally mandates some sort of secure confinement for a period of time and that includes costs, that includes increases, the cost of operations for not only housing the children, but for operations for the legal department. So we are really trying to stay on top of the issues, but we don't have those are matters as we talk to the court in our budget. [one moment, please, for change in captioners] test test test this is a test, test test test this is a test, [technical problems, please stand by]
>> I would say the secretary of state would be our best -- should we do a resolution from the Commissioners court that says this is an unplanned election that will cost us $800,000. We are informed by the secretary of state that the costs state-wide is $9 million. We believe this full amount to be unbudgeted. Our -- our budget this year is in place. Next budget starts October 1 and based on actions that you are considering, this money will not be available. Please consider the November general election when all of us will be having elections anyway.
>> anyway.
>> seems to me that would be simple, straightforward, may make some sense and factual.
>> yes, judge. I think we can do all of that. I -- I don't know that I would attribute that number directly to the secretary of state. We might say our best estimate based on conversations with or maybe modify that slightly and then I would just advise the court I think that we should pursue the action that you are suggesting, but you should be aware that there were spirited attempts on the house floor
>> I should reflect, though, the cost of local units of government, it doesn't for some reason.
>> does not.
>> I would just add, judge, that I would encourage earth you or your depositionee on the -- designee on the court to call senator ratliff, the chair of the committee that is considering this legislation and just tell him, specifically, you know, that we -- we have got a resolution, this is why, this is our point. I think that would be very helpful in his appreciation of the significance of this issue.
>> it was a very strange --
>> this is going to take personal attention.
>> it was a very strange conversation about this at cuc luncheon last week because fright frankly cuc chose not to take a position on this. What is being talked about is that if -- if this election is successful in September, there is talk that the --
>> I agree with that, judge.
>> I have offered you some language that you are welcome to use that just speaks to Travis County's costs and our issues.
>> yeah.
>> I think we need a three or four line resolution that we can sign this afternoon. Get it hand delivered. I will call him tomorrow if he's reachable by phone.
>> yes, sir.
>> we will get it to you.
>> okay.
>> judge, I move approval of the court -- if the -- of the court sending an appropriate letter over to the senate side related to our cost issues related to -- to an election in September.
>> second.
>> on -- on hjr 3.
>> and house bill 4.
>> it's listed as house bill 4, but this is not related to the merits of house bill 4. The voters will have their say over that. It has to do with the cost of an unplanned election.
>> short and to the point, we can all sign this afternoon.
>> be happy to help.
>> we will all work together.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much. Anything else that we need to make sure we cover today?
>> we want to cover the -- the health and safety --
>> sure do. I sent you all a -- a little note on the -- on the -- what was that called, famous wild animals ordinance that Travis County has. And we have gotten an a.g. Opinion that -- that says basically --
>> did you want to discuss this in executive session?
>> what I was hoping that questions what we have done and the -- and the draft language that I sent, really it's an amendment that would -- that would clarify our situation and rectify it. And --
>> have we had a chance to look at that?
>> makes sense to me.
>> makes our ordinance a better ordinance.
>> when we go to executive session this afternoon, can we just call this item up with the other? I think what we want to do is go ahead and get done what we can. The question is whether we can attach this to the bill. The other thing, do we know what the -- whether the other counties are in the same situation as we are already?
>> I haven't checked that, no.
>> that might would help. If -- but what we did, we were kind of uncertain of certain language, it looks like the interpretation given is a little bit different than ours. Maybe we will clarify that better, more this afternoon in executive session. But I guess what we need to do, make sure you all are aware of that, if there's another vehicle to help us get this done, start working on that so in a minute my motion will do just that.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge and Commissioners, I would like a moment, whether you would like to do that now or later, to call your attention to -- to -- to senate bill 1460 commission going to greatly impact the ability for fire marshals to do their job in the counties. I just didn't know whether you would like to do that at this time or come back later.
>> okay. I think we are going to do it right now if we can do it in a minute. I move that we basically authorize the consultant to -- to work with an appropriate amendment dealing with the Davis wild animals bill so that we can rectify any situation that needs rectifying.
>> second.
>> we will discuss this further in executive session this afternoon. Any more discussion of that? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Yes, sir?
>> this doesn't change us very much, does it? It doesn't impact us very much, does it?
>> it will impact not so much on a fiscal level, but the -- but the responsibilities and duties of the fire marshal's office, which inadvertently will affect -- will affect person them and other fiscal issues in order to do the job because it -- it does give the county fire marshals office, one of the things that it's going to do is give us more authority to operate out in the county when the county doesn't have a fire code in place. So -- again, I will be as brief as I can. What I would like to do is brief you just as shortedly as I can, ask for the -- shortly as I can, ask for the court to support this piece of legislation because it -- it is a considerable rewrite of local government 352. Which -- which gives the county fire marshal's office the authority and the ability to do its job. As briefly as I can, it's difficult because it's a very kind of -- kind of lengthy rewrite, but -- but what it will do is it will give the court, it will require the court actually to sit down with the fire marshal and decide which fires warrant investigation rather than as currently the legislation is written, that we are supposed to be investigating all fires in the county. It gives the court some control over perhaps how we are going to -- how much time we are going to invest in these investigations and which ones actually warrant the cost of doing that. The other thing that it does, it del let's some language -- del let's some -- deletes some language, currently there some language that says a county fire marshal during the investigation process or during an inspection process must -- must conduct the examination in the least inconvenience to the persons of the building. For -- regardless of whether you are conducting code enforcement or investigations, sometimes trying to be at the least inconvenient person -- or time to the persons involved, hampers that investigation or hampers that enforcement effort. And so this -- this legislation will rewrite that. It will do away with that and eye allow us to do our -- allow us to do our job in a timely manner, based on the warrants of the investigation or the enforcement of the code rather than based on what's convenient to the out occupants or the persons who is involved or occupies that building. Another thing that it does is that it requires fire departments to report -- on a monthly basis or a timely basis to the state -- I mean, to the county fire marshal's office. Currently, fires that are -- that are responded to at an -- outs in the county, we don't get reports from them. In fact even when it's requested at times we don't get them. This would require that these esd's, these fire departments that operate in the county report to the county fire marshals office so that we can stay abreast of what's occurring out in the county. I think the main thing that --
>> have we sent a copy of that bill?
>> it's in your backup.
>> okay. What's the number again?
>> 1460.
>> sb.
>> that's quite right, judge. I think an issue that would be very important to the court as well is -- currently the legislation, the wording allows the county fire marshal to inspect for -- for the -- the terminology is fire hazards. It addresses nothing -- in regards to life safety issues. And I know that we've had some of those discussions during the work session earlier. But this legislation writes in the fact that we can now inspect and take action in those life safety issues, which you -- which may not have anything to do with a particular fire hazard, but is a definite hazard from a life safety standpoint. This would give the county fire marshal the authority to inspect for life safety issues just as now the legislation does fire safety issues. It also gives the county fire marshals off the authority and the ability to -- to review plans and to conduct inspections, if he -- if requested to do so and to attach fees to those or to those services if requested to do so. I -- there's another -- another piece of this that does have impact to the county, I think probably the one thing that the majority -- will impact the county is that it states that the -- the wording states that in the absence of a county fire code, that the county fire marshal will have the authority to enforce any nationally recognized standard that the state currently adopts or currently has. In our case, what that means is where the state fire marshals's enforces the life safety code that we have talked about, that would also give my office the authority to enforce that. And so that will impact the -- the amount of personnel, equipment, those kinds of issues just as it would as we discussed the adoption of a fire code in general. That workload will still increase regardless of what action we take on the fire code. Because we now will be able to enforce the life safety code on a county-wide basis and the legislation will give us the authority to do that.
>> does this legislation conflict with the discussions that we had earlier, with the fire code? That you just -- that you just brought up? I mean, it came before the Commissioners court in a work session format, does this conflict with --
>> it won't conflict with any action that the court takes regarding the fire code itself. We talked about the life safety code as an alternative, and that's exactly what this would give us the authority to enforce without any action by the court.
>> okay. I just wanted to make sure that what we discussed earlier, especially life safety before you, in the work session, whatever it was.
>> then --
>> this bill doesn't conflict, undermine --
>> no, sir.
>> -- what's been done before?
>> it won't really affect what the court chooses to do with the fire code one way or the other.
>> okay. And then the last couple of things that it does is it gives -- it authorizes the court to allow me to conduct training and even to operate a training facility if we deem that that's something we want to do and to charge appropriate fees for classes that are offered and -- in that -- and that type of -- in a training environment. And then it also -- also addresses penalties for failure to comply with fire code violations and -- and increases those penalties from $25 to $2,000 and also addresses that -- that each violation stands alone, it's not -- it's not -- I think the wording is -- is that a person commits an offense, each refusal to comply is a separate offense. So so if we go out this week and next week and the week after, that that constitutes three refusals to comply, not just one. So this -- this piece of legislation is -- is -- it's really going to impact the way that the county fire marshals do their job. But I think more importantly, what I -- what I would ask the court to support it for is some of the issues that -- that you have asked me to address since i've been here and i've not had the authority and ability to do, such as the rate issue in the county, this piece of -- the rave issue in the county, this piece of legislation puts -- [multiple voices]
>> I understand that it is moving and it does have considerable support, I know, from the Texas fire marshals association, as well as some other -- other fire suppression type of organizations. But perhaps you could comment more on that. That.
>> no the reason that it -- for the reason that it addresses raves, I would move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? In addition to approving the bill, do we want to do a -- a supporting resolution or what?
>> I would think so.
>> I would just ask the court to do that.
>> yes. That and basically the -- that when our fire marshal goes over to testify in favor of this bill, that he is empowered to say and my Commissioners court backs me up in terms of wanting this to happen.
>> yeah.
>> in this county.
>> that was my next question, is if I could have the authority of the court to address this with the legislature.
>> yes.
>> can you -- can you write something and we could sign it today as well.
>> can I work on some language.
>> I will do that and get it to you as soon as can i.
>> we can sign it today.
>> like a draft resolution, to kind of facilitate that.
>> that will certainly help.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> any other legislation that we need to discuss today?
>> there was one that I wanted to make sure that was brought to everyone's attention that was brought up at the cuc meeting last week, it's house bill 3205. And what this had to do is that perhaps an attempt by texdot to try to recapture some of our motor vehicle registration fees that right now are coming to counties. And basically it would cap the amount of moneys that we got in registrations in calendar year 2002, that would be the cap of what we would get to keep and anything over that the state would get to capture for texdot. So in a county like this one that may go from 812,000 people and presumably at least 812,000 cars, if we double in population, if this thing were to pass, the new moneys coming off of those new vehicles that's used to support county, the county road system, would go to the state of Texas rather than us. We would be capped at a 2002 level, which is very much inconsistent, considering we have 1200 miles of roadways to take care of. This is where we get that extra money for the road and bridge fund. To be capped at a 2002 level in the county, where our people and mobility needs and our car/s.u.v./truck numbers are growing, is something that -- that we need to be -- to be --
>> second. [multiple voices]
>> representative king and cuc did take a stand [multiple voices] on this one of being opposed to hb 3205 because of the revenue.
>> second.
>> impact. I would -- [multiple voices]
>> move that we oppose this because this could have a serious, serious damaging impact on the road bridge fund.
>> oh, yeah.
>> what's the [indiscernible]
>> against it.
>> motion to oppose by Commissioner Sonleitner, seconded by Commissioner Gomez. I would think that if at least if they plan to do this, they should factor in the mileage. They may be thinking a whole lot of counties don't have many miles an our situation -- [multiple voices]
>> rising level of dollars, something they want to capture rather than counties.
>> we also have taken into consideration the number of vehicle miles as well.
>> correct.
>> so that's always been a part of the formula.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. Anything further?
>> we have some news to report--
>> good news or bad?
>> I think good news.
>> all right.
>> chris fields and I met with john langMoore the lawyer for the house transportation committee yesterday. He gave us a copy of the draft substitute for -- for chairman krusee's house bill 2549 and it includes four of the five amendments y'all had --
>> oh, great.
>> -- approved last week.
>> let me just run down what's in there. The four year terms are in.
>> what's out?
>> well -- [multiple voices]
>> six -- the --
>> six --
>> they are going from six to four. The county road protections we had asked for are back in in terms of them not affecting county roads without making the county whole.
>> okay.
>> the limitation on the siting of a potential airport is in the bill, however, i've got to point out we gave them an incorrect citation. I知 going to call john and give him the right citation. I assume that he's not going to have a problem with that. Then in the -- in the npo restriction.
>> so the charter --
>> they did not put the charter provision in. They did -- they did -- they did add back in a provision that says the county has to initiate the process for formation of the r.m.a. So the county is back in the picture, but of course we have already done that, so that doesn't make that much difference for Travis County.
>> I知 sorry, tom, back up. Repeat what you just said. The bill as it stand now, really the counties don't have a voice in the formation of the r.m.a., Like we do under existing law. But they are adding back in the -- the Texas transportation committee cannot form an r.m.a. Unless one or more counties request it.
>> request it.
>> so counties are back in the picture. Of course since Travis County has already gone through the formation of the r.m.a., That provision is somewhat moot as to -- [multiple voices] exactly.
>> that's okay.
>> that was the section where we really felt that we were embedding in the legislation, the reconstituting and rollover of the r.m.a. With Williamson county. Even though they didn't take our language there, do you feel at this point that there is language that -- that includes a rollover clause that -- that the travis and Williamson -- that we do not have to start over to reconstitute this r.m.a.?
>> well, there's nothing directly in the bill, but let me explain the -- the bill chairman krusee filed, of course, removed texdot or Texas transportation commission oversight of the r.m.a. Process, that's been written back into the bill. Worst comes to worst, all that we have got to do is get the Texas transportation commission to issue a new ordinary that says we still -- a new order that says we still exist. I think there's a way to deal with it. John assured me that there's no intent that the central Texas r.m.a. Go away or have to start over or anything. So I don't think there's cause for alarm on this.
>> okay.
>> basically, we ended up instead of -- instead of the -- of the counties that form the r.m.a. Being -- being able to write the "chart e.r." The charter becomes the campo plan because there's a fairly good clause in there that the r.m.a. Can only study, evaluate, design, construct, maintain, repair or operate projects in the campo plan. I do want to point out the one word that's missing there is finance. There are extensive provisions in this bill that basically says an r.m.a. Can give money to other entities, including road districts and private non-profit transportation corporations, to do these projects. I don't know if excluding the word finance from this provision is intended to allow an r.m.a. To fund a project that's not in the campo plan or if that was just an oversight.
>> [indiscernible] because if we go outside of the region, outside of the project that's not included in the campo plan itself, then what's the point?
>> just as drafted right now, the r.m.a. Could not itself build a transportation project unless it was in the campo plan.
>> yeah, right.
>> woakd finance one by another entity, but they couldn't do it themselves. The question is do you want to close that loop.
>> yeah, let's close it.
>> and say the financing needs to be in there, too.
>> I agree with that.
>> I would like to think about that.
>> well --
>> I知 just [multiple voices] I would appreciate, tom puts it down on a piece of paper, to give us analysis about the pros and cons of -- of --
>> it may be an oversight, I may call john and say did you mean to exclude finance and he goes no, that was a drafting error.
>> yeah.
>> can you get back with that.
>> sure.
>> also, tom, a clarification, the general and I haveiation, [indiscernible], of course I guess that was tied into the hb 2522, tie in with that, but you said earlier that there was some citing or something --
>> that was my fault in the hurry to get it drafted, I wrote down the wrong legislation session that bill passed in. I don't think that's going to be a problem to get it fixed.
>> okay.
>> one other provision, the current law in the bill is drafted basically said the county gets the first operating r.m.a. Project gets to appoint an additional member to the r.m.a. Board. They have added a provision that basically said if the counties that are members of the r.m.a. Agree that they don't want that to happen, then it doesn't happen. So it -- it opens the door for you all to approach Williamson county to say even though you all are getting the first project, if you want to keep the membership level, you know, they can basically waive their ability to appoint an additional member.
>> I guess, john, i mean tom, is there any way to expand on that? I guess looking at this, we know that we are tying in house bill 2522, which prohibits general aviation location in any part of the county without the -- the Commissioners court getting the authority to do just that. Of course just by generally looking, a person would be able to see that. But we would need to make sure that the folks in the community understand that this bill [indiscernible] accept it, whether we are going back to the old -- the old bill of hb 2522 which basically said look, general aviation locate in Travis County, the -- of any kind in the state -- or any county in the state it must be approved by the Commissioners courted. I want to make sure that's clear for the folks out there listening to this, thanks.
>> so I will look into that one question and get back to you all.
>> [indiscernible]
>> anything further?
>> the -- the house bill 1445 bill, Commissioner baxter's substitute came out of committee. Looked at that. Had three issues I wanted to touch on with you all. Mainly because it's up for hearing in the senate tomorrow morning. So if we want to go over and take a position on it, we would need you all to let us know that now.
>> can we roll that into our discussion on real house bill 1445 which we are going to be getting to this afternoon. Is that inappropriate?
>> I will need to get you a copy of the substitute.
>> quite frankly a lot of where we may land over at the legislation is what we do not get resolved amicably with the city of Austin on the real 1445. That's just my take on it.
>> are we discussing with the city the same issues that were raised in the-- in the revised bill?
>> there's some overlap, yeah. As a matter of fact, there's a good deal of overlap.
>> [inaudible] this afternoon.
>> yep.
>> we will let john know before we do anything crazy on that one.
>> thanks.
>> bob and chris. Anything further on this.
>> move to recess until 1:45.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:52 PM