Travis County Commssioners Court
April 22, 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 36
Now let's call up the legislative items. 36. A. Discuss legislative issues, including proposed bills, and take appropriate action. See attachment. B. Consider other bills, if any, in response to action taken by the legislature, and take appropriate action. Good morning, judge, Commissioners. Very little, going to defer to staff, but we will update you on a few things going on this week. We have a bill that Travis County bill that's being handled by representative dukes as an exception to the open meetings act. That will be heard Thursday and we are going to add barbara wilson, county attorney, to testify on that one. And then also tomorrow there will be a hearing in the senate for a senate bill 1161, which is by barrientos and that is the -- that is a -- that is a cleanup of the internet convenience fee bill that was passed last session. This will add services so that you will be able to -- the county will be able to accept [indiscernible] and other documents from -- pleadings and other documents from attorneys and law firms and charge a fee for that service. That will be heard tomorrow. I think chris has got a few items that he wants to update you on as well.
>> I would just very quickly mention on a couple of items that the court has recently expressed interest in. The r.m.a. Bill, which tom has been working on particularly with the house transportation committee staff, as he reported to you is accepted -- has accepted most of your amendments. We expect to see that substitute out in the next day or so. In fact that bill might come out of committee as early as this week. I'm very pleasantly pleased with how responsive that process has turned out to be. Your concerns relative to where we thought we might be a couple of weeks ago. House bill 1204, which is -- [multiple voices]
>> hold on. 24, house bill 24, [indiscernible], there was one question that I think that we had posed as far as the financing -- in other words the surplus revenue that may be generated from the toll itself, would that generated revenue spent outside of the region, of course, when -- if we start looking at some of this stuff here, the old rta concept which we looked at, an issue before we would move toward an r.m.a., One of the things that -- that I wanted to make sure county staff brought to our attention dealing with an rta was to ensure that the -- that the excess revenue, surplus revenue generated from the toll was -- would continue to be used within the region itself. So my concern today is still the same because -- because it will definitely help the taxpayers not to [indiscernible] into the profits as far as financing the -- the funding, the -- the projects within the region. That was the whole premise of this whole concept. From rta to r.m.a. To do just that. Do not continue to burden the taxpayers with -- with retiring debt such as co's and general obligation bonds and stuff like that for roads. So my question is still the same as it was then, will the final [indiscernible] be restricted to this [indiscernible] tom, can you answer that question for me?
>> the bill doesn't really change the law on that.
>> all right.
>> the current law is that -- if the r.m.a. Doesn't spend surplus toll revenues on its own projects, it has to hand it over to the state. That's the current law. And 2459 doesn't really change that.
>> occurrences -- give me an example. There are tolls generating entities, such as the -- the north Texas or the dallas area, also harris county, is there any indication that that surplus revenue has been turned over to the state, was the revenue actually used on their regional projects? In other words, is there --
>> I can't say for sure. Those authorities were formed under a different law.
>> I understand that.
>> I can't say for sure that they are subject to the same requirement that they don't spend surplus, they have to hand it over to the state. I don't know that.
>> çzi okay. That's myñr concern. And I'm really concerned about that. But if the law --
>> if it's not going to be the law, applicable to the central Texas regional mobility authority -- it's not going to be -- the law olympicable to the central Texas -- applicable to the central Texas regional mobility authority as of today, even assuming house bill 2459 passes, is that if the r.m.a. Doesn't spend surplus revenue, it goes to the Texas mobility fund.
>> okay.
>> do any of us have a -- a question or concern that the r.m.a. Is not going to -- is going to just flat out run out of projects? [laughter] in this region? I mean it's --
>> I would hope not.
>> from our discussions through team Texas, harris county toll authority and ntta, they keep coming up with all sorts of stuff in terms of their issues, no shortage of process.
>> I agree with you --
>> I think that's an interesting --
>> but I want to make sure --
>> -- observation, but I just don't think that they are going to run out of projects.
>> I just want to make sure, when this thing was started, the whole intent of this was the surplus revenue was to go to the projects within this region whereby we would not have to go back to the taxpayers of this region in Travis County in particularly because [indiscernible] r.m.a. [indiscernible] when it came up. But anyway the taxpayer wouldn't be burdened. Wouldn't dig in their pockets for future projects in this region. I want to make sure that they are still on course with that. Want to make sure that it continues to be the focus of what the r.m.a. Is doing.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> thank you. One other bill is house bill 1204, senate bill 544, which is representative baxter, senator wentworth's development in the e.t.j. Legislation, which I believe all of you are familiar with. Commissioner Daugherty, thank you for your cogent testimony in front of the senate committee. It actually -- I thought that hearing went extremely well. The senate frankly was surprised to find out that this region's response to that legislation had been to create basically two separate tracks and then ended up in one office, still had to go through the process on both ends. Frankly I don't think they appreciated that, Commissioner, until you explained it. That has given some additional -- impetus in my view to -- to moving that legislation forward. Several groups work odd a committee -- work odd a committee substitute, which I thought the house was going to pass out, house bill 1204 out of committee. It is now my understanding that they are going to try to make several amendments to it on the house floor, it is set for house floor debate this Wednesday. That bill will then head over to the senate and be picked up. There continues to be a significant amount of attention by the city of Austin as well as the development community and a number of counties as you know to that bill. It's definitely pretty much at the top of several people's lists and I just want to kind of give you that brief update on it.
>> that bill would apply state-wide.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> the debate in it, judge, at this point is over what hammer will exist in order to essentially force cities and counties to reach agreements. In one form of the bill, there is a mandatory arbitration requirement and another form of the bill there was simply a default to the county if an agreement was not reached. The cities are concerned about that because they believe that there would be no incentive to the county to ever reach an agreement. So --
>> [inaudible]
>> I do not believe that it does. Do you, tom, do you know the answer to that?
>> the only -- the only areas that are exempted are -- the city of houston and any county with city of houston e.t.j. And the border counties. Other than that -- it applies regardless to the smallest city to the largest.
>> Commissioners, we asked the sponsor to exempt out the smaller cities where 1445 really has not been an issue. We had thought that the home builders were in agreement with that proposal. Because there was a lot of administrative work yet to be done that's really for no good reason, that [indiscernible] all of these small cities. If there's a way to amend the bill to set that aside and deal with the main issue which are large e.r. Cities, Austin, Pflugerville, Lakeway, we would be much better off. I just don't know whether that's in the making for the -- for the amendments on the house floor.
>> how would you define the larger city?
>> by population bracket.
>> what number?
>> I'm sure we can find one.
>> isn't general [indiscernible] 5,000?
>> one thing for us to -- to advocate that here, in court, it's another thing to come up with language and that. If in fact it's not a problem in the small ircities, I think that we should try to define smaller cities and have that land just picked up. We think that the experience of other counties is the same as ours, right? We think if there's no objection, then it would be fairly easy to amend. But now the time to do it would -- on the house floor would be later this week, right?
>> judge, I think the bill at one point, before it was substituted the bill had an exclusion for smaller cities, based on their size, the size of their e.t.j., Which is a -- which is in turn based on population, they got their indirectly since e.t.j. Is based on population, they define the small cities by the size of their e.t.j.
>> oh,.
>> do we want to find out why it was taken out then? There could be a good reason.
>> let's find out.
>> if you are looking for language, that language does the trick.
>> chris, do you have any idea why that might have been taken out?
>> no, sir. As you know, there have been several groups in visiting with representative baxter and now senator wentworth primarily the home builders on one side and the city is on another and the county is yet a third. And I'm sure somebody persuaded him that that was a change that needed to be made in order to be able to move the bill on it of committee or to move the bill forward. But I will have to go ask.
>> I'm more than happy to call representative baxter and ask him, I agree with joe. From an administrative standpoint, I don't know why that would have gotten past him. But I don't mind calling and asking.
>> okay. Thank you, joe.
>> thank you.
>> the last bill that I would mention, judge, is house bill 1365, which is the -- the texans -- Texas emissions reduction program funding bill. We had a number of suggested changes to that, which were the subject of a letter that I believe the county signed and forwarded. That bill is now headed over to the senate. After having passed the house, I bring the bill up only because in the context of the budget debate, this legislation came up a number of times because the bill actually raises a substantial amount of money. Approaching, I believe, $200 million in the version that passed the house and there were numerous references to that in the budget debate, which as you know made a number of significant cuts in funding for health and human services, higher ed, et cetera. It is clear that the bill is going to be amended significantly on the senate side and it appears not really because we asked, but for kind of unrelated reasons, the changes that are being made on the senate side address the issues that we raise that were removing some discretion from the court in terms of future actions that you might wish to take in order to-- to implement significant emissions reduction. Those being speed limit and fuel, for example. So that bill appears to be headed positively. We will see the substitute for that bill this week as well unless anybody knows further than -- you don't have it yet, do you? We should see it sometime literally today or tomorrow. And we will -- we will follow-up with you on that. That is all that we have. I know that we have got at least one staff report to --
>> before that -- what's the status of the waiver of governmental immunity bill?
>> representative nixon's bill came out. Both bob and i, we talked about that bill this morning. We -- we know that there was an agreement to put our language on it. But we have not actually checked what came out of committee to confirm that our language is on the bill. So we need to go check that.
>> what's our language?
>> it's -- we have been unsuccessful in trying to -- to introduce some language that was discussed a week or so ago. So what we have done is -- they are willing to accept language that would limit the damages and those type of contract suits to the amount of the contract plus any change orders, but it would -- plus attorneys' fees, but it would exclude exemplary damages and would exclude consequential damages. So loss of profit, loss of overhead, those type of things chairman nixon has agreed to take out of the bill, which will help to narrow the -- the -- the exposure of the county to at least the contract price, plus change orders. And attorneys fees and the attorneys' fees issue will have to be dealt with in the contract. But that's what -- that's about the best we are doing right now. Senator wentworth's bill is on the intent calendar in the senate and once that comes over to the house, we will be able to -- to negotiate a little further with them.
>> this court voted 5-0 to oppose the bill, period. I assume the amendment is better than nothing. But I see nothing good coming of it for counties, really. The examples, the one example they say they are relying on that I heard about, may be the worse one in the world. Is the example that they are relying on to promote this thing that seems to me the best argument for not tam piring with the I am -- pam tering -- tampering with the immunity. I mean a 5,500-dollar dispute ends up in a $137,000 lawsuit. We spend $50,000 to defend it, there ain't no justice for counties. Once you open the door to the lawsuit, we really don't control it. [indiscernible] and exemplary damages, I mean, it just think that our position ought to be that we oppose it. I sent the letter to the other counties. I think urban counties ought to oppose it. If it passes, fine, but -- but our vote was 5-0 to oppose it.
>> have we heard anything from other counties to --
>> well, cuc platform takes a proactive position on anything that -- that affects counties. And certainly I mean I don't really the stance on that one, but I would almost bet that it would be to oppose it.
>> that would be good to know -- [multiple voices]
>> the problem is over there if you are over there advocating on behalf of a county, I can understand trying to get the best deal that you can. But on some legislation like this one, it seems to me that our position ought to be this ain't good for counties, period.
>> do you recall, john, the position that cuc has on this one?
>> yeah. What happened was when the bill came out, they were opposed to it.
>> right.
>> but an agreement was negotiated with senator wentworth to expand -- there's a presentment that needs to be made prior to suit against the county. So senator wentworth accepted some language from the conference of urban counties to include public officials -- besides suing the county, if you are going to sue a public official of a county, tough present the claim to -- you have to present the claim to them as well. That language was added. I think once that was accepted, the conference of urban counties was either neutral on the bill or in support of it. I mean, that was -- they felt that that was a good concession to get for the counties.
>> but conference of urban counties is the entity itself and not the county, right? Do you think that the urban counties support the bill with the amendment?
>> I think they feel a whole lot better about it. I don't know. Before this bill was heard in the house, we notified all of the large counties. And we -- we needed help on that. So -- and that may be because they felt it was already taken care of by conference of urban counties. I don't know.
>> when the notice of anticipated action came to us, our first action was to vote to oppose it.
>> uh-huh.
>> [indiscernible] files of the bills over there, you get notice but you don't get notice. Presentment in my view is nothing. In the case that comes to mind, not only didn't we know about, presentment is just [indiscernible], right? The bill that came to mind not only had we had notice, we had several months of negotiations, a scwe of the Commissioners -- a subcommittee of the Commissioners court, in court discussion, mediation, before filing a lawsuit. And every time that we had a meeting, the amount of the demand increased.
>> uh-huh.
>> and at one point we were asked to pay for, pay $25,000, if my memory is correct, for the expert that came here and testified on a $5,500 claim. What sense does that make in the real world? They are telling us I'm going to file a lawsuit for $137,000, for a $5,500 claim, how is that presentment supposed to make us happy? Now, I don't think that the counties appreciate the impact, especially small counties. Urban counties will just deal with it. But still it makes no sense to me to spend -- on take case even if we had lost it, if you sue on the original claim, the amount of the judgment is $5,500 plus maybe attorneys' fees, but we spend $50,000 already before going to trial, my guess is we double that amount, you know. If we double that amount in expenses and prevail, where is justice?
>> [indiscernible] on this, we heard what cuc has done, but what about Texas association of counties, those are basically smaller counties, what are they saying on this? T.a.c.?
>> yeah.
>> I'm not sure they got involved in this country.
>> I can't hear you, repeat that.
>> I'm not sure that they got involved. I don't know that. But I --
>> we are talking about impact on small counties, too. That --
>> I didn't testify on the bill -- they didn't testify on the bill to my knowledge.
>> I think the reality that this is a very unusual session. I think that I have seen more than any other session people are picking and choosing their fights across the street.
>> uh-huh.
>> while it would be lovely if they joined us, that it's a big deal for them related to this issue, for others they have got other fights and this is just not on their priority list. And I wish it were another way. We think that it's a big deal, I think we ought to pursue it. I think the judge laid out a good strategy. We ought to oppose it. But knowing that -- that this thing is moving through, I think we also simultaneously need to be working to golly if this train is leaving, we ought to try and get whatever kinds of concessions and narrowing of the impact on it as much as possible. But I --
>> [indiscernible] turning on the judge, not the legislation anyway. I'm convinced of that.
>> yes, sir, I think you're right.
>> if the -- if they -- if the powers that be have the clout to pass it, so be it. It's just that I don't -- I don't think we ought to be smiling as they do it. We ought to know that it's a shafting, basically. And we ought to let the cuc people know and the luncheon is --
>> next Wednesday.
>> at the luncheon, I think if nothing else we ought to say that Travis County is opposed to this bill.
>> judge, we have potentially one more opportunity to express the court's opinion on this. The senate bill will be placed on the house civil practices committee hearing schedule, I would presume, sometime this week or next week.
>> okay.
>> it will be posted for a public hearing.
>> okay.
>> at that time. Normally, since the bill has already been heard, that will be -- that would be pro forma. But potentially if they set senate bill 1017, we could -- we could turn in a witness card or if you -- if you are able, perhaps ask you to come and speak on the bill.
>> yeah.
>> the other -- the other thing that I would say, though, that you -- by opposing the bill when it comes over, we do take the risk of losing the concessions that we have been granted because if --
>> I don't think the concession is of any value. I don't think we lose anything.
>> okay.
>> I -- I think if you -- if I keep my self pride in this deal, that's worth a whole lot more than the concessions. In the end, should be worth a lot more to Travis County.
>> we probably need to go sign up and testify against that bill in the senate hearing.
>> we can do that.
>> john has brought [indiscernible] to testify in the house, they will be available.
>> okay. I don't -- if you ever over there, if you go over and you don't represent the county and represent the county's position, I think that you ought to tell them that the Commissioners court voted unanimously to oppose it.
>> as I think about it now, I think the senate bill is over and eligible. I don't think if there will be another hearing. I doubt if there will be another hearing on the bill should we would have to ask. That's probably going to be a tall order, but we will ask.
>> okay. Wow.
>> getting run over.
>> well, for some of these counties, they may not have had the lovely experience that we have that -- that has got to us this opinion that we have about this bill and I bet if they were in our situation, they would be just as -- as vocal, but if they haven't had a situation like we have, they may not truly appreciate how a very small claim just mushroomed into something that was just ridiculous and you just -- to defend yourself, you wind up spending more than what the original debate was all about, which was liquidated damages. It was just ridiculous.
>> right.
>> we won at the supreme court.
>> okay. Well,.
>> what edge --
>> what do you think -- given that senator wentworth, the former Commissioner, I mean, isn't he -- wouldn't you think that he would be approachable?
>> yes, but the bill is out of the senate. He's passioned the bill. -- he's passed the bill, it's gone to the house already. So his relationship to the bill is limited at this point. The -- the most productive thing that we might be able to do would be to arrange a discussion between a member of the court, you, judge, or another member of the court and representative nixon. Because that committee is still -- still does need to take further action in order to bring this bill forward.
>> what county is representative nixon from?
>> harris county.
>> do we know the harris county Commissioners court position on this?
>> no, sir.
>> judge eckles made the last meeting, cuc meeting.
>> was this discussed there?
>> I discussed it with their lobbyist, yes.
>> lobbyists got thousands of bills, I could see where this wouldn't be important right now. This is a 200 year -- 200-year-old doctrine. That's the amazing thing.
>> judge, I would welcome you to come to the cuc luncheon next Wednesday, I this that you are very passionate about this subject. I think your personal attention on this would mean something at the luncheon. I really do.
>> well, we will post this and i'll go. You and Commissioner Gomez want to pay my --
>> sure. [laughter]
>> sure. I'll pay for it.
>> you will get an hour and a half of credit for your -- continuing education requirement. And great dessert.
>> I don't know about the great -- great coffee.
>> usually fajitas, just down the block, we just walk down there.
>> next. [laughter]
>> during our work session last Thursday, we --
>> are you here on this item?
>> just on the subject of t.a.c., I was going to mention that --
>> t.a.c., Yeah.
>> I was attending the legislative breakfast on Tuesday.
>> sit down.
>> and Commissioner Sonleitner really kind of nailed the issue for them. In other years, they -- they can take -- they have the staff to take a broader range of interests in these types of individual issues. But they are putting their staff focus to great extent on the appropriations issues because they think that that is the 500-pound gorilla this session. So they are really -- they are really focusing on that and occasionally things come up that they may take an interest in, but that's things that are impacting the state's funding down to the county's is really where they are spending their time and effort this session.
>> unfunded mandates coming down from the state -- [indiscernible]
>> right.
>> focusing attention on.
>> maybe in some other session this would have been a bill that would have gotten greater attention from their staff, but this year in this session it's all about the money for them. Which, you know, it is for most of us.
>> thank for you that explanation.
>> Thursday we briefed the court on the Texas discharge elimination system. Basically coming from the federal government for us to -- to begin to regulate pollution discharges into the county drainage system. Currently, we are not included in the law that would allow us to regulate that function. In order to -- counties currently have the authority to levy a fee for the maintenance of those drainage features.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> we are here to ask the court to allow us to bracket Travis County into the law that will allow us to implement the -- the tpds and also to change that law to enable counties to levy a maintenance fee.
>> joe, do you have any idea, I guess I know that you did discuss this in work session, I think Commissioner Sonleitner brought up a good point, also, in t.n.r., [indiscernible] funding, she brought up the deal about the fees. Do we have any idea, I thought about this, do we have any idea with that type of new service that may be provided to the county, as far as staffing, on your end to -- to be offset by a few -- by a fee, when we say fee have we investigated to see what the full reaching effect of that fee would be to actively address the services that we require from the other department.
>> we have not yet done that analysis.
>> okay.
>> we do know that -- that at this point we believe we are not even enabled to consider that as an option.
>> I know -- I'm sorry, go ahead Commissioner.
>> so fee maybe not defined at this time, basically you are looking at that direction fee not being defined, can you come back later and define it, how would that work is this that's what I'm trying to see. In other words I'm trying to fit the foot in the shoe.
>> define what the use of the fee is for.
>> for. Okay the usage of the fee.
>> and tie it to direct cost of service.
>> okay. Okay. I just wanted to see how -- where you were coming from --
>> basically, we are getting a mandate and we have no way to fund it.
>> joe, there's already some counties that are bracketed in to do exactly what we are hoping to do. Is there anybody in between us and who is currently bracketed that we may inadvertently haul into this and we need to make sure that we have discussions with them or are we basically the next running down.
>> unfortunately -- rung down.
>> unfortunately there are cities in between or counties. I believe it's tarrant county. Harris, bexar wants it, we want it, but there's a layer of county in between.
>> seems like discussions need to occur with those folks because they normally don't let you bracket, bracket, leave a gap.
>> actually, they were originally bracketed -- [indiscernible] walker with Travis County t.n.r. Travis County and bexar county brought this new bracket to the legislature. They wrote it in such a way that included tarrant and dallas county. Tarrant and dallas counties made it very clear they did not want to be included. So bexar came up with some language that only bracketed them in and the substitute, the committee substitute, we have language that will bracket just bexar and Travis County in without giving tarrant and dallas, it involves saying a county with the population of less than 1.4 million and the largest city in the county with a population of greater than 650,000, that gets travis and bexar only and leaves out the city of fort worth and tarrant county and dallas. There is a way to do it [multiple voices]
>> that would work for us.
>> maybe the more logical approach, that's when you start getting opposition is when you inadvertently people --
>> I would support that.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> and that is to basically ask for the bracketing that will allow us to [multiple voices] Austin service based fee permission.
>> right.
>> it would be to --
>> to be included in the bracket and pursue language. We feel like we would still need to at least pursue some additional language that explicitly gives us the authority to get the kind of knee we are looking for. We are not exactly sure what that language is yet, but that's what we would like to explore.
>> okay.
>> so we have not done this before.
>> that's the motion and second. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank y'all.
>> thanks.
>> is that it?
>> real quickly, I just it was brought up at cuc, I wanted to make the court aware of an unfunded mandate bill that was passed out of the county affairs committee. And cuc was asking that all county Commissioners courts weigh in and in support of this bill. It would limit unfunded mandates basically as of January 1, 2004, so that's because it has to go to the voters for approval it would be a constitutional amendment. It's just a bill that's going through I'm not sure what its chances of finally getting through the whole process are. But it has been passed out of committee, out of the county affairs committee.
>> move [inaudible]
>> support the bill.
>> support the bill. It's hjr 91.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and only other bill that we added to the list, I don't know if you want to take a position, we wanted to make you aware if you didn't see the article in the Austin american-statesman about the bill that would affect the new city of webberville and their land use authority. That bill has passed out of committee in the house and has a hearing in the senate this week. There was a long list of supporters for that bill. Which basically includes every kind of association that is normally against county authority. So -- so just wanted you to be aware that the little city of webberville has a big fight on their hands in order to actually implement the land use controls that they were seeking to implement once they got incorporated.
>> I think, I don't know, I think we should take a position on that because volente was the same -- the same cities incorporated in the same time. Seems like a difference between volente and webberville here. Of course following the rules and dictates of what the law is, we feel that -- that we -- that the Commissioners court should -- should oppose existing bill that would -- in my opinion, undermine what -- what the law is as far as -- as far as the land use and everything else, as far as what -- what the city can do as they are incorporated. Seems special legislation designed just to webberville. And -- and of course -- personally I really would like to support opposing those two -- that existing bill that will strip away the -- the corporate city land use as I think is proposed. So I would like to put that in the form of a motion.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> even the author's of the bill admit that. Basically what they've done, and tom, I don't know if you've seen the language, but from what i've seen, it basically just adds 1704 language, grandfathering language, and says that if there was a land use in effect at the time of the incorporation or 90 days prior to it, they had filed a permit 90 days prior to incorporation, it extends that 1704 grandfathering language to incorporation. So that 1704 language applies to annexation, so now it would extend that to any time somebody tried to incorporate, they would also grandfather all the land use.
>> and we know senator barrientos is very adamantly opposing this particular bill or this particular movement of that bill, and I think he spoke out against it.
>> it was placed on the local consent calendar, and I assume it was he that removed it from that calendar.
>> so where is it now?
>> like I said, the senate bill has a hearing this week, and the house bill has passed out of committee and gone to the local and consent calendar. So I guess it wouldn't have been senator barrientos, so it wouldn't automatically go to the floor with no opposition. So it's sitting there waiting for a calendar now to bring it to the house floor and to come out of snoant committee. Of -- senate committee.
>> I second Commissioner Davis' motion. This is to oppose the bill.
>> yes. Yes.
>> and is this senate bill 1569?
>> yes.
>> just --
>> what's the number again?
>> 1569, senate bill.
>> 2212.
>> and also 2212, the companion bill.
>> it's senator madla and senator clemente.
>> both from san antonio.
>> you are talking about the webberville? Oh, madla.
>> where is he from?
>> dallas.
>> fort worth, isn't he?
>> she's not from webberville.
>> it was a fort worth issue.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez temporarily away. Anything further?
>> did you want to discuss the indigent health care, the bill related to indigent health care?
>> it's 12:06.
>> I guess not. What about the money?
>> the one having to do with [indiscernible] services without regard to immigration status.
>> I don't want to get into a discussion of this at 12:06.
>> that's what it does?
>> yeah, it allows them to provide the services and clarifies that we would not be violating any federal law.
>> I guess we can discuss it next week. Can we just have it on next week's list?
>> and the biggest question I would have and I don't want to get into this, but so I can have it answered by next week, is this specifically related to giving that clarification of hospital districts of which we are not one is this.
>> yes. The amended one that came out of the senate, my understanding it applies to cities, counties and hospital districts.
>> that's my question.
>> rod mccutheon. I manage the laboratories. There is several pieces of legislation that are aimed at requiring accreditation of all forensic laboratories in the state. This is coming out of the problems in houston with the police laboratory that was shut down. I think certainly there will be something that will be passed. The requirement will, in our situation, affect us by needing additional personnel to meet the requirements for accreditation. The actual accrediting body has not been specified. It's my understanding there's a substitute bill that's going to go to the house this week and they anticipate it going to the senate the following week that will allow the department of public safety director to designate which accrediting bodies will be sanctioned for this purpose. I'm on the american board of toxicology. I do inspections for laboratories of this type. I know that we are moving in that direction, but with our current staffing, I don't see us being able to be accredited within the time frame they will probably allow. I just want to make you aware this is probably going to be a requirement and that we would need an additional two f.t.e.s and some upgrade of equipment to be able to accomplish this.
>> what would be the effective date of that bill if indeed it did occur?
>> it has language that it would be in effect immediately if passed by two-thirds, I believe. Otherwise it would be September. They are patterning this after the new york law that's similar, and they in that case gave the laboratories two years after the passage of the law to get ready for the accreditation. They had to be inspected within two years of passing of the law.
>> do you know if dr. Bayardo is including this in his budget submission?
>> yes.
>> great. Okay. So you are already having discussions with p.b.o. About the potential if it's indeed required?
>> yes.
>> I guess if I were a legislator, I would want to know the pros and cons. On the surface it sounds like something that ought to be done.
>> I think it's a good thing.
>> the only down side is that it will cost to do it.
>> there's been some pretty unbelievable consequences of not having a a I cred it lab in harris county and they are talking about literally having to throw out hundreds and hundreds of cases on behalf of harris county and surrounding counties that depended on the hpd crime lab it's not the accreditation, it's that they did a lousy job, I take it.
>> that's true. Accreditation would have identified some of the problems hopefully before it became an issue.
>> so even without accreditation, we ought to make sure that we don't have the same problem here in Travis County. A lesson, I take it.
>> that's definitely a lesson. I'm aware of what you need to do because I do inspections. I also am aware of what it takes to not only get ready for the accreditation, but to maintain all of the additional documentation, that type of thing to, stay accredited.
>> okay. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:52 PM